subgenius wrote:i will keep it simple, since that may be the only way you can handle it....just curious though, why you could not simply answer the rather direct questions i posted...hmmm...
I could have answered them, but I figured it would be more effective to ask analogous silly questions.
nevertheless, we see once again how you and your ilk have the hardest time staying on the actual topic....is there a shiny object in the room that keeps you distracted? I thought we were talking about LGBT, but you start talking about vaccines, autism, Texas A&M, WWII, etc...what is so difficult about staying on the subject?
I may be part of an ilk, but at least I understand analogies.
So, here we go, served up hot like i promised.
fact [fakt]
noun
1.something that actually exists; reality; truth
2.something known to exist or to have happened:
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened
So, you're going with #4, it seems. Of course, that definition has a specific usage: "in fact." In other words, it's an assertion presented as actual. I guess you want to play word games.
for example, i posted the question to you:
1. You consider my posting about the best environment for a child to be not factual?
which you attempted (feebly) to characterize my question as an inference of opinion, which obviously concludes your answer to be yes, you do not consider that posting to be factual. (which, of course, you had already claimed, but i just wanted to give you a chance)
It is an opinion, as you well know.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v11n1/custody.html
This article is about child custody and placement. Please explain how it's relevant.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/natl_incid/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf (pages 5-25)
Broken link.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (article 16)
So, people have the right to marry. Relevance?
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf
You must have missed this part:
Same-sex couple families
The 2000 Census revealed that out of 5.5 million cohabiting couples, about 11 percent were same-sex couples—with slightly more male couples than female. One-third of female same-sex households and 22 percent of male households, or about 163,000 same-sex households in total, lived with children under 18 years old. (This compares with about 25 million married-couple households with children under 18.)
Although the research on these families has limitations, the findings are consistent: children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents.
Since many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents. Children of gay or lesbian parents do not look different from their counterparts raised in heterosexual divorced families regarding school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, or difficulties finding employment.
However, as previously indicated, children of divorce are at higher risk for many of these problems than children of married parents.
In other words, marriage matters in a host of familial variables. That would seem to support same-sex marriage as improving the lives of children. And of course, there is thus far no data on children who are raised in same-sex relationships where divorce is not involved.
Here is your plate, let me know when you are ready for another serving:
*smack*
There's nothing quite as entertaining as unwarranted hubris.
