Posted on 11/06/2004 11:29:32 PM PST by NYer
"A same-sex couple has, by definition, two persons at high risk for psychological disorders. The studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that persons self-identified as homosexual in comparison to the general public had almost double the rate of suicidal ideation or attempts, substance abuse problems and psychological disorders. One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders.
And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with a STD, including HIV, hepatitis or HPV, which can lead to cancer. Thus, several studies suggest that 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive before age 50.
Any of these problems would negatively affect an adopted child. When dealing with married heterosexual couples, agencies have been extremely strict in ruling out couples with risk factors, yet seem to be ignoring real risk when evaluating same-sex couples who want to adopt. "
In other words, in light of this and the previous conversation between O'Donnell and her son, it is wrong for him to want a daddy because God decided that he shouldn't have one. "
I don't see how banning same sex marraige will stand the constitutional test. These bans will continue to be overturned.
How will the schools, particularly elementary schools, handle this problem?By hiring more gay and lesbian teachers and counselors and establishing special counseling programs for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered (GBLT) and "questioning" youth, that's how.
See for yourself: http://www.afsc.org/pacificnw/glbtq.htm
http://www.aglbic.org/Q/Vol1Num1/Monier.htm
http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/glb_biblio.html
"It can't happen here."
Yeah. Right.
"I'm the kind of mommy who wants another mommy."
Rosie Rosie ....consider trying the swim to Hawaii ....
from San Diego!
Not by George W. Bush's appointees, let's hope.
Perhaps the next referendum should be to prohibit homosexuals from adopting.
The 11th DCA upheld Florida's ban on homosexual adoptions and the US SC denied cert.
It would pass court evaluation. (of course the lawyers who have adoption mills would object)
Many of these people take in children whose other options are far worse. Not all gays have psychological problems and proper screening should be done for all adoptive parents.
being a homosexual IS a psychological problem.
Bump for the children.
"The only answer for many parents is to withdraw their children from public education. When public schools are used as instruments of indoctrination against religion, religious parents are discriminated against."
For this very reason, I home school my children. I did not want my children forced to learn against God's word and to understand it be acceptable. By home schooling I am not placing my children in a bubble, which is a big misconception. They are taught to love all people even if those people don't know Jesus. They are aware that they do not live in a world of lolly pops a gum drops.
"A same-sex couple has, by definition, two persons at high risk for psychological disorders."
Not exactly. A same-sex couple is, by definition, two persons who demonstrate at least one psychological disorder on a daily basis.
Discrimination is discrimination. I think the "ban gay marriage" voters are going to be disappointed.
Religion aside, I think it takes a tortured reading of the federal constitution to permit a same sex marriage ban. I don't see any difference between this issue or the racial civil rights issue.
I second that!
You're right. There are couples waiting to adopt children so how did this freak fat dike get to adopt a little boy who needs a daddy.
It should not be necessary to deal with marriage via a constitutional amendment but considering the judges we have....let's go for the amendment....that marriage means one man and one woman and that unmarried couples cannot adopt children.
Religion aside, I think it takes a tortured reading of the federal constitution to permit a same sex marriage ban. I don't see any difference between this issue or the racial civil rights issue.
Agree. The Federal governemt will have to step in and make a marriage amendment defining marriage that states it's between a man and women.
1. Prior to the 13th and 14th amendments, the U.S. Constitution was NOT based upon the threefold promise of the French Revolution (Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité).
2. The passage of the 13th and 14th amendments does not give the government license to "force" the various races to get along. Even now, I take issue with the notion that the federal government has the right to tell a business that it cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of race. Mind you, I would never refuse to hire a person simply because he was black, but I have a serious problem with the federal government meddling in race relations.
3. The analogy that "gay" is to "straight" as "black" is to "white" is completely flawed, because there is no evidence or historical precedent to indicate that a person is, so to speak, ever "born homosexual." Sure, there have always been people (and animals) who desired to copulate with members of the same sex, but prior to the 19th and 20th centuries, no one ever suggested that the desire to copulate anally might be written into a person's genetic code as an integral part of his being.
4. I do not believe a constitutional ban on same-sex "marriages" is the best way to stop them from happening--if for no other reason than the fact that it simply won't pass. The only viable, long-term strategy should be to end judicial activism.
5. Since I am engaging in a controversy regarding gender/sex, I feel compelled to mention that on no account will I apologize for my usage of the masculine for generic singular pronouns. That has been the accepted usage in many languages--English included--for centuries, until feminists came along and spewed forth ridiculous theories that not only degrade women (and men) but fly in the face of most genetic and historical evidence.
homosexual adoption is most of the times legalizing sex slavery of children.
"Religion aside, I think it takes a tortured reading of the federal constitution to permit a same sex marriage ban."
By your line of argument, why stop mature men/women from having sex with pre-pubescent boys/girls?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.