I would say that the problem persists for single parents (hetro or not) and tradtional marriages (man and woman) so to apply that logic only to gays is well silly.
The problem of abuse persists for single parents (hetro or not) and traditional marriages (man and woman) the problem of same sex abuse complicating the problem does not.
Thus, applying the logic that I did (given my statement) is not only not silly, but it's well amusing that you find it so.
Will your next step be explaining to me that there are no gay pedophiles, or straight pedophiles either, for that matter? That pedophiles are a separate sexual classification all their own?
"Will your next step be explaining to me that there are no gay pedophiles, or straight pedophiles either, for that matter? That pedophiles are a separate sexual classification all their own? " In a sense. www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09… www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Arti… psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty… Oh and sorry to bug you about this after so long, but I came across this conversation again by accident.
...what I mean is if you are going to apply that logic towards gays and say that they aren't fit for adoption, then neither should single parents or traditional marriages.
I see...I suppose this also justifies your idea...still that is like saying all single hetro parents and homosexual couples will be pedophiles...and how is that right.
"With no sarcasm at all intended, how many more percentage points are tolerable in regard to allowing same-sex adoption by males?" should read "With no sarcasm at all intended, how many more percentage points are tolerable in regard to allowing same-sex adoption by homosexual males and opposite sex adoption by straight males?"
I never said all single male* parents and all male homosexual couples will be pedophiles - I said the reason that most venues will not allow single males to adopt was because the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are male. And whether or not it fits your beliefs, letting straight single men, two single men who hang out together or a single homosexual man or two "married" homosexual men adopt same sex children will increase both the number of children who are sexually abused and the easy access to victims by a large number of pedophiles.
They won't allow two straight males living together to adopt a female child either, so what other than making foolish people happy would prompt them to allow male homosexuals to adopt male children?
Unlike yourself, I am unwilling to let people adopt same-sex children without an opposite sex parent in the picture to make two percent of the population feel "equal" and regarding equality. if we let homosexual couples adopt same sex kids, we'd have to let straight single men adopt opposite sex kids.
Boy, we gonna be havin' big fun down on de' bayou den!!! All those male homosexual adoptive parents* a'humpin' and a'pumpin'! All those straight single male adoptive parents* a'humpin' and a'pumpin'! All those chillun a'screamin' and a'crying as the humpin' and a'pumpin is a'goin' on! Won't that be a great moment for political correctness? Of course it will! What are a few thousand stretched anus' and lives ruined annually compared to allowing mostly non-pedophile straight men and mostly non-pedophile gay men to adopt?
Depends on your point of view. Ours differ because you speak from a political point of view and I speak from the point of view of having to become what I became to keep the homosexual counselors off of my friends asses - literally. No one should be allowed to adopt any same sex child without an opposite sex parent involved. Although you won't agree (and I won't care) protecting children is far more important than making people feel special.
*Within the usual statistics regarding child abuse of adopted/fostered children, men being so much likely to be pedophiles, homosexuals using so much more mental health service time and committing suicide so much more often than non-homosexuals. The overall percentage of children being sexually abused is about 10%, with adopted children being not only more likely to be abused, but being more likely to be abused to death as well.
With no sarcasm at all intended, how many more percentage points are tolerable in regard to allowing same-sex adoption by males?
"If I thought 2 straight men living together shouldn't be able to adopt same-sex children, but gays should, you'd probably be agreeing with me - perfectly capable of seeing the point as long as gays weren't part of the equation. "
Should obviously read -
"If I thought 2 straight men living together shouldn't be able to adopt opposite-sex children, but gays should be able to adopt same-sex children, you'd probably be agreeing with me - perfectly capable of seeing the point as long as gays weren't part of the equation.
"If I thought 2 straight men living together shouldn't be able to adopt opposite-sex children, but gays should be able to adopt same-sex children, you'd probably be agreeing with me - perfectly capable of seeing the point as long as gays weren't part of the equation." Sorry but no. There is no reason other than your pedophilia paranoia to say this.
Because how else will pedophilic single straight men and pedophilic single or married homosexual men get a sexual play thing all their own?
Ask a really stupid, flippant question, get a really stupid flippant answer
If I thought 2 straight men living together shouldn't be able to adopt same-sex children, but gays should, you'd probably be agreeing with me - perfectly capable of seeing the point as long as gays weren't part of the equation.
"Ask a really stupid, flippant question, get a really stupid flippant answer " I said that in frustration.
"If I thought 2 straight men living together shouldn't be able to adopt opposite-sex children, but gays should be able to adopt same-sex children, you'd probably be agreeing with me - perfectly capable of seeing the point as long as gays weren't part of the equation." Not really. I mean I would understand the reason would be to avoid pedophilia...it has nothing to do with homosexuality in this case.
"I mean I would understand the reason would be to avoid pedophilia...it has nothing to do with homosexuality in this case."
Yes.
We do not allow single males or single males supervised by another single male to adopt opposite sex children in the hopes of not adding to the already horrendous amount of pedophiliac risk children face. However, unlike a straight pedophile, a gay pedophile would not be interested in an opposite-sex child.
Okay Class!
For the silver star, what gender of child would a gay pedophile be interested in?
For the gold star, why did those vicious, homophobic, Russians pass a law to forbid all US families from adopting Russian orphans?
For the platinum star, a double-header - One, What were the names of the two American parents that made Russia so angry? Two, Who was Jesse Dirkhising?
For the Annual Hating the Hate-filled Alligator Haters Award, Was Matthew Shepard's death the final act in a long drawn out hate crime by anti-gay bigots?
Wow! You didn't know any of the answers. As G.W.Shrub would say, "Allows me ta' edjamacate you!"
For the silver star, what gender of child would a gay pedophile be interested in?
Answer: A gay pedophile would be interested in a same-sex child.
For the gold star, why did those vicious, homophobic, Russians pass a law to forbid all US families from adopting Russian orphans?
Answer: Because a gay US couple abused the little Russian baby they adopted from his 22nd month of life on, later sharing him with friends.
For the platinum star, a double-header - One, What were the names of the two American parents that made Russia so angry? Two, Who was Jesse Dirkhising?
Answer One: Mark J. Newton and his long-term partner Peter Truong. Answer two: HuffPo on Jesse Dirkising
No need to thank me - sharing facts is what the internet is all about.
"For the silver star, what gender of child would a gay pedophile be interested in?" For the gold star what gender would a straight pedophile be interested in? Saying gays can't adopt same-sex, is like saying heterosexuals can't adopt opposite sex.
A gay pedophile would be more interested in a boy child.
A straight pedophile would be more interested in a girl child.
"Saying gays can't adopt same-sex, is like saying heterosexuals can't adopt opposite sex."
No. "Why", you ask because you can't figure it out on your own...
Single normasexual men are not allowed to adopt female children very often, just like single normasexual men are not allowed to accompany girl scout overnight trips by themselves without a female in attendance as well.
Can you guess why?
Do you realize that other than what they perceive as sexual objects and the insanely high HIV/AIDs/Syphilis rates, gay men arenot much different than, well... men?
Now, back to your question...
A normasexual couple is composed of both a female AND a male, thus there is one person of the child's gender and one not, a balance to protect the child. A single normasexual male adopting a female child does not provide that protection. Two gay males adopting a male child do not provide that protection.
This is not rocket science and has nothing to do with bigotry, it is merely common sense.
Two more things, Jacob. One, I am glad you are not dead. Two, as far as your little silver and gold starsies go, Joe is not here for you to run to and if you take that condescending tone with me again, I'll make you cry, you whiny lil' bitch.
I just realized you are using only two incidents as representative of a whole movement, and against adoption in general. As for poor jessie, it was horrible but you are taking the wrong lesson from it: web.archive.org/web/2005020419… web.archive.org/web/2005020419…
I am actually worried about how much you focus on pedophilia here.
"For the Annual Hating the Hate-filled Alligator Haters Award, Was Matthew Shepard's death the final act in a long drawn out hate crime by anti-gay bigots?" Well let's see considering that he was tortured and left to die...
"I am actually worried about how much you focus on pedophilia here."
Given that sexual abuse is such a large risk to children and adopted/fostered children are at higher risk of sexual abuse and that we are talking about adoption - I'm actually worried about how little it concerns you. How does one lose so much of what it means to be human that the plight of children means so little?
"For the Annual Hating the Hate-filled Alligator Haters Award, Was Matthew Shepard's death the final act in a long drawn out hate crime by anti-gay bigots?" Well let's see considering that he was tortured and left to die...
So is your Mother, for not taking advantage of readily available abortion, you priss.
Want to see sad? I mentioned that mediamatter.com was not an acceptable unbiased source and your reply went something like:
Me offer mediamatters proof, me smurt. You laff at me dumb ass, call holymediamatters biassed, you not smurt.
Dimwit. I had just finished explaining that mediamatters being a left-wing lie factory was not acceptable to anyone but someone like you and asking if you'd accept fox news, a right wing lie factory.
And instead of logical response you drooled. Again. I suggest, go away Jacob. You're not smart or funny enough to be worth the time. You have no proof for your blather because you're too lazy to fact check shit and count on biased sites like media matters for your "facts".
You might note that I gave you the string to google on my second "anti-gay-male abortion" point so you could pick and choose one that you felt wasn't right-wing biased instead of just using the righty equivalent of mediamatters, something like the Westboro Baptist Church perhaps.
That's what people who like the truth call being honest, Jacob - it's not much of a leftie trait though. You sure don't espouse it, MediaMatters Boy.
If you were smart, you'd be worth it, but you're not. Your best retort is "And more ad hominem...sad really.
If you were funny, you'd be worth it, but you're not. Your best comeback is "And more ad hominem...sad really.
Bottom line, Jacob, you're a liar and a sneak. You've never cared about the truth unless it fit your needs and you never will.
You should go away, you're impossible to be kind to.
"Dimwit. I had just finished explaining that mediamatters being a left-wing lie factory was not acceptable to anyone but someone like you and asking if you'd accept fox news, a right wing lie factory. " And you offered nothing to support your arguments other than insults. How is this a better argument? That is my point, you insult me, and use ad hominem instead of arguments. You have no evidence to support your arguments.
"What began in 2004 as a ten-person shop with a $3 million annual budget now has around 90 employees and plans to spend $15 million this year. That is striking and demonstrates the enormous fundraising operation that they have created. But that is not translating into readers. With that budget and staff, they should be about the size of a site like Politico, but the numbers tell a far different story. According to web traffic evaluator, Quantcast, Politico averages 5.6 million monthly unique visitors, Media Matters a mere 646,200. Even if you give Media Matters the benefit of the doubt and double that number, they are still doing a fraction of the traffic of sites its size (at 1.3 million, it would still be far smaller than little Mediaite, with ten times the staff)"
Perhaps the reason mediamatters is so little used is because people who aren't as smart as you have no lust for the truth. Or perhaps it's because so few people need nothing more than reaffirmation of what they already believe?
Nothing you have proves that my source is incorrect...hell your source says: "That is not to say that we do not trust their investigative pieces. We often do."
I'll get you some more when you're done with these.
And did you ever google those two loving gay fathers who shared their adopted five year old with all their friends, or does that poor kid not matter because he's not the truth you want to hear?
The second link is from 2004 and the author is a bit of a liar: trans-cendence.blogspot.com/20… She also works for NARTH, who are infamous for misrepresenting science to promote their anti-gay agenda. wakingupnow.com/blog/the-outra… www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-m… holybulliesandheadlessmonsters… Likewise here is an interesting comment from that very same article you are citing: "It is very unfortunate that I have found this newspaper article. I am Catholic, I am a psychologist and I am a non-psychotic. If an author is to name statistics, we learned in you know, high school, college, graduate school and in my doctoral program, that one must provide the author, the year it was published and whom it was published by, not to mention who funded the project as to not LEAD astray flocks of sheepish people. I fear that much of society is blinded by false statistics and I could just as easily spat out that 64% of heterosexual couples are in anger management programs. 23% of heterosexual couples have physically, mentally and sexually abused their children in 2008. Oh, and of course, 51% of heterosexual couples filed for divorce last year. Well, I'm a catholic, a psychologist, are you going to believe me? Oops, did I forget to mention I am also part of the LGBTQ community? Or will that invalidate my statistics?" Hmmmm, the divorce rates mentioned here reminds me of this link: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/m… The third link is from 2005 and bullshit in light of current research: www.spring.org.uk/2014/02/same… thesocietypages.org/socimages/… web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Ros… williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu… Finally the first link comes from a site that says this:" Perkins’ evidence for these “serious risks” is, of course, thethoroughlydebunkedRegnerusStudy." Were you even paying attention!?! Here is more on that study: www.rightwingwatch.org/content… Have you ever considered that these studies and people you cite are liars: holybulliesandheadlessmonsters… holybulliesandheadlessmonsters… thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/02… www.theatlantic.com/politics/a… And they ignore real evidence of LGBT abuse: www.rightwingwatch.org/content… At this point I don't think I can trust anything you say. "
And did you ever google those two loving gay fathers who shared their adopted five year old with all their friends, or does that poor kid not matter because he's not the truth you want to hear?
" Oh what happened to him was awful, but you cannot prove that it represents even a tiny fraction of people looking to adopt, gay or not! As long as you don't use current research and rely on liars, I cannot talk to you. Good day.
You show no evidence of my dishonesty. In fact you ignore the evidence against the "Gay parents cause harm" tripe you spew. I am glad you are leaving. OH and since you mentioned mediamatters. I remember when you: "I had just finished explaining that mediamatters being a left-wing lie factory was not acceptable to anyone but someone like you and asking if you'd accept fox news, a right wing lie factory."
Any argument or evidence stands or falls on its own merits regardless of who is making the argument. I would accept Fox News as a source for any argument or evidence *as long as the argument or evidence itself is valid*. And I would reject a fallacious argument no matter how good the reputation of the person making it is.
So your argument about me using mediamatters is a cop-out to merely reject something out of hand because it comes from media matters, Fox News, or any other source without actually addressing the argument itself. At least I've shown how your source is dishonest, something you admitted to...so how are you the better man?
I keep asking you to go away, you keep jabbering your bullshit in my ear.
Would it help if I sang it to you? loosely to the tune of the William Tell Overture
Go away, go away you freakin' turd, Go away, go away, you loony bird, don't want to talk to you anymore, hope ya' get hit in the ass by the door.
At the start of this long ago, I found you an ABC source and a gay site source. You offer mediamatters and huffpo... see the difference in us, dimwit? I offered sources you'd be able to accept, given your hard left bent. You offered me hard left sources because... duh.
"At the start of this long ago, I found you an ABC source and a gay site source. You offer mediamatters and huffpo... see the difference in us, dimwit? I offered sources you'd be able to accept, given your hard left bent." I don't get this arguement. You can use left-leaning sources but I can't or...what?
No, dickhead. I offered you hard left sources because you needed sources you'd feel comfortable with. You did not offer me the same courtesy, your mewling sot.
Are you truly that unselfaware?
Go away, go away you freakin' turd, Go away, go away, you loony bird, don't want to talk to you anymore, hope ya' get hit in the ass by the door.
Because I do not trust hard left sources any more than you'd trust hard right sources. Moron. So I provided you sources you'd be able to trust.
But much like caring for that kid's plight rather than your dumbfuck causes, you didn't think courtesy extended to you should be returned, you self centered progressive oinker.
I repeat:
Go away, go away you freakin' turd, Go away, go away, you loony bird, don't want to talk to you anymore, hope ya' get hit in the ass by the door.
"But much like caring for that kid's plight rather than your dumbfuck causes, you didn't think courtesy extended to you should be returned, you self centered progressive oinker." What was I supposed to do? I do care for that kid's plight, but unlike you, I am not going to generalize the entire lgbt movement based on the actions of his abusers.
The problem of abuse persists for single parents (hetro or not) and traditional marriages (man and woman) the problem of same sex abuse complicating the problem does not.
Thus, applying the logic that I did (given my statement) is not only not silly, but it's well amusing that you find it so.
Will your next step be explaining to me that there are no gay pedophiles, or straight pedophiles either, for that matter? That pedophiles are a separate sexual classification all their own?
Devious Comments
In a sense.
www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09…
www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Arti…
psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty…
Oh and sorry to bug you about this after so long, but I came across this conversation again by accident.
I would be waaay more pro-gay adoption if gays were willing to not adopt same sex children, do you thing the idea would fly?
"
Really? Why not?
"With no sarcasm at all intended, how many more percentage points are tolerable in regard to allowing same-sex adoption by males?" should read "With no sarcasm at all intended, how many more percentage points are tolerable in regard to allowing same-sex adoption by homosexual males and opposite sex adoption by straight males?"
I never said all single male* parents and all male homosexual couples will be pedophiles - I said the reason that most venues will not allow single males to adopt was because the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are male. And whether or not it fits your beliefs, letting straight single men, two single men who hang out together or a single homosexual man or two "married" homosexual men adopt same sex children will increase both the number of children who are sexually abused and the easy access to victims by a large number of pedophiles.
They won't allow two straight males living together to adopt a female child either, so what other than making foolish people happy would prompt them to allow male homosexuals to adopt male children?
Unlike yourself, I am unwilling to let people adopt same-sex children without an opposite sex parent in the picture to make two percent of the population feel "equal" and regarding equality. if we let homosexual couples adopt same sex kids, we'd have to let straight single men adopt opposite sex kids.
Boy, we gonna be havin' big fun down on de' bayou den!!! All those male homosexual adoptive parents* a'humpin' and a'pumpin'! All those straight single male adoptive parents* a'humpin' and a'pumpin'! All those chillun a'screamin' and a'crying as the humpin' and a'pumpin is a'goin' on! Won't that be a great moment for political correctness? Of course it will! What are a few thousand stretched anus' and lives ruined annually compared to allowing mostly non-pedophile straight men and mostly non-pedophile gay men to adopt?
Depends on your point of view. Ours differ because you speak from a political point of view and I speak from the point of view of having to become what I became to keep the homosexual counselors off of my friends asses - literally. No one should be allowed to adopt any same sex child without an opposite sex parent involved. Although you won't agree (and I won't care) protecting children is far more important than making people feel special.
*Within the usual statistics regarding child abuse of adopted/fostered children, men being so much likely to be pedophiles, homosexuals using so much more mental health service time and committing suicide so much more often than non-homosexuals. The overall percentage of children being sexually abused is about 10%, with adopted children being not only more likely to be abused, but being more likely to be abused to death as well.
With no sarcasm at all intended, how many more percentage points are tolerable in regard to allowing same-sex adoption by males?
"If I thought 2 straight men living together shouldn't be able to adopt same-sex children, but gays should, you'd probably be agreeing with me - perfectly capable of seeing the point as long as gays weren't part of the equation. "
Should obviously read -
"If I thought 2 straight men living together shouldn't be able to adopt opposite-sex children, but gays should be able to adopt same-sex children, you'd probably be agreeing with me - perfectly capable of seeing the point as long as gays weren't part of the equation.
Ask a really stupid, flippant question, get a really stupid flippant answer
If I thought 2 straight men living together shouldn't be able to adopt same-sex children, but gays should, you'd probably be agreeing with me - perfectly capable of seeing the point as long as gays weren't part of the equation.
Yes.
We do not allow single males or single males supervised by another single male to adopt opposite sex children in the hopes of not adding to the already horrendous amount of pedophiliac risk children face. However, unlike a straight pedophile, a gay pedophile would not be interested in an opposite-sex child.
Okay Class!
For the silver star, what gender of child would a gay pedophile be interested in?
For the gold star, why did those vicious, homophobic, Russians pass a law to forbid all US families from adopting Russian orphans?
For the platinum star, a double-header - One, What were the names of the two American parents that made Russia so angry? Two, Who was Jesse Dirkhising?
For the Annual Hating the Hate-filled Alligator Haters Award, Was Matthew Shepard's death the final act in a long drawn out hate crime by anti-gay bigots?
For the silver star, what gender of child would a gay pedophile be interested in?
Answer: A gay pedophile would be interested in a same-sex child.
For the gold star, why did those vicious, homophobic, Russians pass a law to forbid all US families from adopting Russian orphans?
Answer: Because a gay US couple abused the little Russian baby they adopted from his 22nd month of life on, later sharing him with friends.
For the platinum star, a double-header - One, What were the names of the two American parents that made Russia so angry? Two, Who was Jesse Dirkhising?
Answer One: Mark J. Newton and his long-term partner Peter Truong. Answer two: HuffPo on Jesse Dirkising
No need to thank me - sharing facts is what the internet is all about.
For the gold star what gender would a straight pedophile be interested in?
Saying gays can't adopt same-sex, is like saying heterosexuals can't adopt opposite sex.
A straight pedophile would be more interested in a girl child.
"Saying gays can't adopt same-sex, is like saying heterosexuals can't adopt opposite sex."
No. "Why", you ask because you can't figure it out on your own...
Single normasexual men are not allowed to adopt female children very often, just like single normasexual men are not allowed to accompany girl scout overnight trips by themselves without a female in attendance as well.
Can you guess why?
Do you realize that other than what they perceive as sexual objects and the insanely high HIV/AIDs/Syphilis rates, gay men arenot much different than, well... men?
Now, back to your question...
A normasexual couple is composed of both a female AND a male, thus there is one person of the child's gender and one not, a balance to protect the child. A single normasexual male adopting a female child does not provide that protection. Two gay males adopting a male child do not provide that protection.
This is not rocket science and has nothing to do with bigotry, it is merely common sense.
Two more things, Jacob. One, I am glad you are not dead. Two, as far as your little silver and gold starsies go, Joe is not here for you to run to and if you take that condescending tone with me again, I'll make you cry, you whiny lil' bitch.
Nice talkin' to you again, Jacob.
That said, you deserved it - you have never been one to allow facts to interfere with a baseless befief.
As for poor jessie, it was horrible but you are taking the wrong lesson from it: web.archive.org/web/2005020419…
web.archive.org/web/2005020419…
Google "Mark J. Newton and Peter Truong" and then I'll find you another and another
Given that sexual abuse is such a large risk to children and adopted/fostered children are at higher risk of sexual abuse and that we are talking about adoption - I'm actually worried about how little it concerns you. How does one lose so much of what it means to be human that the plight of children means so little?
"For the Annual Hating the Hate-filled Alligator Haters Award, Was Matthew Shepard's death the final act in a long drawn out hate crime by anti-gay bigots?" Well let's see considering that he was tortured and left to die...
ABC News
ADVOCATE COM
Damn those gay-bashing bigots - or not...
Actually there are severe problems with that theory:
mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/…
mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/…
Lack of bias in proof, not lots of bias in proof.
Talk to someone who likes you, perhaps your Mommie isn't busy.
So is your Mother, for not taking advantage of readily available abortion, you priss.
Want to see sad? I mentioned that mediamatter.com was not an acceptable unbiased source and your reply went something like:
Me offer mediamatters proof, me smurt. You laff at me dumb ass, call holymediamatters biassed, you not smurt.
Dimwit. I had just finished explaining that mediamatters being a left-wing lie factory was not acceptable to anyone but someone like you and asking if you'd accept fox news, a right wing lie factory.
And instead of logical response you drooled. Again. I suggest, go away Jacob. You're not smart or funny enough to be worth the time. You have no proof for your blather because you're too lazy to fact check shit and count on biased sites like media matters for your "facts".
You might note that I gave you the string to google on my second "anti-gay-male abortion" point so you could pick and choose one that you felt wasn't right-wing biased instead of just using the righty equivalent of mediamatters, something like the Westboro Baptist Church perhaps.
That's what people who like the truth call being honest, Jacob - it's not much of a leftie trait though. You sure don't espouse it, MediaMatters Boy.
If you were smart, you'd be worth it, but you're not. Your best retort is "And more ad hominem...sad really.
If you were funny, you'd be worth it, but you're not. Your best comeback is "And more ad hominem...sad really.
Bottom line, Jacob, you're a liar and a sneak. You've never cared about the truth unless it fit your needs and you never will.
You should go away, you're impossible to be kind to.
"
And you offered nothing to support your arguments other than insults. How is this a better argument?
That is my point, you insult me, and use ad hominem instead of arguments. You have no evidence to support your arguments.
"What began in 2004 as a ten-person shop with a $3 million annual budget now has around 90 employees and plans to spend $15 million this year. That is striking and demonstrates the enormous fundraising operation that they have created. But that is not translating into readers. With that budget and staff, they should be about the size of a site like Politico, but the numbers tell a far different story. According to web traffic evaluator, Quantcast, Politico averages 5.6 million monthly unique visitors, Media Matters a mere 646,200. Even if you give Media Matters the benefit of the doubt and double that number, they are still doing a fraction of the traffic of sites its size (at 1.3 million, it would still be far smaller than little Mediaite, with ten times the staff)"
Perhaps the reason mediamatters is so little used is because people who aren't as smart as you have no lust for the truth. Or perhaps it's because so few people need nothing more than reaffirmation of what they already believe?
"That is not to say that we do not trust their investigative pieces. We often do."
Risks of Gay Adoption
Dangers of same sex couples adopting children
Experts Worldwide find Gay adoption harmful to children
I'll get you some more when you're done with these.
And did you ever google those two loving gay fathers who shared their adopted five year old with all their friends, or does that poor kid not matter because he's not the truth you want to hear?
She also works for NARTH, who are infamous for misrepresenting science to promote their anti-gay agenda.
wakingupnow.com/blog/the-outra…
www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-m…
holybulliesandheadlessmonsters…
Likewise here is an interesting comment from that very same article you are citing:
"It is very unfortunate that I have found this newspaper article. I am Catholic, I am a psychologist and I am a non-psychotic. If an author is to name statistics, we learned in you know, high school, college, graduate school and in my doctoral program, that one must provide the author, the year it was published and whom it was published by, not to mention who funded the project as to not LEAD astray flocks of sheepish people. I fear that much of society is blinded by false statistics and I could just as easily spat out that 64% of heterosexual couples are in anger management programs. 23% of heterosexual couples have physically, mentally and sexually abused their children in 2008. Oh, and of course, 51% of heterosexual couples filed for divorce last year. Well, I'm a catholic, a psychologist, are you going to believe me? Oops, did I forget to mention I am also part of the LGBTQ community? Or will that invalidate my statistics?"
Hmmmm, the divorce rates mentioned here reminds me of this link: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/m…
The third link is from 2005 and bullshit in light of current research:
www.spring.org.uk/2014/02/same…
thesocietypages.org/socimages/…
web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Ros…
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu…
Finally the first link comes from a site that says this:" Perkins’ evidence for these “serious risks” is, of course, the thoroughly debunked Regnerus Study."
Were you even paying attention!?!
Here is more on that study: www.rightwingwatch.org/content…
Have you ever considered that these studies and people you cite are liars:
holybulliesandheadlessmonsters…
holybulliesandheadlessmonsters…
thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/02…
www.theatlantic.com/politics/a…
And they ignore real evidence of LGBT abuse: www.rightwingwatch.org/content…
At this point I don't think I can trust anything you say.
"
Oh what happened to him was awful, but you cannot prove that it represents even a tiny fraction of people looking to adopt, gay or not!
As long as you don't use current research and rely on liars, I cannot talk to you. Good day.
"As long as you rely on liars, I cannot talk to you. Good day."
At last, something we agree on, good day to you too, don't darken my doorstep again, okay?.
OH and since you mentioned mediamatters.
I remember when you: "I had just finished explaining that mediamatters being a left-wing lie factory was not acceptable to anyone but someone like you and asking if you'd accept fox news, a right wing lie factory."
Any argument or evidence stands or falls on its own merits regardless of who is making the argument. I would accept Fox News as a source for any argument or evidence *as long as the argument or evidence itself is valid*. And I would reject a fallacious argument no matter how good the reputation of the person making it is.
So your argument about me using mediamatters is a cop-out to merely reject something out of hand because it comes from media matters, Fox News, or any other source without actually addressing the argument itself.
At least I've shown how your source is dishonest, something you admitted to...so how are you the better man?
Would it help if I sang it to you? loosely to the tune of the William Tell Overture
Go away, go away you freakin' turd,
Go away, go away, you loony bird,
don't want to talk to you anymore,
hope ya' get hit in the ass by the door.
At the start of this long ago, I found you an ABC source and a gay site source. You offer mediamatters and huffpo... see the difference in us, dimwit? I offered sources you'd be able to accept, given your hard left bent. You offered me hard left sources because... duh.
Go Away.
Are you truly that unselfaware?
Go away, go away you freakin' turd,
Go away, go away, you loony bird,
don't want to talk to you anymore,
hope ya' get hit in the ass by the door.
But much like caring for that kid's plight rather than your dumbfuck causes, you didn't think courtesy extended to you should be returned, you self centered progressive oinker.
I repeat:
Go away, go away you freakin' turd,
Go away, go away, you loony bird,
don't want to talk to you anymore,
hope ya' get hit in the ass by the door.
What was I supposed to do?
I do care for that kid's plight, but unlike you, I am not going to generalize the entire lgbt movement based on the actions of his abusers.
Go away, go away, you loony bird,
don't want to talk to you anymore,
hope ya' get hit in the ass by the door.