pageok
pageok
pageok
McCain backs off on opposition to "gay adoption":

In an interview with the New York Times published on Sunday John McCain stated that "I don't believe in gay adoption." That morning I blogged here about this statement, calling for a clarification from the McCain campaign about whether he really opposes all adoptions by gay individuals and couples. It seemed to me unlikely that that was really his view and that, in the context of the culture war, he was really expressing a preference for opposite-sex adoptions.

Today the McCain campaign issued a statement on gay adoptions, sent to Andrew Sullivan's blog:

McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation.

McCain's expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative. - Jill Hazelbaker, Director of Communications

We could quibble over whether this statement is really a clarification or a retreat. In any event, it's welcome. First, McCain properly affirms that this is a state, not federal, matter. Second, whereas before McCain suggested that it's always best for children to be raised by mothers and fathers, he now acknowledges this often won't be possible since "there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes." Third, the seeming insistence on opposite-sex adoptions is replaced by what the campaign calls "loving and caring home environments" and "caring parental figures." It's the kind of language about families I would expect to see in a law review article written by a gay activist.

It's not perfect. It doesn't explicitly state that McCain "favors gay adoptions" in some circumstances. It tries to mollify religious conservatives by indicating McCain's "personal preference" for a mother and father in adoptions. (That effort failed: the anti-gay Family Research Council is now concerned that McCain is "muddying the waters" of his earlier opposition to gay adoptions.)

While the new statement could have been clearer in repudiating McCain's earlier answer on the issue, it does accomplish a couple of important things. It makes it clear that McCain is not opposed to adoption by gay individuals. That was in any event a politically untenable stand since only Florida prohibits adoptions by all homosexual individuals. And McCain's new statement suggests that adoption by homosexual couples is preferable to leaving children in foster care. If so, that's a more ambitious stand in favor of gay parenting, since such "second parent" adoptions are now permitted in only some jurisdictions in about half the states. On the whole, unlike the seemingly hard line he took against gay adoption on Sunday, today's statement is more nuanced and is defensible given the current state of the social science on gay parenting.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. McCain backs off on opposition to "gay adoption":
  2. Thoughtless:
joe1 (mail) (www):
That's some pretty impressive rationalizing, but that's not remotely close to what he said (nor close to the spirit of what he said).

Some people see monsters in the shadows as children. You're seeing angels in the shadows. McCain -- like the institutional GOP he represents -- is virulently critical of LGBT civil rights. But even if McCain actually means what you think he means, then the Malkin wing will go nuts.

More to the point, even assuming McCain is ok with gay adoption (I don't think he is after that quote, but anyhoo), it doesn't matter what he thinks personally. His court nominees and his administrative agencies will be institutionally opposed to civil rights in this arena -- largely b/c of the state of the institutional GOP.

Join the evil empire - vote obama. we're nicer.
7.15.2008 11:43pm
byomtov (mail):
We could quibble over whether this statement is really a clarification or a retreat.

No. We couldn't. It's a retreat.
7.15.2008 11:46pm
UM3L (mail):
Everyone who reads this blog knows that the Family Research Council supports traditional family arrangements, i.e., families derived from the natural order of things. Your labeling them "anti-gay" serves no purpose other than to namecall.

DC: Not everybody knows what the FRC stands for, and lots of groups that support "family" differ significantly from the FRC. I think "anti-gay" is a useful and accurate shorthand descriptor in this context, but interested readers can go to the FRC website and judge for themselves. It does carry some normative implication, just as calling something the "natural order of things" is normative. But it's a normative implication that seems to me deserved.
7.15.2008 11:53pm
Gary Anderson (mail):
It's a clarification, Dale.

And another good reason why those issues that are not the province of the commander in chief are just sideshow distractions in a race that surely has many many other relevant issues that are more important to ask about.

But really, if there are folks out there basing their votes on what McCains personal views are on unadopted children, surely this greater explanation will help them to decide on this pressing issue of national importance.
7.15.2008 11:55pm
Nathan_M (mail):

Everyone who reads this blog knows that the Family Research Council supports traditional family arrangements

I didn't. I would have guessed from the name, but I can't say I actually remember that group.
7.16.2008 12:08am
Constantin:
Neither one of the guys running for president has any idea what he's talking about, pretty much ever. That's fantastic.
7.16.2008 12:11am
BossDog:
UM3L: Are you implicitly saying being called anti-gay is a kind of slur? I guess you are saying that it's like calling someone a racist. After all, that's a putdown because we view racism as bad and people having those traits as worthy of opprobrium.

If I understand you correctly, then I would agree with you: being called anti-gay is a slur, because being anti-gay is a distasteful trait. Dress the position up all you like with "traditional" this and "natural" that, but in the end it still boils down to one and only one thing: hate and an intolerance to let others live freely.
7.16.2008 12:14am
AKD (mail):
I'm not sure it can be simple "intolerance to let others live freely" when it involves an orphaned child incapable of making free choices.
7.16.2008 12:31am
Arvin (mail) (www):
Everyone who reads this blog knows that the Family Research Council supports traditional family arrangements, i.e., families derived from the natural order of things.

Huh. I didn't realize that FRC was against all adoptions, it being unnatural to give a kid to perfect strangers to whom (s)he has no blood relation.
7.16.2008 12:59am
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
I so wish that presidential candidates felt free to say "I'm not running to be a %&#^#^ing monarch. Whether I support or oppose X, I recognize that it's not the business of a president."

I suppose that'd require a candidate for office to admit that, if elected, his power to give voters what they desired was not infinite.
7.16.2008 1:24am
Something Wicked:
Prof Carpenter,

I'm not an attorney so please don't think I'm trolling.

What is the difference between gay adoption and gay marriage from a legal perspective. They both create a legal relationship between individuals. If an argument for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is to prevent some states from being forced to recognize gay marriages performed in other states; would that argument apply equally to adoptions?
7.16.2008 1:27am
Pon Raul (mail):
I say that the state does not need to be involved in adoptions. Why can parents decide who their kids go to? So what if parents are bad. Hell, at least the parents didn't kill the little one prior to exiting the mother. If gay people really want a kid, let them buy one, make one, or get someone to give them one. There is no reason that we need the state to use its power to take kids from one private citizen and give the kid to another private citizen. I say that this violates the takings clause.
7.16.2008 2:03am
Angus:
Your labeling them "anti-gay" serves no purpose other than to namecall.Well, it serves the purpose of honesty as well. Just like the Club for Growth is anit-tax, the FRC is very openly anti-gay.
7.16.2008 7:00am
Just Dropping By (mail):
I'm not sure why so many people think saying "states' rights" is a get-out-of-jail-free card to be able to avoid answering the question. Interstate and international adoptions are not uncommon and it would presumably be well-within the Commerce Clause power for the federal government to regulate those. It's also an increasingly common assertion by anti-gay rights groups that statutes or regulations requiring equal treatment for gay people violates First Amendment rights by conflicting with the free exercise of religion. I can think of a half-dozen or more different theories to support federal lawsuits based on that line of argument.
7.16.2008 7:21am
AnneS:
I don't understand why Professor Carpenter is so adamant at drawing a distinction between opposition to adoption by gay couples and gay individuals. First, a position favoring adoption by traditional couples or "a mother and a father" pretty clearly excludes gay individuals, heterosexual individuals, gay couples, and probably all unmarried couples from "preferred" status. Second, opposition to adoption by gay individuals is absolutely not politically untenable. Most people don't care about the issue and the vast majority of those that do are either definitely going to oppose McCain or are part of the cultural right to which he is pandering.

What's actually going on here is crystal clear to anyone who's observed the culture wars and modern party politics for any length of time. This whole series of posts bears a striking resemblance to the argument about how many angels can dance on the end of a pin. McCain is trying to pander to the right wing by proving his personal anti-gay bona fides while winking at the liberterian wing of the Republican party with his "states rights" milksop. It's really not that complicated.
7.16.2008 7:55am
Zubon (www):
wm13, where are you getting the idea that he only admits "behind closed doors" that they are not second-class citizens?
7.16.2008 9:05am
nutbump (mail):
Angus:
Your labeling them "anti-gay" serves no purpose other than to namecall.Well, it serves the purpose of honesty as well.

You have to remember that gays as a political party are very dishonest people. They know very well that homosexual couples are fundamentally different from heterosexual couples but they trying to convince people that is all couples are the same. I would call gay party as anti-religious, anti-commonsense anti-human.
7.16.2008 9:08am
Sarcastro (www):
Don't forget pro-cloning, nutbump!
7.16.2008 9:12am
Ken Arromdee:
I say that the state does not need to be involved in adoptions.

Ahh, argument by caricature.

Children are people, and so adoption inherently involves coercion against people who are not the ones making the transaction. Adoption, therefore, would be controlled by the state even under a strictly libertarian government.
7.16.2008 9:14am
MarkField (mail):
McCain's statement strikes me as pretty weaselly. He didn't actually say adoptions by gays are acceptable. In fact, he left open the possibility of opposing them. That stuff about "loving and caring home environments" is persiflage.
7.16.2008 10:58am
MES:
Professor Carpenter:

Could you please provide references to the literature to which you refer with the phrase "current state of the social science on gay parenting"? I am very much interested in reading up on the topic.

Thanks.

DC: Nothing in this area is undisputed, of course, but one place to start is an overview of the literature through 2001, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?", 66 Amer. Sociological Rev. 159, 165 (2001). I'm pretty sure it's available online. Another review, updating some more recent studies is William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch, "Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children," 15 The Future of Children 97, 100 (2005) (available at http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=290831).
7.16.2008 11:10am
PLR:
We could quibble over whether this statement is really a clarification or a retreat.

No. We couldn't. It's a retreat.

And a dumb retreat at that. How many voters outside of the geeks at this site care about the state/federal distinction on these hot button social issues?

It's the same way with his position on abortion. No single issue pro-life voter should vote for McCain, because his states' rights position means that "babies" will continue to be slaughtered in California. The single issue pro-choice voter shouldn't vote for him either, because he'd be fine with appointing judges that would prevent women in many areas of the country from having any access to abortions, or in some states even a morning after pill.
7.16.2008 11:37am
Alex C:
As long as the foster care system in this country is working I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like some kid has been turned down for a liver transplant because "administrators determined the boy's unstable living conditions make him a poor candidate for a transplant."

Until things get that desperate I don't see any reason to widen the pool of potential adoptive parents.
7.16.2008 11:39am
Roger Schlafly (www):
This post should have been titled: Carpenter backs off opposition to McCain.
7.16.2008 11:40am
Randy R. (mail):
"Until things get that desperate I don't see any reason to widen the pool of potential adoptive parents."

Considering the fact that there are far more children in foster care than there are adoptive parents willing to take them, any normal person would consider that 'urgent' if not desperate.

And when one considers the huge numbers of children worldwide that need adoption, the situation is way beyond desperate.

My sister adopted a 5 year old girl from Russia, and the 'home' was filled with children who will likely never be adopted. She had also traveled to Kazachstan and found ophanages filled with children right up to the age of 18 who will never be adopted.

To deny these kids a home in the US just because of some stupid animousity towards gays hurts the kids much more than it hurts gays.
7.16.2008 11:46am
rwalkowiak (mail):
If gay adoption is state issue, let's talk about relevant federal issues, such as employment discrimination.

I think McCain opposes ENDA and believes that federal law should permit employers to discharge and harass gay employees because they are gay.
7.16.2008 12:11pm
hattio1:
Randy R,
I think if you read closely there was just a hint of sarcasm in Alex C's post.
7.16.2008 12:16pm
Randy R. (mail):
Ken: "Children are people, and so adoption inherently involves coercion against people who are not the ones making the transaction. Adoption, therefore, would be controlled by the state even under a strictly libertarian government."

Why stop there? Since children are people (and it's all about the children, right?), and birthing them into a family involves coercion, perhaps all potential parents should be vetted before they can concieve? We could chemically castrate all men, for instance, until they prove that they can be worthy fathers. Once they do, of course, the state can turn the spigot back on.
7.16.2008 2:20pm
Benjamin Davis (mail):
Speaking of children - did anyone see the Omar Khadr (15-16 when he arrived) interrogation at GITMO video. Here it is.
7.16.2008 3:46pm
Tom from Chicago (mail):
IT IS NOT A CLARIFICATION OR A RETREAT. ONE MUST READ CAREFULLY THE WORDS THAT WERE WRITTEN CAREFULLY. HERE IS THE ANAYLISIS:

The McCain campaign's calling the new, but not better, statement a "clarification" ignores the fact that there was nothing unclear in what he said, and then repeated.

He flatly said he was against gay adoption and, indeed, nothing in the clarification says he would be all right with gay adoption, even of abandoned children who no one else wants. He does not say that gays could then adopt those children, he just says "caring parental figures" would be better than the "alternative," i.e., the streets, orphanages, or a never-ending series of foster homes. When one adopts, one does not become a "caring parental figure," one becomes, by law, a "parent." His clarification was very carefully written to change nothing about his very clear comments in the interview.

The "clarification" further drives home his belief that gays are second-class citizens, i.e., that gays should be allowed to be "caring parental figures" of "abandoned" children only after it is determined that no straight couple can be found to adopt the child. Such children are typically older, have special needs, are HIV positive, or are minorities (indeed, many of whom have been adopted by straight and gay singles and couples who step forward to take on these substantial parenting burdens). The bare essence of his "clarified" position is that gay people are not good enough to adopt from the same pool of children as straight people. That is the absolute best spin one could put on the "clarification", because in actuality no where does it state that gays could "adopt" or that gays could be the "caring parental figures." Based on the clarification, if McCain were asked by a reporter whether gays should be allowed to adopt children who no one else wanted, he could say, "no, and I've never said otherwise" because he hasn't.

His wiggle that adoption, like marriage, is a state issue and that he "was not endorsing any Federal legislation" is disingenuous given his support of DOMA ("Federal legislation"), and his subsequent opposition to a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but only so long as the Supreme Court does not rule DOMA unconstitutional, as it must certainly be, and, in his words, "then, and only then, would the PROBLEM justify Congress making the momentous decision" to amend the Constitution. (My emphasis)

He also says that he would appoint judges who will uphold DOMA which, he believes, takes care of the "PROBLEM" he must consider gays to be.
7.16.2008 4:34pm
The Ace (mail):
Well, it serves the purpose of honesty as well. Just like the Club for Growth is anit-tax, the FRC is very openly anti-gay

Funny.

Um, being opposed to accepting sodomy as a "normal &healthy lifestyle" (it is neither) is not "anti-gay"

It's funny to watch you people continue to cage the debate in terms that try and shout down the other side.
While of course being morally indignant.
7.16.2008 4:54pm
The Ace (mail):
To deny these kids a home in the US just because of some stupid animousity towards gays hurts the kids

It's interesting you and your ilk want to just subject children to something that has never before been tried in the course of human history so you can feel good inside.

And proclaim yourself as "caring" about children of course.
7.16.2008 5:01pm
The Ace (mail):
Good times!


a major American study arrived at these conclusions: "children of homosexuals will 1) be more frequently subjected to parental instability (of residence and sexual partners) and 2) have poorer peer and adult relationships. Also, as is held to be true of their parents, homosexuals' children will be more apt to 3) become homosexual, 4) be unstable (have emotional problems and difficulty forming lasting bonds) with reduced interest in natality, and 5) be sexually precocious and promiscuous"


But you're doing it for the children!
7.16.2008 5:04pm
Bob Van Burkleo (mail):
Um, being opposed to accepting sodomy as a "normal &healthy lifestyle" (it is neither) is not "anti-gay"

Of course it isn't since the vast majority of 'sodomy lifestyles' are lead by straights. Point of fact there is absolutely nothing that gays do that isn't done by many many many more straights.
7.16.2008 5:04pm
JosephSlater (mail):
Um, being opposed to accepting sodomy as a "normal &healthy lifestyle" (it is neither) is not "anti-gay"

So if I said that I found the way most heterosexuals have sex to be abnormal and unhealthy, it couldn't accurately be said of me that I was anti-heterosexual?

Look, Ace, you have the right to believe that gays are not normal and not healthy, but those beliefs are, literally, anti-gay. Your position really is, "I'm anti-gay and I'm right to be anti-gay."
7.16.2008 5:05pm
John Howard (eggandsperm.org) (mail) (www):
Genetic engineering is NOT a state issue, though, it is a federal issue. If one state allows labs to use genetically modified gametes to create children for same-sex couples, then the country allows labs to do that. I hope McCain recognizes that cloning and genetic engineering requires federal legislation, as it is the subject of international treaties (which states can't enter into).

And that makes marriage a federal issue, too. If one state allows people to marry who are federally prohibited from conceiving children together, then they are changing the international understanding of marriage which always allows the couple to conceive children together, using their own genes. They are saying that no couple has a right to have children together, since they are equating a same-sex couple's prohibited status to a man and a woman's rights. That violates international treaties and declarations also, as well as the Supreme Court's finding of a "basic human right" to procreate with one's own genes. Of course, currently same-sex conception is not prohibited, so all states ought to allow same-sex marriage.

But adoption, that indeed is a state issue.
7.16.2008 5:15pm
rwalkowiak (mail):
What arguments support the conclusion that homosexuality (or homosexual acts) are immoral other than: (1) a religious text declares that it is immoral; and (2) a homosexual couple is unable to procreate by themselves?
7.16.2008 5:18pm
Bob Van Burkleo (mail):
Hahahahaha! Very funny 'The Ace' quoting a Bill Muehlenberg trash piece that fabricates that bit of offal from the king of fabrication, the infamous Paul Cameron himself:

6 Paul Cameron, "Homosexual parents testing 'common sense' - A literature review emphasizing the Golombok and Tasker longitudinal study of lesbians' children," Psychological Reports, 85, 1999, p. 282.

You aren't doing your 'I'm not anti-gay' case much good quoting well known anti-gay sources...
7.16.2008 5:25pm
Randy R. (mail):
"What arguments support the conclusion that homosexuality (or homosexual acts) are immoral other than: (1) a religious text declares that it is immoral; and (2) a homosexual couple is unable to procreate by themselves?"

None. Actually, your point No. 2 doesn't support the notion that homosexualtiy is immoral, any more than infertile couples are immoral.

Ace: "It's interesting you and your ilk want to just subject children to something that has never before been tried in the course of human history so you can feel good inside. '

Sorry, but me and my ilk have indeed been adopting and raising children for at least several decades now, and the children are fine. That's why all major adoption agencies (who would know more about these things than you do) are in favor of allowing gays to adopt.

But thanks for proving many of our previous arguements: That opposition to gay adoption (like gay marriage) is really rooted in animous towards gays, and that you would prefer to have children languish in orphanages or foster care rather than being in a stable, loving home because of your ignorant hatred towards gays.
7.16.2008 6:18pm
The Ace (mail):
vote obama. we're nicer.

I do rather enjoy watching you bitter clingers hang on to the memes:


If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said at a fundraiser in Philadelphia Friday, according to pool reports.
7.16.2008 7:43pm
The Ace (mail):

Sorry, but me and my ilk have indeed been adopting and raising children for at least several decades now, and the children are fine

They're fine, because, well, you say so?

Hilarious.

That opposition to gay adoption (like gay marriage) is really rooted in animous towards gays,

My opposition to gay adoption is because of the fact it is not healthy for children.

Especially given the fact that gays have higher instances of depression, suicide, and drug and alcohol addiction.

Again, it's funny to watch you people continue to cage the debate in terms that try and shout down the other side.

Shout "anti-gay" and "bigot" again, clown.
The facts will still be there.
7.16.2008 7:46pm
The Ace (mail):
So if I said that I found the way most heterosexuals have sex to be abnormal and unhealthy, it couldn't accurately be said of me that I was anti-heterosexual?

You mean other than the fact you'd be lying?

Homosexuality is abnormal. That is not controversial, in dispute or even remotely "anti-gay"
It is a fact. One you can't deal with.

Male homosexual sex is very unhealthy.
Another fact not in dispute.

So of course, you have no point.

Look, Ace, you have the right to believe that gays are not normal and not healthy, but those beliefs are, literally, anti-gay.

No, gays are not normal nor are they generally speaking healthy.

Those are facts. You can again try to shout those facts down, but that doesn't make them "anti-gay."
7.16.2008 7:49pm
The Ace (mail):
You aren't doing your 'I'm not anti-gay' case much good quoting well known anti-gay sources.


You aren't disputing any facts by trying to shout "anti-gay"

I'm not here trying to make any "case" whether or not I'm anti or pro-gay.

The facts speak for themselves and you can't address them.
Which is of course why you are making the silly comments you are.
7.16.2008 7:51pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
"My opposition to gay adoption is because of the fact it is not healthy for children."

I doubt that. It's more likely that you have religious objections to homosexuality and are trying to come forth with secular reasons to mask your real concerns.

"Especially given the fact that gays have higher instances of depression, suicide, and drug and alcohol addiction."

You say that in one voice and then when it comes time to discuss antidiscrimination protection for homosexuals, you are likely to quote statistics that show just how well educated and high income homosexuals are. Hmmm. How is it that a social minority can be so dysfunctional and functional at once?
7.16.2008 7:51pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
"The facts speak for themselves and you can't address them."

Except when they are made up by frauds like Paul Cameron. I wonder how you would deal with the "fact" that a Kinsey study found 10% of the population to be homosexual. I guess that "stands by itself."
7.16.2008 7:53pm
The Ace (mail):
That's why all major adoption agencies (who would know more about these things than you do

Really?

Sociology professor Paul Amato of Pennsylvania State University, whose work is also in the journal, says researchers now know that while chronic and overt conflict can be harmful, two-parent families usually benefit kids.

"When we were saying it doesn't matter in the '60s and '70s and '80s, we didn't have the experience of enough kids in a culture when families were breaking down. It was just our best guess," says Diane Sollee, a former marriage and family therapist who organizes an annual conference for marriage therapy professionals.


Love the argument by assertion though!
Those geniuses at adoption agencies and all! I bet you think the people typing in your 1040 at the IRS are tax wizards too.

Point of fact there is absolutely nothing that gays do that isn't done by many many many more straights.

Hilarious.
I bet you have evidence on this too?!!
7.16.2008 7:56pm
The Ace (mail):
OOPS

Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD's, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.

The Spanish Association of Pediatrics firmly backs up the findings of the report, stating that a "family nucleus with two fathers or two mothers is clearly dangerous for the child".
7.16.2008 7:58pm
The Ace (mail):
Except when they are made up by frauds like Paul Cameron

You do realize your silly assertions are not fact, right?

, you are likely to quote statistics that show just how well educated and high income homosexuals are.

I am "likely" to do no such thing.
7.16.2008 7:59pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Honestly, does ANYONE believe that the antigay right really has antigay convictions because homosexuality is supposedly "unhealthy"?

Eating too many Big Macs is "unhealthy" yet the religious right doesn't discuss McDonalds like they do homosexuality. That is until McDonalds endorses pro-gay policies.

Likewise NASCAR is one of the most popular sports among religious conservatives, especially from the south. I couldn't think of a better example of an unhealthy risk that has taken the lives of so men years before their time than NASCAR (think Dale Earnhardt and all of the lesser figures) than NASCAR. Yet no concern from the religious right about the "unhealthy risks" inherent in racing cars 200 mph for no other reason than self indulgent thrill.

Sorry I don't buy that anyone is concerned about fighting gay rights on the "homosexuality is unhealthy" argument. Ditto for the "normal/abnormal," more on that later.
7.16.2008 8:00pm
The Ace (mail):
I doubt that. It's more likely that you have religious objections to homosexuality and are trying to come forth with secular reasons to mask your real concerns.


To see exactly how risky being gay is to your health, see: here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and yes, you are going to read these next 3 links correctly, gay males intentionally try and catch HIV: here, and here, and here. Finally, read this.
Gays have higher incidences of STD’s, HIV, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide than heterosexuals. Period.
7.16.2008 8:03pm
The Ace (mail):
Sorry I don't buy that anyone is concerned about fighting gay rights on the "homosexuality is unhealthy" argument.

I am not interested in "fighting gay rights"
7.16.2008 8:05pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
"You do realize your silly assertions are not fact, right?"

Um no. Paul Cameron is a fraud.
7.16.2008 8:05pm
The Ace (mail):
What arguments support the conclusion that homosexuality (or homosexual acts) are immoral other than: (1) a religious text declares that it is immoral;

What argument supports the conclusion that stealing is immoral other than a religious and legal text? (Note: the legal texts flowed from the religious ones.)
7.16.2008 8:10pm
The Ace (mail):
Um no. Paul Cameron is a fraud.

Ok, great.

He's not the only one who has said this.
7.16.2008 8:11pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Ace,

Somehow I -- and I think I'll go so far as to speak for "we" -- don't see your concern for the "health" and "well-being" of homosexuals as genuine.

I know I know, you are really just concerned about "the children."

The drug addicted promiscuous, depressed alcoholic homosexuals tend NOT to be the gays who are adopting children, in any event.
7.16.2008 8:11pm
The Ace (mail):
Eating too many Big Macs is "unhealthy" yet the religious right doesn't discuss McDonalds like they do homosexuality

Well, perhaps that's because big macs aren't trying to get courts to force gay marriage on a public who doesn't want it?

Nor is anyone trying to pretend that eating big macs is the exact same thing as eating healthy meals while shouting down or better yet, affirmatively trying to prevent a factual discussion on the matter.
7.16.2008 8:14pm
The Ace (mail):
and I think I'll go so far as to speak for "we" -- don't see your concern for the "health" and "well-being" of homosexuals as genuine.

I don't have any concern for your or other gays well being.

Your choices are your own.

So are the consequences.

I remember when you and your ilk mocked us as "breeders" but now you want to, well, adopt the breed.

Too funny.
7.16.2008 8:15pm
Bob Van Burkleo (mail):
You aren't disputing any facts by trying to shout "anti-gay"

You didn't provide any facts - a 3rd party smear of a disreputable source? I could just as easily assert that all people who cite Paul Cameron are closet pedophiles as a 'fact'.

Then you cite an Spanish hate group's 'report' cited from another hate group's web page and even it includes the toxic and invalidating Paul Cameron as a cite! Hilarious!

As to your 'here here' cites, as you notice they all talk about the qualities of a minority of the group investigated, sometimes an infinitesimally small one. What kind of person judges a larger group by the qualities of a small minority of its members? That goes against Christian principles so can I assume you aren't Christian?

Oddly enough not a single one speaks to any quality that identifies with gay couples yet they are the ones who are adopting.

You really should stop while you have some shred of dignity left.
7.16.2008 9:16pm
The Ace (mail):
Then you cite an Spanish hate group's

The Spanish Association of Pediatrics is a hate group?
Proof they are a hate group? None, of course.

Again, affirmatively trying to prevent a factual discussion on the matter. It must be fun to call anyone who disagrees with your ignorant and myopic world view a "hate group."

and even it includes the toxic and invalidating Paul Cameron as a cite

Again, affirmatively trying to prevent a factual discussion on the matter. You can't speak to the facts so you smear.

As an Obama voter, I find your behavior fascinating. You guilt by associate (Obama has extensive ties to a terrorist (Ayers) and Tony Resko which you ignore. But Paul Cameron anything gives you the vapors.)

By the way, are you actually disputing that a 2 parent, that is one father, one mother, is the best situation for raising a child?

As to your 'here here' cites, as you notice they all talk about the qualities of a minority of the group investigated

You have proof of this?

What kind of person judges a larger group by the qualities of a small minority of its members?

Um, I'm not doing that. Would you like me to tally up the numbers and start posting the percentage of gay males with STD's and/or HIV, and depression?

Oddly enough not a single one speaks to any quality that identifies with gay couples

Um, gay couples are gay. I posted a bunch of facts about gays.

The willful ignorance you're engaging in is astounding.
7.16.2008 10:05pm
The Ace (mail):
You didn't provide any facts

Comcial.

Gays have higher incidences of STD's, HIV, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide than heterosexuals. Period.
I posted cites for those facts.

a 3rd party smear of a disreputable source

The Spanish Association of Pediatrics is "disreputable" so says the indignant gay man!
7.16.2008 10:08pm
rwalkowiak (mail):
Ace,

You asked, "What argument supports the conclusion that stealing is immoral other than a religious and legal text?"

Stealing is immoral, according to my moral code, because it harms others. If I steal your bike, you're out a bike. If I engage in a homosexual act with a consenting partner, we have not harmed anyone.
7.16.2008 10:08pm
rwalkowiak (mail):
Ace,

Could the problems facing gays be caused by the fact that society and the law impose significant obstacles to forming long-term stable relationships? If society ridiculed blue-eyed people who are sexually attracted to other blue-eyed people and the law precluded them from marrying each other, I bet you'd see a higher rate of STD's, alcoholism, and depression among blue-eyed folk.
7.16.2008 10:17pm
The Ace (mail):
As to your 'here here' cites, as you notice they all talk about the qualities of a minority of the group investigated

Really?



In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM.
In the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting, an estimated 19,620 MSM (18,296 MSM and 1,324 MSM who inject drugs) received a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS, accounting for 71% of male adults and adolescents and 53% of all people receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis that year


When a fraction of the population is receiving a majority of all HIV diagnosis, we are not talking about a "minority" here.
7.16.2008 10:19pm
The Ace (mail):
Stealing is immoral, according to my moral code, because it harms others.

Um, ok?

So we should run society based on your moral code now?

Otherwise, who is arguing against consensual gay sex here?

You do realize state sanctioned marriage &adoption are not private acts with consequences for the people involved, right?
7.16.2008 10:21pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
I think it's obvious that gays might have higher rates of depression and substance abuse because people like "Ace" are parents having gay children.

If "Ace" had a gay son, I wouldn't be surprised if he became suicidally depressed and attempted suicide.
7.16.2008 10:25pm
The Ace (mail):
Could the problems facing gays be caused by the fact that society and the law impose significant obstacles to forming long-term stable relationships?

I remember when the gays and the bra burners vehemently opposed gay marriage in the 1970's.

What changed?

If society ridiculed blue-eyed people

Laugh out loud funny. Yes, because of course gays are portrayed horribly in movies and on television.

Good grief.
7.16.2008 10:26pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
In case "Ace" hasn't noticed, life is not made up by movie portrayals but rather real parents and peers, too many of whom have opinions like his.
7.16.2008 10:27pm
Bob Van Burkleo (mail):
Then you cite an Spanish hate group's

The Spanish Association of Pediatrics is a hate group?
Proof they are a hate group? None, of course.


Hmmm you cut and pasted an article from an internet hate group that cited a report from a hate group that mentioned this. You take other people citations as your own so often you can't keep track?

Again, affirmatively trying to prevent a factual discussion on the matter. You can't speak to the facts so you smear.

Again, you haven't presented any facts. You have presented people talking about other peoples cites of other people's cites. Please present a fact and we can discuss it - turfing the responsibility off to others means you haven't done anything at all.

You have proof of this?

Of course I do - your cites you silly billy! They all talk about how the qualities you are presenting are, even in the ones that are studies, qualities of a minority finding. Do you even read your links before you cut and paste?

By the way, are you actually disputing that a 2 parent, that is one father, one mother, is the best situation for raising a child?

Considering how many such parents beat and abuse their children of course I dispute it. You aren't actually suggesting they are someway inherently superior even given these qualities are you?

Um, I'm not doing that. Would you like me to tally up the numbers and start posting the percentage of gay males with STD's and/or HIV, and depression?

Go ahead but you do realize that it doesn't matter how many do if any don't. Looking at depression I can see, for example, that women in general have about a 10% incidence of depression at any one time and NARTH has a report that says lesbians have 11% - not incredibly intimidated by your potential revelations Your own study that was done with gay men at venues that would be biased against married gay couples showed an HIV rate of 25%, a minority and no doubt a worst case minority (remember 30% of heterosexuals have permanent STDS such as hepatitis, herpes and the like) I just am not terribly intimidated by your potential revelations as they will most certainly prove my point, not yours ;)

Um, gay couples are gay. I posted a bunch of facts about gays.

No you posted a bunch of cites that referenced a minority of gay people, never 'gays'. And absolutely nothing that indicated that gay couples are in anyway indicative or inherently associated with these qualities. What you did is like pointing at the Reverend Phelps and then starting to talk about how all Christians are terrible because of what he does. You do realize that stereotyping is a sin for Christians as well as the path to argumentative hell, right?
7.16.2008 10:31pm
The Ace (mail):
I think it's obvious that gays might have higher rates of depression and substance abuse because people like "Ace" are parents having gay children.

Nope, sorry:

According to research conducted by the National Black Justice Coalition and several other organizations, as many as two-thirds of black Americans are against gay marriage. Although the numbers vary by poll, research shows most blacks oppose both gay marriage and civil unions.
7.16.2008 10:34pm
The Ace (mail):
Considering how many such parents beat and abuse their children of course I dispute it. You aren't actually suggesting they are someway inherently superior even given these qualities are you?

Well, science and over 2,000 years of recorded human history disagree with you.

They all talk about how the qualities you are presenting are, even in the ones that are studies, qualities of a minority finding.

It's comical to watch you continue to insist this, even though it is plainly false.

Go ahead but you do realize that it doesn't matter how many do if any don't.

Yes, brokeback, exceptions are now the rule!!!

Or something.

Literally surreal.
7.16.2008 10:36pm
The Ace (mail):
And absolutely nothing that indicated that gay couples are in anyway indicative or inherently associated with these qualities.

You are the poster child for willful ignorance.

Again, you haven't presented any facts

You mean other than citing CDC figures on instances of gay HIV and STD's right?

Oh, those aren't "gay couples" because you insist is so.

you cut and pasted an article from an internet hate group

Again, affirmatively trying to prevent a factual discussion on the matter. You can't speak to the facts so you smear.

Proof they are a hate group?

None, of course.
7.16.2008 10:39pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):

According to research conducted by the National Black Justice Coalition and several other organizations, as many as two-thirds of black Americans are against gay marriage. Although the numbers vary by poll, research shows most blacks oppose both gay marriage and civil unions.


I don't see how this at all refutes the point which is that lots of people in the population have opinions like yours and that a significant % of them have children that turn out to be gay and that, further, gays have to grow up with peers that have opinions like yours which is the likely cause of higher rates of depression or suicide attempts. See my next post for something quite telling.
7.16.2008 10:39pm
The Ace (mail):
No you posted a bunch of cites that referenced a minority of gay people

No I didn't.

Again,

In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM.

In the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting, an estimated 19,620 MSM (18,296 MSM and 1,324 MSM who inject drugs) received a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS, accounting for 71% of male adults and adolescents and 53% of all people receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis that year



When a fraction of the population is receiving a majority of all HIV diagnosis, we are not talking about a "minority" here.
7.16.2008 10:40pm
The Ace (mail):
No you posted a bunch of cites that referenced a minority of gay people, never 'gays'

Hilarious.

I post CDC data and mental health research about gays, but it's not about gays, mind you!
7.16.2008 10:42pm
The Ace (mail):
Please present a fact and we can discuss it

The Spanish Association of Pediatrics has endorsed the idea that having 2 same sex parents is dangerous for children.

You running around saying that fact came from an "Internet hate site" isn't a response nor a discussion.

You arevaffirmatively trying to prevent a factual discussion on the matter. You can't speak to the facts so you smear.
7.16.2008 10:44pm
The Ace (mail):
Thank you for the continued proof that the modern left is not at all interested in facts.

You're making emotion based assertions which are plainly false.

By the way, I loved this:

Considering how many such parents beat and abuse their children of course I dispute it.

From the author of:
Go ahead but you do realize that it doesn't matter how many do if any don't

You obviously have no sense of irony.
7.16.2008 10:46pm
Bob Van Burkleo (mail):
Well, science and over 2,000 years of recorded human history disagree with you.

Actually it doesn't. People have been raised by same gender couples throughout history without a problem. No real evidence once again I see. ;)

If you bothered to research you would see that child rearing experts say the most important factor is a stable home environment not the gender combination of the parents.

You mean other than citing CDC figures on instances of gay HIV and STD's right?

You mean the ones that show that only a minority of these groups have any of them and that there is no way of telling what % of these groups are gay couples? Yeah I got that - you do realize you are citing information that goes against your contentions right? But keep proving me right, I don't care - its funny.

Proof they are a hate group?

Well lets see - that they cite known liars that have been censured in open court for their lies about homosexuality is a good indication. Again, you have presented nothing that shows that gay couples aren't good parents. Citing other people's collections of cites doesn't mean you have presented anything. You are still batting 0% here.
7.16.2008 10:47pm
rwalkowiak (mail):
Ace,

Would you preclude two gay men who are both HIV-free, STD-free, non-alcoholics, and non-depressives from adopting a troubled 12-year old who would otherwise remain in foster care?
7.16.2008 10:48pm
The Ace (mail):
Considering how many such parents beat and abuse their children of course I dispute it.

What you are talking about is a minority. And, it doesn't matter how many do if any don't.

what you did is like pointing at the Reverend Phelps and then starting to talk about how all Christians are terrible because of what he does.

Um, except this isn't an analogy. Especially when a majority of gay men have either and std or HIV, and gay males were 53% of all people receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis that year.

Phelps is a singular example. Not the majority.
7.16.2008 10:49pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Here is a useful and telling anecdote which I blogged about a little while ago that Andrew Sullivan recognized.

Long story short: We have a young twenty something Christian male with orthodox views on homosexuality. The male turns out to, through no fault or choice of his own, have a homosexual orientation. The male does exactly what folks like "Ace" (who btw I think is Clayton Cramer's twin brother) would suggest: 1) Don't identify as gay, and 2) don't act on your feelings.

This is important because when folks object to the "sexual orientation" v. "race" analogy it's always because, supposedly, one is about an unchosen trait, the other involves chosen conduct. Well, in our example, we have someone who 1) didn't choose his sexual orientation, and 2) from the facts we are given chose neither to identify as gay or partake in any homosexual behavior. In other words, to the extent that he made any choice at all regarding his sexual orientation, it was to do the "right" thing, as Ace et al. would have it.

The result: crying daily for two years. And it's not some gay publication which is sources the anecdote but a young antigay theocon Princeton graduate who writes for one of the most prestigious theocon magazines (one I actually enjoy reading quite a bit and endorse for its high intellectual content) who writes about this story in the context of trying to score points AGAINST homosexuality.

Is it no wonder that opinions such as "Ace's" could result in such psychological suffering? That Occam's razor suggests this is the most logical explanation for higher rates of depression or suicide attempts among gays?
7.16.2008 10:51pm
The Ace (mail):
People have been raised by same gender couples throughout history without a problem.

It it doesn't matter how many have been if any were not.

If you bothered to research you would see that child rearing experts say the most important factor is a stable home environment not the gender combination of the parents.

Hilarious:


A joint project of the Wilson School and the Brookings Institute recently concluded that "children benefit from growing up with two married biological parents." The report appeared in the most recent issue of the journal "The Future of Children."

The report cites occasions when the government discourages marriage through marriage penalties which, they argue, "are a result of policymakers' efforts to achieve the goal of progressivity — giving greater tax and welfare benefits to those with lower income — while trying to keep down program costs."


Citing other people's collections of cites doesn't mean you have presented anything.

Laugh out loud funny.
From the author of:
People have been raised by same gender couples throughout history without a problem.

Which is false.

And the continued "Internet hate site" claim with no evidence of course.
7.16.2008 10:53pm
The Ace (mail):
You mean the ones that show that only a minority of these groups have any of them

A majority of gay men have either and std or HIV
7.16.2008 10:54pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
"Especially when a majority of gay men have either and std or HIV,..."

Having "crabs" or "HIV" is a big jump for grouping two things together. Like grouping a cavity together with cancer.
7.16.2008 10:54pm
The Ace (mail):
s it no wonder that opinions such as "Ace's" could result in such psychological suffering? That Occam's razor suggests this is the most logical explanation for higher rates of depression or suicide attempts among gays?

Fascinating that it never enters your mind that the kid was crying because he was gay.

Otherwise, why are all the outed gays taking drugs and drinking so much?
7.16.2008 10:56pm
The Ace (mail):
and that there is no way of telling what % of these groups are gay couples?

Whether or not they are gay couples is irrelevant.

The behavior is consistent within the group.

Again, you have presented nothing that shows that gay couples aren't good parents.

Astounding. Coming from the author of:

People have been raised by same gender couples throughout history without a problem
7.16.2008 10:58pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Yes he was crying because he was, through no fault and no choice of his own, gay. Remember we are talking about someone who has PURPOSEFULLY chosen to not identify as gay or have sex, but simply has an unchosen homosexual orientation which he doesn't want.

And no "all of the outed gays" are not drinking and taking drugs so much.

But, if, for instance this young conservative Catholic decides to accept his homosexuality, do you think all of that psychological baggage due to antihomosexual of his church, friends, and family would disappear overnight?

I think you get the point; no need to play coy.
7.16.2008 11:00pm
The Ace (mail):
If you bothered to research you would see that child rearing experts say the most important factor is a stable home environment not the gender combination of the parents.

False.

You have presented nothing that shows that gay couples are good parents.
7.16.2008 11:00pm
The Ace (mail):
That Occam's razor suggests this is the most logical explanation for higher rates of depression or suicide attempts among gays?

Um, so we blame the "intolerant" or whatever. Does that make them any less likely to have an STD or HIV?

No.

Otherwise, if a fat girl were crying about her weight and had an unhealthy lifestyle, you'd sympathize with her and not all those big meanies pointing out her problem?
7.16.2008 11:03pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
I like the way this plays:

"A majority of gay men have either and std or HIV."

A majority of the living population has had either a cavity or cancer.
7.16.2008 11:03pm
The Ace (mail):
Yes he was crying because he was, through no fault and no choice of his own, gay.

Believe me, I'd cry too!
7.16.2008 11:03pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
I bet you would. Maude/Bea Arthur had a saying, "God will get you for that, Walter." God will get you for that Ace. See Alan Keyes, Phylis Schlafly, Charles Socarides et al. And then cry me a river.
7.16.2008 11:06pm
Bob Van Burkleo (mail):
the Ace, it is amazing you would make such a simple logical error. That a group has the majority of cases of a specific thing still says nothing about the members of that group without that quality. All US cases of sickle cell anemia are in blacks, but only a small percentage of blacks have sickle cell anemia.

100% of HIV cases could be in gay men it still tells you nothing about gay men that don't have HIV does it?

You obviously have no sense of irony.

Ha! More you - you are the one broadbrushing the qualities of some members of a group to the entire group. Whether the quality be one you consider good or bad, you think that it has to apply to everyone in the group of your choosing. The irony is you keep making the same mistake over and over and over again and never seem to learn from your mistake.

The Spanish Association of Pediatrics has endorsed the idea that having 2 same sex parents is dangerous for children.

Actually they did something quite different but since you only have the LifeSiteNews.com article about another article to back yourself up you're pretty much hanging in the wind. Hint: Their allusion to what they say the Spanish Association of Pediatrics said isn't a 'fact', its hearsay. When you actually have what the Association really did in hand try again. Oh and don't bother looking on the internet - they are all cut and pasting the same LifeSiteNews.com article you are verbatim without a single one actually checking to see how valid it is. Hate really does make people stupid.
7.16.2008 11:09pm
rwalkowiak (mail):
C'mon, Ace. I've got to retire soon.
Would you preclude two gay men who are both HIV-free, STD-free, non-alcoholics, and non-depressives from adopting a troubled 12-year old who would otherwise remain in foster care?
7.16.2008 11:10pm
The Ace (mail):
More from an internet hate site!


Here is some of the research:

* Children from married two-parent households are healthier, on average, than children in other family forms.
* Children from intact married homes have lower rates of substance abuse.
* Boys and young men from intact married homes are less likely to commit crimes.
* Children raised outside of intact marriages are more likely to be victims of both sexual and physical abuse.
* Children raised outside of intact married homes are more likely to divorce or become unwed parents themselves.
* William J. Doherty, et al, 2002, Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New York: Institute for American Values): 6 (co-authors include William J. Doherty, William A. Galston, Norval D. Glenn, John Gottman, Barbara Markey, Howard J. Markman, Steven Nock, David Popenoe, Gloria G. Rodriguez, Isabel V. Sawhill, Scott M. Stanley, Linda J. Waite &Judith Wallerstein).


Paul Cameron not mentioned!
7.16.2008 11:12pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
"Does that make them any less likely to have an STD or HIV?"

"No."

We can't make gays all get married and adopt kids, but yes, the quickest way to reduce the HIV &STD rates is mass gay marriages and child adoptions. The gays I know who are partnered and raising young kids, like their straight counterparts, rarely go to bars and have a much diminished, if not non-existent social life.
7.16.2008 11:12pm
The Ace (mail):
Actually they did something quite different

And your proof would be?
7.16.2008 11:13pm
The Ace (mail):
In case "Ace" hasn't noticed, life is not made up by movie portrayals but rather real parents and peers, too many of whom have opinions like his.

And when is the last time you or any other gay has been publicly ridiculed?
7.16.2008 11:13pm
The Ace (mail):
Would you preclude two gay men who are both HIV-free, STD-free, non-alcoholics, and non-depressives from adopting a troubled 12-year old who would otherwise remain in foster care?

Yes.
7.16.2008 11:14pm
The Ace (mail):
Whether the quality be one you consider good or bad, you think that it has to apply to everyone in the group of your choosing.

You continuing to claim that I'm saying this and it being true are two different things.

100% of HIV cases could be in gay men it still tells you nothing about gay men that don't have HIV does it?

You mean other than they're going to get it?
7.16.2008 11:16pm
The Ace (mail):
God will get you for that, Walter." God will get you for that Ace. See Alan Keyes, Phylis Schlafly, Charles Socarides et al. And then cry me a river.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
7.16.2008 11:16pm
rwalkowiak (mail):
Would you preclude two gay men who are both HIV-free, STD-free, non-alcoholics, and non-depressives from adopting a troubled 12-year old who would otherwise remain in foster care?

Yes.


Why?
7.16.2008 11:16pm
The Ace (mail):
Cheers all.
7.16.2008 11:18pm
The Ace (mail):
Why?

Because. It is likely the children will grow up sexually confused, abused, on drugs, or otherwise mentally unstable.
7.16.2008 11:19pm
Bob Van Burkleo (mail):
It it doesn't matter how many have been if any were not.

Of course it does if you want to exclude one type for future child rearing. That really just blows over your head doesn't it? You are the one trying to exclude others - it is not the opposite of my POV which is that they all can be good parents.

A joint project of the Wilson School and the Brookings Institute recently concluded that "children benefit from growing up with two married biological parents." The report appeared in the most recent issue of the journal "The Future of Children."

Hahaha we are talking about adoption! Non biological parents by definition! Your quote doesn't even relate to the topic being discussed! Why am I not surprised?

A majority of gay men have either and std or HIV

Hahaha! HIV is and STD and amazingly people can have more than one STD at a time! What were you doing - obliviously adding the people with HIV to the people with clap to the people with HPV when its more likely that many of the people in these groups have 2 or more of them? Or that reports of 'cases' ignores that people who catch STDs tend to catch them again. When I ran my Army STD clinic many guys were 'repeaters' and individually accounted for a good % of our cases annually.

You have presented nothing that shows that gay couples are good parents.

Don 't need to really - you are the one trying to exclude them, its up to you to show there is some inherent problem, a task you have failed at miserably so far.

But keep it up, the more you misspeak the more fun my day has.
7.16.2008 11:20pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Ace,

In case you need me to spell it out God disproportionately gives homophobes gay children. Perhaps She is trying to send you all a message.
7.16.2008 11:21pm