A Simple Question For Those Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I have a feeling they're going to know about it pretty soon. It's an easy oversight to make. Not all lawyers are scholars on children's legal issues in case law. It's an obscure area of focus in law. All it takes is a nice brief to remind them. No worries. Better late than never.

You might want to consider this before you continue to embarrass yourself with your stupid ass blather:

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark HYPERLINK
"UT College of Liberal Arts:"Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend of the court brief http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2014/03/amicus-curiae-friend-of-the-court-friend-of-the-academy/to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“

If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I have a feeling they're going to know about it pretty soon. It's an easy oversight to make. Not all lawyers are scholars on children's legal issues in case law. It's an obscure area of focus in law. All it takes is a nice brief to remind them. No worries. Better late than never.

Marriage Equality Opponent Admits ‘No Difference’ Between Same Sex &Hetero Families

The talking points of those against marriage equality have never been grounded in the real world, and even strong opponents are realizing it. In this case, one of the people behind the flawed Regnerus study has admitted that there isn’t a difference between stable same-sex and heterosexual homes when it comes to the health of the child. Brad Wilcox, one of the researchers for the study, has now indicated some level of acceptance of data refuting his work.

The Regnerus study has captured the imaginations of anti-gay activists throughout the world. But in reality, it is complete bunk. Shortly after Regnerus published his work, the narrative behind it unraveled. It turned out that Regnerus had relied on a slew of flawed methodology and had only studied two people raised by same-sex couples. As one sociologist charged with auditing Regnerus’ study for an academic journal put it: “Since only two respondents were actually raised in gay or lesbian households, this study has absolutely nothing to say about gay parenting outcomes. Indeed, because it is a non-random sample, this study has nothing to say about anything.”

Most of the scientists would say that there’s no difference … between a stable same-sex family and a stable heterosexual family,” replied Wilcox, noting that those scientists might consider stability the “key factor, not other issues that might relate to a child’s well-being.”

…

“

The data suggest that same-sex couples — and this is really preliminary — are more likely to have stable relationships when the legal regime is more supportive of their relationships,” Wilcox replied. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/06/16/marriage-is-marriage/

YOU have nothing except your inane appeals to ignorance and links to articles and studies that in no way say what you claim that they say.

 

[Silhouette]

Neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that same sex marriage or having two parents of the same sex is harmful.

Visit any one of the three links in this OP to find out why you can be proven wrong in a court of law: Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

Oh heck, I know you're too lazy so here: (you understand that children come in both boy and girl form?)
Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf
The Importance of Fathers
fatherhood.pdf

 

[mdk]

The Prince's Trust.

 

[Silhouette]

The Prince's Trust.

You forgot "Psychology Today" also..."The US Department of Health and Human Services"...Name all three links mdk.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Prince's Trust.

You forgot "Psychology Today" also..."The US Department of Health and Human Services"...Name all three links mdk.

You mean the article that starts out with a bible verse?? The one where the author asserts that the "positive results of a father's influence on the moral reasoning of an adolescent son, allowing me to graduate on time." What does that mean. This is basically an essay that cites some research that purportedly proves that fathers are important, but does not present those studies in full.

And the DHHS blurb proves nothing either. It's about a grant to promote responsible fatherhood. It says nothing about children needing parents of the opposite sex.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that same sex marriage or having two parents of the same sex is harmful.

Visit any one of the three links in this OP to find out why you can be proven wrong in a court of law: Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

Oh heck, I know you're too lazy so here: (you understand that children come in both boy and girl form?)
Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf
The Importance of Fathers
fatherhood.pdf

Same debunked bovine excrement. Different day. Yet you cant seem to explain why the state of Michigan had to hire an incompetent charlatan who was disowned by his own university to try to convince a court that same sex marriage is harmful to children. He was thrown out of court and the case failed. You cant explain why they did not just use some credible evidence of harm to the children. I can BECAUSE THERE IS NONE.

You also have run from the question of how banning same sex marriage would result in more children having a mother and a father.

Time and again, you prove yourself to be motivated by mindless and soulless bigotry-not concern for children. You shamelessly use children!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If Angela were Angus and step father to the children and the mother died they would still go to their father and heterosexual step father would not even have visitation.

What is your beef again?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If Angela were Angus and step father to the children and the mother died they would still go to their father and heterosexual step father would not even have visitation.

What is your beef again?

Holy shit! What are you blathering about and who are you addressing.?? You're making no sense at all. I do believe that you are in fact tipsy. A cat lover? Not so sure. I'm a cat lover.

 

[Silhouette]

You also have run from the question of how banning same sex marriage would result in more children having a mother and a father.

Adoption isn't about churning kids out like a mill. It's about placing them carefully so their little lives are in the best hands. Two people having a contract that banishes them from either a father or mother for life is not "in the best hands". And, such a contract is illegal. Especially to use to qualify to adopt...any child...and perhaps especially the ones most vulnerable, unloved/at-risk...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If Angela were Angus and step father to the children and the mother died they would still go to their father and heterosexual step father would not even have visitation.

What is your beef again?

Holy shit! What are you blathering about and who are you addressing.?? You're making no sense at all. I do believe that you are in fact tipsy. A cat lover? Not so sure. I'm a cat lover.

The OP posed a question did you not read it? Did you read it?

Yes you are a cat lover, in a white wine reduction sauce I'm sure.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You also have run from the question of how banning same sex marriage would result in more children having a mother and a father.

Adoption isn't about churning kids out like a mill. It's about placing them carefully so their little lives are in the best hands. Two people having a contract that banishes them from either a father or mother for life is not "in the best hands". And, such a contract is illegal. Especially to use to qualify to adopt...any child...and perhaps especially the ones most vulnerable, unloved/at-risk...

What are the best hands? In a pathological culture where there is a basis in depravity and perversion, then raising children to be depraved and accept perversion is a cultural imperitive.

Little boys do not, in the ordinary course of their lives, want their assholes buggered. It hurts. It bleeds. They must be nurtured into acceptance. Who better to do that nuturing than a pervert acting as a parent.

 

[emilynghiem]

The question is why should some other individual control your life in the first place?

They can choose their own track in life but should stay the fuck out of other peoples life choices...Many of these people have the nerve to whine about how small government and personal responsibility they're but sure as fuck want the government to enforce their belief system against other people. Maybe they should deal with their own goddamn life and I'll deal with mine.

Dear ScienceRocks EXACTLY
this is the reasoning used by Libertarians and other Constitutionalists
who argue to keep marriage out of govt and govt out of marriage altogether!

BINGO!

keep the govt contracts secular and neutral of personal connections,
but only about the legal and financial terms and agreements:
ie civil unions or domestic partnerships
estates, guardianships, executors, etc.

As for marriage and benefits, keep these private.
Catholic church programs are private and decide their own terms for their own members.
Mormons manage their own private social security type program for their members
where they agree to the terms.

Galveston Texas has its own social security program for its resident citizens,
so any group of people can set up their own and manage collective resources
similar to a credit union, health shares ministry, or family trust.

But handing control of social and marriage benefits
means depending on a FEDERAL authority and policy that is required to represent
ALL PEOPLE under it. So if people have CONFLICTING beliefs about marriage,
then if Govt establishes one belief or another, that's establishing a national religion!
That's a violation of the First Amendment.

So that's what is happening with abusing govt to establish political beliefs about marriage.
It is essentially violating religious freedom of one group or another that has DISSENTING beliefs.
Not constitutional!

This still needs to be corrected or it's discriminating
against either one group or another by creed.
The govt should remain neutral, so there is no bias toward one group's beliefs about marriage
or the other.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What are the best hands? In a pathological culture where there is a basis in depravity and perversion, then raising children to be depraved and accept perversion is a cultural imperitive [sic].

Little boys do not, in the ordinary course of their lives, want their assholes buggered. It hurts. It bleeds. They must be nurtured into acceptance. Who better to do that nuturing [sic] than a pervert acting as a parent.

And isn't the motive rather obvious, of the pervert-rights bunch wanting to get their hands on children? Though they seldom openly admit it,it is quiet clear that pedophilia is under the umbrella of behaviors and perversions that they wish to promote, and that their intent in putting children in the custody of perverts is to allow those children to be groomed into easier prey for the child molesters among them. How blind must one be not to see this?

 

[emilynghiem]

Conservatives sure bitch about the importance of the constitutions but the constitutions doesn't allow for another group of people to be discriminated against. That is why homosexual marriage is legal! Accept it.

Dear ScienceRocks
Yes, for laws to be applied constitutionally equal and inclusive of people of all beliefs,
homosexual marriage should be legal as a spiritual practice, ritual or exercise of religion
that govt cannot regulate. However, to be consistently constitutional, govt should neither
prohibit nor establish it.

1. One argument that IS unconstitutional is that govt or laws should ban it.
This is clearly unconstitutional to abuse govt to ban a religious, spiritual or faith based belief that people have a right to practice by free choice.

2. However, the constitutional argument that I would support as a valid objection
is that govt should not establish ANY beliefs about marriage in conflict with the beliefs of any persons represented by that law. Federal laws are supposed to represent and apply to all people under that jurisdiction. So if people don't agree religiously on marriage, the federal and state govts cannot endorse a policy unless all their citizens consent to it who are under it.

Now if it happens that a State has citizens who agree to vote by majority rule, or consent to a court ruling, that is biased toward one belief or another, as long as those citizens AGREE, they have the right to pass such a law they all consent to. But that is NOT what is happening, because beliefs are at stake on both sides, and neither side AGREES to have the other beliefs imposed on them!

This is EXACTLY why "marriage" should be kept out of govt which should remain neutral.
If you start dragging social beliefs into marriage, where people do not agree,
that's why govt cannot be abused to enforce, endorse or establish one policy or another.

People do NOT AGREE to have govt establish conflicting beliefs that violate their own.

The reason these rulings are where they are right now, is we haven't resolved the conflicts
with political and social beliefs that ought to be treated the same as religious beliefs.
So until we resolve them, these contested ruling remain.

It's not that they are constitutional, because they are still contested and argued as unconstitutional.

It's that we haven't agreed how to resolve the conflicts yet.
Similar to how the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, including parts that weren't constitutional,
so until those were challenged and changed, the law stood as was.

We are still in process of resolving these conflicts over political beliefs.
Slavery also wasn't change until generations later,
but while it was legal, the courts and laws were considered valid
that treated people as property. Those weren't constitutional in spirit either but were treated as law.

 

[emilynghiem]

What are the best hands? In a pathological culture where there is a basis in depravity and perversion, then raising children to be depraved and accept perversion is a cultural imperitive [sic].

Little boys do not, in the ordinary course of their lives, want their assholes buggered. It hurts. It bleeds. They must be nurtured into acceptance. Who better to do that nuturing [sic] than a pervert acting as a parent.

And isn't the motive rather obvious, of the pervert-rights bunch wanting to get their hands on children? Though they seldom openly admit it,it is quiet clear that pedophilia is under the umbrella of behaviors and perversions that they wish to promote, and that their intent in putting children in the custody of perverts is to allow those children to be groomed into easier prey for the child molesters among them. How blind must one be not to see this?

No Bob Blaylock
The LGBT don't want Christians to be right about spiritual healing changing orientation.
Because they don't want to be judged or pressured to change orientation,
they turn to arguments that homosexuality is genetic or inborn to justify why it cannot change.

The LGBT advocates are right, that not all homosexuality orientation or transgender identity cases
can change. But the Christians are right that some can, especially cases caused unnaturally by abuse.
Once the abuse is healed, it is possible that some people heal of their homosexual or transgender conditions.

The real issue that both sides have trouble facing is that cases are different.
Some people can change, some cannot. So neither side is 100% right about all people.

This battle is stuck because one side argues that ALL cases are natural born and should be
recognized like race; while the other argues NO cases are natural, and these conditions should be cured.

Both sides are equally wrong to exclude the other.
Because there are both types of cases going on, and neither people nor the govt should be the judge, but individuals have the right to their own spiritual identity, orientation and process without govt regulating it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Faggotry confuses children. In the old days, they got hung. I'm thinking Jefferson advocated for being too easy on them.
I care about the kids, and they shouldn't be exposed to your faggotry.

Kids come from God.

Faggots do what their penis tells them to.

/thread.

You think I should be hung?

Dear mdk I believe all people should be healed,
or have the informed choice of spiritual healing.

If they are healed, and identify as gay or transgender,
then I trust that isn't due to some unresolved spiritual issues
but is their natural condition.

But people should have fully informed choices,
access to and knowledge of spiritual healing
so they aren't forced one way or another but truly choose freely.

 

[emilynghiem]

The only good fag is a ------ fill in the blank ------ fag

^...healed...^

as long as people are healed and happy,
there is nothing wrong with how God intends each person to be.
if people are meant to change, that will happen.
if not, then the healing process won't change that.
but at least it removes any negative fears or feelings
by the power of forgiveness which healing is based on.

 

[emilynghiem]

No this thread is about making either fathers or mothers irrelevant in children's lives.

You can believe that equine excrement if you want. The fact is that hundreds of thousands of kids that have two moms o two dads are doing just as well as all of the others and better than many with single parents- and you can't prove otherwise. You are blinded by your bigotry not smart enough to know that most people do not by into your appeals to ingorance

I'm sure many hundreds or thousands of kids are doing OK with single parents. But making their missing father or mother "irrelevant" doesn't help children in general over time.

You know where I'm going with this so just surrender while you can still save face and not wind up like all your fellow LGBT cult payroll bloggers here: looking like you're advocating harming children to forward the deviant-sex-as-identity agendas.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot and Silhouette
I think you are both right on respective points, minus the personal insults back and forth
that are "irrelevant" to the valid arguments made on this thread.

It is TRUE that kids are better off WITH stable loving parents as legal guardians,
as TheProgressivePatriot argues is independent of orientation.

And it is IS true that kids benefit from mentors and parents who model healthy male-female partnerships.

I say YES to both. I see no reason to slam or shame either person or side for their beliefs
behind these statements.

It is perfectly possible for both sides to be right and have valid points or argument.

Thank you for starting this thread, and discussing issues we all care about very deeply.

I do believe we'd do better to help set up more foster programs and schools
where kids can live in healthy families and communities, even temporarily until they
can be adopted out by matching them to guardians they connect with personally and spiritually.

Instead of fighting about this, I'd like to do more to help kids.
I've always wanted to set up a school where I could help tutor and manage
for kids aging out of the foster system who might end up living on their own.
At least we could set up campuses where they could go to work or school
and still be part of a loving community.

That's one of my dreams, to do that as a retirement present.
I'd rather form teams and organize resources to do something positive
instead of just watching well meaning people argue about this problems.

Thank you for bringing this up,
and I hope we can all do more in the future to
make a difference in the lives of children without parents or homes.

 

[emilynghiem]

I see nothing in your scenario which would REQUIRE marriage between the two women for CPS or courts to rule in favor of what is best for the children. It's two different issues but you are attempting to connect them together for purposes of promoting a specific policy.

There is certainly legal precedent for non-parents being awarded custody of children following the unexpected death of a sole custodian. Your fictional scenario would have been much more thought-provoking had you introduced caring, loving and closely connected maternal grandparents who were willing to raise the children. In such a situation, we have to weigh the options of relatives vs. partner and the intrinsic nature of disrupting the living arrangement of the children. That could be a compelling argument and one that would be difficult to determine without careful evaluation of the particular case circumstances. But at least that would be a compelling scenario. What you've presented is not.

I addressed the issue of grand parents and other relatives. There were none. At the time and in the place of the story, marriage could well have been the difference in whether or not the kids got to stay with the only person who they know and are bonded to. Accept that or not. It is a case for same sex marriage.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot and Boss

Can the children still choose the surviving partner as legal guardian
regardless of marriage or not?

Why can't guardianship and partnerships be recognized neutrally
and independently of social or spiritual beliefs about marriage?

I agree with Boss on one point, that adding social beliefs about marriage
is not necessary. I think the reason TheProgressivePatriot and other LGBT advocates
are having to resort to govt recognition of rights to marriage was because the equal
free exercise of those choices and beliefs were denied legally so it became legally necessary to fight against that. Had it never been banned, it would not require a legal remedy
to try to restore equal protections of the laws.