Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Czernobog]

I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men. But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.

This has got to be the most uneducated, biased response to any argument I have ever heard. What you basically said was, "I don't care what any study demonstrates, I know what I know, and you cannot distract me with facts,"

Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change. You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.

 

[jillian]

wonderful news for individual rights

Dangerous Dolt,

Individual rights were just diminished. A small handful of unelected black robes, far removed from your best interests, just over-rided the will of the people in those states. Millions of people. And you rejoice? How ignorant!!!!

I live when ignorant rightwingnut bigots think they are insulting me. Cracks me up.

Yet, you ignore the point made. Ignore the facts. Hence, dangerous dolt.

there was no point made that required response. trying to teach bigots the error of their ways is like trying to teach a pig to talk.... it doesn't work and it annoys the pig

 

[BullKurtz]

Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change. You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.

You homosexuals have already wreaked havoc on the US with your AIDS and Hep C.....thankfully most who died were the queers themselves, but enough damage was done for the filthy practice to have seen the laws against it ENFORCED instead of ignored. BTW it's easy for perverts to cry "bigotry" when confronted with their disgusting behavior....I'm also an EBOLA BIGOT by any sane definition. And we're not fooled by the attacks on Christianity...it's all coming from queer atheists who deny they have offended God and are DOOMED...they are the true "bigots".

 

[Seawytch]

Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change. You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.

You homosexuals have already wreaked havoc on the US with your AIDS and Hep C.....thankfully most who died were the queers themselves, but enough damage was done for the filthy practice to have seen the laws against it ENFORCED instead of ignored. BTW it's easy for perverts to cry "bigotry" when confronted with their disgusting behavior....I'm also an EBOLA BIGOT by any sane definition. And we're not fooled by the attacks on Christianity...it's all coming from queer atheists who deny they have offended God and are DOOMED...they are the true "bigots".

Now that is a new one for the bigots...gay people are like Ebola? Geez you people are nucking futs.

 

[Seawytch]

So you also disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning airplanes, right?
Are you trying to argue that people who cannot procreate with each other naturally should not have children? You're going to cause an orphanage crisis with stupid rules like that.
Go ahead and end the tax breaks, we're still going to want civil marriage. Tax breaks are only one of over a thousand rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage. We've been marrying for decades...we've only just started getting the tax breaks a couple years ago. We'll survive.

Yes I do disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning planes.
I think states, or private placement groups, should be allowed to decide not to place orphans or foster kids with gay couples without it being illegal. I doubt very much if it would cause an orphanage crisis.
Im glad we can probably agree not to hand out tax favors based solely on marriage status.
the Loving case was decided upon the greater popular national will expressed in the 13,15th and the surface,common sense intent of the 14th amendments.

Private placement groups do not have to place children with anyone they don't want. If, however, you take money from the Federal government or from a state with non discrimination laws that include gays and lesbians you don't get to discriminate against gays.
You said:

.well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

That would leave out all infertile couples...you know, the ones that adopt children the most. Gays are not born with an inability to have children within their relationship. We're born gay, not infertile. (I've had five)
What Amendment was specifically cited in the Loving decision?

Regarding private placement groups, thats not what I've read regarding the Catholic church in Massachusetts for example.
There is differentiation between Infertile couples and gay-couples.....I doubt if most infertile couples were born that way...even if so tho, other aspects of their gender remain so that they mimic normal fertile couples.
Yes, I realize you can still be fertile and be gay, which I think maybe points away from the "born-that-way" idea but ...I think if you accept your gayness as being innate perhaps u should accept that you shouldn't raise children.

I happen to know a few infertile couples that were born that way, but still you only want to keep gays from adopting children. That's pretty bigoted, there fella.
As to the Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, I do believe Worldwatcher has already debunked that bovine feces. Look to the facts next time, not the anti gay spin from anti gay sites.
You need to accept the fact that gays are raising children. I've got a 12 and 14 year old and have given birth to three more children for a gay male couple. Guess what? Our kids are doing fine. In fact, all the reputable studies show that our children are at no disadvantage to children raised by heterosexuals. There is no difference in outcomes between straight and gay parents.

I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men. But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.

Your opinion runs contrary to facts...which is why you are losing in Federal Courts AND the court of public opinion.

 

[BullKurtz]

Now that is a new one for the bigots...gay people are like Ebola? Geez you people are nucking futs.

Geez....you "people" can't seem to get over calling normals "bigots"...limited vocabulary or afraid not to follow the sore butt crowd?

 

[Seawytch]

Now that is a new one for the bigots...gay people are like Ebola? Geez you people are nucking futs.

Geez....you "people" can't seem to get over calling normals "bigots"...limited vocabulary or afraid not to follow the sore butt crowd?

No, we call bigots bigots. If the shoe fits...

 

[dcraelin]

I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men. But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.

This has got to be the most uneducated, biased response to any argument I have ever heard. What you basically said was, "I don't care what any study demonstrates, I know what I know, and you cannot distract me with facts,"

Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change. You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.

It is too bad you feel that way.........the reflexive habit of those on your side of the argument to call people bigots is despicable.

 

[dcraelin]

Yes I do disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning planes.
I think states, or private placement groups, should be allowed to decide not to place orphans or foster kids with gay couples without it being illegal. I doubt very much if it would cause an orphanage crisis.
Im glad we can probably agree not to hand out tax favors based solely on marriage status.
the Loving case was decided upon the greater popular national will expressed in the 13,15th and the surface,common sense intent of the 14th amendments.

Private placement groups do not have to place children with anyone they don't want. If, however, you take money from the Federal government or from a state with non discrimination laws that include gays and lesbians you don't get to discriminate against gays.
You said:

.well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

That would leave out all infertile couples...you know, the ones that adopt children the most. Gays are not born with an inability to have children within their relationship. We're born gay, not infertile. (I've had five)
What Amendment was specifically cited in the Loving decision?

Regarding private placement groups, thats not what I've read regarding the Catholic church in Massachusetts for example.
There is differentiation between Infertile couples and gay-couples.....I doubt if most infertile couples were born that way...even if so tho, other aspects of their gender remain so that they mimic normal fertile couples.
Yes, I realize you can still be fertile and be gay, which I think maybe points away from the "born-that-way" idea but ...I think if you accept your gayness as being innate perhaps u should accept that you shouldn't raise children.

I happen to know a few infertile couples that were born that way, but still you only want to keep gays from adopting children. That's pretty bigoted, there fella.
As to the Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, I do believe Worldwatcher has already debunked that bovine feces. Look to the facts next time, not the anti gay spin from anti gay sites.
You need to accept the fact that gays are raising children. I've got a 12 and 14 year old and have given birth to three more children for a gay male couple. Guess what? Our kids are doing fine. In fact, all the reputable studies show that our children are at no disadvantage to children raised by heterosexuals. There is no difference in outcomes between straight and gay parents.

I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men. But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.

Your opinion runs contrary to facts...which is why you are losing in Federal Courts AND the court of public opinion.

It has certainly not been demonstrated that I am losing in the court of public opinion...but that is the court that should decide this or we end up undermining the American system that has made us great.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your opinion runs contrary to facts...which is why you are losing in Federal Courts AND the court of public opinion.

It has certainly not been demonstrated that I am losing in the court of public opinion...but that is the court that should decide this or we end up undermining the American system that has made us great.

2000
California pass Prop 22 as Statutory Law with a margin of victory of approximately 22%.

A Decade Ago:
States were passing bans on SSCM (Same-sex Civil Marriage) with, IIRC, margins of victory of 23-76%.

2008/2009
California passed Prop 8 (2008) with 52.5% voting Yea and 47.5% voting No. That means a change of only 2.5% was needed to change the outcome. Maine passed Question 1 (2009) with 52.5% voting Yea and 47.5% voting No. That means a change of only 2.5% was needed to change the outcome.

2012
Four States had Marriage Equality on the General Election ballot, Marriage Equality won in all for States (Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota). The margins had shifted the other way to measure passing by about 2.5%. NOTE 1: Maine repealed it's own law only 3 years later. NOTE: Minnesota's measure was a ban on SSCM, which was defeated.


************************************

Polling Report -->> Civil Rights

Not only is SSCM winning at the ballot box, but national poll after national poll show a consistent shift toward marriage equality.




OK, what do you have based on recent data, not 10-year old data?



>>>>

 

[Czernobog]

I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men. But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.

This has got to be the most uneducated, biased response to any argument I have ever heard. What you basically said was, "I don't care what any study demonstrates, I know what I know, and you cannot distract me with facts,"

Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change. You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.

It is too bad you feel that way.........the reflexive habit of those on your side of the argument to call people bigots is despicable.

Bigot - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics,or race. Considering your intolerant insistence on your opinion of homosexuals in spite of studies to the contrary, with which part of of that description do you take issue?

 

[Youch]

wonderful news for individual rights

Dangerous Dolt,

Individual rights were just diminished. A small handful of unelected black robes, far removed from your best interests, just over-rided the will of the people in those states. Millions of people. And you rejoice? How ignorant!!!!

I live when ignorant rightwingnut bigots think they are insulting me. Cracks me up.

Yet, you ignore the point made. Ignore the facts. Hence, dangerous dolt.

there was no point made that required response. trying to teach bigots the error of their ways is like trying to teach a pig to talk.... it doesn't work and it annoys the pig

Exactly. But if you could teach a pig to talk, I bet she would understand how millions of citizens just lost their voice, vote and rights, something completely un-American and against our Constitution, our law.

But I can see how you would fail to find that something worthy of a response, as it would require understanding of the law and of the previous posts made in this thread on the subject.

For everyone else. do you see how emotion is a dangerous thing?

 

[Seawytch]

I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men. But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.

This has got to be the most uneducated, biased response to any argument I have ever heard. What you basically said was, "I don't care what any study demonstrates, I know what I know, and you cannot distract me with facts,"

Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change. You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.

It is too bad you feel that way.........the reflexive habit of those on your side of the argument to call people bigots is despicable.

Sorry, but if the shoe fits, wear it proudly or are you ashamed of your bigotry?

 

[dcraelin]

Your opinion runs contrary to facts...which is why you are losing in Federal Courts AND the court of public opinion.

It has certainly not been demonstrated that I am losing in the court of public opinion...but that is the court that should decide this or we end up undermining the American system that has made us great.

2000
California pass Prop 22 as Statutory Law with a margin of victory of approximately 22%.

A Decade Ago:
States were passing bans on SSCM (Same-sex Civil Marriage) with, IIRC, margins of victory of 23-76%.

2008/2009
California passed Prop 8 (2008) with 52.5% voting Yea and 47.5% voting No. That means a change of only 2.5% was needed to change the outcome. Maine passed Question 1 (2009) with 52.5% voting Yea and 47.5% voting No. That means a change of only 2.5% was needed to change the outcome.

2012
Four States had Marriage Equality on the General Election ballot, Marriage Equality won in all for States (Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota). The margins had shifted the other way to measure passing by about 2.5%. NOTE 1: Maine repealed it's own law only 3 years later. NOTE: Minnesota's measure was a ban on SSCM, which was defeated.
************************************
Polling Report -->> Civil Rights

Not only is SSCM winning at the ballot box, but national poll after national poll show a consistent shift toward marriage equality.
OK, what do you have based on recent data, not 10-year old data?
>>>>

Well then you should not be afraid of a vote instead of using the courts. .....I think that the public would surely be more than happy to go along with civil unions with most aspects of marriage. Tho I also think, and hope, that under closer examination in a public vote they would reject a gay marriage right based approach.

 

[dcraelin]

Bigot - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics,or race. Considering your intolerant insistence on your opinion of homosexuals in spite of studies to the contrary, with which part of of that description do you take issue?

Where's your "tolerance" of me and my views asshole? Where's your consideration of the book and studies questioning the bias of numerous studies?

 

[dcraelin]

I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men. But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.

This has got to be the most uneducated, biased response to any argument I have ever heard. What you basically said was, "I don't care what any study demonstrates, I know what I know, and you cannot distract me with facts,"

Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change. You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.

It is too bad you feel that way.........the reflexive habit of those on your side of the argument to call people bigots is despicable.

Sorry, but if the shoe fits, wear it proudly or are you ashamed of your bigotry?

If the shoe dont fit....you must acquit.

 

[Seawytch]

I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men. But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.

This has got to be the most uneducated, biased response to any argument I have ever heard. What you basically said was, "I don't care what any study demonstrates, I know what I know, and you cannot distract me with facts,"

Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change. You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.

It is too bad you feel that way.........the reflexive habit of those on your side of the argument to call people bigots is despicable.

Sorry, but if the shoe fits, wear it proudly or are you ashamed of your bigotry?

If the shoe dont fit....you must acquit.

Ah, but I do believe it does fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.

 

[dcraelin]

I've posted elsewhere links to how studies fail the public....a whole book has been written on the subject called "wrong"[title?]. I think especially on this kind of subject studies out of college campuses are biased,...in your direction. Regardless this isnt an issue that the courts should determine. I am sure you do the best you can with your children. I generally have less of a problem with lesbians raising children than with gay men. But I think the best environment for children is a heterosexual couple.

This has got to be the most uneducated, biased response to any argument I have ever heard. What you basically said was, "I don't care what any study demonstrates, I know what I know, and you cannot distract me with facts,"

Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change. You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.

It is too bad you feel that way.........the reflexive habit of those on your side of the argument to call people bigots is despicable.

Sorry, but if the shoe fits, wear it proudly or are you ashamed of your bigotry?

If the shoe dont fit....you must acquit.

Ah, but I do believe it does fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.

I dont believe it does. I think it just points to a concerned citizen wanting the best for his country.

But if it makes you feel better to call me names thats on you.

 

[Seawytch]

This has got to be the most uneducated, biased response to any argument I have ever heard. What you basically said was, "I don't care what any study demonstrates, I know what I know, and you cannot distract me with facts,"

Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change. You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.

It is too bad you feel that way.........the reflexive habit of those on your side of the argument to call people bigots is despicable.

Sorry, but if the shoe fits, wear it proudly or are you ashamed of your bigotry?

If the shoe dont fit....you must acquit.

Ah, but I do believe it does fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.

I dont believe it does. I think it just points to a concerned citizen wanting the best for his country.

But if it makes you feel better to call me names thats on you.

Yeah, those folks opposed to interracial marriage thought they were wanting what was best for the country too. They didn't think they were bigots either.

 

[Czernobog]

Bigot - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics,or race. Considering your intolerant insistence on your opinion of homosexuals in spite of studies to the contrary, with which part of of that description do you take issue?

Where's your "tolerance" of me and my views asshole?

You can have whatever views you want. No one is telling you you don't get to be a bigot; only that you don't get to force everyone else to behave according to your bigoted views.

Where's your consideration of the book and studies questioning the bias of numerous studies?

You mean, the book whose name you can't even remember, let alone whether you are citing it accurately? You mean That book? I think the fact that you can't even cite the source says everything about how much consideration your "source" deserves.

Tell you what. when you can actually give us an actual source, I'll be happy to go see what it has to say.