Prop. 8 didn't just "prohibit" same-sex marriage. It ENDED same-sex marriage in California. Scores of thousands of gay and lesbian couples got married after the California Supreme Court ruled limiting marriage to heteros was unconstitutional.
Should the government be the decider on who can be best friends? No. Neither should they get involved with marriage. No gay marriage No straight marriage You can get more equal than that and no one has their morals violated. Win/Win
The state does not have the right to violate our 14th amendment. This is why we are a democratic republic; not a pure democracy. This is why even if there were a majority vote on slavery of African-Americans it would still be illegal thanks to the constitution. It's the 2nd that makes me side with republicans when it comes to banning guns, and its the 14th amendment that makes me side with the democrats on gay marriage. The government has no place in dehumanizing people or their rights.
I am a lesbian, and I believe that the government should not be involved with marriage AT ALL. The only reason marriage licenses existed in the first place was to prevent interracial couples from marrying and breeding. The fact that we're arguing over something whose roots had such ill intentions frustrates and exhausts me. And frankly, this discussion seems more like a "wag the dog" technique by the media to distract us from more important issues (TSA, Police Brutality, shitty foreign policy)
LOL, 6-20 times not 620. And a preference for boys or girls as an adult does not make you homosexual or heterosexuality, just a pedophile. A full pedophile is not sexually attracted to men or women but children. Statistics regarding child molestation prepared by the Boston Advocates for Human Rights reveal that, "the vast majority of child molestation - over 90% - is performed by heterosexual males." Facts... they help.
Since what we're talking about here is a system of benefits and privileges devised by the government which goes way beyond a private contract, how could the government not have a say? Supporting a state's ability to ban gay marriage merely means ones supports the people's ability to control to whom and why behavior-based tax breaks are doled out.
"Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families" "The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children" "How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?" The CPA's position on Gay marriage (the reason Canada made Same-Sex Marraige legal) This was all found in less than 5 minutes of searching the internet. If you would like, I can pm you a link to every one of these articles, though you can easily google all of these yourself.
Homosexual rights, reproductive rights are a side-show. A healthy and equitable society, good paying jobs with benefits and retirement income, freedom from fear and including fear of our own government.. Those are the things important to all Americans. Notwithstanding that it's important to some few people.. This stuff is a circus and a distraction from what is really important. Sad to see better sources like Reason.tv buying in.
I am gay and libertarian. While I do wish freedom for all. I do know that freedom is not given, but fought for. DOMA is clearly a federal overreach, but states do have the constitutional power to define marriage if at all. My colleagues and me will continue to fight and change perceptions state by state. A federal mandate would only invalidate our work.
I don't 'believe' it is the job of government, it IS the job of government to regulate marriage. Regardless of whether you like it or not, that is what they do. No other person or group has that authority! We the people have a right and the responsibility to petition our government representatives to change laws,
The study looked at 40 different outcomes, but reported data for children with "lesbian mothers" and those with "gay fathers" separately. Therefore, there actually were 80 outcome measures that could be said to compare children with "homosexual parents" to those from other family structures.
What difference does it make to me if gays want to get married? Let the gays experience the same misery as the rest of us. Let the hard working and sometimes wealthy gay guy, or gal, who supports some useless user because of love and the blindness it creates, let them learn what it's like to lose half of all he, or she, has.
If government didn't already discriminate against individuals in the tax code (depending if one is married or not and how many children you have) or in Social Security survivor's benefits (for those who are married), then there would be no reason for homosexuals to as that government recognize their marriages. Instead, we should have a debate whether government should discriminate based on marriage and children. I'd prefer they didn't.
Marriage licenses have been required in some states because the US was even united. While there was a time when marriage licenses where used to prohibit interracial marriage, it seems a stretch to say that it was the reason for marriage licenses.
what about the libertarian position that Govt should have nothing to do with marriage. The institution of marriage was not created by a govt so why does govt have the power to define what it is? you have is both sides begging Govt to define marriage according to their views.
Quite the opposite if you actually get reliable sources: Homosexual parents are less likely to abuse children, not because of sexual orientation, but because in almost all cases they adopt children willingly. This means that they're likely to be older and more educated, and overall more prepared for raising children. All you're doing is spewing bullshit and slander. Kindly take your homophobia elsewhere.
lower income people have a disproportionate percentage of population that report themselves as being homosexual. There are many disadvantages that correlate strongly with lower income. Abusing and being abused are among them. Also, child abusers and molesters conceal their actions/perversions. This would make them fundamentally different than a self identifying population. Serial liars are often sociopathic. sweenigami also ignores that the correlation does not imply cause.
They are not trying to force you to accept them, they are trying to force you to tolerate them... You don't have to like them but you can't oppress them and try to force them out of mainstream society. You are like a bully who complains because someone is trying to take away your perceived 'right to bully'...
By the way this is all based on empirical data and studies. If you find a study with hard data that argues this point I'd be surprised. Most of the studies shown to be pro gay adoption are just a marathon in false psychological rhetoric and conjecture. Here is another one: Loren Marks, "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)
When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures. Mark Regnerus, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
This is a pretty bad argument. The statistics show otherwise. I am not against Homosexuals living happy and healthy lives as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Age and education have little to do with it. You can't change human nature with legislation.
My point is that it's too common to be accepted. We should not all suffer so a few people can have bragging rights. It's an insane concept to enact if you think about it. The human race has better things to do with it's time then be mired down with these non issues that only cause more problems then they are worth.
ok, lets drop the bullshit then. What is the problem with me not being a fan of homosexuality, not wanting to be around men who act or dress like women, yet I still believe in their right and defend their right to do it, including marriage? Why is that so different from not liking drugs, or people who do drugs and wanting to avoid them but also defending their right to do drugs? Why do you call one hate or bigotry and the other one, I'd guess, would resonate as something sensible?
No I know quite a few. One of my best friends from high school is gay. He even picked me to come out to and help him with it. Your views on the subject seem to come from the "not hurt anyone's feelings camp", which is illogical. I am simply a realist. I am not some religious zealot who does it because of God or what have you. Even the tax breaks it allows are unjust because that money should be for people who are capable to be raising children or the elderly.
Is that really the definition because I'm sure some may define it as a public profession of love and promise of eternal commitment between people who love each other?
How do the different responses of these groups change the premise that they are reacting to a perception of intolerance and oppression?I would admit that it doesn't exactly help their cause in the eyes of people such as you,but behavior such as you describe may be meant more as an act of unity.Regardless had society been tolerant to blacks and gays from the beginning,there would not have been as much pushback as there has been,primarily because there would be nothing to push back against.
You're reading too literally and focusing on aspects that are irrelevant to the proposition. Remove the eternal and insert "for the rest of our lives or until we are divorced." Either way the argument remains the same: there may be alternative definitions of marriage that don't limit it to a man and woman.
Right on. I just take the issue of life and abortion with more of a priority than pretty much everything else. But its nice to know no one agrees with me, seeing as how I got thumbed down like a fucking hitchhiker. Sad sad world....
They are in PSYCHOLOGY, genius. If you were studying geology, you would gather information about rocks and record it. In PSYCHOLOGY you gather information about the mind and record it.
Please add me as a contact so I can directly personal message you the links to the scientific articles. I wasn't able to link to the research articles themselves due to the character limit, so I will need to personal message you them in order for you to the the original links themselves rather than the names of the news articles attributed to them.
it wasnt the friendliest thing in the world, but to react with "bigot" and that be the only thing you reacted with, well that's a little more of an over reaction than even my own rhetoric.
All the more reason to make sure there are more couples available to adopt children, if the assumption that marriage encourages this of course. BTW the study you are siting was peer reviewed, and it wasn't a good peer review, there was flaws in how the data was collected in addition to incorrect use of definitions. The study was more for people to back up their assumptions, and not look for peer reviews on it. For example, many of the men who claimed to be homosexual, had not interest in men.
OK, all of those you posted.. none of them are original research. They're basically news articles fluffed up with definitions downplaying and rewording actual academic research so you fail again. Maybe next time you can actually read the sources you cite.
There would still be an interest jn the government to regulate/officiate marriages other than the instances you cite-- Tax code; Social Security. If 2 atheists or members of very tiny sects with no local church get married they are obviously not going to do it in a church. They are going to do it in front of a JP or similar official. Therefore the state has to have some presence in marriage matters for them. Also the state has to be involved in divorce as certain faiths dont recognize it.
Or you could read the peer reviews on the very studies you referenced... the peer reviews are kind of the whole point of issuing a peer reviewed study in the first place...
I know well the difference between social sciences and natural science, just because you slab psychology on it doesn't mean you can use physical evidence. In fact, many Psychological conditions or tendencies can be traced directly to a physical causation. Of course, you can use surveys to try and support a theory, but they are hardly a source to construct a theory on.
Prop. 8 didn't just "prohibit" same-sex marriage. It ENDED same-sex marriage in California. Scores of thousands of gay and lesbian couples got married after the California Supreme Court ruled limiting marriage to heteros was unconstitutional.
Ditto. We had no Federal Marriage Policy before 1923. Gov't stewardship of marriage since then certainly hasn't made it any better.
Should the government be the decider on who can be best friends? No. Neither should they get involved with marriage.
No gay marriage
No straight marriage
You can get more equal than that and no one has their morals violated. Win/Win
The state does not have the right to violate our 14th amendment. This is why we are a democratic republic; not a pure democracy. This is why even if there were a majority vote on slavery of African-Americans it would still be illegal thanks to the constitution. It's the 2nd that makes me side with republicans when it comes to banning guns, and its the 14th amendment that makes me side with the democrats on gay marriage. The government has no place in dehumanizing people or their rights.
I am a lesbian, and I believe that the government should not be involved with marriage AT ALL. The only reason marriage licenses existed in the first place was to prevent interracial couples from marrying and breeding.
The fact that we're arguing over something whose roots had such ill intentions frustrates and exhausts me.
And frankly, this discussion seems more like a "wag the dog" technique by the media to distract us from more important issues (TSA, Police Brutality, shitty foreign policy)
LOL, 6-20 times not 620. And a preference for boys or girls as an adult does not make you homosexual or heterosexuality, just a pedophile. A full pedophile is not sexually attracted to men or women but children. Statistics regarding child molestation prepared by the Boston Advocates for Human Rights reveal that, "the vast majority of child molestation - over 90% - is performed by heterosexual males."
Facts... they help.
Since what we're talking about here is a system of benefits and privileges devised by the government which goes way beyond a private contract, how could the government not have a say? Supporting a state's ability to ban gay marriage merely means ones supports the people's ability to control to whom and why behavior-based tax breaks are doled out.
"Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families"
"The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children"
"How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?"
The CPA's position on Gay marriage (the reason Canada made Same-Sex Marraige legal)
This was all found in less than 5 minutes of searching the internet. If you would like, I can pm you a link to every one of these articles, though you can easily google all of these yourself.
Homosexual rights, reproductive rights are a side-show. A healthy and equitable society, good paying jobs with benefits and retirement income, freedom from fear and including fear of our own government.. Those are the things important to all Americans. Notwithstanding that it's important to some few people.. This stuff is a circus and a distraction from what is really important. Sad to see better sources like Reason.tv buying in.
I am gay and libertarian. While I do wish freedom for all. I do know that freedom is not given, but fought for. DOMA is clearly a federal overreach, but states do have the constitutional power to define marriage if at all.
My colleagues and me will continue to fight and change perceptions state by state.
A federal mandate would only invalidate our work.
I don't 'believe' it is the job of government, it IS the job of government to regulate marriage. Regardless of whether you like it or not, that is what they do. No other person or group has that authority!
We the people have a right and the responsibility to petition our government representatives to change laws,
The study looked at 40 different outcomes, but reported data for children with "lesbian mothers" and those with "gay fathers" separately. Therefore, there actually were 80 outcome measures that could be said to compare children with "homosexual parents" to those from other family structures.
What difference does it make to me if gays want to get married? Let the gays experience the same misery as the rest of us. Let the hard working and sometimes wealthy gay guy, or gal, who supports some useless user because of love and the blindness it creates, let them learn what it's like to lose half of all he, or she, has.
How are statistics psudoscience? Gay marriage would lead to gay adoption. Trends and statistics show that.
If government didn't already discriminate against individuals in the tax code (depending if one is married or not and how many children you have) or in Social Security survivor's benefits (for those who are married), then there would be no reason for homosexuals to as that government recognize their marriages.
Instead, we should have a debate whether government should discriminate based on marriage and children. I'd prefer they didn't.
Marriage licenses have been required in some states because the US was even united. While there was a time when marriage licenses where used to prohibit interracial marriage, it seems a stretch to say that it was the reason for marriage licenses.
what about the libertarian position that Govt should have nothing to do with marriage. The institution of marriage was not created by a govt so why does govt have the power to define what it is? you have is both sides begging Govt to define marriage according to their views.
Quite the opposite if you actually get reliable sources: Homosexual parents are less likely to abuse children, not because of sexual orientation, but because in almost all cases they adopt children willingly. This means that they're likely to be older and more educated, and overall more prepared for raising children. All you're doing is spewing bullshit and slander. Kindly take your homophobia elsewhere.
Get government out of marriage, would be the best solution,
lower income people have a disproportionate percentage of population that report themselves as being homosexual.
There are many disadvantages that correlate strongly with lower income.
Abusing and being abused are among them.
Also, child abusers and molesters conceal their actions/perversions. This would make them fundamentally different than a self identifying population.
Serial liars are often sociopathic.
sweenigami also ignores that the correlation does not imply cause.
They are not trying to force you to accept them, they are trying to force you to tolerate them... You don't have to like them but you can't oppress them and try to force them out of mainstream society. You are like a bully who complains because someone is trying to take away your perceived 'right to bully'...
By the way this is all based on empirical data and studies. If you find a study with hard data that argues this point I'd be surprised. Most of the studies shown to be pro gay adoption are just a marathon in false psychological rhetoric and conjecture. Here is another one: Loren Marks, "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)
When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures. Mark Regnerus, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
The statistics are a standard ammount for an accepted psychological survey. Cite the numbers and cite proof that they're insignificant.
In order to do that, you have to reform taxes.
The only ones who gave it a bad review had a clear emotional bias. Regnerus is a scientist with no bias.
This is a pretty bad argument. The statistics show otherwise. I am not against Homosexuals living happy and healthy lives as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Age and education have little to do with it. You can't change human nature with legislation.
got i just realized how much of a target i am i am a forigner, lesbian ,sufi muslim, and a gun enthusist
My point is that it's too common to be accepted. We should not all suffer so a few people can have bragging rights. It's an insane concept to enact if you think about it. The human race has better things to do with it's time then be mired down with these non issues that only cause more problems then they are worth.
ok, lets drop the bullshit then. What is the problem with me not being a fan of homosexuality, not wanting to be around men who act or dress like women, yet I still believe in their right and defend their right to do it, including marriage? Why is that so different from not liking drugs, or people who do drugs and wanting to avoid them but also defending their right to do drugs? Why do you call one hate or bigotry and the other one, I'd guess, would resonate as something sensible?
No I know quite a few. One of my best friends from high school is gay. He even picked me to come out to and help him with it. Your views on the subject seem to come from the "not hurt anyone's feelings camp", which is illogical. I am simply a realist. I am not some religious zealot who does it because of God or what have you. Even the tax breaks it allows are unjust because that money should be for people who are capable to be raising children or the elderly.
Yes, because we all know that surveys are the ultimate in scientific studies.
Is that really the definition because I'm sure some may define it as a public profession of love and promise of eternal commitment between people who love each other?
How do the different responses of these groups change the premise that they are reacting to a perception of intolerance and oppression?I would admit that it doesn't exactly help their cause in the eyes of people such as you,but behavior such as you describe may be meant more as an act of unity.Regardless had society been tolerant to blacks and gays from the beginning,there would not have been as much pushback as there has been,primarily because there would be nothing to push back against.
You're reading too literally and focusing on aspects that are irrelevant to the proposition. Remove the eternal and insert "for the rest of our lives or until we are divorced." Either way the argument remains the same: there may be alternative definitions of marriage that don't limit it to a man and woman.
Right on. I just take the issue of life and abortion with more of a priority than pretty much everything else. But its nice to know no one agrees with me, seeing as how I got thumbed down like a fucking hitchhiker. Sad sad world....
Can you elaborate? I can't draw the connection between property and marriage.
They are in PSYCHOLOGY, genius. If you were studying geology, you would gather information about rocks and record it. In PSYCHOLOGY you gather information about the mind and record it.
I think many would agree, but since they do license strait marriage they need to apply their overstepping equally...as asinine as that sounds...
You don't think that "New Family Structures Study" might have a huge bias to push? Seriously. where is your critical thinking skills?
Please add me as a contact so I can directly personal message you the links to the scientific articles. I wasn't able to link to the research articles themselves due to the character limit, so I will need to personal message you them in order for you to the the original links themselves rather than the names of the news articles attributed to them.
it wasnt the friendliest thing in the world, but to react with "bigot" and that be the only thing you reacted with, well that's a little more of an over reaction than even my own rhetoric.
so would support a requirement of fertility? maybe a minimum number of children?
All the more reason to make sure there are more couples available to adopt children, if the assumption that marriage encourages this of course.
BTW the study you are siting was peer reviewed, and it wasn't a good peer review, there was flaws in how the data was collected in addition to incorrect use of definitions. The study was more for people to back up their assumptions, and not look for peer reviews on it. For example, many of the men who claimed to be homosexual, had not interest in men.
since when is an eternal commitment? Youre stretching the truth a little and making it sound like some overwhelmingly childish sentiment
I'd love to see the documentation for that last statement.
OK, all of those you posted.. none of them are original research. They're basically news articles fluffed up with definitions downplaying and rewording actual academic research so you fail again.
Maybe next time you can actually read the sources you cite.
There would still be an interest jn the government to regulate/officiate marriages other than the instances you cite-- Tax code; Social Security. If 2 atheists or members of very tiny sects with no local church get married they are obviously not going to do it in a church. They are going to do it in front of a JP or similar official. Therefore the state has to have some presence in marriage matters for them. Also the state has to be involved in divorce as certain faiths dont recognize it.
Or you could read the peer reviews on the very studies you referenced... the peer reviews are kind of the whole point of issuing a peer reviewed study in the first place...
Yes, that's how they see us.
It would lead to adoption.
Damon didn't used to have a stutter. when did that happen?
Innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you ?
Ehm, what was your point?
So human life is a side show? Ok guy
Damon root = Drew Breese!
Looks like our special friend here is the one that is biased
Your opinion does not reflect reality...
the levels are too high
I know well the difference between social sciences and natural science, just because you slab psychology on it doesn't mean you can use physical evidence. In fact, many Psychological conditions or tendencies can be traced directly to a physical causation.
Of course, you can use surveys to try and support a theory, but they are hardly a source to construct a theory on.
Nailed it! Well done!
SCROTUS!
i have beed saying that for years
slap** phychology Can't use physical***
hey buddy, watch the hate !