Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[kaz]

OK, let's subject it to the test. Being black changed who you can marry, a violation of the 14th amendment. Being gay doesn't change who you can marry. Oops, we subjected gay marriage to the test, and it failed...

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian.

No, a straight woman cannot marry another woman either. The law is applied equally. Fail.

And no white man could marry a black woman. Restricting who can marry whom in both cases.

The restrictions themselves must meet constitutional standards. It must meet a specific legislative end, have a very good reason and serve a valid state interest.

Gay marriage bans can do none of these things. Nor could interracial marriage bans.

Word games aside, again, being black changed who you could marry, being gay doesn't. That is irrefutable.

How does that work for the several citizens in the several States? Did you know that our supreme law of the land was Intelligently Designed to be both, gender and race neutral, from Inception.

Where does the Constitution say that government must treat isn't citizens as unisex? I don't see that part.

 

[kaz]

Overwhelmingly probably true, but you can't conclude that without knowing the actual cause of gayness. In theory, it could not be behavioral or genetic but have a psychological root based on relationships to heterosexual parents. Like if you are a girl, something about your relationship with your male and female parents makes you desire women not men. And vice versa. I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying we don't know what causes gay, so we can't be certain about anything until we do.

That's somewhat reasonable. With one caveat: we don't have a definitive answer. But we do have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that children of same sex parents aren't any more likely to be gay than straight parents.

So we do have some pretty strong indications of what the cause isn't; exposure to gay people.

I agree on that, I find it highly unlikely that heterosexual parents would influence a kid to be gay unless the kid really is on the line between straight and gay anyway.

What is a downside though for gay adoption is that people evolved with a mother and father who have clearly different personalities and roles in child raising. It's ideal a child have both a male and female parent to gain both experiences. The same experience with two parents of the same sex does not make up for one relationship with each of two sexes.

I hear what you're saying. But there have been numerous studies on the topic and the kids are fine. I suspect any possible 'disadvantage' associated with same sex parents is more than mitigated by the fact that all children in a same sex union are intentional. Which means the parents want them and have a much better opportunity to prepare for them...both emotionally and financially.

Exactly...there have been numerous studies on the topic and the children of gays and lesbians are at no disadvantage to those of straights. There are no differences in outcomes.

What is ideal is for children to have two parents...their gender is immaterial. (except when it comes to lactation)

Whether or not children raised by same gender couples end up as exactly as well oriented as children raised by opposite couples is really a stupid argument.

Why?

Because children are raised in all sorts of environments, and as Kaz points out, they do- or they don't turn out okay.

Kaz says he missed having a father. Other children miss having any parent at all. And then some children are just raised by horrible parents.

We don't tell heterosexual parents "prove to us you will be a good parent"- instead as long as they are not physically harming the children they can raise them pretty much how they want- look at Stevie the racist bragging how his kids were all raised to hate blacks and Jews.

The point is that none of this is relevant to marriage. We do not require people to get married before they have children- or married after they have children. We don't prevent ;married parents from divorcing.

We don't require that parents be 'ideal parents' - we don't really even have any expectations that parents will be 'ideal parents'- but we can hope that parents will step up and try to be ideal parents to the best of their abilities.

And having observed friends of mine who happen to be parents who happen to be gay- thats what I see. Just like I see that with our other friends who happen to be parents.

How it applies to gay marriage is adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to do public adoptions before singles or gays. I don't give a rats ass about the straight parents, it's in the interest of the only people who matter. The children.

Liberals never stop making someone equal until they have more rights than anyone else does. You know it's going to continue there.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

 

[kaz]

A straight can't marry another lesbian either. Fail.

Actually, they can...and have...it's happened a lot. Called an arranged marriage.

Where there is no gay marriage, a straight woman can marry a lesbian? You're going to have to prove that.

There is only marriage. And in a few states, that doesn't include same gender couples. In the rest a straight woman could marry a lesbian just fine.

Thanks for providing that obvious and useless information everyone knows and has nothing to do with the point I made, it really advances the discussion

To be fair- you haven't made a point so far- all you have made are spurious claims.

I see, so you're a long time poster, first time reader. Actually, I've repeatedly made the point there are better solutions to everything that government solves with government marriage than government marriage.

 

[kaz]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

 

[kaz]

So scientists looking at studies is just their opinion on the studies. Yeah, okay...however, their opinion certainly holds more weight than yours does it not? Has your opinion been published in a peer reviewed journal like the one I provided? No.

You didn't present any study, you presented an article written which only stated the conclusion of the person who read the study.

Gender and gender roles in parenting, in study after study, have been shown to have no bearing on children's outcomes

The number of which you have presented remains at zero.

First of all, you know nothing about what studies even are. No academic would make any of the sweeping statements you did were proven by studies. Studies draw specific conclusions in specified situations with specific criteria, they are not sweeping proof of anything. I doubt you have any college degree with your preposterous statements about what any study on any subject means, there is no chance you have a graduate degree.

Second, the logical fallacy you are committing is faulty generalization. Well, your kids are fine, so there is no difference. The biggest irony in that is it doesn't refute anything I said. And as I keep saying, I am in the same boat as your kids, single sex parent household. Mine was one, yours is two, but both are without a male parent. You don't grasp that. I never said anything about your kids, I have no reason to believe that they aren't fine or won't turn out fine. Hello, I did. I keep saying that.

That doesn't make it ideal in general. It's not. My sister double majored in biomedical research and math. She has a masters in math and a PhD in math where she specialized in theoretical statistics. She actually writes and does peer reviews endless statistical studies and is an expert in running studies on keeping lead away from children which is used by HUD, the EPA and congress to write legislation for things like how to renovate a house with lead based paint. She also had a devoted mother who with a deadbeat father still gave us ever opportunity to succeed in life. How would your unnamed studies have rated her to have turned out?

BTW, I'm one year and one month older than her, everyone has seen how she turned to me as the father figure. I point out to show how little older than her I was and how unequipped I was to provide that until we were well into our adulthood. She has had endless boyfriends, but never got married and even she admits she torpedoed the best relationships herself because she likes to have sex and spend time with men, but she can't relate to them with a father who wasn't there and an older brother who wasn't old enough to be a sufficient substitute. Yet I was the only candidate because other men even being older were no where intelligent enough to handle her. Only I was. How is a study going to rate that exactly?

My youngest brother on the other hand was 5 years younger than me, and while I wasn't old enough to be a true father to him, the difference was enough I was a far better substitute for him than I was my sister. He learned from me positives and negatives of being a man, both of which are also provided by real fathers. He went to the Naval Academy, got a masters in statistics from Georgia Tech and has been happily married for 23 years. They have a great relationship.

As for me, I screwed around until into my twenties getting an A in my hardest class and a C in my easiest. I finally got serous, then as I had my own kids I realized I was pretending to be what a husband and father are becasue I had no example. I was a father before I had one, before I was even grown. I finally started to decide I had to figure out who I was and be that husband and father and stop doing things because of my perception of what my father did before he left or what I thought other men did. That began the process for me to peace and security I had never known in my life.

Now explain to me how an academic study measures that to claim the sex of parents doesn't matter in child rearing.

Here's your fail argument.....Not everyone is like you.

Actually, sweetie, it's a question, not an argument: I realize your attention span doesn't last past a few sentences, so I jumped ahead and gave it to you.

"Now explain to me how an academic study measures that to claim the sex of parents doesn't matter in child rearing."

 

[nodoginnafight]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

 

[Silhouette]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Kaz is absolutely correct. It is a false analogy. A lifestyle is not the legal equivalent of a race of people.

Worse, the comparison of butt sex to the harrowing struggles of Black Americans is unbelievably offensive. I'm white and I feel like kicking your ass on behalf of Blacks everywhere.

 

[Seawytch]

[the discussion is immaterial to this thread since children have no bearing on civil marriage.

The rest you were in your own world tripping, your reading skills are horrendous. But as for this, so what is the purpose of government marriage? If government marriage has nothing to do with children, what is the purpose? Is it to validate you and who you sleep with?

This may be the strongest statement I've ever read against gay marriage as being pointless to society.

It's not children. If it were, they'd be required before you get one, right? The "purpose" of civil marriage was primarily about property rights...but what it was isn't what it is. Now it's about a lot more and means something different to each person. Gays marry for all the same reasons straight people do. (like you for example, civilly married guy)

 

[nodoginnafight]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Kaz is absolutely correct. It is a false analogy. A lifestyle is not the legal equivalent of a race of people.

Worse, the comparison of butt sex to the harrowing struggles of Black Americans is unbelievably offensive. I'm white and I feel like kicking your ass on behalf of Blacks everywhere.

Ewwww - another internet tough guy.

The analogy is spot on. Gay couples are entitled to the same rights and privileges as straight couples. And a state cannot deny any of those rights and privileges afforded to all Americans.

 

[Syriusly]

[the discussion is immaterial to this thread since children have no bearing on civil marriage.

If government marriage has nothing to do with children, what is the purpose? y.

You should ask the State that- since marriage laws are essentially unrelated to having children.

But I like this quote from the Supreme Court:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

 

[Syriusly]

That's somewhat reasonable. With one caveat: we don't have a definitive answer. But we do have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that children of same sex parents aren't any more likely to be gay than straight parents.

So we do have some pretty strong indications of what the cause isn't; exposure to gay people.

I agree on that, I find it highly unlikely that heterosexual parents would influence a kid to be gay unless the kid really is on the line between straight and gay anyway.

What is a downside though for gay adoption is that people evolved with a mother and father who have clearly different personalities and roles in child raising. It's ideal a child have both a male and female parent to gain both experiences. The same experience with two parents of the same sex does not make up for one relationship with each of two sexes.

I hear what you're saying. But there have been numerous studies on the topic and the kids are fine. I suspect any possible 'disadvantage' associated with same sex parents is more than mitigated by the fact that all children in a same sex union are intentional. Which means the parents want them and have a much better opportunity to prepare for them...both emotionally and financially.

Exactly...there have been numerous studies on the topic and the children of gays and lesbians are at no disadvantage to those of straights. There are no differences in outcomes.

What is ideal is for children to have two parents...their gender is immaterial. (except when it comes to lactation)

Whether or not children raised by same gender couples end up as exactly as well oriented as children raised by opposite couples is really a stupid argument.

Why?

Because children are raised in all sorts of environments, and as Kaz points out, they do- or they don't turn out okay.

Kaz says he missed having a father. Other children miss having any parent at all. And then some children are just raised by horrible parents.

We don't tell heterosexual parents "prove to us you will be a good parent"- instead as long as they are not physically harming the children they can raise them pretty much how they want- look at Stevie the racist bragging how his kids were all raised to hate blacks and Jews.

The point is that none of this is relevant to marriage. We do not require people to get married before they have children- or married after they have children. We don't prevent ;married parents from divorcing.

We don't require that parents be 'ideal parents' - we don't really even have any expectations that parents will be 'ideal parents'- but we can hope that parents will step up and try to be ideal parents to the best of their abilities.

And having observed friends of mine who happen to be parents who happen to be gay- thats what I see. Just like I see that with our other friends who happen to be parents.

How it applies to gay marriage is adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to do public adoptions before singles or gays. I don't give a rats ass about the straight parents, it's in the interest of the only people who matter. The children.

Liberals never stop making someone equal until they have more rights than anyone else does. You know it's going to continue there.

What a great message to the kids abandoned by their heterosexual parents and then adopted by homosexual couples

"no one else wanted you, so we will let let these people that we don't think are as good, adopt you"

Leave the handicapped and the non-white children abandoned by heterosexual parents to be raised by homosexuals.

How very white of you. Meanwhile the need for adoptive parents for the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents continues:

Facts and Statistics

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually, they can...and have...it's happened a lot. Called an arranged marriage.

Where there is no gay marriage, a straight woman can marry a lesbian? You're going to have to prove that.

There is only marriage. And in a few states, that doesn't include same gender couples. In the rest a straight woman could marry a lesbian just fine.

Thanks for providing that obvious and useless information everyone knows and has nothing to do with the point I made, it really advances the discussion

To be fair- you haven't made a point so far- all you have made are spurious claims.

I see, so you're a long time poster, first time reader. Actually, I've repeatedly made the point there are better solutions to everything that government solves with government marriage than government marriage.

You have repeatedly trolled same gender marriage threads, pretending to argue against legal marriage but always arguing against legal same gender marriage.

Like I said- you haven't made a point so far- all you have made are spurious claims.

 

[kaz]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

False

 

[The Rabbi]

[the discussion is immaterial to this thread since children have no bearing on civil marriage.

The rest you were in your own world tripping, your reading skills are horrendous. But as for this, so what is the purpose of government marriage? If government marriage has nothing to do with children, what is the purpose? Is it to validate you and who you sleep with?

This may be the strongest statement I've ever read against gay marriage as being pointless to society.

It's not children. If it were, they'd be required before you get one, right? The "purpose" of civil marriage was primarily about property rights...but what it was isn't what it is. Now it's about a lot more and means something different to each person. Gays marry for all the same reasons straight people do. (like you for example, civilly married guy)

Gee, I married to have a biological family and raise them.
So that's a lie.
We've already been over the state's interest in promoting child-bearing couples. Since you are incapable of understanding the argument it doesnt bear repeating.

 

[The Rabbi]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

False

True. It is a false analogy. Also a pretty damn offensive one, comparing people who risked their lives for real equality to a bunch of pansies who whine all day.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The courts can and will step in to enforce the 14th Amendment no matter what individual states prefer.

Start getting over it.

 

[Seawytch]

So scientists looking at studies is just their opinion on the studies. Yeah, okay...however, their opinion certainly holds more weight than yours does it not? Has your opinion been published in a peer reviewed journal like the one I provided? No.

You didn't present any study, you presented an article written which only stated the conclusion of the person who read the study.

Gender and gender roles in parenting, in study after study, have been shown to have no bearing on children's outcomes

The number of which you have presented remains at zero.

First of all, you know nothing about what studies even are. No academic would make any of the sweeping statements you did were proven by studies. Studies draw specific conclusions in specified situations with specific criteria, they are not sweeping proof of anything. I doubt you have any college degree with your preposterous statements about what any study on any subject means, there is no chance you have a graduate degree.

Second, the logical fallacy you are committing is faulty generalization. Well, your kids are fine, so there is no difference. The biggest irony in that is it doesn't refute anything I said. And as I keep saying, I am in the same boat as your kids, single sex parent household. Mine was one, yours is two, but both are without a male parent. You don't grasp that. I never said anything about your kids, I have no reason to believe that they aren't fine or won't turn out fine. Hello, I did. I keep saying that.

That doesn't make it ideal in general. It's not. My sister double majored in biomedical research and math. She has a masters in math and a PhD in math where she specialized in theoretical statistics. She actually writes and does peer reviews endless statistical studies and is an expert in running studies on keeping lead away from children which is used by HUD, the EPA and congress to write legislation for things like how to renovate a house with lead based paint. She also had a devoted mother who with a deadbeat father still gave us ever opportunity to succeed in life. How would your unnamed studies have rated her to have turned out?

BTW, I'm one year and one month older than her, everyone has seen how she turned to me as the father figure. I point out to show how little older than her I was and how unequipped I was to provide that until we were well into our adulthood. She has had endless boyfriends, but never got married and even she admits she torpedoed the best relationships herself because she likes to have sex and spend time with men, but she can't relate to them with a father who wasn't there and an older brother who wasn't old enough to be a sufficient substitute. Yet I was the only candidate because other men even being older were no where intelligent enough to handle her. Only I was. How is a study going to rate that exactly?

My youngest brother on the other hand was 5 years younger than me, and while I wasn't old enough to be a true father to him, the difference was enough I was a far better substitute for him than I was my sister. He learned from me positives and negatives of being a man, both of which are also provided by real fathers. He went to the Naval Academy, got a masters in statistics from Georgia Tech and has been happily married for 23 years. They have a great relationship.

As for me, I screwed around until into my twenties getting an A in my hardest class and a C in my easiest. I finally got serous, then as I had my own kids I realized I was pretending to be what a husband and father are becasue I had no example. I was a father before I had one, before I was even grown. I finally started to decide I had to figure out who I was and be that husband and father and stop doing things because of my perception of what my father did before he left or what I thought other men did. That began the process for me to peace and security I had never known in my life.

Now explain to me how an academic study measures that to claim the sex of parents doesn't matter in child rearing.

Here's your fail argument.....Not everyone is like you.

Actually, sweetie, it's a question, not an argument: I realize your attention span doesn't last past a few sentences, so I jumped ahead and gave it to you.

"Now explain to me how an academic study measures that to claim the sex of parents doesn't matter in child rearing."

So you want to know how scientific studies apply to your personal anecdote? That's like some moron saying smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because you know a smoker that didn't die of it.

But I'll take a shot. What it sound like is that you needed the structurer not the nurturer.

"Generally speaking, there is this dynamic that plays out among parents: one becomes the nurturer and the other becomes the structurer," she explained. "What I've found is that it doesn't matter which parent takes on which role; so long as the parents serve in these capacities, kids will be happy."

Do Kids Care If Their Parents Adhere to Traditional Gender Roles - Atlantic Mobile

In a single parent household, you only had half the ideal...which is two parents.

 

[The Rabbi]

The courts can and will step in to enforce the 14th Amendment no matter what individual states prefer.

Start getting over it.

There is no 14A issue here as gays have exactly the same rights straight people do.