Gay marriage

[Cambridge]

Let’s air this one. I'm a hetero and I support it. Why can’t gays marry? WTF is it to you (not you personally) what’s between their thighs? They wanna be with somebody…they wanna have the same state and federal rights as heteros…why is it not a violation of their equal protection rights to deny them the right to marry? It’s none of your business and you have no f***ing right looking in on their bedrooms. Tradition? In the US, slavery was a tradition. Does that make it right? Religion? What about the 1st Amendment right to be free of religious influences? Somebody give me a valid rationale, here.

[Fred75]

Gay marriage is a cornerstone for validating them as a family unit.

Which opens the door to saying they are equals to hetero family units and are equal PARENTS.

Does that then mean a child has no RIGHT to both a mother and father to raise him?

Lesbian parents for example... It takes a MAN to raise a boy to be a MAN.
Who is going to do that for a boy?
How does a small boy learn from two women how to love a wife like a man does?

Basically... gay marriage puts the rights of the PARENT before the child.
And that's wrong.

[Fred75]

Then of course you have to ask why two gay men want a boy to raise....
Could it be #7 under STATE????



The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972
FEDERAL LEVEL:

1. Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public services.

2. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance into the Armed Services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges for homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously issued, with retroactive benefits.

3. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal civil service because of sexual orientation, in hiring and promoting; and prohibiting discriminations against homosexuals in security clearances.

4. Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons and same-sex couples.

5. Elimination of bars to the entry, immigration and naturalization of homosexual aliens.

6. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.

7. Appropriate executive orders, regulations and legislation banning the compiling, maintenance and dissemination of information on an individual's sexual preferences, behavior, and social and political activities for dossiers and data banks.

8. Federal funding of aid programs of gay men's and women's organizations designed to alleviate the problems encountered by Gay women and men which are engendered by an oppressive sexist society.

9. Immediate release of all Gay women and men now incarcerated in detention centers, prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense charges relating to victimless crimes or sexual orientation; and that adequate compensation be made for the physical and mental duress encountered; and that all existing records relating to the incarceration be immediately expunged.

STATE LEVEL:

1. All federal legislation and programs enumerated in Demands 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above should be implemented at the State level where applicable.

2. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.

3. Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.

4. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one's personal demesne.

5. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.

6. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

[Cambridge]

Gay marriage is a cornerstone for validating them as a family unit.

Which opens the door to saying they are equals to hetero family units and are equal PARENTS.

Does that then mean a child has no RIGHT to both a mother and father to raise him?

Lesbian parents for example... It takes a MAN to raise a boy to be a MAN.
Who is going to do that for a boy?
How does a small boy learn from two women how to love a wife like a man does?

Basically... gay marriage puts the rights of the PARENT before the child.
And that's wrong.

Which opens the door to saying they are equals to hetero family units and are equal PARENTS.

Don’t you think they are, or should be equals? I'm trying to follow your logic and I'm stumped right here.

I disagree with many of your other assumptions, too. The concept of “rights” is overused in the US. It can mean anything you want. The issue isn’t rights, but the needs of the child. At least, that’s the standard the courts use…the “wellbeing” of the child.

Where do you find the right “to both a mother and father to raise him? [sic]” It’s not in the US Constitution. It seems to me that a gay couple offers to serve the “wellbeing” of a child better than a single parent, who actually is only one. I know from your other posts that you’re not fond of that circumstance either; but that’s not a gay issue.

Hairy back, stop capitalizing the word “man” as if that somehow enhances…what? His status. His virility? Are we glorifying testosterone? If anyone, male for female, doesn’t have it, capitalizing a pronoun won’t give it to him or her. More directly to the point, I know a number of lesbians who would provide a fine role model to a young boy. It does not necessarily take a man to raise a boy to be a man. As for teaching him “how to love a wife,” judging by what I see around me the man is not quite the teacher you think he is, eh?

[Fred75]

Gay marriage is a cornerstone for validating them as a family unit.

Which opens the door to saying they are equals to hetero family units and are equal PARENTS.

Does that then mean a child has no RIGHT to both a mother and father to raise him?

Lesbian parents for example... It takes a MAN to raise a boy to be a MAN.
Who is going to do that for a boy?
How does a small boy learn from two women how to love a wife like a man does?

Basically... gay marriage puts the rights of the PARENT before the child.
And that's wrong.

Which opens the door to saying they are equals to hetero family units and are equal PARENTS.

Don’t you think they are, or should be equals?
They are not equals. Two of the same sex do not bring the diversity needed for a normal child to love and live with the opposite sex.
Two women cannot raise a boy to be a MAN.

I'm trying to follow your logic and I'm stumped right here.

I disagree with many of your other assumptions, too. The concept of “rights” is overused in the US. It can mean anything you want. The issue isn’t rights, but the needs of the child. At least, that’s the standard the courts use…the “wellbeing” of the child.
Correct. That wellbeing being how the majority of the world does it... with a father and mother.

Where do you find the right “to both a mother and father to raise him? [sic]” It’s not in the US Constitution. It seems to me that a gay couple offers to serve the “wellbeing” of a child better than a single parent, who actually is only one. I know from your other posts that you’re not fond of that circumstance either; but that’s not a gay issue.
No. It's the issue that a single parent is a broken home/ flawed family to begin with.
So never justify gay parents over a "broken" model.
JUSTIFY gay parents over the GOLD STANDARD of a good home and you have

Hairy back, stop capitalizing the word “man” as if that somehow enhances…what? His status. His virility? Are we glorifying testosterone? If anyone, male for female, doesn’t have it, capitalizing a pronoun won’t give it to him or her. More directly to the point, I know a number of lesbians who would provide a fine role model to a young boy. It does not necessarily take a man to raise a boy to be a man.
Yes it does.
Women cannot raise a boy to be a man.
That takes a man to do.
If women did it properly the statisitics of men in prison from broken homes would be identical to those from good homes.
As it is, I believe, some 80% of prisoners are from broken homes.


As for teaching him “how to love a wife,” judging by what I see around me the man is not quite the teacher you think he is, eh?
Feminist's ruined it for women.
Men now get to treat women just like other men...IE... you have to earn respect form men... and women fail in that department when the sleep around like ho's.

[The Colonel]

NOT AGAIN

[Cambridge]

They are not equals. Two of the same sex do not bring the diversity needed for a normal child to love and live with the opposite sex.
Two women cannot raise a boy to be a MAN.

Bull Sh**!

Correct. That wellbeing being how the majority of the world does it... with a father and mother.

Horse Sh**! The majority of the world once believed the earth was flat. They were wrong, weren’t they?

No. It's the issue that a single parent is a broken home/ flawed family to begin with.
So never justify gay parents over a "broken" model.
JUSTIFY gay parents over the GOLD STANDARD of a good home and you have

…you have more Bull Sh**…Gold starndard of a good home…more of your horse sh**.

Yes it does.
Women cannot raise a boy to be a man.
That takes a man to do.

Bull Sh**!

If women did it properly the statisitics of men in prison from broken homes would be identical to those from good homes.
As it is, I believe, some 80% of prisoners are from broken homes.

Do you have any proof of this correlation? How do you distinguish between broken homes headed by fathers and broken homes headed by mothers. How about race? Even if you had the correlations, you have no proof that they prove causation. It could be a specious cross-tabulation…something caused by something behind the primary variable…like poverty, for example. More horse sh**, hairy back.

Feminist's ruined it for women.
Men now get to treat women just like other men...IE... you have to earn respect form men... and women fail in that department when the sleep around like ho's.

And finally, bull sh**. Okay, that’s all you have to show? Nothing but bull sh** and horse sh**? Well, come back when you’ve got something.

[The Chairman]

All us same sex couples want are the same legal rights as a mixed sex married couple when it comes to inheritence and we have it in the form of a " civil partnership "... in the United Kingdom.
Its not a wedding and one does not dress as a bride...its held at a local office like a town hall or registry office , it may not be seen as a marriage being blessed by the lord in a church but its just as important and a very happy occasion for the couple.
We are not asking to be called Mr and Mrs and as far as children are concerened most same sex couples who want to marry already have children...

[Sharon den Adel]

Don't listen to Fred, he knows nothing about anything, nothing at all.


Gay people (including myself) should be allowed to marry, as there is no reason why they should not have that right.

[Fred75]

They are not equals. Two of the same sex do not bring the diversity needed for a normal child to love and live with the opposite sex.
Two women cannot raise a boy to be a MAN.

Bull Sh**!
At least give a logical reason like I did.

Correct. That wellbeing being how the majority of the world does it... with a father and mother.

Horse Sh**! The majority of the world once believed the earth was flat. They were wrong, weren’t they?
So what's right then?

No. It's the issue that a single parent is a broken home/ flawed family to begin with.
So never justify gay parents over a "broken" model.
JUSTIFY gay parents over the GOLD STANDARD of a good home and you have

…you have more Bull Sh**…Gold starndard of a good home…more of your horse sh**.
At least give a logical reason like I did.

Yes it does.
Women cannot raise a boy to be a man.
That takes a man to do.

Bull Sh**! At least give a logical reason like I did.

If women did it properly the statisitics of men in prison from broken homes would be identical to those from good homes.
As it is, I believe, some 80% of prisoners are from broken homes.

Do you have any proof of this correlation? How do you distinguish between broken homes headed by fathers and broken homes headed by mothers. How about race?
Because mothers, typically, end up with the children.

Even if you had the correlations, you have no proof that they prove causation. It could be a specious cross-tabulation…something caused by something behind the primary variable…like poverty, for example. More horse sh**, hairy back.
So poverty is now a character flaw?

Feminist's ruined it for women.
Men now get to treat women just like other men...IE... you have to earn respect form men... and women fail in that department when the sleep around like ho's.

And finally, bull sh**. Okay, that’s all you have to show? Nothing but bull sh** and horse sh**? Well, come back when you’ve got something.

[Fred75]

Don't listen to Fred, he knows nothing about anything, nothing at all.


Gay people (including myself) should be allowed to marry, as there is no reason why they should not have that right.

Then theres also no reason why a man cant marry a goat.

[The Chairman]

Don't listen to Fred, he knows nothing about anything, nothing at all.


Gay people (including myself) should be allowed to marry, as there is no reason why they should not have that right.

Then theres also no reason why a man cant marry a goat.

In Sudan a man married a goat because he was caught having sex with it! The village elders saw it as a fit form of punishment...

[Fred75]

Don't listen to Fred, he knows nothing about anything, nothing at all.


Gay people (including myself) should be allowed to marry, as there is no reason why they should not have that right.

Then theres also no reason why a man cant marry a goat.

In Sudan a man married a goat because he was caught having sex with it! The village elders saw it as a fit form of punishment...

Got your airplane ticket yet?

[The Chairman]

Only if I can be the goat!

[Cambridge]

They are not equals. Two of the same sex do not bring the diversity needed for a normal child to love and live with the opposite sex.
Two women cannot raise a boy to be a MAN.

Bull Sh**!
At least give a logical reason like I did.

Correct. That wellbeing being how the majority of the world does it... with a father and mother.

Horse Sh**! The majority of the world once believed the earth was flat. They were wrong, weren’t they?
So what's right then?

No. It's the issue that a single parent is a broken home/ flawed family to begin with.
So never justify gay parents over a "broken" model.
JUSTIFY gay parents over the GOLD STANDARD of a good home and you have

…you have more Bull Sh**…Gold starndard of a good home…more of your horse sh**.
At least give a logical reason like I did.

Yes it does.
Women cannot raise a boy to be a man.
That takes a man to do.

Bull Sh**! At least give a logical reason like I did.

If women did it properly the statisitics of men in prison from broken homes would be identical to those from good homes.
As it is, I believe, some 80% of prisoners are from broken homes.

Do you have any proof of this correlation? How do you distinguish between broken homes headed by fathers and broken homes headed by mothers. How about race?
Because mothers, typically, end up with the children.

Even if you had the correlations, you have no proof that they prove causation. It could be a specious cross-tabulation…something caused by something behind the primary variable…like poverty, for example. More horse sh**, hairy back.
So poverty is now a character flaw?

Feminist's ruined it for women.
Men now get to treat women just like other men...IE... you have to earn respect form men... and women fail in that department when the sleep around like ho's.

And finally, bull sh**. Okay, that’s all you have to show? Nothing but bull sh** and horse sh**? Well, come back when you’ve got something.

So what's right then?

What’s right is what makes the most practical sense. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution has an equal protection component and every state constitution has the same. There’s a two level test: if an issue involves certain fundamental rights (eg, speech) or suspect classification of people (eg, African Americans) the strict scrutiny test is applied and the state must show that there is a clear and compelling reason for the law; if an issue doesn’t involve certain rights or doesn’t involve suspect classifications, than the state need only show a rational basis for the law. The latter is also called “relaxed scrutiny.” Two states have passed on this (well, Georgia too, but it adds nothing to the analysis). Both have applied the relaxed scrutiny standard, which is to show a rational basis. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has held that there is no rational basis for excluding gays from the class of individuals entitled to marital status (Hillary Goodridge, et al. v. Dept. of Public Health). The New York Court of Appeals has held that what is rational is up to the state, as a party, to decide. Effectively, then, the New York Court has written out of existence equal protection for its citizens unless fundamental rights or suspect classification are involved (Hernandez v. Robles).

The State of New York no longer has a full equal protection law. But no other state has been willing to forego equal protection/relaxed scrutiny so easily. In every other state what is right is to give every citizen equality. There is no rational basis for outlawing a citizen’s entitlement to marry.

At least give a logical reason like I did.

Restated for three times; single response:

I was speaking advisedly. That’s why I said “Bull Sh**”, get it? Bull Sh** is a apt descriptive response when it describes what another is saying. It’s not a rhetorical epithet. I'm not trying to be rude to you. You don’t present logical reasons. You live in a world of fantasmic assumptions, logical slips, conspiracy theories, urban legends—old ones and new ones—and mythological Bull Sh**. Most of it is not worth listening to. When you do say something that is either verified or verifiable, I'm sure you’ve noticed that I do listen. Bull Sh** is the term for the opposite circumstance.

Because mothers, typically, end up with the children.

Again with the unverified. I'm not going to question that a disproportionate of younger children do go with their mothers. But you’ve made a statement that calls for proof of causation. I know a lot of causative factors going to why people end up in prison. The African American race is 12% in the US, yet it is represented in prison populations up to 40%. I think it has been shown that race is a predictor of a prison sentence more than a single parent home. In fact, I believe the latter is very low on the list.

So poverty is now a character flaw?

Who said anything about character flaws? See how easily you make a logical slip from a factual question to a moral question? We were talking about a factual question: what material conditions cause (or predict) a prison sentence. You claimed a single parent home is causative. I believe that poverty has been shown to be a much stronger causative factor.

If you want to argue moral questions go to a religious thread.