Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[bripat9643]

What cases would those be, the ones during the Roman Empire? Why don't you cite one of these court cases you're referring to?

Nope...this is the US and we're talking US law. What were the first US court cases about?

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

 

[ShackledNation]

Nope...this is the US and we're talking US law. What were the first US court cases about?

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

Really? Then why can heterosexual couples with no ability to procreate marry? Oh yeah. Because procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

 

[bripat9643]

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

Really? Then why can heterosexual couples with no ability to procreate marry? Oh yeah. Because procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

It's because they didn't have fertility tests when the marriage laws were originally written, numbskull. Even if they did, they probably wouldn't have thought it worth the trouble to make an exception.

Your anal obsession with infertility only makes you look ridiculous.

 

[Flopper]

Read it: http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,
1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001

Perhaps the CDC has to look no further than this study to resolve the "big mystery" as to why there has been a sudden leap in new HIV cases in young boys and men ages 13-24 just since the big normalizing media campaign for all-things gay has started [just the past 6 or 7 years or so]

A scholarly article that certainly doesn't support your contention.

That can be determined by the individual reader. Did you read the conclusion here?

"A role for learning in the sexual behavior of animals

also has profound implications for our understanding

of human sexual arousal and sexual preferences, especially

as they concern the development of extreme

forms of sexual behavior, including parphilias or deviant

sexual preferences. Deviant sexual preferences

and behaviors are thought to develop through conditioning
processes (e.g., Abel and Blanchard, 1974;

Laws and Marshall, 1990; McGuire, Carlisle, and

Young, 1965)...

...
The features of

fantasized partners could be composed of culturally
valued characteristics such that when these are paired

with sexual reward, preferences would be established

or strengthened. Thus, cultural values may also determine

what features will be preferred in a mate. This

can explain not only the status quo of physical preferences

within a culture, but also how those cultural

preferences can change from era to era. "

Here's how I recapped it. I don't see it as contradictory to the article's conclusion. Would you elaborate on how you do?

1. Children/offspring look to their mentors and society at large in subconscious cues to select mates.
2. Once a type of mate is idealized, the first few sexual encounters with that prototype, graft a permanent orientation.
3. Once grafted, that orientation becomes the new "displayed norm" for subsequent generations.
4. Society as a whole can thereby morph over time into a new kink, essentially.

What is important is not the sex of the mate a child might choose as an adult but rather whether the child develops into a successful well adjusted adult.

The choice most single gay parents face is raising their kids along or with the love and support of a gay co-parent. In most cases, children are far better off and more likely to be successful and well adjusted with two parents than they are with one regardless of whether they're gay or straight.

Most single gay parents are going to have relationships either with a gay spouse or a gay partner. In either case, the effect of the relationships on the children's choice of mate should be same. However, the marriage provides a more stable and secure environment for the children.

 

[ShackledNation]

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

Really? Then why can heterosexual couples with no ability to procreate marry? Oh yeah. Because procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

It's because they didn't have fertility tests when the marriage laws were originally written, numbskull. Even if they did, they probably wouldn't have thought it worth the trouble to make an exception.

You anal obsession with infertility only makes you look ridiculous.

You don't need a fertility test to know that an old woman cannot and will not have children. It could have been as simple as having people sign a statement saying "We intend to procreate." So simple. Yet that has never been and is not a requirement.

Making an exception for everyone who can procreate except for gay couples is the same as having no reason at all, simple as that. Procreation has nothing to do with who can get a marriage license. Everyone with a brain knows that.

 

[elektra]

The poorest Heterosexual, Man and Woman, married, as Man and Wife can give something to a child that the richest Homosexual Man and a Man can never give a child, a Father and a Mother.

Fortunately, that is not required to be a good parent.

In 30 years, 67 studies have failed to find harm in gay parenting. Instead, study after study finds that our kids --- and I say "our" in particular because I am raising two sons with my husband -- turn out pretty much the same as anyone else’s. In fact, having invested time and effort in deliberately becoming parents, same-sex couples may work harder at being good parents.

Children do best when they are raised by adults who are loving, compassionate, responsible, dependable and committed to the children’s well-being. Families do best when parents have the support of the community and society at large. Whether a family has one parent or two, and whether those parents are of opposite sexes or the same, doesn't matter.

Same-sex parents, lacking any tradition of gender-based division of labor, may actually share parenting duties more equitably. Children of gay parents grow up without gendered assumptions about child care and housework. There is no “women's work,” and there’s no such thing as a “man’s job.” It’s unremarkable for a man to be a “stay-at-home dad” or for a woman to be a “working mom.” Whatever the configuration, these kids see two adults working in an equal partnership.
​

You post has no relevance to mine? Seawych is just using my post to pontificate a premise unrelated to the fact I posted.

Wow, 67 studies, of how many thousands? Can you produce those 67 studies, like link to the study and quote directly from it, no is that answer.

One link goes to Slate, the other link goes to the American Psychological Association, not to the studies, so go ahead and link to the study so we can see if you are telling the truth or telling a lie. And do not waste our time by following your link to an abstract, link to the study.

I stated that a man and woman are mom and dad, which is best for Children, produce the study you claim disproves this, after all, this is what you quoted and responded to.

Follow the links, the studies will be there. Here's one that speaks directly to your concerns...

The lead article in the February issue of Journal of Marriage and Family challenges the idea that "fatherless" children are necessarily at a disadvantage or that men provide a different, indispensable set of parenting skills than women.

"Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents," said sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith Stacey of NYU analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. "That a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical," Stacey said.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
​

I've got an idea...how about YOU provide evidence of YOUR claims. You're the one that thinks gays shouldn't be parents, so YOU provide the proof to back up your claims that we are not good parents and that we cannot raise children just as successfully as heterosexuals.

The links do not link to the study, that is a lie, I stated they could not be followed yet you claim they can, you follow up with what you say is a Study, which is an Article, referencing another article, the Lead Article of another magazine.

You made a claim of 67 studies yet you can not produce 1.

So between taking personal shots at me, you post unsubstantiated bullshit. Produce just 1 of the 67, go ahead, and not the abstract, and not an article you claim to be one of the studies. Your article is clearly not a study.

Your understanding of what you post is contrary to the content of your post, not to intelligent I would say.

Now tell me about the Seawytch society in which the Eunuch raises the child, that sounds fascinating.

Is there something wrong with you that you have to misrepresent anything anyone says? Is this some sort of disorder like tourettes syndrome?

Because a child does not "need" a mother and a father, you get eunuchs out of that? Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

There were links to the studies, you're just too lazy to pursue them...or intellectually dishonest, not sure which.

Same-Sex Parenting Does Not Harm Children, Research Review Finds (with a direct link to the study for the lazy or dishonest)

How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? (Direct Link to the study for the lazy or dishonest)


Where is your study that supports your "gays as bad parents" theory?

Genderless Parenting? So Glad you spoke your mind.
In the Society of the Seawytch, the Eunuch parents the Child.

"Parenting does not rely on gender.", is exactly what you said, now you claim I misrepresent what you stated in your post by following up, with, "Because a child does not "need" a mother and a father,"

seawytch misrepresents what seawytch states, how is it possible even to have a discussion with seawytch when seawytch is simply not smart enough to realize what herself posts. To very different statements so do not reply back as if you never said, "Parenting does not rely on gender."

Plain as day for all to seawytch, who "misrepresents", who.

 

[elektra]

The poorest Heterosexual, Man and Woman, married, as Man and Wife can give something to a child that the richest Homosexual Man and a Man can never give a child, a Father and a Mother.

Fortunately, that is not required to be a good parent.

In 30 years, 67 studies have failed to find harm in gay parenting. Instead, study after study finds that our kids --- and I say "our" in particular because I am raising two sons with my husband -- turn out pretty much the same as anyone else’s. In fact, having invested time and effort in deliberately becoming parents, same-sex couples may work harder at being good parents.

Children do best when they are raised by adults who are loving, compassionate, responsible, dependable and committed to the children’s well-being. Families do best when parents have the support of the community and society at large. Whether a family has one parent or two, and whether those parents are of opposite sexes or the same, doesn't matter.

Same-sex parents, lacking any tradition of gender-based division of labor, may actually share parenting duties more equitably. Children of gay parents grow up without gendered assumptions about child care and housework. There is no “women's work,” and there’s no such thing as a “man’s job.” It’s unremarkable for a man to be a “stay-at-home dad” or for a woman to be a “working mom.” Whatever the configuration, these kids see two adults working in an equal partnership.
​

You post has no relevance to mine? Seawych is just using my post to pontificate a premise unrelated to the fact I posted.

Wow, 67 studies, of how many thousands? Can you produce those 67 studies, like link to the study and quote directly from it, no is that answer.

One link goes to Slate, the other link goes to the American Psychological Association, not to the studies, so go ahead and link to the study so we can see if you are telling the truth or telling a lie. And do not waste our time by following your link to an abstract, link to the study.

I stated that a man and woman are mom and dad, which is best for Children, produce the study you claim disproves this, after all, this is what you quoted and responded to.

Follow the links, the studies will be there. Here's one that speaks directly to your concerns...

The lead article in the February issue of Journal of Marriage and Family challenges the idea that "fatherless" children are necessarily at a disadvantage or that men provide a different, indispensable set of parenting skills than women.

"Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents," said sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith Stacey of NYU analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. "That a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical," Stacey said.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
​

I've got an idea...how about YOU provide evidence of YOUR claims. You're the one that thinks gays shouldn't be parents, so YOU provide the proof to back up your claims that we are not good parents and that we cannot raise children just as successfully as heterosexuals.

The links do not link to the study, that is a lie, I stated they could not be followed yet you claim they can, you follow up with what you say is a Study, which is an Article, referencing another article, the Lead Article of another magazine.

You made a claim of 67 studies yet you can not produce 1.

So between taking personal shots at me, you post unsubstantiated bullshit. Produce just 1 of the 67, go ahead, and not the abstract, and not an article you claim to be one of the studies. Your article is clearly not a study.

Your understanding of what you post is contrary to the content of your post, not to intelligent I would say.

Now tell me about the Seawytch society in which the Eunuch raises the child, that sounds fascinating.

Is there something wrong with you that you have to misrepresent anything anyone says? Is this some sort of disorder like tourettes syndrome?

Because a child does not "need" a mother and a father, you get eunuchs out of that? Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

There were links to the studies, you're just too lazy to pursue them...or intellectually dishonest, not sure which.

Same-Sex Parenting Does Not Harm Children, Research Review Finds (with a direct link to the study for the lazy or dishonest)

How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? (Direct Link to the study for the lazy or dishonest)


Where is your study that supports your "gays as bad parents" theory?

Studies, first as shown in post # 806, seawytch mis-quotes, by making stuff up. Quote any of the comments in my posts, you feel I failed to address, and I gladly will. In the above, seawytch again lies, or is simply to stupid to understand what I wrote as well as what he/she wrote, again as post # 806 proves.

Studies, what was your boast in a post in which I made into toast, 67 studies. In 24 hours were you or anyone else able to produce a quote from the study and link to the study. NO is the answer.

But I will pretend for a second, that you did and play follow the, "idiots", link

First link: Same-Sex Parenting Does Not Harm Children Research Review Finds PsyBlog

Research Review Finds

So the first link is to a "Review". Not a study, 67 studies and seawytch links to a review, but is there a link to a study in this "review", maybe. Lets follow the one link in the link seawytch states confirms he/she's contentions, whatever they are, its hard to tell, other than its the opposite of what is fact.

So I obviously have been stating, "Orphaned Children will choose a Mommy and Daddy over a Homosexual Man-Man", hardly what seawytch characterizes my comment as but....

So from seawytch's link to a study, which of course seawytch read:

While some studies have found negative effects on children of having same-sex parents (e.g. Regnerus, 2012),

Wow, seawytch gives me the quote that proves at the least, seawytch is wrong.

And the only study that seawytch has linked to proves seawytch is wrong when seawytch says no harm comes to 9 year old boys who are adopted by two homosexual men.

and I know seawytch will scream, "I did not say that', but I did say it, over and over, and seawytch has been responding to me and my comment, hence I am correct in my comment above.

But I am not done, seawytch never follows any link or reads what seawytch posts, the link to the Regnerus study leads to an abstract, nothing more. So we can not follow up with any contention the article posted by seawytch makes about the Regnerus study.

For me, that is not good enough, I will support my post with a study if I state there is a study. The Homosexual Activists will not.

The Regnerus study is easy enough to find, and in its entirety, it is very damaging to the information seawytch and all you fools provide.

Seawytch, thank you for the name of the author of this study, Regnerus. The study destroys all your studies seawytch, specially addressing the 67 studies you make claims about, yet will not post links to.

seawytch, can it be any more plain, only an idiot would use this article for links to studies supporting homosexual marriage.

From my obviously, superior use of google I easily find a link to the complete Regnerus study.

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

• Mark Regnerus

• Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A1700, Austin, TX 78712-0118, United States

Received 1 February 2012, Revised 29 February 2012, Accepted 12 March 2012, Available online 10 June 2012
Show less

So who really knows what they are talking about, seawytch and all the others who will not link and quote studies they claim support homosexual same-sex unions adopting heterosexual children.

Or me, who will link and quote directly from studies that state the contrary, and in this case a study that seawytch gave as a valid acceptable study.

I challenged you, and not one person was able to provide a link to study they made claims about.

I did.

all can see who read this, I know the homosexual activists will never admit simple mistakes let alone gross errors, so this is not to show the light to those I quote, I just post to show if you bug them enough so that give you something, that something they think supports their political ideology, inevitably will show the fact.

Children will choose a heterosexual Mother and Father Family over a Homosexual Man-Man Social Unit.

 

[jillian]

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

Really? Then why can heterosexual couples with no ability to procreate marry? Oh yeah. Because procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

It's because they didn't have fertility tests when the marriage laws were originally written, numbskull. Even if they did, they probably wouldn't have thought it worth the trouble to make an exception.

You anal obsession with infertility only makes you look ridiculous.

You don't need a fertility test to know that an old woman cannot and will not have children. It could have been as simple as having people sign a statement saying "We intend to procreate." So simple. Yet that has never been and is not a requirement.

Making an exception for everyone who can procreate except for gay couples is the same as having no reason at all, simple as that. Procreation has nothing to do with who can get a marriage license. Everyone with a brain knows that.

except to bigoted religious zealots who use G-d to justify hate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.”

“That's the only reason marriage exists.”


Nonsense.


Marriage (contract) law exists to acknowledge the commitment of two equal adult partners to participate in a life-long relationship recognized by the state, for same- or opposite-sex couples – having nothing whatsoever to do with the ability to procreate:


"Some people choose not to have children, others are unable to for whatever the reason. Some people get married after having had a vasectomy, or a hysterectomy, or some other permanent form of contraception (often, it should be noted, for reasons having nothing to do with procreation). Some people get married after reaching an age where having children is no longer possible."


Abbott 8217 s appellate brief on same sex marriage is a complete loser - Kuff s World

 

[Seawytch]

Fortunately, that is not required to be a good parent.

In 30 years, 67 studies have failed to find harm in gay parenting. Instead, study after study finds that our kids --- and I say "our" in particular because I am raising two sons with my husband -- turn out pretty much the same as anyone else’s. In fact, having invested time and effort in deliberately becoming parents, same-sex couples may work harder at being good parents.

Children do best when they are raised by adults who are loving, compassionate, responsible, dependable and committed to the children’s well-being. Families do best when parents have the support of the community and society at large. Whether a family has one parent or two, and whether those parents are of opposite sexes or the same, doesn't matter.

Same-sex parents, lacking any tradition of gender-based division of labor, may actually share parenting duties more equitably. Children of gay parents grow up without gendered assumptions about child care and housework. There is no “women's work,” and there’s no such thing as a “man’s job.” It’s unremarkable for a man to be a “stay-at-home dad” or for a woman to be a “working mom.” Whatever the configuration, these kids see two adults working in an equal partnership.
​

You post has no relevance to mine? Seawych is just using my post to pontificate a premise unrelated to the fact I posted.

Wow, 67 studies, of how many thousands? Can you produce those 67 studies, like link to the study and quote directly from it, no is that answer.

One link goes to Slate, the other link goes to the American Psychological Association, not to the studies, so go ahead and link to the study so we can see if you are telling the truth or telling a lie. And do not waste our time by following your link to an abstract, link to the study.

I stated that a man and woman are mom and dad, which is best for Children, produce the study you claim disproves this, after all, this is what you quoted and responded to.

Follow the links, the studies will be there. Here's one that speaks directly to your concerns...

The lead article in the February issue of Journal of Marriage and Family challenges the idea that "fatherless" children are necessarily at a disadvantage or that men provide a different, indispensable set of parenting skills than women.

"Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents," said sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith Stacey of NYU analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. "That a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical," Stacey said.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
​

I've got an idea...how about YOU provide evidence of YOUR claims. You're the one that thinks gays shouldn't be parents, so YOU provide the proof to back up your claims that we are not good parents and that we cannot raise children just as successfully as heterosexuals.

The links do not link to the study, that is a lie, I stated they could not be followed yet you claim they can, you follow up with what you say is a Study, which is an Article, referencing another article, the Lead Article of another magazine.

You made a claim of 67 studies yet you can not produce 1.

So between taking personal shots at me, you post unsubstantiated bullshit. Produce just 1 of the 67, go ahead, and not the abstract, and not an article you claim to be one of the studies. Your article is clearly not a study.

Your understanding of what you post is contrary to the content of your post, not to intelligent I would say.

Now tell me about the Seawytch society in which the Eunuch raises the child, that sounds fascinating.

Is there something wrong with you that you have to misrepresent anything anyone says? Is this some sort of disorder like tourettes syndrome?

Because a child does not "need" a mother and a father, you get eunuchs out of that? Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

There were links to the studies, you're just too lazy to pursue them...or intellectually dishonest, not sure which.

Same-Sex Parenting Does Not Harm Children, Research Review Finds (with a direct link to the study for the lazy or dishonest)

How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? (Direct Link to the study for the lazy or dishonest)


Where is your study that supports your "gays as bad parents" theory?

Genderless Parenting? So Glad you spoke your mind.
In the Society of the Seawytch, the Eunuch parents the Child.

"Parenting does not rely on gender.", is exactly what you said, now you claim I misrepresent what you stated in your post by following up, with, "Because a child does not "need" a mother and a father,"

seawytch misrepresents what seawytch states, how is it possible even to have a discussion with seawytch when seawytch is simply not smart enough to realize what herself posts. To very different statements so do not reply back as if you never said, "Parenting does not rely on gender."

Plain as day for all to seawytch, who "misrepresents", who.

Yes Elektra, you intentionally misrepresent what people say. Why? I said that gender in parenting is immaterial and you take that to mean that I think everyone must be eunuchs or that only eunuchs should parent children. That is intentionally misrepresenting what I said. To what end?

I provided you a direct link to the Australian study, one of the largest of it's kind and yet you pretend I didn't provide any. Again, to what end?

Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

Same-sex marriage and children’s well-being: Research roundup

Now you linked to Mark Regenerus's study. Were you aware that his own sociology department called it "Fundamentally Flawed"? It has been discredited to the point that it was laughed out of court and he's been dropped as a witness.

 

[Seawytch]

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

Really? Then why can heterosexual couples with no ability to procreate marry? Oh yeah. Because procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

It's because they didn't have fertility tests when the marriage laws were originally written, numbskull. Even if they did, they probably wouldn't have thought it worth the trouble to make an exception.

Your anal obsession with infertility only makes you look ridiculous.

I think you're the one obsessed with fertility since you seem to believe that's the only reason for marriage when you know it isn't. You also know that no one is prevented from civilly marrying if they are unable or unwilling to procreate so why keep bringing it up as though it matters?

 

[RKMBrown]

You made a claim of 67 studies yet you can not produce 1.

So between taking personal shots at me, you post unsubstantiated bullshit. Produce just 1 of the 67, go ahead, and not the abstract, and not an article you claim to be one of the studies. Your article is clearly not a study.

Your understanding of what you post is contrary to the content of your post, not to intelligent I would say.

Now tell me about the Seawytch society in which the Eunuch raises the child, that sounds fascinating.

Here's a scientific review of over 300 peer-reviewed studies showing sexual orientation to be learned, and how it is learned [socially]. This review is a compilation of hard facts that say this about gay marriage:

1. Children/offspring look to their mentors and society at large in subconscious cues to select mates.

2. Once a type of mate is idealized, the first few sexual encounters with that prototype, graft a permanent orientation.

3. Once grafted, that orientation becomes the new "displayed norm" for subsequent generations.

4. Society as a whole can thereby morph over time into a new kink, essentially.

Read it: http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,
1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001

Perhaps the CDC has to look no further than this study to resolve the "big mystery" as to why there has been a sudden leap in new HIV cases in young boys and men ages 13-24 just since the big normalizing media campaign for all-things gay has started [just the past 6 or 7 years or so]

You're so full of shit.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nope...this is the US and we're talking US law. What were the first US court cases about?

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[bodecea]

Nope...this is the US and we're talking US law. What were the first US court cases about?

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

Really? Then show us the state laws...any state law...on marriage that requires procreation.

 

[jillian]

Nope...this is the US and we're talking US law. What were the first US court cases about?

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

that's absurd and made up by the voices in your head

 

[jillian]

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

WTF are you talking about?

he hasn't a clue. he just talks.

 

[Jarhead]

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

that's absurd and made up by the voices in your head

you mean the same voices that made up your lie about you being an attorney in NYS? You know, the lie you offered up that was proven to be a lie when you inaccurately described your credentials as an attorney in NYS?

Those voices?

 

[jillian]

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

that's absurd and made up by the voices in your head

you mean the same voices that made up your lie about you being an attorney in NYS? You know, the lie you offered up that was proven to be a lie when you inaccurately described your credentials as an attorney in NYS?

Those voices?

you keep telling yourself that loony toon.

luckily, I don't much c are what arrogant ignorant people like you say.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't believe this topic belongs in our political discourse. I am not a *** but at the same time if I were I would have the opinion that it's none of the government's business.

Good luck to the two dudes trying to get each other pregnant. I'm fine with them thinking that anal homosexual sex is the way to go, but once they figure out that it's not going to work, then they're going to have to go outside of their "marriage" in order to get a child and then it does becomes society's business.

Pastor Rikurzhen preaching his hatred of gays fits right into his "Gospel of Conservatism" religion.

 

[bripat9643]

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

Really? Then show us the state laws...any state law...on marriage that requires procreation.

The absence of such laws doesn't disprove my contention. Are their any state laws that require you to use your driver's license to drive?