LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[Silhouette]

So your argument seems to be that gay kids are somehow worse at protecting themselves from STIs than straight kids, but you don't advocate SEX EDUCATION as a way of dealing with this, no, you want to ban gay marriage.

Doesn't that seem just a little absurd to you?

Also, you have a problem with mental illness and you seem to want to ban mental illnesses, as if this has anything to do with this topic. You seem to have an obsession with girly men too. Weird, but if that's your thing....

And your 3rd is that they act as a cult, or probably better said, they like hanging out with each other, rather than getting beaten up by morons who have a problem with them. Go figure.

Lots of people have problems with cults that are in the process of indoctrinating kids, their kids, in public school, without their expressed permission. Your tolerance of this evangelism is the minority opinion. Even people who tend to be "whatever" towards gay marriage draw the line there and have a strong opinion against it. Cults have never been great friends of humanity; especially when they revolve around deviant sexuality.

As for my stance on sex education, you have absoultely no idea who you're dealing with here so let me remind you. I am:

1. A card-carrying voting democrat and have been for decades...though in 2016 and portions of 2014, that may change...for the first time ever...precisely because of what my party is allowing the cult of LGBT to do to its base values.

2. Pro choice. Limited. Termination as a last resort up to 3 months and preferably free contraceptives and especially the morning-after pill which in livestock works great. It simply doesn't allow a cluster of cells to implant in the womb. Easy peasy. No pregnancy [because that is defined by implantation], no abortion, no unwanted child to wind up on drugs, on the dole, stealing or in prison for society to support. Every child a wanted child is a fiscal program that in itself might cure our national economic crisis.

3. Pro 2nd Amendment. A rancher has to defend the homestead after all.

4. Pro green energy to the hilt.

5. Non religious; but with a childhood upbringing in christianity.

As to the sex education question. Not only am I in full support of parentally-approved sex education in schools, the VERY FIRST lesson I would teach the kids from the earliest of ages is to NEVER, EVER, stick ANYTHING in their anus, for any reason, whatsover. I would carefully go over the biology of the digestive tract and how the colon cannot discriminate between the benign body fluids and HIV infected semen it soaks up directly into the bloodstream. I would teach them that in contrast, the vagina has evolved as the proper sexual orifice that washes itself out constantly and resists absorbing fluids into the bloodstream. That it has evolved over time ...millions of years to try to combat STDs from entering the body. Though not always successful, it is your best bet.

Oh I would teach the kids and I would teach them every single detail about sexuality. How biology evolved the two sexes to procreate. How any other behavior is not sex but assisted-masturbation. For that is the factual truth. I would be way more open and honest with them than any gay person would. Because under the gay iron fist, there is a great deal of discouragement teaching kids in school about the grave and alarming dangers of anal sex. And why? Because it might turn some of them off to it...er...I mean 'encourage bullying of gay kids"...

You would not like my sex education program in school. I guarantee it. But it would save millions of young lives.

 

[Pop23]

Go ahead and explain why the concept of a unit, consisting of two is at all relevant.

There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.


However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fifth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

Wow, that took you a long time to put together!

But I hate to burst your bubble. Making something seem complicated doesn't make it so.

Millions of these contracts, similar to what you want to make overtly complicated already exist. They already contain what property will be brought into, and taken out of these partnerships. And the government is well versed in how they work and are administered.

NOT rocket science.

Your questions about children is also easy. The same laws would apply to a polygamist relationship as with any other. There may be many partners but only 2 (that troubling number rears it's ugly head again) parents. DNA testing is easy and relatively inexpensive these days, worse case scenerio. But it is interesting how procreation is not part of the discussion unless it benefits YOUR argument.

Seawytch stated that she has several children by a man she never had a relationship with. Basically he squirted in a cup, handed it to an MD and got pregnant. Nothing unique in that. A single person, male or female can justify a filing status of married with or without the cup.

So now tell me how the state would find a compelling reason to discriminate against a polygamist or an individual, keeping either demographic from joining the ranks of "Married"?

The balls in your court.

Seems to me that the closer you get to the victory, the closer you come to destroying the very prize that you desire.

 

[Seawytch]

Go ahead and explain why the concept of a unit, consisting of two is at all relevant.

There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
   
2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
   
3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.
   

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.





However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.



Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.



In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:

A married to B,

A married to C, and

B married to C.



Add a fourth spouse and you get:

A married to B

A married to C

A married to D

B married to C

B married to D

C married to D



Add a fifth spouse and you get:

A married to B

A married to C

A married to D

A married to E

B married to C

B married to D

B married to E

C married to D

C married to E

E married to D



Add another, etc...





So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.



You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...



When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.





So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.





>>>>

Wow, that took you a long time to put together!



But I hate to burst your bubble. Making something seem complicated doesn't make it so.



Millions of these contracts, similar to what you want to make overtly complicated already exist. They already contain what property will be brought into, and taken out of these partnerships. And the government is well versed in how they work and are administered.



NOT rocket science.



Your questions about children is also easy. The same laws would apply to a polygamist relationship as with any other. There may be many partners but only 2 (that troubling number rears it's ugly head again) parents. DNA testing is easy and relatively inexpensive these days, worse case scenerio. But it is interesting how procreation is not part of the discussion unless it benefits YOUR argument.



Seawytch stated that she has several children by a man she never had a relationship with. Basically he squirted in a cup, handed it to an MD and got pregnant. Nothing unique in that. A single person, male or female can justify a filing status of married with or without the cup.



So now tell me how the state would find a compelling reason to discriminate against a polygamist or an individual, keeping either demographic from joining the ranks of "Married"?



The balls in your court.



Seems to me that the closer you get to the victory, the closer you come to destroying the very prize that you desire.

You still understand NOTHING of what you read...to include my familial status.

 

[Pop23]

There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
   
2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
   
3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.
   

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.





However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.



Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.



In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:

A married to B,

A married to C, and

B married to C.



Add a fourth spouse and you get:

A married to B

A married to C

A married to D

B married to C

B married to D

C married to D



Add a fifth spouse and you get:

A married to B

A married to C

A married to D

A married to E

B married to C

B married to D

B married to E

C married to D

C married to E

E married to D



Add another, etc...





So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.



You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...



When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.





So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.





>>>>

Wow, that took you a long time to put together!



But I hate to burst your bubble. Making something seem complicated doesn't make it so.



Millions of these contracts, similar to what you want to make overtly complicated already exist. They already contain what property will be brought into, and taken out of these partnerships. And the government is well versed in how they work and are administered.



NOT rocket science.



Your questions about children is also easy. The same laws would apply to a polygamist relationship as with any other. There may be many partners but only 2 (that troubling number rears it's ugly head again) parents. DNA testing is easy and relatively inexpensive these days, worse case scenerio. But it is interesting how procreation is not part of the discussion unless it benefits YOUR argument.



Seawytch stated that she has several children by a man she never had a relationship with. Basically he squirted in a cup, handed it to an MD and got pregnant. Nothing unique in that. A single person, male or female can justify a filing status of married with or without the cup.



So now tell me how the state would find a compelling reason to discriminate against a polygamist or an individual, keeping either demographic from joining the ranks of "Married"?



The balls in your court.



Seems to me that the closer you get to the victory, the closer you come to destroying the very prize that you desire.

You still understand NOTHING of what you read...to include my familial status.

That's your argument?

It's the same as all the rest of your arguments. I paraphrase " because I say so"

Do you not believe there are contracts, in the millions, that have multiple partners, each stipulating which partner gets what when / if the partnership dissolves? I manage at least a dozen of them. It's actually boilerplate, fill in the blank stuff mostly.

Now go ahead and tell me what compelling state interest the state would have in precluding multiple partner relationships from marriage. Oh, and how about, since we like the number two so much, simply issuing multiple marriage licenses? That'll tidy thing up!

Balls in your court. This time at least try to swing at it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you not believe there are contracts, in the millions, that have multiple partners, each stipulating which partner gets what when / if the partnership dissolves? I manage at least a dozen of them. It's actually boilerplate, fill in the blank stuff mostly.

And as noted before, a given state is at liberty to compose their marriage law to accommodate three persons or more.

But that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of Utah’s Amendment 3 now subject to judicial review, or the issue of same-sex couples’ equal protection rights concerning marriage law.

In Utah, as is the case in the other states, marriage is a union of two equal partners, opposite- or same-sex, where same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts, and where the states’ efforts to deny same-sex couples access to their marriage laws violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Pop23]

Exactly. It's not the gays that have to demonstrate a compelling state interest in allowing us to legally marry, it is those that are opposed that must demonstrate the compelling state interest in keeping us from legally marrying. Nobody has been able to do that.

I have

No, you haven’t.

In order for the state to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest it must justify its desire do deny a class of persons its civil liberties predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence pursuant to a proper legislative end.

What you have provided is subjective opinion and demagoguery, irrelevant and in no way compelling.

As already correctly noted, no state has been able to establish a compelling governmental interest.

Seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is motivated solely by a desire to make gay Americans different from everyone else, something the states are not allowed to do.

Your last paragraph? Who's seeking to make gays different as it relates to marriage? They are different. We did not do that, and we cannot undo that.

And the difference is not superficial. There is not test to tell if a person is or is not.

 

[Seawytch]

I have

No, you haven’t.

In order for the state to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest it must justify its desire do deny a class of persons its civil liberties predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence pursuant to a proper legislative end.

What you have provided is subjective opinion and demagoguery, irrelevant and in no way compelling.

As already correctly noted, no state has been able to establish a compelling governmental interest.

Seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is motivated solely by a desire to make gay Americans different from everyone else, something the states are not allowed to do.

Your last paragraph? Who's seeking to make gays different as it relates to marriage? They are different. We did not do that, and we cannot undo that.

You are. You wish to deny my non familial consenting adult relationship the benefits, rights and protections of legal civil marriage.

No, they aren't different. Couple A is heterosexual. They are non familial consenting adults. They apply for and receive a marriage license. Couple B is gay. They are non familial consenting adults. They apply for and receive a marriage license. No difference.

 

[Silhouette]

You wish to deny my non familial consenting adult relationship the benefits, rights and protections of legal civil marriage.

No, they aren't different. Couple A is heterosexual. They are non familial consenting adults. They apply for and receive a marriage license. Couple B is gay. They are non familial consenting adults. They apply for and receive a marriage license. No difference.

Trying to reproduce with the same gender and calling it "sex" and "a loving relationship" of "parents" to children IS different. It is fundamentally different. It is VASTLY different. It diverges so far from science, child development psychology [where norms, obvious contradictions and truth matter] and 1,000s of years of the understood biology and function of reproductive parents that to say it isn't different is confirmation of how disturbed your perspective is.

To YOU it seems perfectly fine. To the rest of humanity that wonders why you have closeted hetero people in your cult and are in denial of that...and a thousand other things you do that you call anyone who questions a "hater" or "bigot" for even mentioning, let alone going there, what you're doing is questionable, weird, highly suspect and deserving of a thorough examination at the very least before you expect the rest of us to allow you near kids to say what you do in all this weird denial and obvious behavioral issues as "normal".

Trying to reproduce with another man's anus isn't normal. It's deadly strange. Get used to it. That's just plain biology of the human digestive tract and the etiology of the HIV virus.

BTW, if you think you were legally "gay married" in California, you weren't. Nobody was. Nobody ever was. The consensus in California, supported by Windsor and upheld constitutionally thereby last Summer, said that gay marriage is illegal. Retroactive to the founding of the country. No judge can save you from what was said in Windsor, unless it is 9 Judges overturning what they said just last Summer. States cannot simultaneously have a constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage and at the same time have that right removed by a lower court judge. The Supreme Court is supreme. It is THE law of the land.

 

[g5000]

Calling it a "gay marriage ban" is a misnomer also. It is not limited to excluding JUST gays. "marriage is only legal between one man and one woman" excludes many other people than just gays... Many other people are also excluded because....

These laws are motivated solely out of a desire to ban gays from marriage.

Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children.

Bullshit. Completely unsupported by evidence or common sense. Are you really stupid enough to believe stopping gays from marrying actually increases population?

And please explain how two men filing a married tax return hurts children.

 

[Silhouette]

Calling it a "gay marriage ban" is a misnomer also. It is not limited to excluding JUST gays. "marriage is only legal between one man and one woman" excludes many other people than just gays... Many other people are also excluded because....

These laws are motivated solely out of a desire to ban gays from marriage.

Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children.

Bullshit. Completely unsupported by evidence or common sense. Are you really stupid enough to believe stopping gays from marrying actually increases population?

And please explain how two men filing a married tax return hurts children.

Those laws are motivated to disallow not only gays but polygamists too. California, Utah, Virginia etc. want to make sure also that "a" man and "a" woman means no polygamy. Stop feeling so special.

Utah has a right to consensus to set standards for marriage that encourage two biological parents of the children they beget to be married. Encouraging other scenarios is ultimately not in the best interest of children as a society morphs with weird new standards over time. Utah is asking the Supreme Court to stretch It's Mind out over a couple more generations to see where the trend of creating incentives for two people of the same gender play-acting "mommy" and "daddy" will end up....with respect to child psychology and the overall population decline.

Utah has a right to act when it thinks its appropriate to consider ALL the issues surrounding kids raised in homes where two women or two men are trying to fill roles of "man and wife" for the benefit of children's balanced psyches. Obvious mental issues and role playing have no place in the real gritty and brutally honest world of child developmental psychology..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Calling it a "gay marriage ban" is a misnomer also. It is not limited to excluding JUST gays. "marriage is only legal between one man and one woman" excludes many other people than just gays... Many other people are also excluded because....

These laws are motivated solely out of a desire to ban gays from marriage.

Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children.

Bullshit. Completely unsupported by evidence or common sense. Are you really stupid enough to believe stopping gays from marrying actually increases population?

And please explain how two men filing a married tax return hurts children.

Those laws are motivated to disallow not only gays but polygamists too. California, Utah, Virginia etc. want to make sure also that "a" man and "a" woman means no polygamy. Stop feeling so special.

Utah has a right to consensus to set standards for marriage that encourage two biological parents of the children they beget to be married. Encouraging other scenarios is ultimately not in the best interest of children as a society morphs with weird new standards over time. Utah is asking the Supreme Court to stretch It's Mind out over a couple more generations to see where the trend of creating incentives for two people of the same gender play-acting "mommy" and "daddy" will end up....with respect to child psychology and the overall population decline.

Utah has a right to act when it thinks its appropriate to consider ALL the issues surrounding kids raised in homes where two women or two men are trying to fill roles of "man and wife" for the benefit of children's balanced psyches. Obvious mental issues and role playing have no place in the real gritty and brutally honest world of child developmental psychology..

Nonsense.

This is subjective, unsupported, and unconstitutional.

 

[Silhouette]

Those laws are motivated to disallow not only gays but polygamists too. California, Utah, Virginia etc. want to make sure also that "a" man and "a" woman means no polygamy. Stop feeling so special.

Utah has a right to consensus to set standards for marriage that encourage two biological parents of the children they beget to be married. Encouraging other scenarios is ultimately not in the best interest of children as a society morphs with weird new standards over time. Utah is asking the Supreme Court to stretch It's Mind out over a couple more generations to see where the trend of creating incentives for two people of the same gender play-acting "mommy" and "daddy" will end up....with respect to child psychology and the overall population decline.

Utah has a right to act when it thinks its appropriate to consider ALL the issues surrounding kids raised in homes where two women or two men are trying to fill roles of "man and wife" for the benefit of children's balanced psyches. Obvious mental issues and role playing have no place in the real gritty and brutally honest world of child developmental psychology..

Nonsense.

This is subjective, unsupported, and unconstitutional.

They may be subjective, but they are Utah's sovereign subjectivity and right to act when it sees a threat to itself, it's population over time and the ultimate wellbeing of children who shouldn't be raised in a predictably defective/repressed behavioral environment as guinea pigs in the "let's see how this role-playing gay marriage "mom and dad" thing affects kids over time" experiment.

Child psychologists will already tell you that telling kids that a woman functions as a father or a man as a mother is going to be crazy-making and highly damaging to that child's overall ability to process reality vs fiction.

 

[Seawytch]

Those laws are motivated to disallow not only gays but polygamists too. California, Utah, Virginia etc. want to make sure also that "a" man and "a" woman means no polygamy. Stop feeling so special.



Utah has a right to consensus to set standards for marriage that encourage two biological parents of the children they beget to be married. Encouraging other scenarios is ultimately not in the best interest of children as a society morphs with weird new standards over time. Utah is asking the Supreme Court to stretch It's Mind out over a couple more generations to see where the trend of creating incentives for two people of the same gender play-acting "mommy" and "daddy" will end up....with respect to child psychology and the overall population decline.



Utah has a right to act when it thinks its appropriate to consider ALL the issues surrounding kids raised in homes where two women or two men are trying to fill roles of "man and wife" for the benefit of children's balanced psyches. Obvious mental issues and role playing have no place in the real gritty and brutally honest world of child developmental psychology..

Nonsense.



This is subjective, unsupported, and unconstitutional.

They may be subjective, but they are Utah's sovereign subjectivity and right to act when it sees a threat to itself, it's population over time and the ultimate wellbeing of children who shouldn't be raised in a predictably defective/repressed behavioral environment as guinea pigs in the "let's see how this role-playing gay marriage "mom and dad" thing affects kids over time" experiment.



Child psychologists will already tell you that telling kids that a woman functions as a father or a man as a mother is going to be crazy-making and highly damaging to that child's overall ability to process reality vs fiction.

No, they won't. All major medical and psychological associations support marriage equality and have statements supporting gay parenting. Studies have also shown that gender is immaterial when it comes to parenting.

 

[Silhouette]

Nonsense.



This is subjective, unsupported, and unconstitutional.

They may be subjective, but they are Utah's sovereign subjectivity and right to act when it sees a threat to itself, it's population over time and the ultimate wellbeing of children who shouldn't be raised in a predictably defective/repressed behavioral environment as guinea pigs in the "let's see how this role-playing gay marriage "mom and dad" thing affects kids over time" experiment.



Child psychologists will already tell you that telling kids that a woman functions as a father or a man as a mother is going to be crazy-making and highly damaging to that child's overall ability to process reality vs fiction.

No, they won't. All major medical and psychological associations support marriage equality and have statements supporting gay parenting. Studies have also shown that gender is immaterial when it comes to parenting.

Yeah, we get it. Y'all bought out and took over the APA and all its "funded and accredited sychophants" in "science". Google "Leona Tyler Principle" and "Cummings" and read up on how "unbiased" the APA and its myriad funded studies elsewhere are when it comes to gay issues.

It's like saying we should trust Dow Chemicals own studies on how benign their plants' effluents are to the nation's waterways and ignore all other studies that show different results.

Sorry. No matter how hard your organizers worked at taking over and infiltrating even science itself, we are not going to throw children to your cult as a great social experiment to see how it works when we already know that to tell a child that "up" is really "down" and "man" is really "woman" or "mother" really "father" is crazy-making and very damaging to a developing psyche. It's not rocket science, but Leona Tyler would approve...

You gonna say now that child development psychologists are all on board with telling kids they don't need a mother or a father [real ones, not ones dressing up like and trying to talk like them or their "partners" who are at the same time allegedly "gay" but also attracted to the opposite gender's trappings..]? That role playing and skewing the truth doesn't affect a developing mind? That crazy-making is OK if it makes the adults feel good about themselves and not have to look deeper than the upper surface of their obvious and glaring mental issues?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The cult like evangelicals and their propaganda gain no traction.

 

[Seawytch]

They may be subjective, but they are Utah's sovereign subjectivity and right to act when it sees a threat to itself, it's population over time and the ultimate wellbeing of children who shouldn't be raised in a predictably defective/repressed behavioral environment as guinea pigs in the "let's see how this role-playing gay marriage "mom and dad" thing affects kids over time" experiment.







Child psychologists will already tell you that telling kids that a woman functions as a father or a man as a mother is going to be crazy-making and highly damaging to that child's overall ability to process reality vs fiction.

No, they won't. All major medical and psychological associations support marriage equality and have statements supporting gay parenting. Studies have also shown that gender is immaterial when it comes to parenting.

Yeah, we get it. Y'all bought out and took over the APA and all its "funded and accredited sychophants" in "science". Google "Leona Tyler Principle" and "Cummings" and read up on how "unbiased" the APA and its myriad funded studies elsewhere are when it comes to gay issues.



It's like saying we should trust Dow Chemicals own studies on how benign their plants' effluents are to the nation's waterways and ignore all other studies that show different results.



Sorry. No matter how hard your organizers worked at taking over and infiltrating even science itself, we are not going to throw children to your cult as a great social experiment to see how it works when we already know that to tell a child that "up" is really "down" and "man" is really "woman" or "mother" really "father" is crazy-making and very damaging to a developing psyche. It's not rocket science, but Leona Tyler would approve...



You gonna say now that child development psychologists are all on board with telling kids they don't need a mother or a father [real ones, not ones dressing up like and trying to talk like them or their "partners" who are at the same time allegedly "gay" but also attracted to the opposite gender's trappings..]? That role playing and skewing the truth doesn't affect a developing mind? That crazy-making is OK if it makes the adults feel good about themselves and not have to look deeper than the upper surface of their obvious and glaring mental issues?

No Sil, not just the AMA...ALL major medical and psychological organizations. You've got NARTH and their discredited quacks.

 

[GreenBean]

Nonsense.



This is subjective, unsupported, and unconstitutional.

They may be subjective, but they are Utah's sovereign subjectivity and right to act when it sees a threat to itself, it's population over time and the ultimate wellbeing of children who shouldn't be raised in a predictably defective/repressed behavioral environment as guinea pigs in the "let's see how this role-playing gay marriage "mom and dad" thing affects kids over time" experiment.



Child psychologists will already tell you that telling kids that a woman functions as a father or a man as a mother is going to be crazy-making and highly damaging to that child's overall ability to process reality vs fiction.

No, they won't. All major medical and psychological associations support marriage equality and have statements supporting gay parenting. Studies have also shown that gender is immaterial when it comes to parenting.

You've made those statements before and have been "owned" every friggin time . As per a highly respected and unrefutable scientist of the past ... "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

So Shefag - are you insane ? ... Oh wait ... I forgot you're Gay ... yes of course you are .

 

[GreenBean]

No, they won't. All major medical and psychological associations support marriage equality and have statements supporting gay parenting. Studies have also shown that gender is immaterial when it comes to parenting.

Yeah, we get it. Y'all bought out and took over the APA and all its "funded and accredited sychophants" in "science". Google "Leona Tyler Principle" and "Cummings" and read up on how "unbiased" the APA and its myriad funded studies elsewhere are when it comes to gay issues.



It's like saying we should trust Dow Chemicals own studies on how benign their plants' effluents are to the nation's waterways and ignore all other studies that show different results.



Sorry. No matter how hard your organizers worked at taking over and infiltrating even science itself, we are not going to throw children to your cult as a great social experiment to see how it works when we already know that to tell a child that "up" is really "down" and "man" is really "woman" or "mother" really "father" is crazy-making and very damaging to a developing psyche. It's not rocket science, but Leona Tyler would approve...



You gonna say now that child development psychologists are all on board with telling kids they don't need a mother or a father [real ones, not ones dressing up like and trying to talk like them or their "partners" who are at the same time allegedly "gay" but also attracted to the opposite gender's trappings..]? That role playing and skewing the truth doesn't affect a developing mind? That crazy-making is OK if it makes the adults feel good about themselves and not have to look deeper than the upper surface of their obvious and glaring mental issues?

No Sil, not just the AMA...ALL major medical and psychological organizations. You've got NARTH and their discredited quacks.

discredited quacks. ???

Hardly , you poor pathetic little creature - you're simply parrotting from the Gay Agenda my dear. I can just see you foaming at the mouth and spitting out pea soup every time someone mentions NARTH

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They may be subjective, but they are Utah's sovereign subjectivity and right to act when it sees a threat to itself, it's population over time and the ultimate wellbeing of children who shouldn't be raised in a predictably defective/repressed behavioral environment as guinea pigs in the "let's see how this role-playing gay marriage "mom and dad" thing affects kids over time" experiment.



Child psychologists will already tell you that telling kids that a woman functions as a father or a man as a mother is going to be crazy-making and highly damaging to that child's overall ability to process reality vs fiction.

No, they won't. All major medical and psychological associations support marriage equality and have statements supporting gay parenting. Studies have also shown that gender is immaterial when it comes to parenting.

You've made those statements before and have been "owned" every friggin time . As per a highly respected and unrefutable scientist of the past ... "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

So Shefag - are you insane ? ... Oh wait ... I forgot you're Gay ... yes of course you are .

And yet again, this is why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect citizens, including gay Americans, from this sort of irrational ignorance and hate.

 

[Seawytch]

They may be subjective, but they are Utah's sovereign subjectivity and right to act when it sees a threat to itself, it's population over time and the ultimate wellbeing of children who shouldn't be raised in a predictably defective/repressed behavioral environment as guinea pigs in the "let's see how this role-playing gay marriage "mom and dad" thing affects kids over time" experiment.







Child psychologists will already tell you that telling kids that a woman functions as a father or a man as a mother is going to be crazy-making and highly damaging to that child's overall ability to process reality vs fiction.

No, they won't. All major medical and psychological associations support marriage equality and have statements supporting gay parenting. Studies have also shown that gender is immaterial when it comes to parenting.

You've made those statements before and have been "owned" every friggin time . As per a highly respected and unrefutable scientist of the past ... "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein



So Shefag - are you insane ? ... Oh wait ... I forgot you're Gay ... yes of course you are .

No Little Bean, debunked garbage from "looneybird" isn't owning anything. It demonstrates ignorance, but little else.