Pennsylvania gay marriage ban struck down-

This is disingenuous at best. If there really WERE systematic child abuse, it would be headlines everywhere. And those rare instances where there IS child abuse do get reported (and prosecuted). There are no big mysteries here.

It sounds like you are simply declaring that same sex couples raising children is automatic child abuse, ipso facto, in the same sense that Dawkins says raising children to believe in imaginary sky daddies qualifies as child abuse.

 

What I'm saying is this kind of events are not singled out and are not making an 8 o-clock news - MSM shy away from reporting gay crimes and you know it.

Look, CDC just released a report, declaring two parent family being best for the children, and Liberals adamantly insisted, since gays were not specifically listed in the study, that meant, you cannot make any conclusions if raising kids in a gay family is just as good or worse for the kids as in a real two parent husband and wife family. Do you understand where I'm going with this?

 

This is always a problem, because if crimes are not being reported, then EITHER they are not happening, or the media is conspiring not to mention them. How can we tell the difference? Fortunately, we have sec, who combs the interwebz looking for any indication, however indirect, that gays are all abusive pedophiles. We don't miss anything that's actually reported.

I'm not sure. The CDC report said that children raised by two parents do better than children raised by only one, or children raised by people not their parents (foster homes). I noticed that some of our more virulent anti-gay people drew conclusions from this report unsupported by the focus of the study.

There are, as I'm sure you are aware, multiple studies that have looked specifically at children raised by same-sex couples. And there are enough instances (many thousands) to draw statistically firm conclusions that there is no statistical difference along any of many factors (like those the CDC used) between such children, and children raised by opposite-sex 2-parent homes. One of the more interesting conclusions is that such children are neither more nor less likely to be homosexual than children raised by opposite sex couples. In other words, the sex of the parents had no influence on the sexual orientation of the children. As you say, however, that particular CDC study did not differentiate along those lines.

(And when other studies which DID focus on comparing children of same-sex couples to children of opposite-sex couples were raised on that thread, those who linked to such studies were shouted down on the grounds that the CDC study didn't look at that issue (which is true) and that any study NOT finding children of same-sex couples having serious problems must surely be unscientific and hopelessly biased, etc.)

 

Again...how would you suggest banning gays from raising children?

How would you propose to stop them? Taking their children from them?

 

The research is very conclusive:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

17 pages long, so I'm not posting it all here.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you know the answer.

 

Sigh. It sure is tough to get even the simplest of concepts through to some of you. Your concept of the Leave it to Beaver family is no longer relevant. If it ever really existed to a great degree anyway. Kids have little, if anything, to do with the legal concept of equal treatment under the law. Why is that so difficult for your to comprehend? I would be willing to bet that a good percentage, perhaps a majority, of gay couples wishing to be married have circumstances that involve no kids whatsoever. So your argument fails on a major level.

 

Do you really want to hear my opinion? Or do you want to hear a "politically correct" opinion?(Note that "political correctness is often not a 'correct' political theorem, but rather the more accepted one). I could easily tell you that it's politically correct that all men and women deserve basic civil rights(work, vote, etc, anti-discrimination rights).

But then there's my Political Reasoning, which is entirely different from being 'politically correct' and in your mind may very well be socially wrong. However, my position resembles that of the Founders of the time. While it's true that all Beings deserve their inalienable rights, should that be dictated through Law?(Or in this instance, through the halls of the Court?)

In the Founders eyes, such a diktat wouldn't solve anything. They correctly foresaw the Civil War, they also foresaw to a limited extent that even if 'society' were integrated, such an integration would never be seamless. There would always be those opposed.

The U.S had avoided what could have been a devastating social revolt that would've been superior in scope to the Civil War. It would've been a nation-wide demonstration in the same fashion(albeit much larger in size to Rosa Parks's civil demonstration). Indeed, the only reason the Civil War was acknowledged by the rest of the world, is that the South drew its weapons.

What happens if the U.S citizens as a whole choose NOT to acknowledge the current political government? It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that A: The Federal Government could not sustain the Union through military force and that B: If it tried, the U.N would condemn it in the same fashion it condemned Qaddafi and Bashir.

What saved us from this predicament was the belief in Self-Determinism. Perhaps Federal Law had its statutes, but those statutes wouldn't(and couldn't in the spirit of the Republic) diktat their private choices.. This of course extended to the States. How could it not? We live here and pay State Taxes. We have the very reasonable expectation that the State Constitution reflects our will.

The Liberal proclaims this as 'racist' or 'xenophobic', well lest the Liberal forgets: They too, are members of their States. Perhaps you concur to this, but what if the Courts diktat something you disagree with? Is that just as legitimate in your mind? Let's take Citizens United, most Liberals don't concur to that, likewise neither do I. But the SCOTUS legalized the motion.

Through diktating Social Justice through the Courts and Military power, the Individual of All Races could hardly be blamed if they believed Self-Determination no longer applies. Indeed, it's readily apparent we're not pursuing equality in its truest sense but egalitarian "justice". In this circumstance, who would believe that the government is trustworthy?

This political scientist may have been a few years late, but he correctly identified the causes of civil unrest.

Liberal America may very well believe they're "moving forward", the only reason Liberal America still stands is our "social benefits". Once/IF Government can no longer meet that responsibility, Liberal America will have to owe up to the egregious violations of self-determination, self-government and political expression.

What would have been the right solution? In reality, there's not a single country that can cite 100% agreement, however I believe if the Founders were alive today they would see that it's the Tyranny of the Minority that's the greatest threat.

In all practical realism, majorities exist in every country. To deny Majority Rights then, is to deny a Country's character and thus, its ability to govern. To approve of Minority Rule, is to kill the same character and to impose such a self-inflicting rule that it may destroy Nations. If these minorities 'long' for the same rights as the majority, why not advocate for it in their own homes?

Would Africa or Mexico not benefit from American technologies/laws? Would Latin America not welcome Westernization? Why should North America be diktated by these minorities to live as they want us to? We could've very well done the same if we wanted to, but we didn't!

Domestically and abroad, the Federal Government has betrayed its basic responsibility to the people. I haven't even gotten to the question of Liberal Theorem as it regards the States: That they don't exist. But who's the one shouldering Welfare, Education and transportation burdens? It's the States!

The Federal Government proclaimed as long as it organized the military, it was doing its duty. In which case, the Federal Government doesn't need 20 trillion dollars to run a military! Nor does it have the right to interfere in State Affairs. Today, there's the federal bureaucracy and then there's us, the "little guys".

Well Liberals, if all of a sudden you're now interested in governing us "little guys", you could kindly reprieve us of the useless State Taxes! Or for that matter, U.S State representatives in the House and Senate. Let us return to the rulership of King George and his Monarchy!

That's whats at stake here.

 

INJUSTICE!!!??? While are veterans are being cast aside you call this piddly crap injustice?

This isn't even an inconvenience. You don't lose a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing if Tom and Mike get married. Get off your cross, nobody should give a damn about this.

People that gave their very lives to our country are dying from things that can be treated. That is an injustice. This? This isn't an injustice it's not even an issue.

 

It'll be an inconvenience if your community treats these marriages like they treated their relationships: Short and fleeting. Money doesn't grow on trees, and where it could have gone to a much more stable family, it instead fulfilled the fantasy of what may very well be a 'fad'.

 

Putting our kids at risk of what? Make believe boogeymen?

Okay let's put it this way. No law exists to stop gay people from having kids. If you believe that the state should be able to kidnap children from their parents because they are homosexual, I will say you have it backwards.

Let's say a child was born to a homosexual couple. Both partners love care and support that child. Isn't your argument pro marriage of same sex couples because " marriage is to maintain healthy society, a healthy family, capable of raising healthy children"

Prove homosexuals can't raise healthy children or you have no argument.

Frankly I don't think what genitals parents have really has any effect on children. That is a huge and rather dubious accusation. And before you punish children that had no say in their parents sexuality, or give the state the power to kidnap children from people it doesn't like, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to demand proof of your cockimamie suspicion.

If marriage is for children why do you wish to punish children who were born to a gay parent?

Cram your cockimamie hypocrisy. I don't believe you give a damn about children. You prefer to (*)(*)(*)(*) them over if their parent is gay.

This is all just made up hogwash that you are nit even adequately thinking through so you can justify your prejudice. So the state will support your beliefs. That is exactly why the anti Ssm crowd is losing.

They utterly fail in every attempt you make to make a case.

Your words.


But you prefer children of gay people to suffer.

That argument is trash. What else can you cook up?

 

Heterosexuals never do that. Lol.

You are talking about the tax breaks? Okay listen Mr. Tax and spend democrat only when it comes to gay people, if they made the money it doesn't belong to anybody else it's theirs. If they get to keep more of it, that's conservatism.

Wanting to steal more money from people you don't like is being Obama.

I believe in lowering taxes, I don't believe anybody is entitled to the money I EARNED.

Your point is hypocritical. It's amazing the values some people will sell out to make the system hard on people they don't like.

You seem like an entitled socialist.

 

Excuse me, but who is telling you to live a certain way? All I'm hearing from you is that you're pissed off that a minority you don't like is finally getting treated equally under the law. Well, I'm sorry to tell you, but that is how the USA works. You don't have to like it, and no one can change your mind. But what you do have to do is respect others' rights, even those that involve people you don't like. My parents are conservative Christians in their 70's. I was having a conversation with them about how crazy some people get online with same sex marriage. They were horrified. They both said, "What in the world? Haven't we moved past this issue?"

 

They do it at a Much slower rate.

Not necessarily, I don't think a person should receive martial benefits for marrying. Especially with this 'ruling' now. Martial benefits were largely to protect the nuclear family unit. With the assault on family units being as they are and with marriage losing it's sacrosanct position in the World, martial benefits and recognition thereof is entirely meaningless.

The only 'benefits' that should be recognized are individual benefits. That goes for straights too. Marriage has no importance in our world anymore, hence it doesn't need federal or state recognition.

 

All you can deliver it's religious hokem?

Yeah I pretty much get that Christians willstop at nothing to cram their agenda down the American throat. Therefore all sources from ministries and other unscientific unbiased sources are opinion pieces. Thanks but no thanks.

I don't think churches should be tax exempt. They are clearly huge industry.

yeah (*)(*)(*)(*) those children of gay people. They don't deserve a stable environment.

First, what assault on family units? I hear about this crap all the time but I have never seen it. Prove it exists or that argument is trash. Umm...marriage isn't losing anything. You anti Ssm folks make that claim yet fail to prove it also.

Well thought (*)(*)(*)(*) for you because marriage benefits exist.

Good Lord more unfunded claims. Prove it has no importance. It seems to with most people. Here we are discussing it. So apparently the rest of us don't share your opinion.

 

This is from your link...
Married people are much happier and likely to be less unhappy than any other group of people.

• Married people live up to eight years longer than divorced or never-married people.

• Married people suffer less from long-term illnesses than those who are unmarried.

• Married people are less likely to engage in unhealthy behaviors such as drug and alcohol abuse.


You want gay people to be unhappy, you want them to die eight years sooner, you want gay people suffering longer from illness, you want gay people to be more likely to abuse substance. These things don't involve children, procreation, nuclear family or anything. These are benefits to the spouses. You want to deny those benefits to homosexuals. Why? Tell me how you don't hate us.

 

I'm always amused by the liberals who continually claim that the right wing always turns to the courts to overturn the will of the people.

 

Really? Care to tell us about it?

 

Oh, the pure horror of two gays marrying. Whatever shall you right wingers do? Your own marriages are now in shambles!

 

When do they do that?

- - - Updated - - -

BTW, UPDATE-

Pennsylvania State Government isn't going to contest the ruling.

So mark PA on your maps as the dominos fall.

 

What I gleaned from that word-salad of yours was a lot of dancing around the issue of civil rights. Yes, we did need the government to enforce equal rights for women and blacks at the time because clearly the country would not do so of its own volition. Hell, some states didn't fully desegregate schools until the 70s. Whether you like it or not, this is the defining civil rights issue of our day, and will be remembered as such.

Enjoy your seat on the wrong side of history.

 

ROFL, A: I danced around nothing, but that rather if 'rights' were to be given, better by universal(or majority) concord than by a few fools in cloaks who like to think of themselves as a lot more important then they really are.

B: "Wrong side of history". UGH. I hate Liberal usage of this word, I really do. It's proof of our Educational System failure

That we struggle to cohesively read or write today is a miserable failure, and I'm not talking about spelling errors. At the very least, your reading comprehension should be up to par.

In case you didn't read the link, I'll be brief: It's impossible to be on History's "side". History, refers to a time that already was. You cannot create it, join it or support it.. You could've actually been more accurate to say "You're supporting an unpopular argument". But even so, it won't be unpopular due to time.

If it's unpopular, it'll be because the masses spurred on ahead in support of the counter argument, but even THAT doesn't make it wrong. What judges right or wrong, is whether or not Individuals, States, Corporations or countries "follow the law." And/or whether those actions had a positive or negative effect on the peoples.

Certainly, not however your knee-jerk feelings. As it regards doing right or wrong, the State of PA recognized the legitimate federal rights of LBGT's far more than any other State pre-court invasion by your little mob of activists. So this won't really change too much.

It'll make living in PA a bit more expensive though, to support these couples through State benefits. And it does change/confirm this: There's no reason for a State Constitution, or even a vote.

You think this pertains to merely gays? The New York federal gun registry will be next, pushed through with the Equal Cause act.. What if we Pennsylvanians believe in lowering gas/educational prices? If there's a "national consensus" otherwise, that "consensus" shall be the "law".

In Liberal "America", might makes right!

 

It won't end. Why bother fighting it? Seriously, what is there to gain? What are we really losing?

I am a Bible thumper. I am an evangelical, a Baptist by affiliation. I am a conservative. I want this battle to end. The real battle is for souls, not laws.

 

We don' need no steenkin' due process of law! That's for weenies. If we want to vote peoples' rights away, and if you don't like it, just switch sides and join the majority. America is a nation of men, not of laws.

 

I can see some right wing nutjobs pounding their keyboards and their blood pressure rising to unhealthy levels every time another state falls to rational laws, GOOD!

 

There is no law defining marriage, especially since DOMA got struck down. The reasoning for the "Gay Rights revolution" is a very flimsy stretching of the posts for the 14th Amendment. Least of all, arguments "relegated" to a few court participants is the furthest thing from democracy or even a Republic.

I know you're enjoying our Constitutional Monarchy(at best), but please don't invoke the words of 'justice' and 'law' to support your movement.

But you're absolutely right, America is a nation of men. A nation of "laws" is Great Britain.. A nation of laws is Iran. Feel free to enjoy the American version of theocracy.

The so-called Christian Right will pail in comparison to the tyrannical State you cheer on today..