New Study: No Difference Between Gay ...

New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents

There are 197 comments on the EDGE story from Jul 29, 2013, titled New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents. In it, EDGE reports that:

A recently released study by the Williams Institute confirms there is no difference in the behavioral outcomes of adopted children raised in same-sex households when compared to those raised by heterosexual couples.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 10
Next Last

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192 Aug 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
KiMare, the basis of this argument has already been illustrated to be disingenuous. There is no prerequisite for, nor a requirement of procreation relative to legal marriage.
<quoted text>
Which I have already pointed out. Do you mean to contribute to the arguments against your logic?
<quoted text>
This is utterly irrelevant, and also untrue. If neither partner carries any disease, then the need to protection does not necessarily exist. Grow up.
<quoted text>
It is a major distinction between your warped world view and reality.
You've not only proved nothing, you've not made it to first base.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Children are an integral part and purpose of that.

I understand this is confusing to homosexuals, since their mating behavior is defective.

Furthermore, as a gay, you are fully aware that anal sex REQUIRES a condom and lub, irregardless of disease. It is irresponsible of you to deny that.

Nor is it irrelevant. It exposes at the most intimate physical level the distinction between marriage and ss couples. A fundamental physical failure.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#193 Aug 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
I'm not the one looking like an idiot.
You keep telling yourself that.

How's that hunt for a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry going? It doesn't appear to be going well.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#195 Aug 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
You've not only proved nothing, you've not made it to first base.
This is laughable, as are most of your posts.
KiMare wrote:
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Children are an integral part and purpose of that.
Can infertile heterosexual couples legally marry, yes or no?
KiMare wrote:
I understand this is confusing to homosexuals, since their mating behavior is defective.
Of course, this has already been illustrated to be irrelevant to the legal protections of marriage. Were your thought process not "defective", you would understand this.
KiMare wrote:
Furthermore, as a gay, you are fully aware that anal sex REQUIRES a condom and lub, irregardless of disease. It is irresponsible of you to deny that.
No, actually it doesn't. If neither partner is infected, such steps are not necessary. Clearly you display your ignorance once again.
KiMare wrote:
Nor is it irrelevant. It exposes at the most intimate physical level the distinction between marriage and ss couples. A fundamental physical failure.
Once again, you fail to offer an argument that rises to the level of a rational basis.

Your argument fails on so many levels. Personally, I find your rhetoric hysterical. It is terribly funny to watch you fall all over yourself as you offer irrelevant, poorly thought out, and sometimes contradictory arguments.

Clearly, you aren't that bright.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#197 Aug 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>You've not only proved nothing, you've not made it to first base.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Children are an integral part and purpose of that.

I understand this is confusing to homosexuals, since their mating behavior is defective.

Furthermore, as a gay, you are fully aware that anal sex REQUIRES a condom and lub, irregardless of disease. It is irresponsible of you to deny that.

Nor is it irrelevant. It exposes at the most intimate physical level the distinction between marriage and ss couples. A fundamental physical failure.
Kmart, you really have no argument.
Anyone with a brain could see that.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#198 Aug 9, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>This is laughable, as are most of your posts.
KiMare wrote, "At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Children are an integral part and purpose of that."

Can infertile heterosexual couples legally marry, yes or no?
KiMare wrote, "I understand this is confusing to homosexuals, since their mating behavior is defective."

Of course, this has already been illustrated to be irrelevant to the legal protections of marriage. Were your thought process not "defective", you would understand this.
KiMare wrote, "Furthermore, as a gay, you are fully aware that anal sex REQUIRES a condom and lub, irregardless of disease. It is irresponsible of you to deny that."

No, actually it doesn't. If neither partner is infected, such steps are not necessary. Clearly you display your ignorance once again.
KiMare wrote, "Nor is it irrelevant. It exposes at the most intimate physical level the distinction between marriage and ss couples. A fundamental physical failure."

Once again, you fail to offer an argument that rises to the level of a rational basis.

Your argument fails on so many levels. Personally, I find your rhetoric hysterical. It is terribly funny to watch you fall all over yourself as you offer irrelevant, poorly thought out, and sometimes contradictory arguments.

Clearly, you aren't that bright.
I bet he's a Poe.
No one can be that stupid...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#199 Aug 10, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet he's a Poe.
No one can be that stupid...
I've always suspected that all of his stuff is just satire and farce created for his amusement. No one could really be this silly.

It must fill a need for him, though.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#200 Aug 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I 'seem' to be saying no such thing.
You know exactly what I'm saying, that's why the desperate attempt to twist it.
Usually we don't know what you are saying, because it so rarely makes sense. You create little phrases and scenarios in your own mind, and try to promote them as absolute truth, and seem confused as to why they are not received well.

My Dad used to call your sort "educated beyond their intelligence". Lots of words, but very little understanding.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#201 Aug 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
.........
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Children are an integral part and purpose of that.
.........
This is a fun example of my above post. See "educated beyond one's intelligence".

This little bit says that marriage restrains heterosexual sexual behavior, and that creating children is always a part of marriage.

It's doesn't say how, or why, or how the statements exclude gay folks, who also have sex and raise children. You can't explain how this is pertinent to any marriage law, or why it is not included in any marriage law in the country, since such laws don't mandate that sex only be a part of the marriage, that all sex happen within a marriage, that all sex be engaged in only to create children.

It ignores the simple truth that marriage is not simply about sex or MAKING children, but is so much more important and complicated than that, including creating a more secure environment to RAISE children.

And guess what? that all applies equally to gay and straight couples!!

And yet you actually think these phrases are applicable in some way to denying gay folks legal marriage.

It's just too funny. Sad, but funny.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#202 Aug 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the one looking like an idiot. They claim to be married for 10 years and they are STILL only halfway there?!?
The government makes no distinction between them and you.

Suck it.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#203 Aug 10, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I've always suspected that all of his stuff is just satire and farce created for his amusement. No one could really be this silly.
It must fill a need for him, though.
Absolutely. His payoff is he gets to 'rub elbows' with the gay boys.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#204 Aug 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You've not only proved nothing, you've not made it to first base.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Yeah? Says who? YOU? ahhaahhahahahaha

You make these silly statements that you OBVIOUSLY copied from some right-wing idiot, and think they mean something. You are hilarious, even for a philistine.

Marriage had NOTHING to do with mating. It had EVERYTHING to do with money and property. Why don't YOU pick up a history book?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#205 Aug 10, 2013

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The First Amendment protects my religious rights.
But why only yours. Many churches will marry me to another man. But the Government is violating those religious rights.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage is a relational right. Ss couples don't qualify at any level.
So the decisions about Prop 8 and Windsor are moot? LMAO!

SCOTUS ruled in Windsor that under Federal law any bans against SSC's are unconstitutional.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making 'ss marriage' an oxymoron.
The reunion of a man and woman in marriage reflects the very roots of earliest human existence, genderless life.
Go back in a ss couples' history, and what do you find? Immediately? A mother and father.
While at the same time marriage connects us to the past, birthing future humanity.
A ss couple? No past, and no future. A duplicate gendered half of marriage making the hilarious claim they are the same.
Something to think about.
Still trying to define marriage for everyone else based on YOUR religious, personal, philosophical, genetic and unscientific definitions.

Same Sex Marriage is Here!

Get used to it.

BTW still waiting for you to explain who discovered you twin was a lesbian before the two of you were born!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#206 Aug 11, 2013
DNF wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The First Amendment protects my religious rights.
But why only yours. Many churches will marry me to another man. But the Government is violating those religious rights.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage is a relational right. Ss couples don't qualify at any level.
So the decisions about Prop 8 and Windsor are moot? LMAO!
SCOTUS ruled in Windsor that under Federal law any bans against SSC's are unconstitutional.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making 'ss marriage' an oxymoron.
The reunion of a man and woman in marriage reflects the very roots of earliest human existence, genderless life.
Go back in a ss couples' history, and what do you find? Immediately? A mother and father.
While at the same time marriage connects us to the past, birthing future humanity.
A ss couple? No past, and no future. A duplicate gendered half of marriage making the hilarious claim they are the same.
Something to think about.
Still trying to define marriage for everyone else based on YOUR religious, personal, philosophical, genetic and unscientific definitions.
Same Sex Marriage is Here!
Get used to it.
BTW still waiting for you to explain who discovered you twin was a lesbian before the two of you were born!
The government has historically rejected incest, polygamy and ss couples for marriage, even if it has a claimed religious base. They reject claims of child sacrifice rights and such too. Are you claiming theses as religious freedom violations?

SCOTUS made a twisted divided decision that flies in the face of culture, medicine and science. I defined nothing. Your blanket denial of every element of reason only exposes how out of line calling ss couples married is.

BTW, still waiting for you to show where I said any such thing.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#207 Aug 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
.........
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Children are an integral part and purpose of that.
.........
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a fun example of my above post. See "educated beyond one's intelligence".
This little bit says that marriage restrains heterosexual sexual behavior, and that creating children is always a part of marriage.
It's doesn't say how, or why, or how the statements exclude gay folks, who also have sex and raise children. You can't explain how this is pertinent to any marriage law, or why it is not included in any marriage law in the country, since such laws don't mandate that sex only be a part of the marriage, that all sex happen within a marriage, that all sex be engaged in only to create children.
It ignores the simple truth that marriage is not simply about sex or MAKING children, but is so much more important and complicated than that, including creating a more secure environment to RAISE children.
And guess what? that all applies equally to gay and straight couples!!
And yet you actually think these phrases are applicable in some way to denying gay folks legal marriage.
It's just too funny. Sad, but funny.
This is a perfect example of gay twirl.

1. Even you have agreed that marriage is a culturally designed constraint. Now you mock it?

2. Then you lie about what I said. Children are an integral part of mating behavior (look up evolutionary mating behavior), creating children is 'always' a part. It is however a part in 90% of the time historically. That would be closer to 97% of the time if medical malfunctions didn't prevent the desire of the couple.

This exposes the homosexual attempt to equate ss couples who are incapable 100% of the time to mutually procreate!!!

In fact, marriage REQUIRES protection NOT to procreate! Gay couples NEVER require protection to prevent pregnancy. They do however REQUIRE protection to have intercourse.

3. YOU censored my statement of why ss couples are excluded and lied once again. Why does a legitimate cause need such distortion and deception?

Here is a perfect example of why ss couples are a failure of mating behavior;

Why does a butch lesbian dress and act like a man TO ATTRACT ANOTHER LESBIAN???

4. Marriage defines a distinct relationship that is limited by evolutionary biology and confirmed by incredibly consistent historical precedence. Calling ss couples married is no different than calling the tail on a dog a leg.

Words define reality. When we mis-define reality, problems occur. Mis-defining marriage would create a serious problem.

Not all relationships deserve the same rights. Let other relationships get their own name and their own rights.

That's the right thing to do.

The problem here is you are biased beyond intelligence.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#208 Aug 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The government has historically rejected incest, polygamy and ss couples for marriage, even if it has a claimed religious base. They reject claims of child sacrifice rights and such too. Are you claiming theses as religious freedom violations?
SCOTUS made a twisted divided decision that flies in the face of culture, medicine and science. I defined nothing. Your blanket denial of every element of reason only exposes how out of line calling ss couples married is.
BTW, still waiting for you to show where I said any such thing.
Hmmmm The Supreme Court**********You

Now who would know better?

Medicine and Science are on OUR side, oh great denier of reality.

Where did you matriculate?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#209 Aug 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
.........
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Children are an integral part and purpose of that.
.........
<quoted text>
This is a perfect example of gay twirl.
1. Even you have agreed that marriage is a culturally designed constraint. Now you mock it?
2. Then you lie about what I said. Children are an integral part of mating behavior (look up evolutionary mating behavior), creating children is 'always' a part. It is however a part in 90% of the time historically. That would be closer to 97% of the time if medical malfunctions didn't prevent the desire of the couple.
This exposes the homosexual attempt to equate ss couples who are incapable 100% of the time to mutually procreate!!!
In fact, marriage REQUIRES protection NOT to procreate! Gay couples NEVER require protection to prevent pregnancy. They do however REQUIRE protection to have intercourse.
3. YOU censored my statement of why ss couples are excluded and lied once again. Why does a legitimate cause need such distortion and deception?
Here is a perfect example of why ss couples are a failure of mating behavior;
Why does a butch lesbian dress and act like a man TO ATTRACT ANOTHER LESBIAN???
4. Marriage defines a distinct relationship that is limited by evolutionary biology and confirmed by incredibly consistent historical precedence. Calling ss couples married is no different than calling the tail on a dog a leg.
Words define reality. When we mis-define reality, problems occur. Mis-defining marriage would create a serious problem.
Not all relationships deserve the same rights. Let other relationships get their own name and their own rights.
That's the right thing to do.
The problem here is you are biased beyond intelligence.
Neurotic Liar Twirl.

You wrote: "Marriage defines a distinct relationship that is limited by evolutionary biology..."

NO IT ISN'T. Marriage has NOTHING to do with evolutionary biology. Marriage started out, and always has been about property and wealth. This is a function of an organized civilization. It has NEVER

NEVER

...been about evolutionary biology.
777777777777777777777777777777 7777777777777

...and SUCH overblown metaphors. "Calling a tail a leg?" Really?

By the way, YOU keep talking about procreating and WE are talking about marriage. One is not, and never has been, required of the other. Do you think repeatedly bringing up invalid points is going to change the case?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#210 Aug 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand this is confusing to homosexuals, since their mating behavior is defective.
...and you speak from experience?

Homosexual "mating behavior" has been observed in all species of mammals, in fact, in all species that reproduce sexually. Why use the word defective? Ask homosexuals and I'm sure they tell you "we do it just fine, thank you." Don't you really mean: gays' mating behavior is FASCINATION BEYOND MY ABILITY TO THINK?

So sex is only about reproduction, eh? Gee.... no wonder you're frustrated. No sex. Well..., it's too late for you anyway. I would bet you're a diabetic and haven't been able to get it up for YEARS now. No telling what kind of mess your "lady parts" are in. I can tell you this much: it's affecting your brain.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

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.

Parenting Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News For advocates of gay adoption, progress but als... Thu Tre H 29
News Sex in the family bed: Does it happen? (Jul '11) Jun 11 Michelle 137
News Idaho Supreme Court: Unmarried gay partner has ... Jun 10 Frankie Rizzo 5
News More than a third of teenage girls experience d... Jun 8 Humanspirit 3
News Research offers mixed messages on the impact of... Jun 6 Humanspirit 1
News Third of teen girls experience depression Jun 6 Humanspirit 1
News CPS had closed case of slain boy CRIME (Aug '07) May 31 Angie Robles 78
More from around the web