Jun 12, 2012 -- 1:11PM, Cesmom wrote:

Jun 12, 2012 -- 12:55PM, Do_unto_others wrote:

Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:11AM, Cesmom wrote:

Children were brought up in response to the post about the state getting involved in marriage to protect it's own interests, so it is relevant to this portion of the discussion.

Just because not every same sex couple is interested in raising children doesn't mean that children are not relevant to the discussion.  The denial of marriage to same sex couples is not what's best for the children in those families.  That is a point worthy of discussion, whether you believe so or not.

I think "children were brought up" to derail this discussion - like they attempt to derail EVERY discussion of same-gender marriage - to be ONLY about the welfare of, in large part, NON-EXISTANT children.

Yes, some gay couples do have them. (And yes, those families also need the equal protections afforded to heterosexual families - and SOME here still insist this isn't about equal rights!!!) And yes, many heterosexual couples do not have any children. That is my very point. They are NOT a requirement of marriage.

So be it...maybe children were brought up to derail the discussion.  However, IMO, children are a very real part of the discussion, as they should be.

Only in the regard that any children present in same-gender parent households (or in any SINGLE parent household, for that matter) deserve the exact SAME protections as those in any opposite-gender parent households. As, of course, those LGBT parents need the exact same protections that str8 parents need.  It IS about equal rights, after all. Not if there are kids in the home, NOR how they might have got there.

Jun 12, 2012 -- 4:40PM, TENAC wrote:

Children are a part of the ssm discussion as the marriage itself.  The problem with those on the left is they can only view one side of an issue when it suits their purposes.  The ramifications of ssm will cause little concern in this generation.  It is the ensuing generations where it will be felt, something else our children and grand children will deal with along with the debt.

Crappy opinion...nothing concrete has been presented to make this statement valid.

There is nothing to "deal with" in terms of allowing same-sex marriages...other than in the heads of the self-righteous.

It will take a while to look through, but certainly gives overwhelming credence to the concerns I posted regarding the former president of the APA.

Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting 

Edit: smaller font

Jun 12, 2012 -- 9:18PM, Cesmom wrote:

Jun 12, 2012 -- 8:15PM, TENAC wrote:

It will take a while to look through, but certainly gives overwhelming credence to the concerns I posted regarding the former president of the APA.

Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting 

Edit: smaller font

Don't tell me you honestly read the entire report.  Besides, it's one study intended to refute 59 others.  I'm not buying.  Overwhelming credence, it's not.

You are misreading the paper.

It is a paper on the APA study.  The APA (which in 2004) came out with the conclusion that there is no apparent harmful effects of ss parenting.  The APA paper pulled from the 59 studies listed in this paper.  Marks looks at the study, then the studies it pulls from and examines the variables that went into the study of the 59 studies.

I read a lot of it.  There is a lot of commonalities that surface to be flaws.

Read through the questions it poses of the studies.

Look at this as well.  I posted it back in the thread.

www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-preside...