Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[eagle1462010]

What study after study after study shows is that children do best in two parent households. Two parents. That's it. It takes two. It doesn't matter if it's two men, two women or a man and a woman.

That is a matter of opinion, and that opinion when voted on in California differs from your position on the subject. Which is why prop 7 was taken to the courts, and why the battle is the courts from those pushing for same sex marriages across the country.

Using the courts to force the ideology even when most of the population doesn't agree.

As I've already said, the left only cares about the Constitution when it suits their needs. They push Pure Democracy when it suits their agenda and then ditch it when they need the courts to enforce their beliefs on the masses of people who disagree.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

[Seawytch]

What study after study after study shows is that children do best in two parent households. Two parents. That's it. It takes two. It doesn't matter if it's two men, two women or a man and a woman.

That is a matter of opinion, and that opinion when voted on in California differs from your position on the subject. Which is why prop 7 was taken to the courts, and why the battle is the courts from those pushing for same sex marriages across the country.

Using the courts to force the ideology even when most of the population doesn't agree.

As I've already said, the left only cares about the Constitution when it suits their needs. They push Pure Democracy when it suits their agenda and then ditch it when they need the courts to enforce their beliefs on the masses of people who disagree.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

That's just it, it's not a matter of "opinion". There are studies...I linked to a few of them a few posts ago. It's not opinion that kids need two parents.

When the will of the majority trods upon the rights of the minority, that minority has the right to petition the courts. That's actually VERY Constitutional.

Do you know what year the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia? Do you know what "the masses" thought of interracial marriage at that time?

 

[kaz]

Role models------------------------------teaching a boy to be a man and a girl to be a woman. Its not complicated, its biological. Can a butch lesbian teach a boy what it means to be a man? Can a gay man teach a girl what it means to be a woman? I think not.

Name the specific skills. I'm hearing a lot of vague generalities but nothing that requires either gender.

the fact that you would ask that proves my point.

The fact you can't answer it certainly proves mine. I wasn't aware you had a point beyond "I'm better than gays".

You said you asked me this. You asked Redfish. No wonder I didn't know what you were talking about.

I talked about their personalities and their roles in parenting. What does that have to do with teaching kids specifically "skills?" You thought if you have a kid with a chick they can't learn bows and arrows or something? They can learn any "skill", that has nothing to do with it? That's completely arbitrary. As for the roles, I have given you examples of both. Start by building on that, not ignoring it, and I'll continue that conversation.

I do believe it was a question asked in general, not just specifically to Fishy.

So parenting does not require gender. That's all you had to say. Roles and personalities? That has nothing to do with raising children to be contributing members of society.

Strawman. And a bad one.

So if I say pitching is important in baseball, you believe that means I just said there is no factor other than pitching. Hitting, fielding, "that has nothing to do with" being successful in baseball. I can pick one factor, and that's it. And once I do, there is no other factor. Got it.

You're drowning now. You're arguing

- There is no difference between the sexes other than one's sex organ
- They do not study gender roles in parenting
- They do not study the effect of a missing gender role in single parent homes
- You're logical and I'm emotional...

What a hoot.

 

[Seawytch]

Where's the study Kaz? You allegedly have "endless" ones. You can't counter any of mine, can't provide a single one of your own...but you can deflect.

 

[kaz]

Actually I'm saying that these "roles" you like to play have no bearing on the raising of children. Studies bear this out as well. There is nothing someone with a penis can teach a child that someone without one cannot. (and vice versa)

OK, so caught in your crap and after twisting fruitlessly to get free, you're changing your story now. So you, in picking a partner, want to date females because you relate to their gender, not male gender. You, a fully formed functioning adult, the gender of who you live with is of complete importance. Men are out, not acceptable. But a kid who comes into your home, lives with you for 18 years under your care and tutelage growing from an infant to an adult, they aren't affected by gender. A parent is a parent. A man, a woman, a monkey, a tree, it's all the same to them. LOL.

Keep digging, honey...

Right...there are so many studies that you can't provide a single one. You have no commentary on the study I provided that concluded that there are no gender specific roles that a child "needs"?

You are denying they study gender roles in parenting. I have to prove that they do. Seriously? As I said, I am not proving water is wet either.

 

[kaz]

Where's the study Kaz? You allegedly have "endless" ones. You can't counter any of mine, can't provide a single one of your own...but you can deflect.

So answer the question I've asked you a half dozen times now. You are denying they study gender roles in parenting and the effect of a missing gender in single parent homes? You have yet to deny they do that while you keep demanding proof that they do.

 

[kaz]

'So where are these "endless studies"?'


There are none.


Indeed, at trial those opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples have failed to produce any evidence indicating that children in homes with same-sex parents are at a 'disadvantage.'

Gotcha Skippy, no one studies the affects of fathers and mothers and their roles on children. No one has studied single parent and the effect of the missing parent's sex. It was a bluff. No one ever looks at that, no one ever though of it or that mothers and fathers have different roles.

What a blowhard, you crack me up, Mr. Pompous.

Got Studies?

Got a denial?

 

[Seawytch]

Where's the study Kaz? You allegedly have "endless" ones. You can't counter any of mine, can't provide a single one of your own...but you can deflect.

So answer the question I've asked you a half dozen times now. You are denying they study gender roles in parenting and the effect of a missing gender in single parent homes? You have yet to deny they do that while you keep demanding proof that they do.

Ah, so that's the direction you want to go? You want to use the studies of intact and single parent homes to make your "point'? Yes, they've studied the lack of the 2nd parent...and they conclude that the lack of a 2nd parent is detrimental to the child. That's not the case in gay parent homes. There IS a 2nd parent. When intact families are compared, there are no differences between the children raised by gay parents and the children raised by straight parents. Do you wish to deny that fact?

 

[Seawytch]

Actually I'm saying that these "roles" you like to play have no bearing on the raising of children. Studies bear this out as well. There is nothing someone with a penis can teach a child that someone without one cannot. (and vice versa)

OK, so caught in your crap and after twisting fruitlessly to get free, you're changing your story now. So you, in picking a partner, want to date females because you relate to their gender, not male gender. You, a fully formed functioning adult, the gender of who you live with is of complete importance. Men are out, not acceptable. But a kid who comes into your home, lives with you for 18 years under your care and tutelage growing from an infant to an adult, they aren't affected by gender. A parent is a parent. A man, a woman, a monkey, a tree, it's all the same to them. LOL.

Keep digging, honey...

Right...there are so many studies that you can't provide a single one. You have no commentary on the study I provided that concluded that there are no gender specific roles that a child "needs"?

You are denying they study gender roles in parenting. I have to prove that they do. Seriously? As I said, I am not proving water is wet either.

I'm am denying that gender matters in parenting. It does not. Our children, when compared to yours, are no different. If you believe both genders are required to properly parent, how can that be the case, that our children are at no disadvantage to yours?

When intact gay families are compared to intact straight families, there are no differences.

 

[kaz]

Where's the study Kaz? You allegedly have "endless" ones. You can't counter any of mine, can't provide a single one of your own...but you can deflect.

So answer the question I've asked you a half dozen times now. You are denying they study gender roles in parenting and the effect of a missing gender in single parent homes? You have yet to deny they do that while you keep demanding proof that they do.

Ah, so that's the direction you want to go? You want to use the studies of intact and single parent homes to make your "point'? Yes, they've studied the lack of the 2nd parent...and they conclude that the lack of a 2nd parent is detrimental to the child. That's not the case in gay parent homes. There IS a 2nd parent. When intact families are compared, there are no differences between the children raised by gay parents and the children raised by straight parents. Do you wish to deny that fact?

Strawman. LOL, again a word game. My question was not if you deny they studied one and two parent homes as you attempted to change it to. My question was about gender, not parental head count.

So again,

You are denying they study gender roles in parenting and the effect of a missing gender in single parent homes? You have yet to deny they do that while you keep demanding proof that they do.

 

[dcraelin]

'So where are these "endless studies"?'
There are none.
Indeed, at trial those opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples have failed to produce any evidence indicating that children in homes with same-sex parents are at a 'disadvantage.'

I like studies, you have any?

See: Hollingsworth v. Perry.

In regard to studies
a Book and a couple of articles on the failure of studies
Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us Wrong Why experts keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them Scientists finance wizards doctors relationship gurus celebrity CEOs ... consultants health officials and more David H. Freedman 9780316087919 Amazon.com Books
Lies Damned Lies and Medical Science - David H. Freedman - The Atlantic
Not breaking news many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong Science theguardian.com

Some folks say colleges have a generally liberal bias. I've always laughed at that as I know most colleges probably have a relatively conservative bias when it comes to economics.....but I think there is some truth to the idea that colleges have a generally liberal social bias....and that is where most "studies" of gay marriage likely come from.

The issue of Gay marriage needs to be decided by voters......not judges.

 

[kaz]

I'm am denying that gender matters in parenting. It does not. Our children, when compared to yours, are no different. If you believe both genders are required to properly parent, how can that be the case, that our children are at no disadvantage to yours?

When intact gay families are compared to intact straight families, there are no differences.

Again, I said I am not against gay adoption. I said qualified heterosexual parents should take precedence over other combinations in government arranged adoptions, and all others including singles and gays after that based on the interest of the child. I said I am against all laws restricting private gay adoptions or gays having artificially inseminated children.

Your contention that parental gender makes no difference though is preposterous. And it has nothing to do with religion or morality. You want a woman partner because you emotionally connect with women as your partner. For a child growing up in the world, humans evolved to have a mother and a father. Which logically makes perfect sense that people evolved to have as the ideal a parental relationship with a male and a female.

Being logical and all, you'll certainly get that.

 

[Dana7360]

Explain again how the majority get what they want over the minority including depriving us of our liberty and property because we are a democracy who believe in mob rule, yet the majority can be overruled by one guy in a robe?

How are you being deprived of your liberty and property when gay people get married or when a judge rightly rules according to the constitution in favor of gay marriage?

The majority can be over ruled by a judge when the majority votes for a law that's unconstitutional. Almost every judge in almost every case ruled that according to the constitution those laws are unconstitutional.

Yet, Judges ruled in favor for Slavery, so not everything a Judge does is legal or constitutional. Now which part of the constitution states a heterosexual child shall be adopted by a homosexual man man government ruled, regulated, and created Family.

The same place the constitution gives heterosexual couples the right to adopt.

The 14th Amendment requires equality. The government must treat everyone equal. So if heterosexuals can legally adopt, so can homosexuals.

Please show me the place in the constitution that prevents homosexuals the right to adopt.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm am denying that gender matters in parenting. It does not. Our children, when compared to yours, are no different. If you believe both genders are required to properly parent, how can that be the case, that our children are at no disadvantage to yours?

When intact gay families are compared to intact straight families, there are no differences.

Again, I said I am not against gay adoption. I said qualified heterosexual parents should take precedence over other combinations in government arranged adoptions, and all others including singles and gays after that based on the interest of the child. I said I am against all laws restricting private gay adoptions or gays having artificially inseminated children.

Your contention that parental gender makes no difference though is preposterous. And it has nothing to do with religion or morality. You want a woman partner because you emotionally connect with women as your partner. For a child growing up in the world, humans evolved to have a mother and a father. Which logically makes perfect sense that people evolved to have as the ideal a parental relationship with a male and a female.

Being logical and all, you'll certainly get that.

And yet despite your claim of it being preposterous, you can't counter the actual study I provided that debunks your "ideal" view. If straight parents were, in fact, superior as you claim, you'd be able to find evidence to support your claims. So far? None.

You'd also think someone would have been able to provide such evidence in all the court cases that the anti gay folks keep losing.

So far? The "expert witness" was laughed out of court.

 

[kaz]

And yet despite your claim of it being preposterous, you can't counter the actual study I provided that debunks your "ideal" view. If straight parents were, in fact, superior as you claim, you'd be able to find evidence to support your claims. So far? None.

You'd also think someone would have been able to provide such evidence in all the court cases that the anti gay folks keep losing.

So far? The "expert witness" was laughed out of court.

I don't dispute the study, it sounds perfectly reasonable. I never said I dispute it. What is preposterous is your conclusion.

OK, so they did a two year study for children and wow, the lives of the children by a set of observable and quantifiable measures showed they weren't devastated by it. Nothing I said indicates I disagree with that. In fact if I did think that, I would oppose all gay adoptions, I would not just give prioritization to heterosexual couples for only government adoptions. I said kids can grow up fine. I also said I grew up in a single parent household, obviously I don't think and never said not two hetero parents = loser.

But you are way overreaching in your conclusion in a two year study of children there is no difference over the course of a lifetime. The study doesn't remotely show that. I'd like to see you show where they make that claim, I bet they don't.

 

[elektra]

Explain again how the majority get what they want over the minority including depriving us of our liberty and property because we are a democracy who believe in mob rule, yet the majority can be overruled by one guy in a robe?

How are you being deprived of your liberty and property when gay people get married or when a judge rightly rules according to the constitution in favor of gay marriage?

The majority can be over ruled by a judge when the majority votes for a law that's unconstitutional. Almost every judge in almost every case ruled that according to the constitution those laws are unconstitutional.

Yet, Judges ruled in favor for Slavery, so not everything a Judge does is legal or constitutional. Now which part of the constitution states a heterosexual child shall be adopted by a homosexual man man government ruled, regulated, and created Family.

The same place the constitution gives heterosexual couples the right to adopt.

The 14th Amendment requires equality. The government must treat everyone equal. So if heterosexuals can legally adopt, so can homosexuals.

Please show me the place in the constitution that prevents homosexuals the right to adopt.

Is that how the 14th Amendment states what you think, quote the amendment before you start throwing around the term, equality.

Equality does not appear in the 14th Amendment.

Dana7360 is simply wrong, an incorrect understanding of the 14th Amendment and the use of words with different meanings and intent, which means everything when one starts changing laws and even more so when you begin to Design a New Society.

The Constitution forbids and restricts the ability of any Generation to Design a New Society.

 

[elektra]

Where's the study Kaz? You allegedly have "endless" ones. You can't counter any of mine, can't provide a single one of your own...but you can deflect.

Where is your "67 Studies", Seawytch, Seawytch has yet to link to one when challenged, Seawytch will link to an article, but never a study.

People quote studies all the time, but those studies are not free to be seen, we have to take the word of a .com or a .org that the study states what they claim and that the study is valid.

So after being challenged, seawytch knows studies will not be produced.

lets see yours seawytch, I challenged seawytch first, so where are those 67 studies or was it 71? I actually said I would accept 1, but I got none.

 

[Dana7360]

Explain again how the majority get what they want over the minority including depriving us of our liberty and property because we are a democracy who believe in mob rule, yet the majority can be overruled by one guy in a robe?

How are you being deprived of your liberty and property when gay people get married or when a judge rightly rules according to the constitution in favor of gay marriage?

The majority can be over ruled by a judge when the majority votes for a law that's unconstitutional. Almost every judge in almost every case ruled that according to the constitution those laws are unconstitutional.

Yet, Judges ruled in favor for Slavery, so not everything a Judge does is legal or constitutional. Now which part of the constitution states a heterosexual child shall be adopted by a homosexual man man government ruled, regulated, and created Family.

The same place the constitution gives heterosexual couples the right to adopt.

The 14th Amendment requires equality. The government must treat everyone equal. So if heterosexuals can legally adopt, so can homosexuals.

Please show me the place in the constitution that prevents homosexuals the right to adopt.

Is that how the 14th Amendment states what you think, quote the amendment before you start throwing around the term, equality.

Equality does not appear in the 14th Amendment.

Dana7360 is simply wrong, an incorrect understanding of the 14th Amendment and the use of words with different meanings and intent, which means everything when one starts changing laws and even more so when you begin to Design a New Society.

The Constitution forbids and restricts the ability of any Generation to Design a New Society.

You seriously need to actually read the amendment. The first section is the one that you want to pay attention to. Just saying I'm wrong doesn't mean that I am actually wrong. Notice there's no exceptions for anyone no matter their sexual orientation.

It's you who is wrong.

It's also you who has not shown me any part of the constitution that says that it's illegal or unconstitutional for homosexual people to adopt. Or that's it's constitutional for a law to be passed denying homosexuals the right to adopt.

Why not do some research first before you post.? That way it won't be so easy for me to prove you wrong and you show all of cyberspace what a fool you are.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

 

[elektra]

'So where are these "endless studies"?'


There are none.


Indeed, at trial those opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples have failed to produce any evidence indicating that children in homes with same-sex parents are at a 'disadvantage.'

I like studies, you have any?

You like them? Really? Then why haven't YOU posted any? Where is your study that proves that straights make better parents? You don't seem to "like" the study IP Freely provided. You don't "like" the Australian study. You didn't seem to like the Tufts University Study or the University of California San Francisco study. And the Florida State University study that looked at adopted kids? You didn't seem to like that one much.

So what studies do you "like" exactly?

I have yet to state that I have a study that supports my post, seawytch has.

I have never sited a study to qualify my facts, seawytch does

so the burden is on the person who claims to have studies, not on the person who never referenced a study.

 

[elektra]

Explain again how the majority get what they want over the minority including depriving us of our liberty and property because we are a democracy who believe in mob rule, yet the majority can be overruled by one guy in a robe?

How are you being deprived of your liberty and property when gay people get married or when a judge rightly rules according to the constitution in favor of gay marriage?

The majority can be over ruled by a judge when the majority votes for a law that's unconstitutional. Almost every judge in almost every case ruled that according to the constitution those laws are unconstitutional.

Yet, Judges ruled in favor for Slavery, so not everything a Judge does is legal or constitutional. Now which part of the constitution states a heterosexual child shall be adopted by a homosexual man man government ruled, regulated, and created Family.

The same place the constitution gives heterosexual couples the right to adopt.

The 14th Amendment requires equality. The government must treat everyone equal. So if heterosexuals can legally adopt, so can homosexuals.

Please show me the place in the constitution that prevents homosexuals the right to adopt.

Is that how the 14th Amendment states what you think, quote the amendment before you start throwing around the term, equality.

Equality does not appear in the 14th Amendment.

Dana7360 is simply wrong, an incorrect understanding of the 14th Amendment and the use of words with different meanings and intent, which means everything when one starts changing laws and even more so when you begin to Design a New Society.

The Constitution forbids and restricts the ability of any Generation to Design a New Society.

You seriously need to actually read the amendment. The first section is the one that you want to pay attention to. Just saying I'm wrong doesn't mean that I am actually wrong. Notice there's no exceptions for anyone no matter their sexual orientation.

It's you who is wrong.

It's also you who has not shown me any part of the constitution that says that it's illegal or unconstitutional for homosexual people to adopt. Or that's it's constitutional for a law to be passed denying homosexuals the right to adopt.

Why not do some research first before you post.? That way it won't be so easy for me to prove you wrong and you show all of cyberspace what a fool you are.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

Like I said, you need to read the 14th Amendment, highlight the word EQUALITY.

Now which part do you think gives you the power to dictate what a relationship will be.