Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[ricechickie]

Wrong. Blue eyes don't interfere with propagation of the species. Homosexuality does.

Of course. How will the species go on propagating?

Why, it might get to the point where bripat has no choice but to become a homosexual!

 

[Seawytch]

We are raising children, we're adopting children, we're getting married...die off or get over it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Kids are the central focus of marriage. Society subsidizes marriage. I have absolutely zero interest in subsidizing someone's marriage just because they love someone. Love is a personal matter, but social support involves an obligation.

As for pulling kids from homes, we've already gone too far on that front - child social service agents are often causing more family damage than they prevent. Normal parents are better than homosexual parents.

Your bigotry is showing. Perhaps you should tuck it back in.

According to libturds, stating facts is "bigotry" and "hate."

Homosexuals are abnormal, according to the definition of the term. Sorry if that sucks for you.

Ayup... homosexuals are abnormal. But then so is brilliance, genius, exceptional-ism, and liberty.

 

[Rikurzhen]

St. Patrick's Day occurs every March 17th. That doesn't mean that the Irish are launching a thought control agenda.

But once upon a time, they might have been. Back when there were regularly signs that said, "Irish need not apply."

Do you know that once upon a time, children were not allowed to use their dominant left hand when learning to write? Something changed that.

Sounds like an agenda to me.

It wasn't an agenda. It was an issue of how a leftie dealt with his parents. Homosexuals can tailor their relationship with their own parents as they best see fit, same too with their friends. Forcing me to comply, often under penalty of law, makes me their enemy. If left-handers forced me to comply with their agenda, and used law-fare to do so, they'd be my enemy too,.

Right handed people used to make left-handed people comply or be punished....under shady religious grounds too.

But let me add to your analogy. Are right-handed people trying to keep left-handed people from legally marrying? No? What do you think left-handed people would do, if the right-handed majority was telling them that they were perverted and they should not be allowed legal marriage? Do you think left-handed people would just be quiet...or would they have an "agenda" too?

I missed this last paragraph somehow.

No one has ever kept homosexuals from marrying. Rock Hudson was married. Dr. Sally Ride was married. Meridth Baxter-Birney was married.

How many times does this failed argument have to refuted? Interracial marriage bans prohibited a black person from marrying a white person. But nobody was kept from marrying, because everybody could still marry someone of their same race, right?

How many times does your failed rebuttal have to be taken to the woodshed. The interracial precedent doesn't apply. Throughout history there have been two forms of marriage - Exogenous and Endogamous - Out-group and In-Group. Both are valid. When states prohibited outgroup marriage they were favoring one form of marriage over another form, ingroup over outgroup and had no basis for the ingroup preference. Marriage was not being redefined.

Homosexual "marriage" is a gross redefinition of marriage. There is no exogamy or endogamy involved which would link it to the interracial marriage prohibitions.

 

[RKMBrown]

St. Patrick's Day occurs every March 17th. That doesn't mean that the Irish are launching a thought control agenda.

But once upon a time, they might have been. Back when there were regularly signs that said, "Irish need not apply."

Do you know that once upon a time, children were not allowed to use their dominant left hand when learning to write? Something changed that.

Sounds like an agenda to me.

It wasn't an agenda. It was an issue of how a leftie dealt with his parents. Homosexuals can tailor their relationship with their own parents as they best see fit, same too with their friends. Forcing me to comply, often under penalty of law, makes me their enemy. If left-handers forced me to comply with their agenda, and used law-fare to do so, they'd be my enemy too,.

Right handed people used to make left-handed people comply or be punished....under shady religious grounds too.

But let me add to your analogy. Are right-handed people trying to keep left-handed people from legally marrying? No? What do you think left-handed people would do, if the right-handed majority was telling them that they were perverted and they should not be allowed legal marriage? Do you think left-handed people would just be quiet...or would they have an "agenda" too?

I missed this last paragraph somehow.

No one has ever kept homosexuals from marrying. Rock Hudson was married. Dr. Sally Ride was married. Meridth Baxter-Birney was married.

How many times does this failed argument have to refuted? interracial marriage bans prohibited a black person from marrying a white person. But nobody was kept from marrying, because everybody could still marry someone of their same race, right?

The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. Marriage is a union between people of the opposite sex. No amount of propaganda or verbal legerdemain can change that.

Why would you want to change marriage being a union between people of the opposite sex? What are you some kind of hetero hater? But yeah happy marriage... I suppose for jerks that's an oxymoron.

 

[ShackledNation]

If it's about the kids, same-sex marriage should be encouraged just as much as opposite-sex marriage. All valid studies show that children with same-sex parents fare better or worse than their peers raised by opposite-sex parents.

Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers research shows - The Washington Post
Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents Gays Lesbians Same-Sex Marriage Advantages of Gay Parenting Gay Adoption
New Study Confirms Same-Sex Couples Make Great Parents ThinkProgress

But, of course, having children or planing to have children--or even being able to have children--is not a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license in a single state.

Wrong. Those studies are anything but "valid." They are all fatally flawed.

Feel free to point out what makes them "fatally flawed." Perhaps you are not aware, but calling something "fatally flawed" and leaving it at that is not actually an argument.

Environmentalists always point to oil-company funded research and call in invalid and corrupt due to the associations of the researchers and their involvement with oil companies.

Same process at work with homosexual normalization research. Almost all research in the field is done by advocates of homosexuals. The sample sizes are small and biasing the conclusion by monkeying around with the study design is a very effective tactic. To illustrate my point, I'll pick apart one study for you.

CNN reports on this Lesbian study

...

Environmental studies by oil companies are not invalid simply because they are provided by oil companies, nor are studies of same-sex couples and children invalid because researchers hypothesize the result will show same-sex couples are perfectly capable parents.

As to the rest of your post, it is not worth responding to because (1) The study you site is not one that I brought up, so I don't really care about it, and (2) the studies I mentioned to not suffer any of the problems you brought up

 

[RKMBrown]

St. Patrick's Day occurs every March 17th. That doesn't mean that the Irish are launching a thought control agenda.

But once upon a time, they might have been. Back when there were regularly signs that said, "Irish need not apply."

Do you know that once upon a time, children were not allowed to use their dominant left hand when learning to write? Something changed that.

Sounds like an agenda to me.

It wasn't an agenda. It was an issue of how a leftie dealt with his parents. Homosexuals can tailor their relationship with their own parents as they best see fit, same too with their friends. Forcing me to comply, often under penalty of law, makes me their enemy. If left-handers forced me to comply with their agenda, and used law-fare to do so, they'd be my enemy too,.

Right handed people used to make left-handed people comply or be punished....under shady religious grounds too.

But let me add to your analogy. Are right-handed people trying to keep left-handed people from legally marrying? No? What do you think left-handed people would do, if the right-handed majority was telling them that they were perverted and they should not be allowed legal marriage? Do you think left-handed people would just be quiet...or would they have an "agenda" too?

I missed this last paragraph somehow.

No one has ever kept homosexuals from marrying. Rock Hudson was married. Dr. Sally Ride was married. Meridth Baxter-Birney was married.

How many times does this failed argument have to refuted? interracial marriage bans prohibited a black person from marrying a white person. But nobody was kept from marrying, because everybody could still marry someone of their same race, right?

The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. Marriage is a union between people of the opposite sex. No amount of propaganda or verbal legerdemain can change that.

And back then, the term "interracial marriage" was also an oxymoron. You are using the same failed arguments of the past. You aren't even creative about it.

Wrong again. The color of your skin does not affect anyone's ability to reproduce, so it's irrelevant to the institution of marriage.

Being married doesn't affect anyone's ability to reproduce either... so that's yet another epic fail on your part.

 

[Rikurzhen]

We're talking about the children's educational outcomes. If you get a 5% raise at work that doesn't translate into your kid doing 5% better in high school.

A marriage license doesn't change the QUALITY of a parent. A tax savings from a government marriage benefit doesn't change the kid's performance at school.

You would have done better to simply have remained silent than to embark on this sorry exercise of excuse making.

You don't think educational outcomes have to do with economic issues? How insulated from the world ARE you

Think about this. If you get a $5,000 per year raise in your job, do your kids suddenly do better at school? No, they don't. Income of parents doesn't CAUSE better school performance in the children.

What's happening is this - smart parents have smart kids and smart parents usually earn high incomes. So what's being measured is this - kids from higher income homes perform better at school than kids from lower income homes. Income though is not the independent variable, rather income is the proxy variable for IQ. Parent's high IQ CAUSES BOTH high parental income and, when passed to the kids, good school performance.

Now to your objection. All of this is taking place in homosexual families regardless of whether the parents are "married" or not. The kids of smart homosexuals are likely being raised in a high income family and they do well in school. The kids of dumb homosexuals are likely being raised in a modest income family and are not dong so well at school.

Getting a fiancial boost of a few thousand dollars per year from "married" benefits doesn't do anything to affect child academic outcomes.

What your apologia has done is disqualified all the heterosexual who are married and because marriage is correlated with class, with IQ, with lower levels of social dysfunction, what's left over are the common-law couples who have lower levels of human capital and this group is compared to the entire sample universe of homosexual couples, which means those who would get married (high levels of human capital) and those who would choose to remain unmarried.

Think of it this way. You want to compare male sprinters against female sprinters. You find the fastest sprinters in the world and have them race. The min win. Then some feminist "researcher" comes along and disqualifies the men because they're had too long a period of post-puberty masculinziation and so now the only men who qualify are those who are prepubescent. These boys now get to run races against female Olympic sprinters. The women win the sprints. Conclusion = women are faster sprinters than men. Do you see the problem here?

 

[Rikurzhen]

If it's about the kids, same-sex marriage should be encouraged just as much as opposite-sex marriage. All valid studies show that children with same-sex parents fare better or worse than their peers raised by opposite-sex parents.

Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers research shows - The Washington Post
Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents Gays Lesbians Same-Sex Marriage Advantages of Gay Parenting Gay Adoption
New Study Confirms Same-Sex Couples Make Great Parents ThinkProgress

But, of course, having children or planing to have children--or even being able to have children--is not a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license in a single state.

Wrong. Those studies are anything but "valid." They are all fatally flawed.

Feel free to point out what makes them "fatally flawed." Perhaps you are not aware, but calling something "fatally flawed" and leaving it at that is not actually an argument.

Environmentalists always point to oil-company funded research and call in invalid and corrupt due to the associations of the researchers and their involvement with oil companies.

Same process at work with homosexual normalization research. Almost all research in the field is done by advocates of homosexuals. The sample sizes are small and biasing the conclusion by monkeying around with the study design is a very effective tactic. To illustrate my point, I'll pick apart one study for you.

CNN reports on this Lesbian study

...

Environmental studies by oil companies are not invalid simply because they are provided by oil companies, nor are studies of same-sex couples and children invalid because researchers hypothesize the result will show same-sex couples are perfectly capable parents.

As to the rest of your post, it is not worth responding to because (1) The study you site is not one that I brought up, so I don't really care about it, and (2) the studies I mentioned to not suffer any of the problems you brought up

Nice tactic of dismissal. You religious people are good at that. So, prove to me that the studies that inform your view don't suffer the problems I've noted.

I've reviewed the literature in the field. Surprise me. Make your case.

 

[ShackledNation]

St. Patrick's Day occurs every March 17th. That doesn't mean that the Irish are launching a thought control agenda.

But once upon a time, they might have been. Back when there were regularly signs that said, "Irish need not apply."

Do you know that once upon a time, children were not allowed to use their dominant left hand when learning to write? Something changed that.

Sounds like an agenda to me.

It wasn't an agenda. It was an issue of how a leftie dealt with his parents. Homosexuals can tailor their relationship with their own parents as they best see fit, same too with their friends. Forcing me to comply, often under penalty of law, makes me their enemy. If left-handers forced me to comply with their agenda, and used law-fare to do so, they'd be my enemy too,.

Right handed people used to make left-handed people comply or be punished....under shady religious grounds too.

But let me add to your analogy. Are right-handed people trying to keep left-handed people from legally marrying? No? What do you think left-handed people would do, if the right-handed majority was telling them that they were perverted and they should not be allowed legal marriage? Do you think left-handed people would just be quiet...or would they have an "agenda" too?

I missed this last paragraph somehow.

No one has ever kept homosexuals from marrying. Rock Hudson was married. Dr. Sally Ride was married. Meridth Baxter-Birney was married.

How many times does this failed argument have to refuted? Interracial marriage bans prohibited a black person from marrying a white person. But nobody was kept from marrying, because everybody could still marry someone of their same race, right?

How many times does your failed rebuttal have to be taken to the woodshed. The interracial precedent doesn't apply. Throughout history there have been two forms of marriage - Exogenous and Endogamous - Out-group and In-Group. Both are valid. When states prohibited outgroup marriage they were favoring one form of marriage over another form, ingroup over outgroup and had no basis for the ingroup preference. Marriage was not being redefined.

Homosexual "marriage" is a gross redefinition of marriage. There is no exogamy or endogamy involved which would link it to the interracial marriage prohibitions.

You didn't refute my argument whatsoever. Two gay men wanting to be married are being denied equal protection of the laws in the same way that an interracial couple was denied equal protection of the laws. Saying they can "marry someone else" doesn't change that, nor does saying that "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" change that. And when the court struck down interracial marriage bans, it was absolutely redefined. No longer could marriage licenses be defined as same-race only. That was an enormous change at the time, and denying such is nonsensical.

You know what another "gross" redefinition of marriage is? Treating a wife like an equal partner, not property. That was a gross redefinition that happened, and was unheard of before modern times. Perhaps we should go back to treating women as property, since that's what it always was.

 

[ShackledNation]

St. Patrick's Day occurs every March 17th. That doesn't mean that the Irish are launching a thought control agenda.

But once upon a time, they might have been. Back when there were regularly signs that said, "Irish need not apply."

Do you know that once upon a time, children were not allowed to use their dominant left hand when learning to write? Something changed that.

Sounds like an agenda to me.

It wasn't an agenda. It was an issue of how a leftie dealt with his parents. Homosexuals can tailor their relationship with their own parents as they best see fit, same too with their friends. Forcing me to comply, often under penalty of law, makes me their enemy. If left-handers forced me to comply with their agenda, and used law-fare to do so, they'd be my enemy too,.

Right handed people used to make left-handed people comply or be punished....under shady religious grounds too.

But let me add to your analogy. Are right-handed people trying to keep left-handed people from legally marrying? No? What do you think left-handed people would do, if the right-handed majority was telling them that they were perverted and they should not be allowed legal marriage? Do you think left-handed people would just be quiet...or would they have an "agenda" too?

I missed this last paragraph somehow.

No one has ever kept homosexuals from marrying. Rock Hudson was married. Dr. Sally Ride was married. Meridth Baxter-Birney was married.

How many times does this failed argument have to refuted? interracial marriage bans prohibited a black person from marrying a white person. But nobody was kept from marrying, because everybody could still marry someone of their same race, right?

The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. Marriage is a union between people of the opposite sex. No amount of propaganda or verbal legerdemain can change that.

Why would you want to change marriage being a union between people of the opposite sex? What are you some kind of hetero hater? But yeah happy marriage... I suppose for jerks that's an oxymoron.

How does expanding marriage rights make me a hetero hater? Am I stopping heterosexual couples from getting married by allowing gay couples to get married? What a stupid argument.

 

[ShackledNation]

If it's about the kids, same-sex marriage should be encouraged just as much as opposite-sex marriage. All valid studies show that children with same-sex parents fare better or worse than their peers raised by opposite-sex parents.

Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers research shows - The Washington Post
Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents Gays Lesbians Same-Sex Marriage Advantages of Gay Parenting Gay Adoption
New Study Confirms Same-Sex Couples Make Great Parents ThinkProgress

But, of course, having children or planing to have children--or even being able to have children--is not a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license in a single state.

Wrong. Those studies are anything but "valid." They are all fatally flawed.

Feel free to point out what makes them "fatally flawed." Perhaps you are not aware, but calling something "fatally flawed" and leaving it at that is not actually an argument.

Environmentalists always point to oil-company funded research and call in invalid and corrupt due to the associations of the researchers and their involvement with oil companies.

Same process at work with homosexual normalization research. Almost all research in the field is done by advocates of homosexuals. The sample sizes are small and biasing the conclusion by monkeying around with the study design is a very effective tactic. To illustrate my point, I'll pick apart one study for you.

CNN reports on this Lesbian study

...

Environmental studies by oil companies are not invalid simply because they are provided by oil companies, nor are studies of same-sex couples and children invalid because researchers hypothesize the result will show same-sex couples are perfectly capable parents.

As to the rest of your post, it is not worth responding to because (1) The study you site is not one that I brought up, so I don't really care about it, and (2) the studies I mentioned to not suffer any of the problems you brought up

Nice tactic of dismissal. You religious people are good at that. So, prove to me that the studies that inform your view don't suffer the problems I've noted.

I've reviewed the literature in the field. Surprise me. Make your case.

Why are you calling me religious? What does that even have to do with anything I said?

I dismissed your post because it was totally irrelevant. I don't care about the study you linked, and even if it is 100% flawed that says absolutely nothing about the studies I actually provided, nor does it being wrong have any bearing on their validity. Sorry I didn't play along with your red herring.

You are the one making the claim the studies I cited suffer from problems, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim. Nice try.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You didn't refute my argument whatsoever. Two gay men wanting to be married are being denied equal protection of the laws in the same way that an interracial couple was denied equal protection of the laws.

I demolished your argument. I showed you why your comparison is invalid. Sucks to be you clinging to a failed position.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Why are you calling me religious? What does that even have to do with anything I said?

Because you have a faith-based view which is divorced from reason and evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sticking your dick in some guy's asshole does not fit anyone's definition of "safe sex."

Many heterosexuals, I gather from this site, tell me that anal sex is a booming activity among heterosexuals, so, yeah, safe sex is for every one, little buddy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sexual orientation is a compulsive behavior. A learned addiction. The fetishes run the gamut. Nobody is born wanting to have sex with dead people, for example. At yet a necrophiliac would swear they were 'born that way'.

You have already been corrected many times about this failure of yours. Necrophiliac sex is a non sequitur; we are talking about living sex. Did you have to learn how to be a heterosexualC? If you say 'yes', we know you are lying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not false. Nothing but a choice.

And that is why your personal opinion is dismissed by those of us who actually have studied the evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would have been imprisoned if I said homosexuality is abnormal?

I hardly think so.

I know so that if you preached your goofy doctrines, which would have included overthrowing the constitutional republic in time of war, you would have landed in prison. Righteously so.

 

[ShackledNation]

Why are you calling me religious? What does that even have to do with anything I said?

Because you have a faith-based view which is divorced from reason and evidence.

So giving you three scientific studies and providing you with reasoning that you cannot refute = religious to you? Do you think you are being clever by trying to say I am religious when typically that is a criticism of your side of the argument? Because it's not clever at all.

 

[ShackledNation]

You didn't refute my argument whatsoever. Two gay men wanting to be married are being denied equal protection of the laws in the same way that an interracial couple was denied equal protection of the laws.

I demolished your argument. I showed you why your comparison is invalid. Sucks to be you clinging to a failed position.

Ignoring the studies that refuted your bogus claim is not demolishing an argument. Ignorance is bliss, not truth.