Jimmy Carter: "Leave Gay Marriage To States To Decide" (Right On Jimmy!)

[rightwinger]

You are now allowed to marry anyone you want. Just like a homosexual. Equal treatment under the law

Marriage is man woman, marriage is two people. Tom -ay- to, tom -ah- to. You don't actually let people do that, you only picked another arbitrary standard. Get off your high horse, you are no different than they are. You just drew a different line.

I am curious as to why an avowed Libertarian such as yourself would encourage Government to stand in the way of consenting adults getting married?

 

[kaz]

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

You have no hard data to support, nor is there any hard data to reject your position on the effects of same gender parents on children in the long run. The data sets are too small, and the timeline going back is too short on most of this data set to make an assumption either way.

No hard data? Where have you been? There are plenty of studies and all point to children of gays being at no disadvantage to children of straights. Our children are fine, worry about the kids of divorce.

Again, data sets are too small, and the timeline is too short, considering the further back you go the smaller the data set gets.

One also has to take into account the general increased affluence of current gay couples that have kids compared to straight couples, which could skew any numbers you get from the studies.

And the kids of gay couples will be getting on the divorce bandwagon soon, book it.

Human nature coupled with sociological norms have led to kids being raised and having influence from parents of each sex for centuries/millenia. How can one say that changing this doesn't have any impact, regardless of the positives or negatives?

I certainly see no reason to think kids can't be perfectly happy and successful with two gay parents and never claimed otherwise. I grew up in a single parent home and my brother, sister and I all have multiple graduate degrees.

However, anyone who is a parent and has intellectual integrity can just see that the ideal is for kids to have a parent of each sex. Men and women are different. My grandfather spent a lot of time with me, but he lived 1 1/2 hours away, it's not the same thing. Both parents play a role, and it's a different role. I had to overcome not having a male role model. At least my younger brother had me, but I had no in home role model. That is what I said.

Seawytchs statement that for her, the sex of her partner is critical but for kids it doesn't matter is ridiculous. nyone with a brain can see in kids how they need their own and opposite parent relationship sex to be the best adjusted and clearly why, it's how we evolved.

 

[kaz]

You are now allowed to marry anyone you want. Just like a homosexual. Equal treatment under the law

Marriage is man woman, marriage is two people. Tom -ay- to, tom -ah- to. You don't actually let people do that, you only picked another arbitrary standard. Get off your high horse, you are no different than they are. You just drew a different line.

I am curious as to why an avowed Libertarian such as yourself would encourage Government to stand in the way of consenting adults getting married?

Strawman. I oppose government marriage. All of it.

 

[kaz]

Wow, the contempt is "obvious" to an a white liberal guy pretending to be an angry dyke. Very convincing, thanks. I don't bother with people who tell me what I think. Other than one thing, repent, you can be saved. Jesus loves you. End your abomination.

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

You have no hard data to support, nor is there any hard data to reject your position on the effects of same gender parents on children in the long run. The data sets are too small, and the timeline going back is too short on most of this data set to make an assumption either way.

No hard data? Where have you been? There are plenty of studies and all point to children of gays being at no disadvantage to children of straights. Our children are fine, worry about the kids of divorce.

Your "hard data" was an article which gave it's opinion about one study.

 

[kaz]

Wow, the contempt is "obvious" to an a white liberal guy pretending to be an angry dyke. Very convincing, thanks. I don't bother with people who tell me what I think. Other than one thing, repent, you can be saved. Jesus loves you. End your abomination.

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

Actually, that was your argument for a long time. But yes, I do remember that eventually you did change your argument to that parents are just babysitters who change their diapers and make sure they don't run into the street, parents aren't people who interact and emotionally grow kids, so gender doesn't matter. Then you got wrapped up in the ridiculous crap that it was a contest which sex is better at blowing noses and couldn't grasp that the world is made up of men and women and relating to both is critical.

Not even close my reluctant little hypocrite. Gender is immaterial in parenting is what I've said. Our kids are fine, worry about kids of divorce and kids of single parents.

You, a fully formed adult, only want to have an emotional partnership with a woman. However, children, going from an embryo all through adulthood don't need to establish parental relationships with both sexes, it makes no difference. That is as stupid as it sounds.

And I've repeatedly addressed your point that I said two sexes is "ideal." I'm saying in no way kids can't be successful without it. My example being me and my siblings. I'm going to go back to not responding other than having fun if you go back to having no long term memory and not addressing what I actually said.

And I said nothing about your children, I am talking about in general the ideal situation for children. You can google "ideal" if you don't know what it means.

 

[kaz]

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

You have no hard data to support, nor is there any hard data to reject your position on the effects of same gender parents on children in the long run. The data sets are too small, and the timeline going back is too short on most of this data set to make an assumption either way.

No hard data? Where have you been? There are plenty of studies and all point to children of gays being at no disadvantage to children of straights. Our children are fine, worry about the kids of divorce.

Again, data sets are too small, and the timeline is too short, considering the further back you go the smaller the data set gets.

One also has to take into account the general increased affluence of current gay couples that have kids compared to straight couples, which could skew any numbers you get from the studies.

And the kids of gay couples will be getting on the divorce bandwagon soon, book it.

Human nature coupled with sociological norms have led to kids being raised and having influence from parents of each sex for centuries/millenia. How can one say that changing this doesn't have any impact, regardless of the positives or negatives?

I have no doubt that we will soon be on par with the straights as far as divorce. So?

Our kids are fine.

I see a lot of attempts at self assurance, and not a lot of hard data. Of course, the concept of social sciences producing any sort of hard data is kind a laughable.

Not to mention that "hard data" is going to be very difficult as measuring a sense of well being is not going to be easy at all. A lot of the executives I know have been driven by personal shortcomings. I don't think test scores or that sort of thing are necessarily affected at all, and even if they are the net may not be negative.

The world is full of men and women. Both sexes have roles in the development of boys and girls. They overlap, but they are not the same. My daughters when they were little if they skinned their knee and we were both there, they ran to mommy. If she wasn't there, they ran to me. She gave them more emotional response they wanted. When they wanted to be challenged or have fun when we were both there, they came to me. If I wasn't there, they went to her.

Fathers are heavily correlated with self confidence. Not having a father in the house clearly affected my brother, sister and me. We did overcome it. All of us, but we had to overcome it. Hence the word ideal. Now Seawytch can pick some point in this and make a sarcastic comment demonstrating clearly she didn't grasp what I said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"What if zebras wanted, should we make a law encouraging zebras to eat meat?

That's as much sense as your sentence makes. Males and males or females and females will NEVER ever be able to beget children together. They will NEVER pair in a natural way to beget young. A gay marriage ALWAYS, by its nature, alienates one of the natural set of beings that is the natural parent of the child. Opposite gendered parents are a child's best experience for handling the real world; its blood relatives possessing the deep instinct to protect its own offspring. If a state wants to incentivize a situation where children have two opposite gendered parents, adoptive or natural, for numerous reasons for the psychological wellbeing, then that state has that right.

A state forced to accept gay marriage is a state forced to incentivize a family life that is ALWAYS devoid of at least one natural parent of a child in it.

A child opposite gender of the two "parents" that are gay, sees the world through a filter of "my gender isn't necessary...I am not necessary". That's how children grow up and see the manifest examples before their eyes...let alone the propaganda they're likely to hear in that house regarding their gender. I've heard lesbians talking openly about men. And let me tell you, it isn't flattering. Same with gay men, disdain and contempt dripping from their every word. It's why they're gay in the first place, a lot of them, if they weren't imprinted by a molestor. Many lesbians especially turn from men from just hatred of them. Conscious or subconscious. We are creating a culture where untreated mental issues pass for "normalcy". This is yet another mistake of legitmizing the wounds by "allowing them to be married as the cure"....children's wellbeing be damned.

Gay isn't a state of being, it's a functionality, a deviant behavior that's fine in the privacy of the practitioners...but that doesn't fit with the word "marriage" AT ALL.

Just like zebras don't hunt and eat meat."

Rubbish.

Lucid retort.

Care to address what I said and elaborate? Particularly this sentence:

A state forced to accept gay marriage is a state forced to incentivize a family life that is ALWAYS devoid of at least one natural parent of a child in it.

Your sentence is based on the false premise that

1. a civil union between two adults even involves children, and,

2. that the absence of natural parents in a family is somehow a sufficient threat to society that the government ought to deny that right.

If such were the case, then adoption should be outlawed, as should remarriage when children are involved, who then become stepchildren.

As I said, rubbish.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay couples can raise children without getting married, so if you people who are pretending that gay couples raising children is such a threat to society,

you should be advocating not just for the non-recognition of gay marriage, but for the outlawing of gay parenting.

Why aren't you?

 

[Silhouette]

One of the main problems with this topic is a situation whereby the federal governement would be forcing states to incentivize marriages where by their very nature would be 100% guaranteed 100% of the time to be missing one of the natural parents of any children involved.

Child civil rights and states rights may in the end trump any so-called "civil rights" of the practitioners of just "LGBT" sexual activity. A state has a vested interest in making sure every child in it has the best protection and the most balanced environment to grow up in homes that are "married" homes. That's why the state has any interest in marriage anyway. Otherwise marriage is kind of a loss to the state since it gives loopholes to the people in marriage to pay less taxes. The state gets involved in incentivizing marriage for the benefit of and production of children who then populate that state in physical presence and mental outlook.

A child of the opposite gender raised in a home with "gay parents" of the other gender learns to internalize on the deepest and most constant level that their gender does not matter in a regular, stable home. A child's mind isn't sophisticated enough to discern that this doesn't extrapolate into "you don't matter". A child looks to the home environment it grows up in precisely as the whole measure of their worth and value to society at large. This is a topic I've not seen explored as a de facto institutionalized form of the most insidious child abuse ever: the implied message "you're not important"...

And judging from the many many many conversations I've heard more particularly from lesbians than gay men, the bashing of the opposite gender is as common to them as the discussion of the weather.

Evidence of this phenomenon are the lesbians in California drugging their son with female hormones "in case he wants to fulfill HIS decision to become a girl later on"..ie: submit to amputation surgery to role-play that which he is not. I'm sure this little boy wants to be a girl. After the conversations I've heard and the implied example in lesbian homes, he probably feels like a non-person at this point. Being female to him might seem like his way to actually matter..

Now this would just be an isolated case, but as I've repeated on the theme of gay pride parades' lewd acts in front of kids on a regular basis and the Harvey Milk iconizing in the LGBT cult, the LGBT community at large is behind these two lesbians doing what they're doing to their son. I've not seen a media statement from that group denouncing what they're doing to this boy.....even with the blessings of the APA and the AMA.

This is ALARMING CHILD ABUSE and the extreme example of the "you're not important" message sent to the opposite gendered child in a "gay marriage". The excuse is that the boy might want to commit suicide if he's not better prepared to allow himself to change his gender to female, like his lesbian parents, later on..

Stunning....the suicide might come from deeper issues that I've mentioned above:

The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young.
Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy.
But Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel warn that children with gender identity disorder forced to postpone transitioning could face a higher risk of suicide. The California boy 11 who is undergoing hormone blocking treatment Daily Mail Online

For how the AMA could get behind this, understand that the AMA looks to the APA for direction and guidance on all medical issues surrounding psychology in medicine. As for the APA, google "Cummings" & "Leona Tyler" to understand how a cult can take over science to dictate to medicine in order to justify amputation of healthy organs of a child in order to complete the delusions of its gay parents.

The lunatic asylum is now becoming part of our society by people being polite or afraid of being called a "bigot". Just as in the allegory of The Emperor's New Clothes, the villagers were afraid of appearing out of place or somehow stupid or wrong for not seeing how beautiful the naked emperor's "clothes" were...even when their eyes told them plainly that the emperor had nothing on. Those tailors were very clever and skilled at manipulating public perception to the point of collective insanity. It's ironic, given the account in CA that it took a little boy to wake the crowd up to what was right in front of their faces.

 

[Seawytch]

You are now allowed to marry anyone you want. Just like a homosexual. Equal treatment under the law

Marriage is man woman, marriage is two people. Tom -ay- to, tom -ah- to. You don't actually let people do that, you only picked another arbitrary standard. Get off your high horse, you are no different than they are. You just drew a different line.

I am curious as to why an avowed Libertarian such as yourself would encourage Government to stand in the way of consenting adults getting married?

Strawman. I oppose government marriage. All of it.

Even his own...but I'm sure he never walks around the house asking himself why he needed "validation".

 

[Seawytch]

The children of gay parents are at no disadvantage to the children of straights. Children have nothing to do with civil marriage. Bigots need to find another argument (that will also fail)

 

[martybegan]

The children of gay parents are at no disadvantage to the children of straights. Children have nothing to do with civil marriage. Bigots need to find another argument (that will also fail)

In your opinion. Honestly the amount of variables is too many to really form any clear indication of your opinion being factual or not.

 

[Seawytch]

The children of gay parents are at no disadvantage to the children of straights. Children have nothing to do with civil marriage. Bigots need to find another argument (that will also fail)

In your opinion. Honestly the amount of variables is too many to really form any clear indication of your opinion being factual or not.

And the opinion of every major medical, psychological and child welfare organization.

The "but, but, but the children" argument has failed. Bigots need to find a new one.

 

[martybegan]

The children of gay parents are at no disadvantage to the children of straights. Children have nothing to do with civil marriage. Bigots need to find another argument (that will also fail)

In your opinion. Honestly the amount of variables is too many to really form any clear indication of your opinion being factual or not.

And the opinion of every major medical, psychological and child welfare organization.

The "but, but, but the children" argument has failed. Bigots need to find a new one.

Mostly populated by leftists, so nah, there is no bias there......

 

[kaz]

You are now allowed to marry anyone you want. Just like a homosexual. Equal treatment under the law

Marriage is man woman, marriage is two people. Tom -ay- to, tom -ah- to. You don't actually let people do that, you only picked another arbitrary standard. Get off your high horse, you are no different than they are. You just drew a different line.

I am curious as to why an avowed Libertarian such as yourself would encourage Government to stand in the way of consenting adults getting married?

Strawman. I oppose government marriage. All of it.

Even his own...but I'm sure he never walks around the house asking himself why he needed "validation".

I'm not a liberal pretending to be a lesbian who needs approval of the collective and to be told I'm gay and it's OK. I think this is your lamest argument yet, and it's up against some pretty stiff competition.

As I've told you before and will have to tell you again since you have no long term memory, the government part of my marriage is just irrelevant to me. That isn't "contempt." Contempt is your gig.

 

[rightwinger]

You are now allowed to marry anyone you want. Just like a homosexual. Equal treatment under the law

Marriage is man woman, marriage is two people. Tom -ay- to, tom -ah- to. You don't actually let people do that, you only picked another arbitrary standard. Get off your high horse, you are no different than they are. You just drew a different line.

I am curious as to why an avowed Libertarian such as yourself would encourage Government to stand in the way of consenting adults getting married?

Strawman. I oppose government marriage. All of it.

Then why aren't you posting about ending all marriage rather than just for homosexuals?

Libertarians I know defend the rights of an individual when his actions do not harm anyone. Why would you not defend homosexuals being able to marry the person of their choice?

 

[Silhouette]

Then why aren't you posting about ending all marriage rather than just for homosexuals?

Libertarians I know defend the rights of an individual when his actions do not harm anyone. Why would you not defend homosexuals being able to marry the person of their choice?

Maybe this is why:


"One of the main problems with this topic is a situation whereby the federal governement would be forcing states to incentivize marriages where by their very nature would be 100% guaranteed 100% of the time to be missing one of the natural parents of any children involved.

Child civil rights and states rights may in the end trump any so-called "civil rights" of the practitioners of just "LGBT" sexual activity. A state has a vested interest in making sure every child in it has the best protection and the most balanced environment to grow up in homes that are "married" homes. That's why the state has any interest in marriage anyway. Otherwise marriage is kind of a loss to the state since it gives loopholes to the people in marriage to pay less taxes. The state gets involved in incentivizing marriage for the benefit of and production of children who then populate that state in physical presence and mental outlook.

A child of the opposite gender raised in a home with "gay parents" of the other gender learns to internalize on the deepest and most constant level that their gender does not matter in a regular, stable home. A child's mind isn't sophisticated enough to discern that this doesn't extrapolate into "you don't matter". A child looks to the home environment it grows up in precisely as the whole measure of their worth and value to society at large. This is a topic I've not seen explored as a de facto institutionalized form of the most insidious child abuse ever: the implied message "you're not important"...

And judging from the many many many conversations I've heard more particularly from lesbians than gay men, the bashing of the opposite gender is as common to them as the discussion of the weather.

Evidence of this phenomenon are the lesbians in California drugging their son with female hormones "in case he wants to fulfill HIS decision to become a girl later on"..ie: submit to amputation surgery to role-play that which he is not. I'm sure this little boy wants to be a girl. After the conversations I've heard and the implied example in lesbian homes, he probably feels like a non-person at this point. Being female to him might seem like his way to actually matter..

Now this would just be an isolated case, but as I've repeated on the theme of gay pride parades' lewd acts in front of kids on a regular basis and the Harvey Milk iconizing in the LGBT cult, the LGBT community at large is behind these two lesbians doing what they're doing to their son. I've not seen a media statement from that group denouncing what they're doing to this boy.....even with the blessings of the APA and the AMA.

This is ALARMING CHILD ABUSE and the extreme example of the "you're not important" message sent to the opposite gendered child in a "gay marriage". The excuse is that the boy might want to commit suicide if he's not better prepared to allow himself to change his gender to female, like his lesbian parents, later on..

Stunning....the suicide might come from deeper issues that I've mentioned above:

The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young.
Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy.
But Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel warn that children with gender identity disorder forced to postpone transitioning could face a higher risk of suicide The California boy 11 who is undergoing hormone blocking treatment Daily Mail Online

For how the AMA could get behind this, understand that the AMA looks to the APA for direction and guidance on all medical issues surrounding psychology in medicine. As for the APA, google "Cummings" & "Leona Tyler" to understand how a cult can take over science to dictate to medicine in order to justify amputation of healthy organs of a child in order to complete the delusions of its gay parents.

The lunatic asylum is now becoming part of our society by people being polite or afraid of being called a "bigot". Just as in the allegory of The Emperor's New Clothes, the villagers were afraid of appearing out of place or somehow stupid or wrong for not seeing how beautiful the naked emperor's "clothes" were...even when their eyes told them plainly that the emperor had nothing on. Those tailors were very clever and skilled at manipulating public perception to the point of collective insanity. It's ironic, given the account in CA that it took a little boy to wake the crowd up to what was right in front of their faces."

 

[kaz]

Strawman. I oppose government marriage. All of it.

Then why aren't you posting about ending all marriage rather than just for homosexuals?

I do, all the time.

Libertarians I know defend the rights of an individual when his actions do not harm anyone. Why would you not defend homosexuals being able to marry the person of their choice?

So I need to propose more government to support my view that government should be minimized. That actually makes sense to you, doesn't it?

 

[rightwinger]

Strawman. I oppose government marriage. All of it.

Then why aren't you posting about ending all marriage rather than just for homosexuals?

I do, all the time.

Libertarians I know defend the rights of an individual when his actions do not harm anyone. Why would you not defend homosexuals being able to marry the person of their choice?

So I need to propose more government to support my view that government should be minimized. That actually makes sense to you, doesn't it?

You have spent this entire thread demonizing gay marriage

Why would a true libertarian care?

 

[kaz]

You have spent this entire thread demonizing gay marriage

Why would a true libertarian care?

Strawman, I have nothing against marriage or gay marriage. I am opposed to all government marriage, gay or straight.

I mean duh. I'm a libertarian. Government should treat all it's citizens equally. Government marriage is a violation of that. We should change our laws to make government marriage irrelevant. Flatten taxes, end the death tax, make parental rights and responsibilities based on genetics not paper. If you think about it, there is nothing marriage solves that wouldn't be solved better for everyone. And I don't know why anyone wants government validation of who they sleep with, gay or straight.