I think you make my point for me in your sentences, "Based on your reasoning, the government has removed children in all homes they are at risk in. Really" and "Children in a home absent a father are FIVE times more likely to get in trouble with the law."<quoted text>
Wow! An arbitrary judgement of 'wrong'. That the defense of a mature person...
Sorry queen, at this point, my points stand.
Based on your reasoning, the government has removed children in all homes they are at risk in. Really
As to the studies used to excuse depriving a child of one parent gender and placing them in the riskiest default setting, they are the ones debunked as deceptive and unscientific. The one gays slander has been vindicated. Moreover, it simply validates what countless studies have validated for default families.
Example: Children in a home absent a father are FIVE times more likely to get in trouble with the law. You suggest being a lesbian eradicates that danger. The claim would be hilariously stupid if the victim wasn't a child.
You base your opinion on deceitful ignorant bigotry.
Children are allowed to be raised in homes that may not fit what YOU, personally, believe are inappropriate for them.
Courts and jurisdictions have determined that in spite of these "studies", they cannot be used as blanket indicators for how a child will turn out--what kind of home life he or she will experience.
Tens of thousands of LGBT people provide excellent homes for kids. Just as millions of homes headed by straight people provide horrific places to raise children.
Your statistics and studies are basically worthless when it comes to the real world.
Courts, lawmakers, human service agencies, and private adoption firms evaluate the appropriateness of parents and homes on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
You spew stupidity each time you come here. You deal in abstracts and not reality.
Good luck with that...