News

When adoption agencies can turn away gay prospective parents, what happens to the kids?

The newborn daughter of Jennifer Griffith, a Texas woman who gave up her first baby for adoption when she was a teen, is pictured in 2017. Griffith supported a Texas law passed last year that allows faith-based agencies to adhere to their "sincerely held religious beliefs." Photo courtesy of Jennifer Griffith

OKLAHOMA CITY (RNS) — Oklahoma lawmakers may soon sanction private adoption agencies turning away same-sex couples and other prospective parents who don’t meet their religious criteria, a possibility cheered by the Roman Catholic Church and many evangelical Christians and lambasted as discriminatory by gay rights groups.

It’s a conflict playing out across the nation, and both sides say that if the other wins, the number of children placed in loving homes will fall.

Seven states have passed laws — including Alabama, South Dakota and Texas last year — like the one proposed in Oklahoma. A bill with comparable language also has been introduced in Congress, according to The Associated Press. At least two other states — Georgia and Kansas — are debating similar legislation. At the same time, some local governments are withholding support from agencies that won’t serve gay prospective parents.

The LGBT community says the Oklahoma measure would result in fewer adoptions as prospective gay parents are turned away by agencies. Conservative Christians say failing to protect the right of adoption agencies to follow their faith would result in fewer adoptions, because those agencies would close before they act against their beliefs.

Those who study the issue say it’s hard to tell exactly how such rules governing adoption affect the numbers of children placed in “forever” homes. Still, the assertions from both sides on the matter have been definitive.

Passage of Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 1140 would “result in a disastrous reduction in adoption and foster placements and put 9,000 young people — currently in the system — in jeopardy,” said Troy Stevenson, executive director of Freedom Oklahoma, as the LGBT advocacy organization launched a statewide media campaign this month against the bill.

The numbers may not be there to back him up.

“I don’t know of any empirical evidence on the topic,” said Elizabeth Bartholet, faculty director of the Child Advocacy Program at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Mass.

“In general, any barriers to adoption are likely to decrease numbers of homes for kids in need,” Bartholet added in an email. “But, of course, it’s possible that religious agencies would shut down rather than put their religious principles aside.”

The Oklahoma Capitol in 2007. Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

In this Bible Belt state, Southern Baptist leaders and Roman Catholic bishops are lobbying lawmakers to pass SB1140.

The bill would permit faith-based foster care and adoption providers to refuse any child placement violating the agency’s “written religious or moral convictions or policies.” The measure passed the Senate, 35-9, earlier this month and awaits House consideration. Republican Gov. Mary Fallin generally withholds comment on bills until reading the final version and has not taken a position on whether she would sign SB1140 if it passes, press secretary Michael McNutt said.

“In states like Massachusetts, Illinois, California, and the District of Columbia, faith-based agencies have been forced to close their doors after new regulations were promulgated that would have mandated changes to their adoption criteria in violation of their religious principles,” Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul S. Coakley and Tulsa Bishop David Konderla wrote in a joint letter to legislative leaders.

This week, the city of Philadelphia announced it would cease foster care child intakes with Catholic Social Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia because it does not place children with same-sex couples, according to Catholic News Service. Bethany Christian Services also faces complaints from gay rights advocates in Philadelphia.

In a separate letter, Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma leaders Anthony Jordan and Hance Dilbeck Jr. — representing the state’s 650,000 Southern Baptists — said: “We have been alarmed and outraged to learn of threats to the religious liberty and moral convictions of faith-based agencies in other parts of the country. … In Oklahoma, now is the time to ensure equal opportunity and protection for individuals and groups involved in foster care and adoption. Indeed the survival and future of such organizations depends on it.”

Predictions aside about the effects of Oklahoma’s or similar bills, LGBT advocates say these measures should fail on another test: because they’re discriminatory.

“My family values are the same as other Oklahoma families’ values,” said Kris Williams, a lesbian adoptive mother who spoke at a Freedom Oklahoma news conference this month. “I want my child to feel loved and supported, to have access to education in a healthy community in order to succeed. … LGBTQ families raise children who are as healthy and happy as children from non-LGBTQ families.”

Supporters of the bill say it won’t stop gay people from adopting.

Birth mothers and adoptive parents seek out Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City “because of who we are, who they are and what they want for their child,” said Executive Director Patrick J. Raglow.

However, that doesn’t preclude others — including same-sex couples — from choosing different options, he continued.

“With very little effort, we identified not less than five agencies perfectly willing to serve, and currently serving, non-traditional families seeking adoption,” Raglow wrote to lawmakers. “SB1140 does not interfere in any way with their efforts.”

Emilie Kao. Photo by David Hills

Emilie Kao, director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., makes the same point as she defends the need to protect the religious freedom of faith-based agencies.

“LGBT people have rights to adopt in every state,” said Kao, author of a recent National Review article headlined “The Left’s Assault on Adoption.” “There are no states that ban that. There is no LGBT person in America who can’t find an adoption provider to work with them. Some (agencies) are actively seeking them out.”

Melissa Carter, executive director of the Barton Child Law and Policy Center at Emory Law School in Atlanta, opposes Georgia legislation similar to Oklahoma’s, calling it unneeded and “unnecessarily hostile from a values standpoint.”

But Carter said: “I don’t think it’s true that we’ve seen either a notable increase or a notable decrease (in adoptions) as a result of these bills.”

Her review of state-by-state adoption figures shows no “statistically significant” fluctuations, she said. Moreover, she added, the variables driving any year-to-year change “cannot be isolated to conclude causation.”

“As a matter of practice and statistical analysis, there are just far too many variables,” said Carter, who served as Georgia’s child welfare ombudsman under former Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican. “This system and its work with vulnerable children and complicated families is just far too complex to suggest that one thing drives a number up or down.”

Stevenson, at a news conference called to oppose the Oklahoma bill,  supplied reporters with a statistical analysis that he said showed adoption declines in Michigan (where the American Civil Liberties Union is suing over the state’s child placement policy), North Dakota and Virginia after “discriminatory laws” were passed.

However, the Freedom Oklahoma director did not point out similar decreases in states such as Massachusetts and California, which have not enacted such laws.

Chuck Johnson

The National Council for Adoption, based in Washington, D.C., is nonpartisan and does not take a stance on the bills under consideration in Oklahoma and elsewhere, said Chuck Johnson, the council’s president and CEO.

But Johnson said a common misconception is that the bills propose to change something when, in fact, the faith-based agencies involved always have used religious criteria in deciding whether to serve prospective parents.

“It’s not just the LGBT community — a lot of these agencies only work within their denomination, or they require people to be Christian,” he said. “There are agencies that are Jewish agencies. Years ago, there was at least one Muslim agency.”

The argument on the other side, Johnson noted, is that with roughly 118,000 children waiting to be adopted nationwide, “eliminating a subset of prospective foster or adoptive families doesn’t make sense.” The nation’s opioid epidemic has pushed thousands more children into the child welfare system, he added.

About the author

Bobby Ross Jr.

267 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Everyone knows that the kids don’t matter. Adult political concerns matter.

    At least, that is what the antigay fundelibangelists used to say about my marriage.

    Projection: it’s not just for movies.

  • “With very little effort, we identified not less than five agencies perfectly willing to serve, and currently serving, non-traditional families seeking adoption,” Raglow wrote to lawmakers. “SB1140 does not interfere in any way with their efforts.”

    Of course it doesn’t. But what does it matter if you can use your religion as a weapon against people you despise and whom you have defined as less than? Especially if some of those people pay the taxes that support your agency?

    Maybe, someday, fundelibangelists will extend to gay people the same courtesy they routinely extend to all of the other people that believe are going to burn in hell forever. But instead of rejecting just the tiny bit of conservative Christian theology that deals with gay people, they can reject the entirety of conservative Christian belief instead?

  • pretty disgusting-using a made up god to hurt innocent children and good couples. ALL studies-ALL OF THEM-show gays are just as good if not better than straight people at parenting.

  • Got an article which doesn’t come from Christian based hate groups? Of course not.

    Slandering is perfectly OK if you are slandering THOSE people.

  • Christians never want to honor their obligations to society but they always want our money for their discriminatory sectarian concerns.

    “we identified not less than five agencies perfectly willing to serve, and currently serving, non-traditional families seeking adoption”

    “Separate but equal” nonsense. The bigots don’t even bother to come up with original arguments. They are using segregationist tropes.

    Taxpayers never need to subsidize discrimination.

  • Oklahoma has taken the crazy train. Not all religious based service agencies discriminate. Just those those whose funders are crazy bigots slurping at the public trough.

  • Practicing your religion does not translate in to “us(ing) your religion as a weapon against people you despise”.

    Your side of these debates is extremely happy to place its foot on the face of people with which it disagrees, so these poses of being aggrieved only work when you’re talking to people who agree with – e.g., JoeMyGod.

  • The lgbt crowd has used the courts as their weapon of choice to force their agenda down the throats of people who don’t want it.

  • Ooooooh, be frightened. we’re a “crowd”.

    as opposed to using the laws to force antigay bigotry upon all of the people don’t want it.

  • You poor, poor, poor self righteous, loved by god, “in the majority” victims of Big Bad Gay. And our friends, our families, our neighbors, our churchesa d synagogues, and the general public.

  • Maybe more like a gang would be a better description given all the stories about homosexual thugs forcing kids to hear the homosexual propaganda in schools not to mention suing bakers for thousands. So yes, gang-thugs would have been a better term. My mistake.

  • For 1900 years, bullying gay people has been the sport of people like you. Murders, jails, suicides, destroyed families, destroyed careers has been the result.

    So, when the victim fights back, you poor bullies whine about how YOU are the victims. Classic bully behavior.

    But charming.

  • Everyone has a moral standard and values; what is being debated here is who gets to force their values and morals on another. When you think about it, the ‘Christian’ (I use that term loosely) organisations are only asking to be free to choose, they are not forcing their ideas on any one, it’s the other side that is attempting to force their presumed rights according to their values and morals on the Christians…’Oh how the tables have turned’. Then again, maybe not; if we look back to the dark ages was it not the same, people attempting to force through laws the consciences of all.

  • Classic.

    Despite the fact that you live in the United States, in an area which to say the least is pro-LBGT, and have not been murdered, jailed, apparently consider suicide, or had your career destroyed, and have gained over the last forty years every conceivable reasonable accommodation, you wrap yourself in the garment of A Poor Aggrieved Minority and strike a Poor Aggrieved Pose.

    To cut the cr-p, if it were up to you and many of your friends you’d make all those religionists head to their church, mosque, or synagogue and get the h-ll out of the Public Square.

    Basically you are the very problem you are complaining about – a bigot.

  • Despite the fact that you live in the United States, in an area which to say the least is pro-LBGT, and have not been murdered, jailed, apparently consider suicide, or had your career destroyed, and have gained over the last forty years every conceivable reasonable accommodation, you wrap yourself in the garment of A Poor Aggrieved Minority and strike a Poor Aggrieved Pose.

    To cut the cr-p, if it were up to you and many of your friends you’d make all those religionists head to their church, mosque, or synagogue and get the h-ll out of the Public Square.

    You are the very problem you are complaining about – a loud bigot.

  • I haven’t personally experienced this homosexual thugery but others have and its disgusting. Agreed?

  • Perhaps it’s because I have many LG family members one of which at least has a one of the biggest hearts or perhaps I just really do believe everyone is a valuable creation, if some despise it is because they are lacking the love of the Christ they claim to follow (though love does not always have to equal agreement). My apologies for any pretenders.
    Lastly, please do let me clear something up, anyone who says that hell burns forever hasn’t read the entire bible (or closes their eyes when it doesn’t match their denomination’s theology) it is just not possible. https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/media/e/7228/t/the-good-news-about-hell–pt–1

  • Thank you for your kind word.

    People choose their theology to suit their personal preferences. How they read the Bible depends upon the kind of person they are, and not the other way around.

    I have no issue with Christians who follow their faith, and don’t seek to use it as club against others— whether gay people, other religions.

    Or other Christians..

  • So now we’ve achieved everything, and the US is pro gay. Except that you usually say if you and your fascist ilk, whom you claim are in the majority, had your way, we wouldn’t.

    Which is it?

    No dear. We’re just trying to make sure that you and your ilk will not reverse our gains. And you really hate it that, as a bully, you are no longer getting away with it. It’s the whining and complaining of your type of bigot bully.

    Too bad. I rejoice in your weeping, your wailing, and your impotent gnashing of teeth.

  • Apparently you haven’t achieved everything, people who disagree with you are still speaking in public.

    Of course you rejoice in any weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth of anyone who disagrees with you.

    Strip away the false pretensions of being aggrieved or giving a fig about anyone else but yourself and you’re just one more fascist pr-ck.

  • Awwww, Bobby joe or Joe Bob, which ever one of your two posting personalities has emerged now…
    ya do love me. Ya really do!
    The question is, what does ending legalized discrimination against gay people have to do with not caring about anyone else? Perhaps you can explain how my legal equality harms society, children, family, faith, law, morality, marriage, and all of your other bogey… — I mean, all of your just and loving concerns as a Christian. I know you are fine with it when it is just us that are harmed, but perhaps you’ll offer the explanation anyway.
    Nah, let’s be accurate. It just plain pisses you off that the people you and your fellow travelers hate and despise (much more than you hate, to be fair) so much have achieved legal equality with you. So please do explain what all of the harm is, except that you cannot use the law very much any more to attack us, our families, and our faith (for those who haven’t abandoned that idea entirely because of People Like You).

  • The question is, what does ridiculing people’s legitimate religious and moral beliefs have to do with ending discrimination against gay people or caring about anyone else?

    I have no intention of explaining how your “legal equality” harms society, children, family, faith, law, morality, or marriage – we’ve been through this before.

    When it was pointed out to you that the reasoning in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015) cut the ground out from under laws against polygamy, incest, and so on your response was “tough”.

    That indicates there is no one to talk to at your end, nor is there any interest at all in anything beyond getting what you want. Any talk of “minority rights” or “morality” is propaganda.

    Let’s be accurate. It just plain pisses you off that the people you and your fellow travelers hate and despise (much more than you hate, to be fair) are still standing up, still refusing to bake cakes, still not willing to compromise their beliefs even if it means getting out of charitable work that benefits society.

    And intend to keep doing so.

  • My response wasn’t tough. My response was NO. It was ridiculous then, it is ridiculous now.
    And you won’t detail the IMAGINARY harm simply because you know it makes you look like a flaming bigot.
    Now to that, I’ll say “tough!”. If you’re going to be a bigot, please be an open bigot.
    The rest is nonsense. your religious beliefs don’t automatically give you dominion. Catholic Charities didn’t have to leave the adoption services. They just couldn’t get state money or state approval for it. They chose to leave.

  • “My response wasn’t tough. My response was NO.”

    In fact, your response was “tough”.

    You don’t have the legal cops to assert “It was ridiculous then, it is ridiculous now.”

    You don’t even understand what the basis for Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015) was.

    People’s religious beliefs in our society have traditionally been respected.

    That’s why unlike China or North Korea we have conscientious objectors in the military.

    As a result, unlike as happened in the UK, Catholic Charities won’t have to leave the adoption services AND it won’t have to give up state money to continue doing it.

  • LOL! I will take that as an acknowledgement that you deliberately used biased material coming from Christian bigot sources and not anything reliable on the topic of actual vetted studies by experts on the subject.

  • Looking at a liar and a bigot. So you and Sandi don’t have anything that anyone needs to take seriously on the subject. Good to know.

  • Oh no! Due process and democratic institutions are used to combat discrimination and bigotry/ Get your fainting couch!

    “to force their agenda down the throats of people who don’t want it.”

    Oral fixation much?

  • If you are so stupid as to say, “we don’t serve your kind”, you deserve to go out of business.

    If you don’t like the idea that public schools do not deny the existence of a community’s residents, then send them to private school.

  • Aww poor bigots are annoyed that they can’t attack others without consequence under color of law. Take a seat with the whining racists and anti-Semites.

  • The conservative leadership of the state are running it into the ground fiscally and trying to roll back as many civil liberties as they can get away with. Trying their hardest to turn the state into a 3rd world nation.

  • LOL! I am not demanding a privilege to discriminate against others. That is all you.

    Call me whatever you want. Your labels are simply untrue, mine are not.

  • LOL! You are not a bigot. You just want entire classes of people attacked with impunity under color of law. 🙂

  • Separate but equal? Interesting concept. Where did we hear that before? From the mouths of bigots. Like you.

  • Homosexual “marriage” is not equal to real marriage. Homosexual “marriage” is fake marriage. Not even a bigot like you change that.

  • Because you say so. LOL!

    How about instead of relying on religious bigots with an axe to grind, we rely on people who did actual studies on the subject

    “Research on lesbian and gay (LG) parents and their children is consistent across studies
    and samples in finding that both parents and children are well adjusted and do not
    differ in well-being or related developmental outcomes from the general population.

    LG-parent families living in supportive environments, and families with more social,
    financial, and legal resources, generally show the most optimal adjustment. Although
    the legal climate for same-sex couples and their children has improved in recent years
    in the United States, there is still evidence of greater poverty among families headed
    by LG parents. Laws are needed to reduce the likelihood of discrimination against these
    families in domains such as employment.”
    http://www.ncfr.org/sites/default/files/2017-01/ncfr_policy_brief_november_final.pdf

    https://www.ncfr.org/
    NCFR publishes three academic, peer-reviewed journals that feature top research from around the world about families.

  • Oh no! I speak of disapproval of people who want to give their malice and attacks on civil liberties color of law. How ever will I live with myself. 🙂

  • You are welcome to your opinion. I am welcome to tell you to blow it out your sphincter. Neither of us are entitled to attack the liberties of others in service of our views.

  • Agreed. Hard to figure but Mary Fallin is about the most unpopular Governor now due to OK’s financial woes.

  • A good post there, Danielle. Brief notes:

    (1) Doug Batchelor (your link) is a Seventh-Day Adventist pastor. I like SDA folks. I once did a feature story, and they were impressive & friendly. Plus I like the health angle.

    They’ve got a couple good theologians whose material I use when defending creationism. SDA’s are much more biblically grounded than the mainliners, on issues like LGBT.

    (2) But as you said, love doesn’t always have to equal agreement. Batchelor has it biblically wrong regarding hell — and that’s a critical issue for everybody’s life.

    (2) Jesus says in Matt. 25:46, “Then they will go away to eternal (aiōnios) punishment, but the righteous to eternal (aiōnios) life.”
    So Jesus says that the people that go to heaven, and the people that go to hell, will both be there for an EQUAL amount of time. Namely, eternity.

    Forever. No do-overs. Fully conscious; no sleeping it off. That’s what the Bible says.

  • Revelation 22:20– Surely, our Lord Jesus Christ returns quickly. ALL pervert LGTB’s will be destroyed. CHILDREN will be adopted into decent environments, with real families. PRAISE GOD!! Goodbye forever, Spuddie and Ben in Oakland!! Burn baby burn in hell!!

  • Thanks 😉

    It sure sounds that way sometimes doesn’t it? The problem arises however when you look at the translations of the Ancient texts for example Olam (hebrew) can mean eternity or it can mean vanishing point or long time http://jewishroots.net/library/anti_missionary_objections/how_long_is_forever.html (pls note I do not necessarily hold all this Dr’s views but most of his verse references seem applicable and his reasoning sound), Rev 14:11 ever and ever can mean to/unto/a time age age (not a typo- presumably long time). Aionion in Matt 25:26 that you quoted some argue can mean ‘age’ such as is used in Rom 16:25, I’m no scholar but they are the same word ‘began/ages’ and ‘eternal’. Now I know what you’re thinking; they are used in the same verse to represent both classes so they must mean the same thing logically…but I then wonder how to explain the following verses with that view in mind: Revelation 20:9 the wicked encamping about the saints to take the city and fire coming down from heaven to devour (consume/end) them, Rev 19:17-21 the birds to eat their remains afterward. Or even 21:4-5 no more sorrow or death; all is made new. Rev 20:14 & 21:8 speaks of a second death (if they never die how is it a death at all?) I also just came across this yesterday (before I even saw this thread; God’s timing hey…) Isa 34:9-17 (vs10 uses olam for ‘forever’) how is it desolate and how do the birds dwell among flames if people are burning forever there?
    Also Is 33:14-15 speaks of the righteous being able to dwell among the flames and (we know God is a consuming fire to evil Heb 12:29). So here is my take that the Pr may not have explained so well…A righteous and loving God of fire will consume evil and anyone that clings to it forever, though it might not be over in a flash; all will be made new and the righteous won’t have to be saddened by their loved ones writhing in agony just outside their bedroom wall forevermore. I realise this is difficult to ‘prove’ in an english translation though it is widely held that in those ancient languages forever can have various meanings, possibly even ones we don’t even understand anymore but I do not have a degree in ancient literature to prove this and I suspect if I did my word would still be held in suspicion. Neither have I given a thorough study on the topic but I figure that when there are seemingly opposing sides on a topic one must pick what they see as the more likely side once thoroughly studying the evidence. I may not be able to explain it all but I cannot pretend to believe that Matt 25:47 cancels out the other many verses throughout the bible that indicate an end to sin and suffering. The Jews didn’t have all understanding but they certainly didn’t believe in an eternal fire, and I think you may find a particular church brought in that pagan belief to squeeze money out of poor people and fear monger for control…although perhaps it was done ignorantly…
    Hope that makes it more clear 😉

  • Block me or come up with intelligent responses.

    Get bent. If those bigoted Christians want to discriminate, so be it. Just have a spine about it and do t take taxpayer money.

    You take Caesar’s coin, you render into Caesar. If state governments want to subsidize attacks on civil liberties, they will waste money and lose lawsuits.

  • As a clergy person I have married LGBT people. They are some of the finest people I have ever met. Job holders, citizens, parents, homeowners, upright human beings.
    You trolls are dinosaurs. The younger generation doesn’t care. Your kind will die out. And already are.

  • a friend’s grandchildren go to a Catholic school in TX and they are allowing a trans boy dress and present as a girl. I repeat, this is a Catholic school.
    Anyone who disagrees should go soak their head.

  • No, the courts are fulfilling the law of the land. You just don’t like it. Better get used to it, JP. There’s a lot more personal freedom coming.
    i

  • There is no hell. The Jews didn’t have it. It’s a early Christian fantasy used to scare the children and threaten the faithful. Same thing with sin. What a depressing concept: sin.

  • the thing is that LGBT people make great aunts and uncles and help a family raise its young people. That is a strong public good.

  • we are not anti-Christian. We are anti-lies and distortions to try to dominate and control all life on this planet with your Effed-up garbo.

  • Australia is full of people who were molested and raped by the Jehovah’s Witness elders, Catholics priests, and Episcopalian clergy. Cleanse your own churches first of the pedophiles. The first two have done NOTHING to prevent further rapes and molestations. Even Pope Francis has given up.

  • Evangelicals are busy voting down every social program in sight, food stamps, housing (Ben Carson and a $30,000.00 table for his office). Jesus must be spinning in his grave.

  • No ruling by any court on this issue is based on the law of land. That is one of the lies of the lbgt crowd.

  • and I have studies that say otherwise – not intended to placate people presenting themselves as victims.

  • It’s not a marriage. To have a marriage you must have a husband and wife. Only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife. Without a man and a woman in a marriage together you don’t have a marriage. You have fraud.

  • the world is full of people saying they belonged to Christ and raped and molested children. It will happen, and it will happen again because there is sin in the world. One needs to keep their children safe, even when they think it is.

  • I just love you good Christians. Always we can know you by your love, your concern, and especially, your intelligence. I am happy to know that my existence so frightens you that you implore your god to punish me for doing it.
    If I am burning in hell, I look forward to sharing the Eternal Barbeque with a lot of Christians Just Like You.

  • It must be hell to be you. No one listens to your lies. Time to grow up JP. Hate only hurts you.

  • Yes, LGBT’s are gifted, for God gives everybody a special purpose and talent, something that they are custom-built for (Jer. 29:11). And like most folks, LGBT’s try to practice ethics.

    But LGBT identity and behavior directly interferes with a person’s relationship with God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). The phrase “shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven” is 100 percent screech-the-brakes, no matter what sin it is.

    But 1 Cor. 6:11 says there is a Solution for all of us. Salvation. Healing. Deliverance. A new life without gay slavery. Jesus is just that powerful and loving.

  • Satan must be at work in your, tempting you to hate and call the freedom from hate that LGBT deserve as children of god, some kind of curse. So bassackwards.

  • No hate, no holier ‘n’ thou. Just Jesus and his love.

    There’s only one Jesus in the Bible, you know — the one who unleashed an overwhelming, unstoppable salvation, cleansing, healing & deliverance on the Corinthians. (1 Cor. 6:11.)

    His astonishing power was so life-changing, that it wiped out their diverse sin habits, including homosexuality. Wiped OUT, forever free of the chains.

    If Jesus offered to do **that** for you, would you say Yes or say No?

  • judging from your witness to your faith, I want nothing to do with your tangled theology and hate speech. Fundagelical, be gone.

  • I know many gay couples who are exemplary parents to their children. What IS your problem.
    I wish you’d stop with your witness for Christianity. It is insipid.

  • Studies by people with no credibility on the subject. Might as well just used Bible quotes at this point. It has the same level of objectivity. 🙂

  • Which “evangelicals” are busy voting down which “social programs”?

    Generally only representatives and senators get to vote.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2015/10/01/epa-supersizes-furniture-cost-while-downsizing-2000-employees/#3b1677b35b52

    “The EPA Spends How Much On Office Furniture? Try $92 Million Over The Past Decade”

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/obamas-dhs-spent-nearly-150m-on-office-furniture-and-makeovers/

    “Obama’s DHS Spent Nearly $150M on Office Furniture and Makeovers”

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/va-spends-close-to-500-million-on-conference-room-office-makeovers-under-obama/

    “VA Spends Close to $500 Million on Conference Room, Office Makeovers Under Obama”

    and so on and so on.

    $31,000?

  • I could say the same about yours. Mine are legit though – not intended to placate people who would rather choose to hurt themselves and others.

  • There aren’t Episcopalians in Australia, they are Anglicans.

    You do realize that pedophiles are obsessed with very young prepubescent children. The majority of the child sexual abuse n those churches was not pedophilia, as the minors were usually pubescent or post pubescent.

    Oh, and don’t forget the pervert father of the current pastor of the Aussie Evangelical mega-empire, Hillsong Church. Part of the Aussie Assemblies of God folk.

  • I’m not aware of anyone going to schools who haven’t actually been invited to make presentations or at least have permission to have a presence and to offer help and assistance to kids at risk of bullying and other abuse.

    No one has sued any bakers for thousands of dollars. They have reported the denial of services to their states body that enforces civil rights legislation. If that body chooses to levy fines, that money goes into state coffers, not the pockets of the couple that was discriminated against by the baker.

  • Actually, when the ruling is handed down by the US Supreme Court, it is the law of the land. Which is why same sex marriage is legal and occurring in every US state & territory.

  • Amateurs with an axe to grind aren’t experts I have to take seriously. Thanks for playing. Try again.

  • You need to get your head out of the sand. Bakers have been sued for thousands. A number of elementary schools have brought in lbgt propaganda into schools without parents knowledge and approval.

  • Statistically, these laws only preserve the status quo concerning who can facilitate adoptions. No matter what a person thinks about whether an agency should deny services to certain couples, arguments that it will reduce adoptions don’t make sense.

  • Provide the link to any baker that has been sued for thousands of dollars. Gay & lesbian couples haven’t sued anyone, they have merely turned the bakeries in to the state agency that handles civil rights violations. Nothing more.

  • Actually their ruling was based on a law, a state law which the court determined to be unconstitutional. That’s the Supreme Court’s job, to determine if laws are constitutional.

  • No, Michael, Spuddie’s posts are generally well-informed and he supports his arguments well. Clearly, you are the clueless one.

  • Sandi Luckins, you lecherous old cougar and despicable bigot, your claim about hell just shows how evil and vengeful your awful “god” is.

  • Floyd, the bible says a lot of things, but its stories are mainly fiction and they contradict each other.

  • Oh, the irony from Bigoted Benchwarmer Bob, as usual.

    Destroyed those guns yet, Bobby? Get on it.

    #neveragain

  • If they are lies, then I know them to be false and would not believe them. You tell lies and expect others to believe them. 🙂

  • Revelation 21:8 ESV
    But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

  • Quoting from a book of Bronze Age superstition is not proof. You need an independent source, otherwise it’s merely circular reasoning.

    Try again, Sandi. Show me actual, tangible, objective evidence that there is a Hell.

  • No, Sandi, you did not show an independent source. You’re using
    circular reasoning. And Jesus, if he ever even existed is certainly not
    the author of the Book of Revelation. According to your own theology,
    the apostle John is the author, though is likely false as well,
    according to biblical scholars.

    Try again? Show me actual, tangible, objective evidence that there is a Hell.

  • Would you like me to teach you Sunday school lessons. Take my word for it, the Bible is the word of God.
    I gave you the evidence already.

  • More circular reasoning. You gave and have no evidence, therefore you fail. Any claims you make without sufficient evidence can be summarily dismissed. Good day, Sandi.

  • idiot-all NON PARTISAN studies prove-even the longest one at TWENTY years-PROVES that gays are good at parenting. Sorry Jeebus freak!

  • no, dumdum-most of us have Christian families-we hate the Christians who make up their gods to justify discrimination. Rememebr, Jeebus was most likely gay so he would never be against gay people.

  • no-that was proven to be made up by primitives who feared death-only the ignorant still believe in that (hint-choose to believe in me or burn in hellfire for all time? That’s not a choice, dumdum)

  • no, dumdum-marriage predates your made up god by THOUSANDS of years-marriage in the USA is just a legal union-thats it

  • and i have studies suggesting they are not.
    An immoral atmosphere is no place to raise children.

  • No, you don’t “hate the Christians who make up their gods to just discrimination”.

    You hate anyone who says “no”.

  • No. Marriage has always involved a man and a woman in a relationship with each other. To have a marriage you must have a husband and a wife. Only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife. Homosexual “marriage” fails this requirement. Thus they are fakes. Fakes like a square circle.

  • Jesus was gay? Oh no, not again.

    How many times do I have to keep telling all these Wild Child posters to STOP swallowing their LSD, PCP, and Rat Poison pellets all at once while they are posting in this forum??

  • We’ve been waiting for 2000+ years for that return. I don’t think that you will live long enough to see it. Especially if you keep shouting and slobbering about it. They may have to lock you up for your own good.

  • No surprise..religious bigotry continues.

    What I find interesting is that many religious based foster homes are slow to investigate and often eager to cover up sexual abuse in their homes.

    Shame on them for keeping children in misery who could be in loving families.

  • I don’t think you’ll enjoy the other food. Too stringy, tough, flavorless, and judgmental.

  • Which hell do you mean?

    There are four words rendered hell in English translations.

    Sheol

    Hades

    Gehenna

    Tartarus

    One is the Hebrew word for grave. The other is a reference to a real trash heap in the Hinnon Valley. The others are Greek concepts of the underworld.

  • How do you know it interferes with their relationship with whatever god may possibly exist?

    Beyond some words in an old book, has a god ever had a direct observable conversation with you?

  • Are you the Great Gazoo from The Flintstones? (Because of the dum dum use)?

    Remember that dude?

  • While I oppose unnecessary government spending on frills — and the VA is a special sore spot for me, as I’ve personally seen them renovate interiors and exteriors while allowing bathrooms to go without soap and paper towels — it seems like apples and oranges, without knowing whether Obama agency heads made similar expenditures as did Carson (or was it his wife?). You are talking agencies over several years vs. one man’s office, one time.

  • Actually, He is responsible for the Book of Revelation. He spoke to John and John quotes Him.

  • The one study you’ve posted that could be said to be non-ideological concedes that the numbers could be skewed by gay or lesbian single-parent households arising as a result of divorce. Among other factors. The LG parenting is not necessary causative.

  • The link is to RNS. Just hover over the link and search for those terms within RNS’s own search bar.

  • Jesus could not have used that term, as it comes from medieval Old English. The Hebrew and Greek words provided to you above are what’s in the New Testament.

  • Matthew 10:28 ESV
    And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

    Matthew 5:22 ESV
    But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

    2 Peter 2:4 ESV
    For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;

  • LG parenting hurts children. I’m sorry that you don’t want to accept that, but it does. They don’t do as well in school. They have higher incidents of depression.
    It is an unnatural environment and it is not good for children.

    http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/REHAllen.pdf

    https://thembeforeus.com/john-king/

    https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/john-stonestreet/unspoken-epidemic-silent-suffering-gay-men

    http://www.cpc.unc.edu/proj

    https://jamanetwork.com/jou

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go

  • Like I said, I’d be interested in neutral investigators. A study debasing same-sex parenting from an organization opposed to same-sex parenting does not look promising in that regard. And many of your links don’t work.

  • So if 29 of 30 doctors reach a consensus that smoking causes cancer…you listen to the one dissenter?

  • In both Matthew 10:28 and 5:22, the word translated as “hell” is “gehennah.” “kai psychen kai soma apolesai en geenne.” “enochos estai eis ten geennan tou pyros.” The different Greek spellings may be due to the fact that this is a loan word being transliterated from the Hebrew “gehinnom.”
    2 Peter 2:4, it is tartarus: “alla seirais zophou tartarosas.”

  • 2 Timothy 3:16-17 English Standard Version (ESV)
    16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.

    John 1:1-5 English Standard Version (ESV)

    The Word Became Flesh

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

    Leviticus 18:1-5 English Standard Version (ESV)
    Unlawful Sexual Relations

    18 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. 3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. 4 You shall follow my rules[a] and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God. 5 You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.

  • When it comes to homosexuals teaching and exposing children to their immorality in a culture where immorality is being taught as good, yes, I will believe the one dissenter.

  • the Canadian study was neutral. It was information obtained in the Canadian
    Census. The links worked for me.

  • So, in the vast expenditures at various agencies over eight years of over $1.5 billion documented dollars on furniture and the like, $30k really stands out, eh?

  • But only in such a case? And if so why? Why not go with the vast majority consensus?

  • What if the Bible is inaccurate about its claim to be god’s word? This is circular reasoning.

    “The Bible is true because words in the Bible say it is true.”

  • For millennia people have tried to prove the Bible to be false – yet – it is still here today and Christ reveals it’s reality all the time.

  • Note also the fact that Carson and his entourage attempted to cover the whole thing up. That alone makes it newsworthy. And throwing your wife under the bus? Mean and pathetic at the same time.

  • k – let’s try it again

    Suicides among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations in Australia: an analysis of the Queensland Suicide Register.

    Skerrett DM1, Kõlves K, De Leo D.

    Author information

    Abstract

    INTRODUCTION:

    Sexual orientation is seldom recorded at death in Australia, and to date there have been no studies on the relationship between those that have died by suicide and sexuality or minority gender identity in Australia. The aim of the present study is to determine whether or not lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and intersex individuals who die by suicide constitute a unique subpopulation of those who die by suicide, when compared with non-lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex suicide deaths.

    METHODS:

    The Queensland Suicide Register holds records of all suicides in Queensland since 1990. All cases from 2000 to 2009 (inclusive; a total of 5,966 cases) were checked for potential indicators of individuals’ sexual orientation and gender identification. A total of 35 lesbian (n = 10), gay (n = 22), bisexual (n = 2), and transgender (n = 1) suicide cases were identified. Three comparison cases of non-LGBT suicides for each LGBT suicide were then located, matched by age and gender. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

    RESULTS:

    It was significantly more likely that depression was mentioned in the cases of LGBT suicides than in non-LGBT cases. While 12.4% of the comparison group had been diagnosed with psychotic disorders, there were no such diagnoses among LGBT individuals. LGBT individuals experienced relationship problems more often, with relationship conflict also being more frequent than in non-LGBT cases.

    DISCUSSION:

    Despite its limitations, this study – the first of its kind in Australia – seems to indicate that LGBT people would require targeted approaches in mental and general health services.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24692051

  • It is unclear to what extent findings from this Dutch study can be generalized to other cultures or nations. Compared with other Western countries, the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant.34-36 To the extent that the level of social acceptance of homosexuality induces differences in mental health status in relation to homosexuality, the observed differences might be greater in other Western countries than in the Netherlands.

    The strategy to control for demographic variables in assessing differences between heterosexual and homosexual people could be debated. Some of these demographic differences, which were found in other representative studies as well and seem to be structural,23,33,37 could be considered a consequence of and not an antecedent to people’s homosexuality. The larger proportion of homosexual men in urban regions compared with rural areas is usually understood as a consequence of a tendency to migrate from places with high levels of social control to more congenial social environments.23,38 The finding that homosexual people are less often involved in steady relationships than heterosexual people is seen as resulting from the limited opportunities homosexual people have to find an intimate partner, lesser legal and social support for developing and maintaining homosexual relationships compared with that for heterosexual relationships, and differing norms and values regarding sexuality and personal relationships.39-42 It could be argued that not controlling for these demographic variables, which results in more significant differences in prevalence rates of specific disorders and in higher ORs, provides a more accurate estimate of the actual differences in prevalence rates between homosexual and heterosexual people.

    Because of the study’s cross-sectional design, it is not possible to adequately address the question of the causes of the observed differences. Differences observed in the preceding year might be a consequence of earlier differences, since ever having had a specific disorder might predispose people to subsequent disorders.43

    Because the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome can have an important effect on homosexual men and their mental health status,44 we asked all respondents about their human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) serostatus. Only one person, a heterosexual woman, reported a positive HIV status. This result reflects the very low prevalence of HIV infection and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in the general population as well as among homosexual men in the Netherlands.45 Given that no homosexual man reported being infected with HIV, we do not believe that HIV infection can account for the observed mental health differences in this study.

    The observed differences may result both from biological and social factors and an interaction between them. Biological and genetic factors in the causes and development of homosexuality46-50 might also predispose homosexual people to developing psychiatric disorders. This is in line with the higher prevalence of bipolar disorder we found in homosexual men compared with heterosexual men, which is generally considered to be largely congenital.51 The effects of social factors on the mental health status of homosexual men and women have been well documented in studies, which found a relationship between experiences of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination and mental health status.52-61 Furthermore, controlling for psychological predictors of present distress seems to eliminate differences in mental health status between heterosexual and homosexual adolescents.62 The mediating role of relationship status suggests that higher prevalence rates of some disorders in homosexual people compared with heterosexual people could also be caused by loneliness.

    The differential pattern of differences for men and women can also be interpreted in various ways. First, an effect of sexual orientation in women might be more difficult to demonstrate since women already show higher levels of mood and anxiety disorders than men regardless of sexual preference.24 Homosexual women could also be less exposed to social stressors than homosexual men, given that attitudes toward homosexual men are generally more negative than attitudes toward homosexual women.63 The fact that homosexual men showed higher prevalence rates of disorders that are characteristic for women in general, whereas homosexual women showed higher prevalence rates of disorders that are characteristic for men in general, is in line with the theory that sex-atypical levels of prenatal androgens play a major role in the causes and development of homosexuality.14

    In conclusion, this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed. The processes underlying the established differences need further study. Research into these processes should be able to disentangle the potential interplay of various factors—social, attitudinal, behavioral, and biological—instead of testing one specific factor. The most promising design for such a study requires a large sample of both men and women, and is longitudinal and cross-cultural.

    Accepted for publication July 20, 2000.

    NEMESIS is conducted by the Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction (Trimbos Institute), Utrecht, the Netherlands. Financial support has been received from the Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, The Hague; the Medical Sciences Department of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, The Hague; and the National Institute for Public Health and Environment, Utrecht.

    Data from this article were presented at the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research, Stony Brook, NY, June 24, 1999.

    We thank Henny Bos for her help in preparing this study and Jeffrey Weiss, PhD, and Daniel Weishut for their comments on previous versions.

    Corresponding author: Theo G. M. Sandfort, PhD, Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University, PO Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]).

    References

    1.

    Gonsiorek JC The empirical bases for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality. Gonsiorek JCWeinrich JDeds. Homosexuality Research Implications for Public Policy Newbury Park, Calif Sage Publications1991;115- 136Google Scholar

    2.

    Hooker E The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. J Projective Techniques. 1951;2118- 31Google ScholarCrossref

    3.

    Siegelman M Adjustment of male homosexuals and heterosexuals. Arch Sex Behav. 1972;29- 25Google ScholarCrossref

    4.

    Thompson NLMcCandless BRStrickland B Personal adjustment of male and female homosexuals and heterosexuals. J Abnorm Psychol. 1971;78237- 240Google ScholarCrossref

    5.

    Bayer R Homosexuality and American Psychiatry. New York, NY Basic Books1981;

    6.

    Comer RJ Abnormal Psychology. 2nd ed. New York, NY WH Freeman1995;

    7.

    Feldman RS Understanding Psychology. New York, NY McGraw-Hill1990;

    8.

    Siever MD Sexual orientation and gender as factors in socioculturally acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62252- 260Google ScholarCrossref

    9.

    Troiden RR The formation of homosexual identities. J Homosex. 1989;1743- 73Google ScholarCrossref

    10.

    Remafedi G Suicide and sexual orientation: nearing the end of controversy? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56885- 886Google ScholarCrossref

    11.

    Bux DA Jr The epidemiology of problem drinking in gay men and lesbians: a critical review. Clin Psychol Rev. 1996;16277- 298Google ScholarCrossref

    12.

    Mosbacher D Lesbian alcohol and substance abuse. Psychiatr Ann. 1988;1847- 50Google ScholarCrossref

    13.

    Striegel-Moore RTucker NHsu J Body image dissatisfaction and disordered eating in lesbian college students. Int J Eat Disord. 1990;9493- 500Google ScholarCrossref

    14.

    Bailey M Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56883- 884Google ScholarCrossref

    15.

    Costin FDraguns JG Abnormal Psychology: Patterns, Issues, Interventions. New York, NY John Wiley & Sons1989;

    16.

    Herek GM Gay people and government security clearances: a social perspective. Am Psychol. 1990;43886- 891Google ScholarCrossref

    17.

    Muehrer P Suicide and sexual orientation: a critical summary of recent research and directions for future research. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 1995;25(suppl)72- 81Google Scholar

    18.

    Remafedi GFrench SStory MResnick MDBlum R The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: results of a population-based study. Am J Public Health. 1998;8857- 60Google ScholarCrossref

    19.

    Fergusson DMHorwood LJBeautrais AL Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56876- 880Google ScholarCrossref

    20.

    Herrell RGoldberg JTrue WRRamakrishnan VLyons MEisen STsuang MT Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56867- 874Google ScholarCrossref

    21.

    Cochran SDMays VM Relation between psychiatric syndromes and behaviorally defined sexual orientation in a sample of the US population. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151516- 523Google ScholarCrossref

    22.

    Friedman RC Homosexuality, psychopathology, and suicidality. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56887- 888Google ScholarCrossref

    23.

    Laumann EOGagnon JHMichael RTMichaels S The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago, Ill University of Chicago Press1994;

    24.

    Bijl RVRavelli Avan Zessen G Prevalence of psychiatric disorder in the general population: results of the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1998;33587- 595Google ScholarCrossref

    25.

    Bijl RVvan Zessen GRavelli Ade Rijk CLangendoen Y The Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS): objectives and design. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1998;33581- 586Google ScholarCrossref

    26.

    Goldberg DPWilliams P A Users Guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor, Ontario Nelson1998;

    27.

    World Health Organization, Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Version 1.0. Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization1990;

    28.

    Robins LNWing JWittchen H-UHelzer JEBabor TFBurke JFarmer AJablenski APickens RRegier DASatorius NTowle LH The Composite International Diagnostic Interview: an epidemiologic instrument suitable for use in conjunction with different diagnostic systems and in different cultures. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;451069- 1077Google ScholarCrossref

    29.

    Cottler LBRobins LNGrant BFBlaine JTowle LHWittchen H-USartorius Nparticipants in the WHO/ADAMHA Field Trials, The CIDI-core substance abuse and dependence questions: cross-cultural and nosological issues. Br J Psychiatry. 1991;159653- 658Google ScholarCrossref

    30.

    Semler GVon Cranach MWittchen H-U Comparison Between the Composite International Diagnostic Interview and the Present State Examination: Report to the WHO/ADAMHA Task Force on Instrument Development. Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization1987;

    31.

    Wittchen H-U Reliability and validity studies of the WHO-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI): a critical review. J Psychiatr Res. 1994;2857- 84Google ScholarCrossref

    32.

    Doll LSPetersen LRWhite CRJohnson ESWard JWBlood Donor Study Group, Homosexually and nonhomosexually identified men who have sex with men: a behavioral comparison. J Sex Res. 1992;291- 14Google ScholarCrossref

    33.

    Sandfort ThGM Homosexual and bisexual behaviour in European countries. Hubert MCBajos NSandfort TGMeds. Sexual Behaviour and HIV/AIDS in Europe London, England UCL Press1998;68- 105Google Scholar

    34.

    Not Available, Sociaal Cultureel Rapport. The Hague, the Netherlands SCP/Vuga1996;

    35.

    Van den Akker PHalman LDe Moor R Primary relations in Western societies. Ester PHalman LR Moor Deeds. The Individualizing Society Value Change in Europe and North America Tilburg, the Netherlands Tilburg University Press1994;97- 127Google Scholar

    36.

    Widmer EDTreas JNewcomb R Attitudes toward nonmarital sex in 24 countries. J Sex Res. 1998;35349- 358Google ScholarCrossref

    37.

    Sandfort TGMDe Vroome EMM Homoseksualiteit in Nederland: een vergelijking tussen aselecte groepen homoseksuele en heteroseksuele mannen. Tijdschr Seksuol. 1996;20232- 245Google Scholar

    38.

    Pollak M Male homosexuality: or happiness in the ghetto. Ariès PBéjinès Aeds. Western Sexuality Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times Oxford, England Basil Blackwell1985;40- 61Google Scholar

    39.

    Blasband DPeplau LA Sexual exclusivity versus openness in gay male couples. Arch Sex Behav. 1985;14395- 412Google ScholarCrossref

    40.

    Kurdek LA Sexuality in homosexual and heterosexual couples. McKinney KSprecher Seds. Sexuality in Close Relationships Hillsdale, NJ LEA Publishers1991;177- 191Google Scholar

    41.

    Meyer J Guess who’s coming to dinner this time? a study of gay intimate relationships and the support for those relationships. Marriage Fam Rev. 1989;1459- 82Google ScholarCrossref

    42.

    Peplau LACochran SD A relationship perspective on homosexuality. McWhirter DPSanders SAJ Reinisch Machovereds. Homosexuality/Heterosexuality Concepts of Sexual Orientation New York, NY Oxford University Press1990;321- 349Google Scholar

    43.

    Kessler RCNelson CBMcGonagle KALiu JSwartz MBlazer DG Comorbidity of DSM-III-R major depressive disorder in the general population: results from the US National Comorbidity Survey. Br J Psychol. 1996;168(suppl 30)17- 30Google Scholar

    44.

    Kalichman SCSikkema KJ Psychological sequelae of HIV infection and AIDS: review of empirical findings. Clin Psychol Rev. 1994;14611- 632Google ScholarCrossref

    45.

    Sandfort TGM Pragmatism and consensus: the Dutch response to HIV. Sandfort TGMed. The Dutch Response to HIV Pragmatism and Consensus London, England UCL Press1998;3- 16Google Scholar

    46.

    Bailey JMPillard RCDawood KMiller MBFarrer LATrivedi SMurphy RL A family history study of male sexual orientation using three independent samples. Behav Genet. 1999;2979- 86Google ScholarCrossref

    47.

    Hamer DHHu SMagnuson VHu NPattatucci AML A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science. 1993;261321- 327Google ScholarCrossref

    48.

    Levay SA A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science. 1991;2531034- 1037Google ScholarCrossref

    49.

    Whitman FLDiamond MMartin J Homosexual orientation in twins: a report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets. Arch Sex Behav. 1993;22187- 206Google ScholarCrossref

    50.

    Williams TAPepitone MEChristensen SECooke BMHuberman ADBreedlove NJBreedlove TJJordan CLBreedlove SM Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature. 2000;404455- 456Google ScholarCrossref

    51.

    Gershon ES Genetics. Goodwin FKJamison KReds. Manic-Depressive Illness New York, NY Oxford University Press1990;373- 401Google Scholar

    52.

    Brooks V Minority Stress and Lesbian Women. Lexington, Mass DC Heath1981;

    53.

    Meyer IF Minority stress and mental health in gay men. J Health Soc Behav. 1995;3638- 56Google ScholarCrossref

    54.

    Bradford JRyan CRothblum ED National Lesbian Health Care Survey: implications for mental health care. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62228- 242Google ScholarCrossref

    55.

    Frable DEWortman CJoseph J Predicting self-esteem, well-being, and distress in a cohort of gay men: the importance of cultural stigma, personal visibility, community networks, and positive identity. J Pers. 1997;65599- 624Google ScholarCrossref

    56.

    Herek GMGillis JRCogan JC Psychological sequelae of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay and bisexual adults. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67945- 951Google ScholarCrossref

    57.

    Meyer IHDean L Internalized homophobia, intimacy, and sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men. Herek GMed. Stigma and Sexual Orientation Understanding Prejudice Against Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Thousand Oaks, Calif Sage Publications1998;160- 186Google Scholar

    58.

    Herek GMGillis JRCogan JCGlunt EK Hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. J Interpersonal Violence. 1997;12195- 215Google ScholarCrossref

    59.

    Otis MDSkinner WF The prevalence of victimization and its effect on mental well-being among lesbian and gay people. J Homosex. 1996;3093- 121Google ScholarCrossref

    60.

    Ross MW The relationship between life events and mental health in homosexual men. J Clin Psychol. 1990;46402- 411Google ScholarCrossref

    61.

    Rotheram-Borus MJHunter JRosario M Suicidal behavior and gay-related stress among gay and bisexual male adolescents. J Adolesc Res. 1994;9498- 508Google ScholarCrossref

    62.

    Safen SAHeimberg RG Depression, hopelessness, suicidality, and related factors in sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67859- 866Google ScholarCrossref

    63.

    Kite MEWhitley BE Do heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes toward homosexuality? Herek GMed. Stigma and Sexual Orientation Understanding Prejudice Against Lesbians, Gay Men and Bisexuals Thousand Oaks, Calif Sage Publications1998;39- 61

  • This one is cut into two posts

    Original Article

    January 2001

    Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders

    Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)

    Theo G. M. Sandfort, PhD; Ron de Graaf, PhD; Rob V. Bijl, PhD; et al Paul Schnabel, PhD

    Author Affiliations Article Information

    Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58(1):85-91. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.58.1.85

    Abstract

    Background It has been suggested that homosexuality is associated with psychiatric morbidity. This study examined differences between heterosexually and homosexually active subjects in 12-month and lifetime prevalence of DSM-III-R mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders in a representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 7076; aged 18-64 years).

    Methods Data were collected in face-to-face interviews, using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Classification as heterosexual or homosexual was based on reported sexual behavior in the preceding year. Five thousand nine hundred ninety-eight (84.8%) of the total sample could be classified: 2.8% of 2878 men and 1.4% of 3120 women had had same-sex partners. Differences in prevalence rates were tested by logistic regression analyses, controlling for demographics.

    Results Psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among homosexually active people compared with heterosexually active people. Homosexual men had a higher 12-month prevalence of mood disorders (odds ratio [OR] = 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.54-5.57) and anxiety disorders (OR = 2.61; 95% CI = 1.44-4.74) than heterosexual men. Homosexual women had a higher 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders (OR = 4.05; 95% CI = 1.56-10.47) than heterosexual women. Lifetime prevalence rates reflect identical differences, except for mood disorders, which were more frequently observed in homosexual than in heterosexual women (OR = 2.41; 95% CI = 1.26-4.63). The proportion of persons with 1 or more diagnoses differed only between homosexual and heterosexual women (lifetime OR = 2.61; 95% CI = 1.31-5.19). More homosexual than heterosexual persons had 2 or more disorders during their lifetimes (homosexual men: OR = 2.70; 95% CI = 1.66-4.41; homosexual women: OR = 2.09; 95% CI = 1.07-4.09).

    Conclusion The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.

    FOR A LARGE part of the past century, homosexuality itself was seen as a mental disorder. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. This removal came about because of support from research findings1-4 and as a result of a persistent plea by both professionals and activists.5

    In response to the former psychiatric stigmatization of homosexuality and ideologically inspired by a social movement aiming to achieve greater acceptance of homosexual people, some authors subsequently stressed the equality in mental health status of homosexual and heterosexual people.6,7 Others suggested that the mental health status of homosexual people might be impaired owing to various stresses, either temporary or in specific subgroups.8 Some authors expected an upsurge in suicidal behaviors, especially in adolescence and young adulthood, as a consequence of the stresses experienced during the coming-out process.1,9,10 Levels of substance abuse were also expected to be higher in gay men and lesbians as compared with heterosexual people.11,12 Furthermore, negative health consequences such as body image dissatisfaction and eating disorders also came to be seen as related to the specific lifestyle and subculture of openly gay and lesbian people.8,13

    Although many studies have assessed the mental health status of homosexual men and women, the results are still inconclusive. This is predominantly due to a variety of methodological problems, characteristic of most studies done since the 1960s, such as the use of convenience samples, small sample sizes, lack of adequate comparison groups, failure to control for potentially confounding factors, application of nonstandardized research instruments, and questionable external validity.14-17

    Recent studies applying a more rigorous methodology showed that there is substantial support for the existence of orientation-related differences in mental health status. In a population-based study among adolescents, suicidal intent and actual suicide attempts were related to homosexuality in males but not females.18 Young people with a homosexual or bisexual orientation were found to be at increased risk of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse/dependence, and suicidal behaviors.19 Middle-aged men who reported ever having had male sex partners were at a higher lifetime risk for various suicidal symptoms compared with their heterosexual counterparts, even after controlling for substance abuse and depressive symptoms.20 A small increased risk among homosexually active populations in 1-year psychiatric morbidity was found in a sample of the US population, with homosexually active men more likely than other men to experience major depression and panic attack syndromes and homosexually active women more likely than other women to be classified as having alcohol or other drug dependence.21 However, these studies still have various limitations.10,14,22

    Our study aims to explore differences in the prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in relation to homosexuality and to overcome some of the limitations of the earlier studies. It does so by using a large, representative sample of the Dutch population selected without reference to sexual orientation and allowing for separate analyses for men and women. The study categorizes people as homosexual or heterosexual based on recent rather than lifetime behavior, the latter being a more diffuse categorization than the former.23 The study uses a validated and standardized instrument to assess psychiatric disorders, applied in face-to-face interviews. By looking at both lifetime and 12-month prevalence, we were able to assess the relationship between homosexuality and mental health more precisely than most other studies.

    Subjects and methods

    Subjects

    The data used for this study are part of the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS), which assessed psychiatric disorders in a representative sample of the Dutch population aged 18 to 64 years. NEMESIS was conducted with the approval of the Internal Review Board of the Trimbos Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands. A detailed description of the design of the study and the major outcomes have been previously published.24,25

    NEMESIS has applied a multistage, stratified, random-sampling procedure of households in the Netherlands. One respondent was randomly selected in each household. The interviewers made a minimum of 10 calls or visits to an address at different points in time and days of the week to make contact. To optimize response and to compensate for possible seasonal influences, the initial fieldwork was extended over the entire period from February through December 1996.

    A total of 7076 persons were interviewed. Respondents provided verbal consent after having been informed about the aims of the study. The interviewer entered data into a computer during the interview. According to the method of assessment, the response was 64.2% (of the households eligible for interview) or 69.7% (of the persons eligible for interview). Persons who declined to take part in the full interview were asked to furnish several key pieces of data. Of these persons, 43.6% agreed to do so. The psychiatric morbidity (estimated with the General Health Questionnaire,26 taking into account sex, age, and urbanicity) of these nonresponders did not significantly differ from that of the respondents.

    Diagnoses

    The instrument used to determine DSM-III-R diagnoses was the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI),27,28 designed for use by trained interviewers who are not clinicians. The CIDI has acceptable interrater reliability,29 acceptable test-retest reliability30 and acceptable validity for practically all diagnoses, with the exception of acute psychotic presentations.31 The diagnoses were generated during data processing.

    The following DSM-III-R diagnoses were recorded: mood disorders (depression, dysthymia, bipolar disorder), anxiety disorders (panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, simple phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder), psychoactive substance use disorders (alcohol or other drug abuse and dependence, including sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics). Although eating disorders and schizophrenia and other nonaffective psychotic disorders were recorded as well, these data are not presented here because of their low prevalence.

    The assessment of psychiatric symptoms took place before subjects were asked about their sexual behavior, thus minimizing the chance of contamination.

    The fieldwork was done by 90 interviewers, experienced in systematic data collection and extensively trained in recruiting respondents and computer-assisted interviewing.

    Sexual behavior

    Respondents were asked verbally whether they had sexual contact in the preceding year and the gender of their partner(s). If the respondent had had sex with someone of the same gender (exclusively or not), he or she was categorized as homosexual. Other sexually active people were categorized as heterosexual. Homosexually active men and exclusively heterosexually active subjects are subsequently referred to in this article as homosexual and heterosexual persons, respectively. Sexual orientation itself was not assessed.

    Of the total of 7076 persons, 30 respondents did not answer the questions regarding their sexual behavior. Of the remaining 7046, 85.2% reported having been sexually active. More men than women reported having been sexually active (87.7% vs 83.0%; χ21 = 30.1; P<.001). Of the 6003 sexually active respondents, 5 lacked the necessary data to classify them as heterosexual or homosexual, leaving 5998 persons for the present analysis. Of the men, 2.8% (n = 82) had had sex with male partners (6 of these men also had sex with women in the respective period). Of the women, 1.4% (n = 43) had had sex with female partners (6 of them also had sex with men). More men than women reported homosexual behavior (χ21 = 15.9; P<.001).

    Statistical analysis

    To assess differences in prevalence rates, adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were computed separately for men and women. Age, level of education, residency, and not having a steady partner were controlled for in these analyses, given that these variables were positively related to prevalence rates in the total sample.22 Odds ratios were also calculated without controlling for relationship status, given that relationship status is more likely to be a consequence of rather than an antecedent to homosexual and heterosexual behavior.

    Results

    Characteristics of the sample

    Homosexual and heterosexual respondents differed on education and relationship status (Table 1). Both homosexual men and women had a relatively higher educational level than heterosexual men and women. Both homosexual men and women less frequently reported being currently in a steady relationship than heterosexual men and women. Homosexual and heterosexual men differed on residency status. Homosexual men were more likely than heterosexual men to live in urban areas.

    Men

    Compared with heterosexual men, homosexual men had significantly higher 12-month and lifetime rates of mood and anxiety disorders (Table 2 and Table 3). Inspection of the specific mood disorders revealed that compared with heterosexual men, homosexual men had a much larger chance of having had 12-month and lifetime bipolar disorders and a higher chance of having had lifetime major depression but no significant differences were seen regarding dysthymia. Regarding the specific anxiety disorders, the lifetime prevalence was significantly higher in homosexual men than in heterosexual men for all but generalized anxiety disorder. The biggest differences were found in obsessive-compulsive disorder and agoraphobia. The 12-month prevalences of agoraphobia, simple phobia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder were higher in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. Regarding substance use disorders, the only significant difference was found in lifetime alcohol abuse. This is the only disorder more frequently observed in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. Homosexual men were not more likely than heterosexual men to report 1 or more 12-month and lifetime disorders. More homosexual men than heterosexual men had 2 or more disorders, both lifetime and in the preceding year.

    Not controlling for relationship status resulted in an increase in the various ORs (data not shown). Furthermore, some differences in 12-month and lifetime prevalence became statistically significant. If relationship status was not controlled for, the lifetime and 12-month prevalence rates of 1 or more disorders were higher in homosexual men than in heterosexual men (OR = 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10-2.70 and OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.23-3.20, respectively).

    Women

    There were no significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual women in the 12-month prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders. On a lifetime basis, homosexual women had a significantly higher prevalence of general mood disorders and major depression than did heterosexual women. The lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorders did not differ between homosexual and heterosexual women. Regarding the preceding year, homosexual women reported a substantially higher rate of substance use disorders than did heterosexual women, although differences in the specific substance use disorders were not significant. Lifetime prevalence of both alcohol and other drug dependence was also significantly higher in homosexual women than in heterosexual women. Although more homosexual women than heterosexual women reported 1 or more DSM-III-R diagnoses, lifetime and in the preceding year, only the former difference was significant. Homosexual women were more likely than heterosexual women to have had 2 or more disorders during their lifetime but not in the preceding year.

    If relationship status was not controlled for, ORs increased and the differences in 12-month alcohol dependence and lifetime social phobia were also significant. Both 12-month and lifetime prevalences of 1 or more disorders were higher in homosexual women than in heterosexual women (OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.08-4.05 and OR = 3.16, 95% CI = 1.61-6.18, respectively).

    Comment

    This study found a higher prevalence of various psychiatric disorders in homosexual people compared with heterosexual people, both regarding the preceding 12 months as well as on a lifetime basis. These differences seem to be gender specific with a higher prevalence of substance use disorders in homosexual women and a higher prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders in homosexual men, both compared with their heterosexual counterparts.

    The interpretation of these findings requires consideration of some potential limitations, which could have cumulatively either inflated or deflated actual differences in prevalence rates.25 Among those people contacted, there could have been a nonresponse related to homosexual behavior. Although nonresponse to specific questions was negligible owing to the computer-assisted interviewing, subjects might have differed in their reporting behavior. Compared with heterosexual men, homosexual men might have been less reluctant to admit specific complaints. Although some demographics were statistically controlled for, the possibility remains that at least part of the observed differences are accounted for by some other uncontrolled confounding variables. Finally, the study might underestimate the differences between homosexual and heterosexual people owing to the limited number of homosexual subjects and the consequently broad CIs of the ORs.

    When compared with other studies of sexual orientation and mental health, ours has several strengths. We used a large representative sample rather than a convenience sample and selected without reference to sexual orientation. The sample size allowed for separate analyses for men and women. The importance of this is shown by our findings. Furthermore, the outcome variables studied were assessed with a reliable and standardized diagnostic instrument, and sexual behavior was assessed only after questions regarding psychiatric disorders were answered. This study not only looked at lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders but prevalence in the preceding year as well, testing the relationship with homosexuality more critically. In doing this, the findings suggest that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested,20 but also in later life. Finally, this study did not group people together based on lifetime experiences, a common practice to make up for small numbers, but looked at subjects' recent sexual behavior. Although various studies have demonstrated discrepancies between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation or homosexual self-labeling,23,32,33 we think that recent homosexual behavior is a better indicator of homosexual self-labeling than any lifetime homosexual involvement.

  • hahaha-no, dumdum-your Christ never existed-he is an amalgam of various hippie preachers back in the day. Remember, that was proven years ago., Rome always recorded the executions of enemies of the state-always-but no Jeebus is ever mentioned. Jeebus is only mentioned in two places outside of the bible-just two. And they were not contemporaries. You really think that if jeebus rose from the dead in front of hundreds, not a single contemporary besides three buddies would write about it?

  • Jeebus never existed, dumdum-if he had, Rome would have recorded his death-they recorded ALL executions of enemies of the state–your turn-prove he existed

  • yeah, dumdum-that’s the same group-people who use their god to say no-remember, everyone has a different god-no two gods are the same-you make up your god based on your own prejudices-just own it for Zeus’s sake

  • no you do not-the Regenrus study that used two gays to make assumptions about tens of thousands??

  • thanks to arb – I took a quick look at the article. What are you trying to say David?

  • they aren’t legit-all legit non partisan studies show gays are good at parenting-sorry, you lose

  • suicides are high among gays because of nasty vile backward bigots like yourself telling them they are sinning., However, the rates are going down fast because your kind is dying off

  • not neutral-religious nonsense is always biased and since its based off of nothing, its invalid

  • no, you idiot-I know five sets of gays parents and their kids are amazing and well adjusted and excelling at school. How many do you know? NONE-you know NONE

  • absolutely David. Not only Christians go to church. People go for a myriad of reasons.
    Joyce Meyer has a saying, “Just because you sit in a garage, does not make you a car”
    There are tons of people calling themselves “pastors” doing terrible things – Jim Jones, Koresch, anyone teaching things not found in the Bible to increase attendance in their assembly.

  • Really?

    Provide a url for just one of these studies based on science and decades of research.

  • I really haven’t seen it as a “cover-up”.

    The “throwing your wife under the bus” appears to be spin.

    His wife was involved in the selection, and he mentioned that.

  • From the above article I must quote a portion of it:

    >>”In a separate letter, Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma leaders Anthony Jordan and Hance Dilbeck Jr. — representing the state’s 650,000 Southern Baptists — said: “We have been alarmed and outraged to learn of threats to the religious liberty and moral convictions of faith-based agencies in other parts of the country. … In Oklahoma, now is the time to ensure equal opportunity and protection for individuals and groups involved in foster care and adoption. Indeed the survival and future of such organizations depends on it.”<<

    From all I have read about the “problem” with gay adoption, is that the issue is NOT about the welfare of children being raised bay same-sex couples, as the outcome is not problematic as compared with heterosexual couple parenting. The “problem” with gay adoption is ONLY about so-called “religious freedom” and “moral convictions” of those disposed to benefit the lives of parentless children.

    If gay couples adopting children creates such a “problem,” exactly who is at the center of this alleged “problem?” Is it the child? Is it the adoption agency? Is it the prospective gay couple seeking to adopt?
    The answer is quite obvious, as there is no evidence gay parenting is harmful. The so-called “problem” is with religion and religion only.

    If gay parenting is not an issue as to the outcome of child development, why do ONLY religious adoption agencies have such a problem? Why don’t all medical, psychological and sociological organizations take issue?
    Is it because of God who ordered the murder of all homosexuals? Or is it because of Jesus who said nothing about homosexuals?
    Could this actually about something deeper and laden with agenda such as the validation of homosexuality in general? Is this really only about procreative behavior and population expansion, population replacement for the church’s future job security and nothing more?

    Perhaps we need more non-religion based adoption agencies that specifically deny adoption to Christian couples in order to protect the children from religion based hatred, bigotry and rejection should the adopted child of Christian parents turns out to be gay.

    Why don’t we ignore what allegedly “alarms” those who believe in an imaginary, hateful, bigoted non-existent God and their so-called “religious liberty” and so-called “moral convictions” and simply focus on the true issue at hand…the needs of a child.

  • That’s it?

    “The participants were not randomly selected and the information on psychological adjustment was only provided by the mothers. A more comprehensive assessment approach would have included reports from the children themselves and possibly another source like teachers.”

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01494929.2015.1033317?src=recsys&journalCode=wmfr20

    The APA gave an all clear based on zero studies of male homosexual parenting and these tiny non-random “studies” of lesbian parenting. They were roundly criticized, and justly so.

    This study by Nanette Gartrell, MD of the Center of Excellence in Women’s Health in San Francisco and Henny Bos, PhD of the Graduate School of Pedagogical and Educational Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
    Netherlands suffers from the same problems:

    – hand-selected participants

    – tiny groups

    – multiple research design failures

    – conducted and reported by advocates, not impartial researchers

    and so on.

    The jury is still out, awaiting bona fide research.

  • .
    “Conservative Christians say failing to protect the right of adoption agencies to follow their faith would result in fewer adoptions, because those agencies would close before they act against their beliefs.”

    The implication being that these vacuums will never be filled (by compliant adoption agencies).

    Is this assumption valid?

    Bottom-line, the Government — which is to say, “we, the people” — should simply cease legitimizing and normalizing these “faith-based” organizations’ hateful bigotry, regardless that it is “sincerely held”.
    .

  • its over, bigot-=deal. Twenty years is indeed conclusive. Gays are better because they want to parent-straights just spit out kids and then abandon them. Show some respect-gays are raising tens of thousands of kids your kind abandons.

  • yes, its over, little tard. There is nothing but evidence. Maybe give some evidence about your fake god existing? snicker

  • The use of “little tard” neatly puts you in the place you belong – a self-absorbed self-important git.

  • Put that martyr card you piece of shitt-you don’t get to espouse nasty, vile, ignorant anti-gay views not founded by any studies besides your made up god. Off the cross, Shitthole

  • Put that martyr card uupa usa you piece of sheitt – you don’t get to espouse nasty, vile, ignorant anti-Christian and imaginary views not founded by any studies besides your LBGTQ propagandists. Off the peg, Shitthole yourself.

  • too bad-you don’t get my tax money if you make up gods-that’s just the way it works, backward phuckface bigot

  • wrong again-that was debunked as anti-gay biased propaganda. The only REAL study for TWENTY years proves conclusively that gays are just as good if not better than straights at parenting-sorry, bigot! Australia? Really? come on, dumdum-a country with a large population like the USA- here ya go-https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201006/25-year-long-study-finds-children-lesbian-parents-may-be-better

  • Your first link-Douglas Allen works for NOM-the proven hate group-come on-did you even try to find an unbiased article?

  • Well norman, I don’t have to open the link to prove you wrong (and I don’t open links anyway). The gentleman is an economist.

  • so you admit your wrong-. He’s a known NOM kook-sorry, bigot but you lose-heres the article in type to show everyone here how obtuse you are. Just be a man and admit youre wrong. Sorry, I don’t mean to make you feel stupid, but youre a big fat liar – Douglas Allen is an anti-gay bigot who sits on the National Organization For Marriage‘s-linked Ruth Institute Board of Advisors and is one of its “inner circle of experts.” In a recent

ADVERTISEMENTs