Gallup- Support for same-sex marriage hits new high majority-

Which courts are you referring to - the decisions made 10-60 years ago? The most recent decisions are declaring it unconstitutional.
If you think you have an argument (and to be sure of its constitutionality) I welcome it to be presented to the states as an actual amendment.

You better hurry - the under 35 crowd is slowly being the dominate electorate and they disagree with you by overwhelming margins.

 

No, because they are not a scientific organization, they are a religious organization. Part of their mission is to slander gay people in any way they can.

 

They certainly didn't come as a result of a homosexual act.

 

That's a dixon gimmick....he'll cite OLD court decisions, but none of the new ones, while claiming "the court decisions are on my side".

 

Could you please show me where their mission statement proposes that? Or is that just your version off slander?

 

They certainly didn't bother you when you voted for him twice, I'm betting, did they?

- - - Updated - - -

The Sword of Joshua Fundamental Pentacostal Church of Leviticus 20:13 ...has a "scientific study" that shows gays are bad.

 

Yeah, I put very little credibility in these so called studies of gay parenting when they are based upon answers to questions to the gay parents about how good of a parent they are.

 

He prefers studies by anti-gay groups based on how evil gays are.

 

What preference?

 

From their own website in 2008:

Yes you are right, we should totally accept their research as fact - no bias there.

 

What a lucky kid!

He has two parents! Already he is so much better off than so many kids.

 

Cameron and Harris are both researchers:

Cameron is a Psychologists who has done a lot of research on this issue.

Dr. Greg Harris
Gregory Harris, B.A. (Hon.), M.Sc., Ph.D., RPsych.
Associate Professor (Faculty of Education)

Dr. Harris has been with the Faculty of Education since December 2006 in the area of Counselling Psychology and is also cross-appointed with the University Counselling Centre (2007) and the Department of Psychology (200. He is past Chair of the Counselling Psychology graduate program at Memorial University, a Registered Psychologist in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and holds membership with the Canadian Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association. His theoretical model is eclectic, although he draws heavily on experiential models in his counselling practice.

- - - Updated - - -

Cameron and Harris are both researchers:

Cameron is a Psychologists who has done a lot of research on this issue.

Dr. Greg Harris
Gregory Harris, B.A. (Hon.), M.Sc., Ph.D., RPsych.
Associate Professor (Faculty of Education)

Dr. Harris has been with the Faculty of Education since December 2006 in the area of Counselling Psychology and is also cross-appointed with the University Counselling Centre (2007) and the Department of Psychology (200. He is past Chair of the Counselling Psychology graduate program at Memorial University, a Registered Psychologist in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and holds membership with the Canadian Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association. His theoretical model is eclectic, although he draws heavily on experiential models in his counselling practice.

 

?
So you expect a pro-Gay group to say things about this and side with me?

THAT is why I am talking to you guys.
You won't.

You don't CARE about the Child Abuse and defend Gay Marriage as if it is unrelated to the present Sexual promiscuity of America.

 

Nothing I know of. And that means prohibiting such a marriage is pure discrimination for no purpose at all.

Bull, of course. Equating same-sex couples with "single mothers with absent or unknown fathers" is simply stupid. In the first place, the father is almost always known, and in the second place neither parent needs to be male. It only helps when two caring parents are involved.

 

Lets review- you cite the Family Research Institute- which has a strongly anti-gay stance- and they are citing studies- by Paul Cameron- who just also happens to be a founder of the FRI

In 1982, Cameron co-founded the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality in Lincoln.[3] Believing that earlier sex surveys, including those conducted by Playboy magazine, had overestimated the prevalence of homosexuality, Cameron set out in 1983 to conduct what he described as "a fair sexuality poll, not one based on volunteers". His expectation was that the results would support his case for a ban on homosexual acts throughout the United States.

ISIS was shortly afterwards renamed the Family Research Institute (FRI)
The American Psychological Association (APA) launched an investigation into Cameron after receiving complaints about his work from members.[3][4] The APA President Max Seigel sent Cameron a letter on December 2, 1983 stating that the Board of Directors had decided to drop him from membership for failure to cooperate with their investigation.[22] FRI has contended that Cameron had already resigned from the organization in November 1982, citing correspondence from before his formal expulsion.[23] In a letter published in the March 1983 edition of the APA Monitor, Cameron stated that his reasons for leaving included his opinion that the organization was becoming more of a "liberal PAC" than a professional society.[24] The APA, however, does not allow the resignation of a member who is the subject of an ethics investigation.[25] An APA spokesperson told The Boston Globe in 2005, "We are concerned about Dr. Cameron because we do believe that his methodology is weak."[4]

In 1984 the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement disassociating itself "from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron".[4] In 1986 the American Sociological Association passed a resolution stating, “The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.”[26] This was based on a report from the ASA's Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, which summarised Cameron's inflammatory statements and commented, "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work."[27] In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".[28]

After Cameron submitted affidavits to the U. S. District Court of Dallas in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer wrote in his opinion that Cameron had engaged in "fraud" and "misrepresentations to this Court"[17] noting that, "His sworn statement that 'homosexuals are approximately 43 times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population' is a total distortion of the Kinsey data upon which he relies – which, as is obvious to anyone who reads the report, concerns data from a non-representative sample of delinquent homosexuals (and Dr. Cameron compares this group to college and non-college heterosexuals)."[1]

- - - Updated - - -

Because of course it is unrelated.

- - - Updated - - -

Your made up little charts are always amusing....but thanks for pointing that out.

So this kid is better off than a kid whose mother remarried a man- since two women are much less likely to commit child abuse than a woman and a step father.

 

You got it. Repulsion is a character flaw, not a legal principle.

I agree. When the very first "homofascist" is identified, AND that person kicks down a church door, AND pastors are arrested for speaking against homosexuality, then we'll see what due process of law determines. But since no such person exists, and nobody but you has ever fantasized this sort of thing, I won't pay much attention to it.

 

We expect credible, non-biased, actually scientific sources to be used. Have any?

 

And this is relative to same sex marriage how? Tell me you have a point?

 

Right. No one with any influence in the U.S. would advocate such a thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/hate-speech-online_b_3620270.html


BLOCK: You know, it's interesting to contrast these laws that we're talking about across Europe and in other countries, contrast that with the situation here in the United States. We just had the Supreme Court ruling yesterday that gave strong First Amendment protection to hateful speech, no matter how painful it might be. It seems that the U.S. is really the exception rather than the rule on that.

Mr. SMALL: Yes, it's definitely the exception. And I think it's troubling. In a sense, we've watched the changes that are sweeping through the Middle East and many people credit the Internet, Facebook with sort of spreading the values and democracy and freedom of speech, which is wonderful. At the same time, hate groups are also speaking and their messages are being heard further than they were decades ago.

And, in fact, the United States of America has become the space or the place where hate groups use URLs or create websites based in the United States because they're protected under the First Amendment. And I think this is something that policymakers really need to address. How do you balance First Amendment and the Constitution and yet stop people from harming other people?


http://www.npr.org/2011/03/03/134239713/France-Isnt-The-Only-Country-To-Prohibit-Hate-Speech

 

1. I am not gay -_-

2. This makes no sense. Are you saying gay parents are poor at said parenting?

3. Having gay parents does not imply that said children of gay people will grow to be abusive.

 

all my "kids" are of voting age... one of them is old enough to be president...

 

So you found an editorial favoring cleaning hate speech out of internet discussions and blogs and such. Of course, we all oppose hate speech, but I don't think any two people agree on exactly what that covers. I'm with the First Amendment people here, although even these ardent anti-hate speech people aren't talking about kicking down church doors. And it IS interesting that you automatically associate religion with hate. Even I wouldn't go that far.

 

Support and acceptance are not the same thing.

I support gay 'marriage' as a legal right, but I do not accept it as I would a hetero marriage as a societal norm.

 

The purpose was to illustrate that there are people in the U.S. in favor of hate speech laws. It's my belief that they are coming. Just a hunch.

 

Sounds like a recipe for "straight" to me and about as typical of a 14 year old boy as it's possible to be!