Study: Gays and Lesbians Make Great Parents

Mar 12, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

A study conducted by Cambridge University concluded that gay British parents are just as good as heterosexual parents.

Comments
21 - 40 of 112 Comments Last updated Mar 21, 2013
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Mar 12, 2013
 
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
we don't incentivise it like we do with marriage though...
we don't honor it like we do marriage...
ya know, all the reasons YOU want marriage?
We? Are you speaking for Vermont? Almost 4 YEARS now and you still refuse to accept reality. Think it's going to change back, do ya?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Mar 12, 2013
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What study from Cambridge did you put up?
keep reading the thread moron.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
whats the big harm? MONEY.
You said it haus.
not a very compelling "rights" argument...
I am sure the "financial" harm they face is really as important as spongebob...
so, your story kinda shows your horrors kinda aren't...
BTW, are you suggesting either parent couldn't appoint a guardian at their death like every other parent? or have a will?or title their house JOINTLY, or set up a legal PARTNERSHIP with their assets...even on the money issue, your defense is laziness or that you should have to!
not very compelling to overturn society's will...
Well, maybe an extra $10,000 in taxes isn't anything to you, but to legally married gay couples, it is not fair. Why should they pay more taxes than straight legally married couples from the same State?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
whats the big harm? MONEY.
You said it haus.
not a very compelling "rights" argument...
Yeah, right. Tell that to Edith Windsor. It cost her $363,000.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Mar 12, 2013
 
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
whats the big harm? MONEY.
You said it haus.
not a very compelling "rights" argument...
I am sure the "financial" harm they face is really as important as spongebob...
so, your story kinda shows your horrors kinda aren't...
Are you serious? What does our civil court system spend the majority of its time awarding and reallocating? Money isn't important? Why don't you remind your clients of that right after you present your next bill.

Apparently, the courts disagree that money is unimportant, right up to SCOTUS. Why else would they be hearing the Windsor case? That case is solely about money.
BTW, are you suggesting either parent couldn't appoint a guardian at their death like every other parent? or have a will?or title their house JOINTLY, or set up a legal PARTNERSHIP with their assets...even on the money issue, your defense is laziness or that you should have to!
The reality, as you might possibly already be aware, is that many families--probably most--do not take appropriate steps to protect their family, wealth, and health in the event of death or incapacitation. Those who do probably don't keep documents as up-to-date as they should. Courts--especially hostile homophobic courts--ignore the wishes of decedents far too often. That's one of the reasons the marriage contract carries so many rights and benefits along with it. Indeed, the marriage contract often overrides the express wishes documented in a will.
not very compelling to overturn society's will...
So what would be a compelling reason for marriage? So far, you've ruled out financial fairness, protection of one's family, and public recognition of a commitment. What reasons would you find compelling?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Mar 12, 2013
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you speaking for Vermont?
Nope. New Jersey.
Are you "married" there yet?
No?
I must be crying on the inside...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, maybe an extra $10,000 in taxes isn't anything to you, but to legally married gay couples, it is not fair.
Why didn't you up your BS to 1 MILLION dollars?
So you admit its just MONEY right and all this love blah blah is just empty noise?
Your momma should have told you life is not fair, luckily you probably had one...
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should they pay more taxes than straight legally married couples from the same State?
The same reason homeowners get some tax breaks, we prefer them without saying non home owners are lesser citizens...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Mar 12, 2013
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, right. Tell that to Edith Windsor. It cost her $363,000.
that amount would be in mere money correct?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Mar 12, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious? What does our civil court system spend the majority of its time awarding and reallocating? Money isn't important? Why don't you remind your clients of that right after you present your next bill.
Apparently, the courts disagree that money is unimportant, right up to SCOTUS. Why else would they be hearing the Windsor case? That case is solely about money.
<quoted text>
The reality, as you might possibly already be aware, is that many families--probably most--do not take appropriate steps to protect their family, wealth, and health in the event of death or incapacitation. Those who do probably don't keep documents as up-to-date as they should. Courts--especially hostile homophobic courts--ignore the wishes of decedents far too often. That's one of the reasons the marriage contract carries so many rights and benefits along with it. Indeed, the marriage contract often overrides the express wishes documented in a will.
<quoted text>
So what would be a compelling reason for marriage? So far, you've ruled out financial fairness, protection of one's family, and public recognition of a commitment. What reasons would you find compelling?
great strawman!

if its MONEY, then you grasp its BENEFITS and not RIGHTS...
a right to money is a far left myth...

"Courts--especially hostile homophobic courts--ignore the wishes of decedents far too often." got any support so i don't have to call straight up BS on this?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Mar 12, 2013
 
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. New Jersey.
Are you "married" there yet?
No?
I must be crying on the inside...
You don't live in New Jersey. I doubt if you passed the bar in New Jersey. Using "we" to refer to New Jersey makes you appear disoriented, since you live in Vermont.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Mar 12, 2013
 
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
that amount would be in mere money correct?
Yes.... a 'mere' 363,000 US dollars.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't you up your BS to 1 MILLION dollars?
So you admit its just MONEY right and all this love blah blah is just empty noise?
Your momma should have told you life is not fair, luckily you probably had one...
<quoted text>
The same reason homeowners get some tax breaks, we prefer them without saying non home owners are lesser citizens...
It's not BS, dumbo. That is exactly the sum it cost a gay married couple in Massachusetts who are friends of mine. And the ONLY reason is DOMA. It has nothing to do with homeowner tax breaks. They had to pay taxes on employer provided health care benefits. Straight couples don't.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Mar 12, 2013
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.... a 'mere' 363,000 US dollars.
so just MONEY, right?

with all the violins playing on this, it comes down to just a denial of tax savings...
over a lifetime, the mortgage interest deduction gets you more...where the equality issue there?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Mar 12, 2013
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not BS, dumbo. That is exactly the sum it cost a gay married couple in Massachusetts who are friends of mine. And the ONLY reason is DOMA. It has nothing to do with homeowner tax breaks. They had to pay taxes on employer provided health care benefits. Straight couples don't.
yup, because we as society choose people to encourage, and they aren't it....
just like with the homeowners and renters...
Froud

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Fred wrote:
<quoted text>I got it, I got it. You kicking the bucket.
I know I know what's better? If you dropped dead.
Froud

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

To Sparkle;
I know I know what's better? If you dropped dead.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Mar 12, 2013
 
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
whats the big harm? MONEY.
You said it haus.
not a very compelling "rights" argument...
I am sure the "financial" harm they face is really as important as spongebob...
so, your story kinda shows your horrors kinda aren't...
BTW, are you suggesting either parent couldn't appoint a guardian at their death like every other parent? or have a will?or title their house JOINTLY, or set up a legal PARTNERSHIP with their assets...even on the money issue, your defense is laziness or that you should have to!
not very compelling to overturn society's will...
Do married couples need to pay for such things? Are you suggesting all married couples should have to? Are you doing to chip in for the legal fund?

You have NO idea what you are talking about. But, then, that's true of the entire anti-marriage crowd. It all seems so simple to you, since you have no real vested interest in any of it.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
yup, because we as society choose people to encourage, and they aren't it....
just like with the homeowners and renters...
Prove that there is a state interest in legally discouraging some families and children.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.... a 'mere' 363,000 US dollars.
That's what Mitt called "pin money." That's the insignificant amount that he earns in speaking fees and has to pay those disastrous income taxes on--in excess of 15%!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Do married couples need to pay for such things? Are you suggesting all married couples should have to? Are you doing to chip in for the legal fund?
You have NO idea what you are talking about. But, then, that's true of the entire anti-marriage crowd. It all seems so simple to you, since you have no real vested interest in any of it.
Francisco has a vested interest all right: He's a lawyer. The more papers gay couples need to file to protect themselves, the more money he can make out of it. The more contested wills, the more estates he can plunder through endless court battles.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Family Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
US condemns 'heinous murder' of Palestinian teen 1 hr ThatOneBand 1,577
Boom Boom Cabaret Murder Arrests (Dec '06) 2 hr Kemo1226 56
Kids removed: Filthy home (Apr '09) 8 hr Cassandra 436
Many kids fall through gaps in dental care 10 hr Sam Williams 9
Children as young as 5 seek eating disorder tre... (Aug '11) 10 hr Pedro Cintas 20
What's Behind Canada's Troubled Relationship Wi... 11 hr chugs are POS 23
DHS secretary says unaccompanied kids show need... 11 hr Memo From Turner 103

Search the Family Forum:
•••