T Nation

Same-Sex Adoption = Child Abuse

“Dr. Byrd’s testimony provided scientific evidence for judge Andrew McClintock’s belief that mothers and fathers arerequired for optimal child development. Judge McClintock had asked to be excused from those cases which might require him to place children in permanent motherless or fatherless homes, deeming that such placements are not in the best interest of children.”

http://74.125.95.132/custom?q=cache:t2sSb4bVriYJ:www.narth.com/docs/byrdtestimony.pdf+Byrd+testimony&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=google-coop-np

“Marriage is protective of the emotional and physical health of men and women.Adults who are married have greater longevity, less disease and illness,increased happiness and lower levels of mental illness, especially depressionand substance abuse, than do both single and cohabiting adults.6Married menand women are more likely to encourage their spouses to seek medicalscreenings and health care than do cohabiting partners.”

You know, there’s a saying about correlation and causation…

Sounds like both anti-gay drivel AND pro-marriage propaganda.

It’s funny. My son, who is a freshmen in college and his room mate were discussing all the “messed up” kids in college. They came to the conclusion that the one thing all the “messed up” kids had in common was the fact that their parents were divorced.

We’ve come to accept the fact that most marriages end in divorce (2 out of 3) as though it is no big deal. Well, if children are involved, it is a big deal. They need both a mother and a father. Not 2 fathers or 2 mothers or a single parent.

Now, just because a child comes from a household without married parents dictates that they will be “messed up”. It just increases the odds. Likewise, just because a child comes from a 2 parent family doesn’t mean they will be productive and socially well adjusted. Again, it just increases the odds. Ultimately, each individual must take responsibility for their own actions.

A NARTH doctor cites evidence published by the Institute for American Values, both non-profits dedicated to defining marriage as solely heterosexual, and it’s supposed to be convincing?

My post was going to be much longer, but I don’t feel like arguing with you. It’s like wrestling a pig in the mud.

I honestly don’t understand what you (and other conservatives) have against homosexuals.

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
I honestly don’t understand what you (and other conservatives) have against homosexuals.[/quote]

Homophobic religion + being in the closet will do that to people.

Headhunter,

I don’t teach anymore. For the last few months I’ve been working for Child Protective Services. In that short amount of time I’ve seen a lot of seriously fucked up child abuse. None of it involved gay parents, and 90% of it involved people who were married.

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
A NARTH doctor cites evidence published by the Institute for American Values, both non-profits dedicated to defining marriage as solely heterosexual, and it’s supposed to be convincing?

My post was going to be much longer, but I don’t feel like arguing with you. It’s like wrestling a pig in the mud.

I honestly don’t understand what you (and other conservatives) have against homosexuals.[/quote]

No one is seeking to “define marriage as solely heterosexual.” It is ALREADY defined as solely heterosexual.

It’s perfectly consistent to defend the traditional definition of marriage, and to maintain for a multitude of reasons that parenthood is the province of a man and a woman in marriage - AND not be, as you say, “against homosexuals.”

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
A NARTH doctor cites evidence published by the Institute for American Values, both non-profits dedicated to defining marriage as solely heterosexual, and it’s supposed to be convincing?

My post was going to be much longer, but I don’t feel like arguing with you. It’s like wrestling a pig in the mud.

I honestly don’t understand what you (and other conservatives) have against homosexuals.

No one is seeking to “define marriage as solely heterosexual.” It is ALREADY defined as solely heterosexual.

It’s perfectly consistent to defend the traditional definition of marriage, and to maintain for a multitude of reasons that parenthood is the province of a man and a woman in marriage - AND not be, as you say, “against homosexuals.”
[/quote]

I thought this was about adoption and not marriage.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
A NARTH doctor cites evidence published by the Institute for American Values, both non-profits dedicated to defining marriage as solely heterosexual, and it’s supposed to be convincing?

My post was going to be much longer, but I don’t feel like arguing with you. It’s like wrestling a pig in the mud.

I honestly don’t understand what you (and other conservatives) have against homosexuals.

No one is seeking to “define marriage as solely heterosexual.” It is ALREADY defined as solely heterosexual.

It’s perfectly consistent to defend the traditional definition of marriage, and to maintain for a multitude of reasons that parenthood is the province of a man and a woman in marriage - AND not be, as you say, “against homosexuals.”
[/quote]

I thought this was about adoption and not marriage.

hey Makavali. I agree with most of what you post. But please, please try to hit the submit button just one time instead of 5 or 6.

:wink:

[quote]doogie wrote:
Headhunter,

I don’t teach anymore. For the last few months I’ve been working for Child Protective Services. In that short amount of time I’ve seen a lot of seriously fucked up child abuse. None of it involved gay parents, and 90% of it involved people who were married.[/quote]

Were the people married and living in the same home?

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
A NARTH doctor cites evidence published by the Institute for American Values, both non-profits dedicated to defining marriage as solely heterosexual, and it’s supposed to be convincing?

My post was going to be much longer, but I don’t feel like arguing with you. It’s like wrestling a pig in the mud.

I honestly don’t understand what you (and other conservatives) have against homosexuals.[/quote]

Homosexuality is fine, so long as gays don’t adopt children because its ‘fashionable’ and don’t try to re-define sacred values, such as marriage and parenthood.

If we’re supposed to be respectful of other cultures, why do gays try and change ours?

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
hey Makavali. I agree with most of what you post. But please, please try to hit the submit button just one time instead of 5 or 6.

;-)[/quote]

I do! I don’t know what causes it.

(sadface)

This is a tough one. Obviously, the best place for a child is a stable married couple of both man and woman. But, is it better for a kid to rot in an orphanage unloved, or be loved by two homo’s? If the home is stable enough, perhaps the homo home is better than an orphanage, but I really don’t know.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
hey Makavali. I agree with most of what you post. But please, please try to hit the submit button just one time instead of 5 or 6.

:wink:

I do! I don’t know what causes it.

(sadface)[/quote]

homophobiaphobia?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
A NARTH doctor cites evidence published by the Institute for American Values, both non-profits dedicated to defining marriage as solely heterosexual, and it’s supposed to be convincing?

My post was going to be much longer, but I don’t feel like arguing with you. It’s like wrestling a pig in the mud.

I honestly don’t understand what you (and other conservatives) have against homosexuals.

Homosexuality is fine, so long as gays don’t adopt children because its ‘fashionable’ and don’t try to re-define sacred values, such as marriage and parenthood.

If we’re supposed to be respectful of other cultures, why do gays try and change ours?

[/quote]

What is so sacred about marriage. It has had many different definitions over the years even within the Christian faith.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
A NARTH doctor cites evidence published by the Institute for American Values, both non-profits dedicated to defining marriage as solely heterosexual, and it’s supposed to be convincing?

My post was going to be much longer, but I don’t feel like arguing with you. It’s like wrestling a pig in the mud.

I honestly don’t understand what you (and other conservatives) have against homosexuals.

Homosexuality is fine, so long as gays don’t adopt children because its ‘fashionable’ and don’t try to re-define sacred values, such as marriage and parenthood.

If we’re supposed to be respectful of other cultures, why do gays try and change ours?

What is so sacred about marriage. It has had many different definitions over the years even within the Christian faith.
[/quote]

Marriage is a sacrament. Please expand on your second statement - examples, etc.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
A NARTH doctor cites evidence published by the Institute for American Values, both non-profits dedicated to defining marriage as solely heterosexual, and it’s supposed to be convincing?

My post was going to be much longer, but I don’t feel like arguing with you. It’s like wrestling a pig in the mud.

I honestly don’t understand what you (and other conservatives) have against homosexuals.

Homosexuality is fine, so long as gays don’t adopt children because its ‘fashionable’ and don’t try to re-define sacred values, such as marriage and parenthood.

If we’re supposed to be respectful of other cultures, why do gays try and change ours?

[/quote]

Only the gays with a chip on their shoulder…Of the ones I have met most of them don’t shove their gayness in your face.

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
A NARTH doctor cites evidence published by the Institute for American Values, both non-profits dedicated to defining marriage as solely heterosexual, and it’s supposed to be convincing?
[/quote]

Exactly. The major medical and mental health organizations have done the research on children raised by same sex parents, and have unanimously concluded that these children are equal on measures of emotional and psychological health.

Of course, these organizations are all “biased”, and only NARTH is objective enough to give us the real scoop on the homo agenda.