"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[bodecea]

A decade is not "new". Gays have been marrying in MA for ten years. Businesses bankrupt yet as a result?

yeah, pick one of the more liberal states as an example. Down South things will be different.

Down south where they're more bigoted you mean.

Third World Country-like.

 

[Unkotare]

No problem, but why not?

If the civil liberties of this very tiny minority can be guaranteed, there is no need to alter a time-honored tradition recognized by the vast majority of the population just for the sake of semantics.

But isn't it the case that the consensus among US citizens is that gay marriage should be legalized?

Not yet, according to election results.

 

[Unkotare]

No problem, but why not?

If the civil liberties of this very tiny minority can be guaranteed, there is no need to alter a time-honored tradition recognized by the vast majority of the population just for the sake of semantics.

But isn't it the case that the consensus among US citizens is that gay marriage should be legalized? Gays are most definitely a minority group, but the opinion regarding gay marriage is held by all - gay and straight.

Say in ten years if 75% of the population is "in favor" of allowing gays to legally marry in the public sphere, wouldn't there be a need to modify the law so that it's a better representation of the views of the whole?

No there would not. If society as a whole recognized such unions as "marriages" then that's what they would be. In the meantime, steps could be taken to protect civil liberties if not for the obstinance of the militant.

 

[Steinlight]

If the civil liberties of this very tiny minority can be guaranteed, there is no need to alter a time-honored tradition recognized by the vast majority of the population just for the sake of semantics.

But isn't it the case that the consensus among US citizens is that gay marriage should be legalized? Gays are most definitely a minority group, but the opinion regarding gay marriage is held by all - gay and straight.

Say in ten years if 75% of the population is "in favor" of allowing gays to legally marry in the public sphere, wouldn't there be a need to modify the law so that it's a better representation of the views of the whole?

No there would not. If society as a whole recognized such unions as "marriages" then that's what they would be. In the meantime, steps could be taken to protect civil liberties if not for the obstinance of the militant.

 

[Seawytch]

like i said.....with you it is obviously simply an emotional decision because you have friends today that are gay and have kids....and they probably seem to be doing fine...however research is proving this not to be true....







speaking of emotion...have you ever wondered what it is like for a child to wonder about his real mother (or father)....? who she is.....where she is....what she is....what her parents and grandparents are or were...? having 'two dads' leaves a child out in the cold when it comes to his very own MOTHER....like being half an orphan because your mother died or worse...abandoned you...







all due to the selfish decision of two men who want to 'play house' together...

No research is not. Research actually shows are children are at no disadvantage.

sorry to burst your gay-loving bubble but this is actual bonafide research...

Key Findings of Mark Regnerus' New Family Structure Study

Glenn T. Stanton



The New Family Structure Study (NFSS) suggests notable differences on many outcomes do, in fact, exist [between same-sex, intact-married, and biological homes]. This is inconsistent with claims of ‘no differences’ generated by studies that have commonly employed far narrower samples than this one.”



Compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to…



•Experience poor educational attainment

•Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.

•Have impulsive behavior

•Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)

•Suffer from depression (by large margins)

•Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)

•Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay

•Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)

•Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely)

•Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)

•As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit

•As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships

•Have a sexually tramsmitted infection (STI)

•Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)

•Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)

•Be unemployed or part-time employed as young adults

•As adults, currently be on public assistance or sometime in their childhood

•Live in homes with lower income levels

•Drink with intention of getting drunk

•To smoke tobacco and marijuana

•Spend more time watching TV

•Have frequency of arrests

•Have pled guilty to minor legal offense



Fuller Analysis of Specific NFSS Findings



This first article from Professor Mark Regnerus’ (Professor of Sociology, University of Texas, Austin) New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is published in Social Science Research. It is accompanied by published responses from mainstream sociologists, which while critical of a few important points – as academics always are - they are generally in praise of his methodology as well as his unique and needed ground-breaking contribution to the literature on the topic of same-sex parenting. This is key and will go far to rebut the activist’s severe, but largely base-less criticisms.



cont...

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/abo...-trends/regnerus-family-structures-study.aspx

Obviously you aren't aware that study has been deemed horribly flawed.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolat...is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255

 

[bendog]

yeah, pick one of the more liberal states as an example. Down South things will be different.

Down south where they're more bigoted you mean.

Third World Country-like.

Hey now. (-:

 

[Seawytch]

yeah, pick one of the more liberal states as an example. Down South things will be different.

Down south where they're more bigoted you mean.

Third World Country-like.

Well, they do have roads, running water and electricity...but yeah, when we talk about attitudes and education...kinda.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Down south where they're more bigoted you mean.

Third World Country-like.

Well, they do have roads, running water and electricity...but yeah, when we talk about attitudes and education...kinda.

Hey comon now, time was when down South, all the public buildings had twice as many water fountains and toilets as the buildings up north. Now that's running water!

 

[NYcarbineer]

its the same boat. Its forcing people to go along with the groupthink or face punishment.

No, it's enforcing the laws that don't allow you to discriminate...

...no, the freedom to discriminate is not the new freedom. You have wandered intellectually down the wrong road.

Unless you are the government there should be freedom to discriminate. There already is in the private sector, unless you are a member of a protected class, and then all of a sudden you are more equal than anyone else.

Mandated anti-segregation was required in the south due to the pervasiveness and the government approval of said segregation. There is no such condition when it comes to gays.

You're a crackpot. Thank god there aren't enough of you in this country to do any real damage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

yeah, pick one of the more liberal states as an example. Down South things will be different.

I don't think anyone doubts things would be different in the south. Look at Alabama, the people of Alabama voted to amend their Constitution to prevent interracial marriage. In 1967 that provision was struck by the SCOTUS.

In 2000 there was a referendum to amend the State Constitution to remove the language and 40% of the people voted to retain the language - even though they knew it was unconstitutional.



>>>>

 

[bendog]

Down south where they're more bigoted you mean.

Third World Country-like.

Well, they do have roads, running water and electricity...but yeah, when we talk about attitudes and education...kinda.

We have SEC football.

 

[WorldWatcher]

sorry to burst your gay-loving bubble but this is actual bonafide research...

Key Findings of Mark Regnerus' New Family Structure Study
Glenn T. Stanton

The New Family Structure Study (NFSS)...

Those who oppose Marriage Equality tried to use Regnerous in court in the Michigan case. They got shredded by the Reagan appointed Judge that called out the problems with his "Study". More starting on page 11 of the decision.

Even Regnerus recognized the limitations of the NFSS. In his expert report, Regnerus acknowledged that “any suboptimal outcomes may not be due to the sexual orientation of the parent” and that “[t]he exact source of group differences” are unknown. Defs.’ Ex. 28 at 5. Moreover, of the only two participants who reported living with their mother and her same-sex partner for their entire childhood, Regnerus found each of them to be “comparatively well-adjusted on most developmental and contemporary outcomes.” Id. at 11. Nonetheless, Regnerus testified that there is no conclusive evidence that “growing up in households wherein parents are in (or have been in) same-sex relationships” does not adversely affect child outcomes. Id. at 16.

The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 “study” was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it “essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society” and which “was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.” See Pls.’ Motion in limine to Exclude Testimony of Mark Regnerus, Ex. 9. In the funder’s view, “the future of the institution of marriage at this moment is very uncertain” and “proper research” was needed to counter the many studies showing no differences in child outcomes. Id. The funder also stated that “this is a project where time is of the essence.” Id. Time was of the essence at the time of the funder’s comments in April 2011, and when Dr. Regnerus published the NFSS in 2012, because decisions such as
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), and Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), were threatening the funder’s concept of “the institution of marriage.”​

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/cases/...r_Findings_of_Fact_and_Conclusions_of_Law.pdf



>>>>

 

[Redfish]

Down south where they're more bigoted you mean.

Third World Country-like.

Well, they do have roads, running water and electricity...but yeah, when we talk about attitudes and education...kinda.

As usual, you know nothing about the topic you are ranting about. I realize that there is a touch of sarcasm in your last post, but there was also a touch of belief in that stereotype that all southerners are racist, barefoot, toothless, and ignorant. Sure, there are some like that, but the % is no different than in the yankee states of New jersey and Maine, the mid west states of Illinois and Iowa and the western states of California and Oregon.

there are racist idiots and toothless assholes in every state. There also are wild eyed liberals who love obama and socialism in every state.

As to education, I will put a Vanderbuilt or Tulane or U of Fla education up against anything you have in Caliprunia or New Yawk.

You are the bigot, wytch, and lesbian bigots are really really offensive.

 

[Redfish]

yeah, pick one of the more liberal states as an example. Down South things will be different.

I don't think anyone doubts things would be different in the south. Look at Alabama, the people of Alabama voted to amend their Constitution to prevent interracial marriage. In 1967 that provision was struck by the SCOTUS.

In 2000 there was a referendum to amend the State Constitution to remove the language and 40% of the people voted to retain the language - even though they knew it was unconstitutional.



>>>>

The people of california voted twice to ban gay marriage------whats your point?

 

[Pop23]

I find it interesting that the United States of America sent troops into the Utah territory to insure that marriage would remain between one man and one women within the Union.

Talk about a demonstration as to the original intent of the law!

I'd agree that there was bigotry towards Mormons in the first half of the 19th century, but the issue was also about Utah agreeing to accept federal supremacy and a fear they aimed for a theocracy and basically setting up their own country.

Utah has had an uneven record in prosecuting polygamists. And, unless there's a link to it having detrimental effects on children, I'm not sure how a ban is justified. Living near there for decades, I believe there is, but I'm not aware of any scientific evidence justifying my "belief," which might be prejudice on my part.

Thank you for an honest answer. It is refreshing. It was about the federal governments belief that marriage was between single individuals of opposite sex and also federal supremacy.

 

[deltex1]

"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."



How could so many billions of people been wrong for thousands of years...thank God we have a few fags to finally set us straight.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No research is not. Research actually shows are children are at no disadvantage.

sorry to burst your gay-loving bubble but this is actual bonafide research...

Key Findings of Mark Regnerus' New Family Structure Study

Glenn T. Stanton



The New Family Structure Study (NFSS) suggests notable differences on many outcomes do, in fact, exist [between same-sex, intact-married, and biological homes]. This is inconsistent with claims of ‘no differences’ generated by studies that have commonly employed far narrower samples than this one.”



Compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to…



•Experience poor educational attainment

•Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.

•Have impulsive behavior

•Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)

•Suffer from depression (by large margins)

•Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)

•Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay

•Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)

•Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely)

•Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)

•As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit

•As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships

•Have a sexually tramsmitted infection (STI)

•Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)

•Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)

•Be unemployed or part-time employed as young adults

•As adults, currently be on public assistance or sometime in their childhood

•Live in homes with lower income levels

•Drink with intention of getting drunk

•To smoke tobacco and marijuana

•Spend more time watching TV

•Have frequency of arrests

•Have pled guilty to minor legal offense



Fuller Analysis of Specific NFSS Findings



This first article from Professor Mark Regnerus’ (Professor of Sociology, University of Texas, Austin) New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is published in Social Science Research. It is accompanied by published responses from mainstream sociologists, which while critical of a few important points – as academics always are - they are generally in praise of his methodology as well as his unique and needed ground-breaking contribution to the literature on the topic of same-sex parenting. This is key and will go far to rebut the activist’s severe, but largely base-less criticisms.



cont...

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/abo...-trends/regnerus-family-structures-study.aspx

Obviously you aren't aware that study has been deemed horribly flawed.

Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal?s Audit Finds ? Percolator - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education

what research paper isn't flawed in some way.....? however the study is not 'horribly' flawed as much as the angry gay activists would like it to be....

the reviewer referred to in your particular article is named Darren Sherkat....who is a a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois....what his qualifications are it doesn't really say....but it appears he was biased even before being assigned to review the study....yet he accused Regnerus of being biased....what hypocrisy....

Sherkat was an early critic of the paper, even before he was chosen to conduct the audit. He also said in an interview that he had “little respect for conservative religiosity” and believes that Regnerus and some other socially conservative scholars push a political agenda in their academic work. In a paper published last year, he wrote about how religion and political affiliation affects support for same-sex marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

The people of california voted twice to ban gay marriage------whats your point?

They actually didn't vote to ban gay marriage. They voted to define marriage in such a way that gays, polygamists and minors did not qualify. Gays weren't singled out in "between a man and a woman". Quite a few people don't qualify to marry there besides LGBT cult members.

If put to a vote again, it would again be reiterated "between a man and a woman".

That's why they wanted to force it on the state with a gay judge. They know the majority there doesn't support it. Gay marriage is now and always has been illegal in California. County clerks there were fully within their rights and standing to plead for clarity and direction from the Supreme Court which they were summarily and arbitrarily denied without comment from the Court.

Clerks also take an oath to uphold state law. And in issuing bogus marriage licenses to gay people in that state, clerks were forced to choose between defying the will of the people of duly enacted initiative law and pressure from the AG and Governor there to disobey their oath of office.

This is going to come up again in the future. Mark my words.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

sorry to burst your gay-loving bubble but this is actual bonafide research...

Key Findings of Mark Regnerus' New Family Structure Study
Glenn T. Stanton

The New Family Structure Study (NFSS)...

Those who oppose Marriage Equality tried to use Regnerous in court in the Michigan case. They got shredded by the Reagan appointed Judge that called out the problems with his "Study". More starting on page 11 of the decision.

Even Regnerus recognized the limitations of the NFSS. In his expert report, Regnerus acknowledged that “any suboptimal outcomes may not be due to the sexual orientation of the parent” and that “[t]he exact source of group differences” are unknown. Defs.’ Ex. 28 at 5. Moreover, of the only two participants who reported living with their mother and her same-sex partner for their entire childhood, Regnerus found each of them to be “comparatively well-adjusted on most developmental and contemporary outcomes.” Id. at 11. Nonetheless, Regnerus testified that there is no conclusive evidence that “growing up in households wherein parents are in (or have been in) same-sex relationships” does not adversely affect child outcomes. Id. at 16.

The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 “study” was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it “essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society” and which “was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.” See Pls.’ Motion in limine to Exclude Testimony of Mark Regnerus, Ex. 9. In the funder’s view, “the future of the institution of marriage at this moment is very uncertain” and “proper research” was needed to counter the many studies showing no differences in child outcomes. Id. The funder also stated that “this is a project where time is of the essence.” Id. Time was of the essence at the time of the funder’s comments in April 2011, and when Dr. Regnerus published the NFSS in 2012, because decisions such as
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), and Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), were threatening the funder’s concept of “the institution of marriage.”​

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/cases/...r_Findings_of_Fact_and_Conclusions_of_Law.pdf



>>>>

first of all....this is probably the very first serious and extensive study about same-sex household effects on children....with not as much data available as one would like....so Dr. Regnerus can't be as definitive as the court would demand...however that does not mean the study is bogus...

second....Regnerus testified that there is no conclusive evidence that same-sex household do NOT have an adverse effect on children...

in fact....looking at the results it appears that same-sex households produce children with as many defects as children from broken homes...

 

[Redfish]

The people of california voted twice to ban gay marriage------whats your point?

They actually didn't vote to ban gay marriage. They voted to define marriage in such a way that gays, polygamists and minors did not qualify. Gays weren't singled out in "between a man and a woman". Quite a few people don't qualify to marry there besides LGBT cult members.

If put to a vote again, it would again be reiterated "between a man and a woman".

That's why they wanted to force it on the state with a gay judge. They know the majority there doesn't support it. Gay marriage is now and always has been illegal in California. County clerks there were fully within their rights and standing to plead for clarity and direction from the Supreme Court which they were summarily and arbitrarily denied without comment from the Court.

Clerks also take an oath to uphold state law. And in issuing bogus marriage licenses to gay people in that state, clerks were forced to choose between defying the will of the people of duly enacted initiative law and pressure from the AG and Governor there to disobey their oath of office.

This is going to come up again in the future. Mark my words.

thanks for the clarification, and yes, it will come up again. the people will only allow their will to be overturned a few times.