If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Slyhunter]

I don't think children below the age of puberty should be sexualized.
Do you really want me to google to those kids who have been before you believe that they exist?

I don't either. But I would be curious to know how you define "sexualized. Yes, please google some examples of how children have been sexualized and by who.

That would be considered child porn. So I won't be posting any images.
I don't feel right googling this info.
First there is the beauty pageants, little girls who look like full grown women without the curves. I'm against that.
Second, is the boys who put on make up and act like girls. I'm also against that.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Of course they can. They already do in many cases. it is natural to not wish to interact with those who dislike you for whatever reason.

Should religious affiliation be removed from the protected classes list?

How about getting rid of protective classes altogether having them is discriminatory.

 

[buttercup]

Children need a mother AND a father. Not two of one and none of the other.

I think everyone knows this deep down, but of course some people will never admit it because it doesn't go along with their politics.

That's rather insulting of single parents, is it not?

No, I actually have a lot of respect for single parents. It's an entirely different situation because most of them didn't set out to be single parents from the get-go. It's just the situation they ended up in, due to divorce, or an unplanned pregnancy, or death of a spouse, etc. And I think it's safe to say that most of them would openly admit that it would be better if there was a loving father in the home (or mother), but due to circumstances that isn't always the case. The important difference is that most people don't set out to get divorced, or to lose a spouse, or to raise a child on their own.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't think children below the age of puberty should be sexualized.
Do you really want me to google to those kids who have been before you believe that they exist?

I don't either. But I would be curious to know how you define "sexualized. Yes, please google some examples of how children have been sexualized and by who.

That would be considered child porn. So I won't be posting any images.
I don't feel right googling this info.
First there is the beauty pageants, little girls who look like full grown women without the curves. I'm against that.
Second, is the boys who put on make up and act like girls. I'm also against that.

Well I don't know that beauty pageants would rise to the level of child porn but it is a form of exploitation. Children dressing up in order to experiment with their gender identity is another matter. In any case you did not answer the question of who is responsible for any "sexualizing' of children. Given the fact that this thread has become about gay parenting, I'm guessing that is what you have on your mind.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Children need a mother AND a father. Not two of one and none of the other.

I think everyone knows this deep down, but of course some people will never admit it because it doesn't go along with their politics.

That's rather insulting of single parents, is it not?

No, I actually have a lot of respect for single parents. It's an entirely different situation because most of them didn't set out to be single parents from the get-go. It's just the situation they ended up in, due to divorce, or an unplanned pregnancy, or death of a spouse, etc. And I think it's safe to say that most of them would openly admit that it would be better if there was a loving father in the home (or mother), but due to circumstances that isn't always the case. The important difference is that most people don't set out to get divorced, or to lose a spouse, or to raise a child on their own.

The issue that you raised is that children need a mother and a father but you are willing to give single moms a pass because they "did not set out" to be a single mom. Well actually some have, or were, at best careless. The fact is that gay people did not "set out " to be gay " Unlike some single moms, none of them chose that. In any case the result is the same-the children do not have a farther figure, although I dispute the importance of that. Do you actually believe that a child is better off with a single parent, rather than two parents of the same sex? Show us the research that supports that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Children need a mother AND a father. Not two of one and none of the other.

I think everyone knows this deep down, but of course some people will never admit it because it doesn't go along with their politics.

That's rather insulting of single parents, is it not?

No, I actually have a lot of respect for single parents. It's an entirely different situation because most of them didn't set out to be single parents from the get-go. It's just the situation they ended up in, due to divorce, or an unplanned pregnancy, or death of a spouse, etc. And I think it's safe to say that most of them would openly admit that it would be better if there was a loving father in the home (or mother), but due to circumstances that isn't always the case. The important difference is that most people don't set out to get divorced, or to lose a spouse, or to raise a child on their own.

PS: Interesting how you have avoided my questions in response to your previous prattle about moms and dads while going on to post more clap trap. Here are the questions again:

The topic is discrimination, so, my questions to you are :

1. Do you think that discrimination against gays will enhance the likely hood that more children will have a mother and a father?

2. Do you think that discrimination against gays will help or harm the children currently in their care?

take your time

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I will answer:

1. Do you think that discrimination against gays will enhance the likely hood that more children will have a mother and a father?

Discrimination will have no affect on whether children will have a mother and father.

2. Do you think that discrimination against gays will help or harm the children currently in their care?

I don't know. I have no evidence either way.

But, even if it does, government should still not have the power to force individuals to provide services to other individuals.

We should trust the free market.

 

[Seawytch]

As I said.

If evidence is proffered that shows a high probability that children suffer from some psychological or developmental defect based SOLELY on the fact that their parents are same-sex, I will reconsider.

But I will bet the motherfucking farm that no such evidence will ever be produced, even if there is underlying truth to such a claim (there's not). The study would need to include hetero families and somehow exclude all the other factors or potential factors. Nobody would pay for such a study anyway, so I think we can put the issue to bed.

So what you're saying is that because no one is willing to pay for the research, and everyone's too afraid to DO the research because they don't want to be called "homophobic", that must mean there's nothing to research?

There IS research. It says our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

You know how you utterly dismiss any research that contradicts you as "biased"? Back atcha.

Not interested in "research" that reaches a conclusion, THEN looks for the evidence.

I’m interested in peer reviewed research from reputable organizations. NARTH or the Family Research Council are not reputable organizations using peer reviewed research.

You're interested in people who agree with you, who have been agreed with by other people who agree with you. Let's be honest here (a new concept for you, I know): anyone who says something you don't want to hear is automatically going to be dismissed as "not reputable", "not peer-reviewed enough", and "just like FRC". You will always find some way to dismiss anyone who tells you things you don't like.

You get dismissed as not reputable when you aren’t. NARTH and the FRC are not, period.

 

[Seawytch]

Children need a mother AND a father. Not two of one and none of the other.

I think everyone knows this deep down, but of course some people will never admit it because it doesn't go along with their politics.

No everyone doesn't know that deep down. What a child needs is good parenting, from one parent or two, whether they are same sex or opposite sex. It isn't the sex of your parents or even whether it is one or two parents: IT IS GOOD PARENTING THAT MATTERS. Bottom line.

I hate to break it to you, but while "good parenting" - depending on how one even defines that - is certainly necessary, it doesn't obviate the biological differences between the sexes, no matter how hard you try to pretend they don't exist.

Nobody is pretending that differences don’t exist, they just don’t matter when it comes to parenting.

Uh huh. "There are differences between the sexes, but they don't actually affect anything."

Brilliant.

They don’t affect parenting. They do affect lactating and peeing standing up.

 

[buttercup]

PS: Interesting how you have avoided my questions in response to your previous prattle about moms and dads while going on to post more clap trap. Here are the questions again:

The topic is discrimination, so, my questions to you are :

1. Do you think that discrimination against gays will enhance the likely hood that more children will have a mother and a father?

2. Do you think that discrimination against gays will help or harm the children currently in their care?

take your time

I didn't answer that question because of how it was worded. Be specific, when you use the word "discrimination" what exactly are you talking about?

 

[Seawytch]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Of course they can. They already do in many cases. it is natural to not wish to interact with those who dislike you for whatever reason.

Should religious affiliation be removed from the protected classes list?

How about getting rid of protective classes altogether having them is discriminatory.

So who gets to discriminate? There’s only one propane company and one honey dipper that services where I live. Should they be able to discriminate? The only gas station? Grocery store?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't know. I have no evidence either way.

You don't know? I know, I have the evidence:

• Bans against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional as a matter of law because they punish children in an effort to control the conduct of adults.

Punishing children for matters beyond their control is patently impermissible as a matter of Supreme Court precedent regarding the constitutional rights of children. In the first of these cases, ( Levy vs Louisiana –

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...1/68/case.html ) the court considered a Louisiana law that forbade children born out of wedlock from receiving benefits upon the wrongful death of their mother. Louisiana argued that the law was a perfectly legitimate means of expressing moral disapproval of extramarital liaisons. The Supreme Court, however, determined that the law violated equal protection because it is fundamentally unfair and irrational for a state to deny important benefits to children merely to express moral disapproval of the conduct of adults—or to incentivize adults to behave in a particular way.

In a similar case decided several years later, ( Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../164/case.html ) the court addressed another Louisiana statute that intentionally disadvantaged children born out of wedlock. Specifically, the law at issue preferred “legitimate” children to “illegitimate” children in distributing worker’s compensation benefits upon the death of a parent. The court invalidated the statute, holding that, under the equal protection clause, both classes of children must be permitted to recover equally. “No child,” the court wrote, “is responsible for his birth and penalizing the illegitimate child is an ineffectual—as well as unjust—way of deterring the parent.”

In yet another case ( Plyler v. Doe - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../202/case.html ) decided a decade later, the court relied on the same logic in holding that states could not constitutionally deny public education to undocumented immigrant children in an effort to discourage their parents from entering the country illegally. The constitutional conclusion from this line of cases is clear: No matter how reprehensible a state finds certain adult conduct, it cannot curb that conduct through laws that punish children.

The parallels between the laws struck down in these cases and bans against same-sex marriage are unavoidable. States that ban gay marriage once argued that they did so in order to condemn homosexuality; today, they argue that gay marriage must be forbidden in order to somehow incentivize straight marriage. No matter the rationale, the effect of these laws is clear: Gay marriage bans deny the children of same-sex couples critical benefits, both economically and psychologically. Even if one believes that gay marriage bans are a justifiable effort to control the conduct of adults, it is simply unconstitutional to punish children based on that belief.

In 2013, an amicus brief was filed explaining why the court’s child-centered equal protection precedent should make United States v. Windsor an easy case to decide. But while Justice Anthony Kennedy did discuss harm to children in his groundbreaking Windsor opinion, (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../opinion3.html ) he did not explicitly recognize the legal theory that the harm to children alone should render gay marriage bans unconstitutional.

Extract from Kennedy's Windsor Opinion - The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558 , and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. ... DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 199

. And it denies or re- duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

PS: Interesting how you have avoided my questions in response to your previous prattle about moms and dads while going on to post more clap trap. Here are the questions again:

The topic is discrimination, so, my questions to you are :

1. Do you think that discrimination against gays will enhance the likely hood that more children will have a mother and a father?

2. Do you think that discrimination against gays will help or harm the children currently in their care?

take your time

I didn't answer that question because of how it was worded. Be specific, when you use the word "discrimination" what exactly are you talking about?

OK I'll play..

The major area of discrimination that have been facing gays are

1. Marriage equality. Resolved for now but bigots are trying to chip away at with tactics like denying employee benefits to a same sex spouse

2. Housing discrimination. Gays can be refused rental units or even denied the ability to buy in some states

3. Employment discrimination. Gay people can be fired for putting a picture of a same sex spouse on their desk at work, or posting it on social media. And what about that holiday office party?

4. Adoption discrimination including second parent in cases where a gay person is caring for a biological child and his or her spouse wants to adopt to give that child additional security

5. public accommodations discrimination. You know the cases. Gays cannot always be confident that they can walk into business with their families and not face humiliation and embarrassment

LGBT people lack these protections in many states and at the federal level. Good for kids? Yes or no?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But, even if it does, government should still not have the power to force individuals to provide services to other individuals.

We should trust the free market.

I see , we'll put your fear of government and trust in the free market over the well being of children.. You are an enigma . Sometimes you seem to be reasonable and at other times make no sense. My god we are talking about children!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

PS: Interesting how you have avoided my questions in response to your previous prattle about moms and dads while going on to post more clap trap. Here are the questions again:

The topic is discrimination, so, my questions to you are :

1. Do you think that discrimination against gays will enhance the likely hood that more children will have a mother and a father?

2. Do you think that discrimination against gays will help or harm the children currently in their care?

take your time

I didn't answer that question because of how it was worded. Be specific, when you use the word "discrimination" what exactly are you talking about?

So you think that my post 972 is "funny" ??Please explain

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, you made a link, that apparently only leads to a small portion of what you quoted, but the rest must be a part of other websites, as the link you provided doesn't reflect all of what you listed. Please post the other links so we can get a clear context of what is being said.

The full text was there when I first accessed it. The site has changed. Deal with it. Address the logic instead of whining about the link.

I simply wanted to read the entire article to get the complete context of what was being said.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Also, for the link provided, it is clear that, that organization has no credibility as far as religious beliefs are concerned. They are merely just another opinion group. Their panel is made up of christians, atheists, agnostics, wiccans, Zen bhuddists, and some others. In my opinion, not an organization that I would say is an authority on religion, or at least Christianity.

So what.? It is an overview of religious beliefs compiled by people of various beliefs. Of course the piece about religious freedom is an opinion. Everything about religion is an opinion. However the observable fact is that the definition of religious freedom, from an historical perspective has changed. I have experienced it in my 71 years of life. You can't avoid that fact by bitching about the source.

My point was, I'm not sure I'm going to trust an article posted specifically about religion from a group of people whom either don't believe in God, or practice witchcraft, or worship buddha, as far as anything related to Christianity. It's hard to be objective if you don't believe in it, to be fair when discussing it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Having said that, again, what you call discrimination, others call religious freedom. None of which demonstrates "hate", which, in my opinion, must be present, or at least a malicious intent, to prove discrimination. One person, who holds a sincere belief that homosexuality is a sin, does not mean they hate the person, and in no way proves discrimination. Just as if one guy is a raging alcoholic, and his friends disapprove of his behavior, but are still friends with him non the less, or they may avoid him because of his behavior.

Your contention that underlying hate must be proven in order for a behavior to be deemed discriminatory is just YOU opinion and rubbish at that.

I said hate or at least malicious intent. To me, discrimination is not an act, it's a feeling, or an animosity toward someone, or a dislike of something about them, this feeling can sometimes culminate in an act, but the act is just a by product of the feeling.

You are correct though, it is my opinion, just like you thinking it's rubbish is yours.

 

[buttercup]

OK I'll play..

The major area of discrimination that have been facing gays are

1. Marriage equality. Resolved for now but bigots are trying to chip away at with tactics like denying employee benefits to a same sex spouse

2. Housing discrimination

3. Employment discrimination

4. Adoption discrimination including second parent in cases where a gay person is caring for a biological child and his or her spouse wants to adopt to give that child additional security

5. public accommodations discrimination

LGBT people lack these protections in many states and at the federal level. Good for kids? Yes or no?

I'm only going to address the points that are related to the point I made (about marriage and parenting), because those things directly affect children. Yes, I believe that kids are much better off when we are in line with truth, as opposed to misguided, insane political/ideological views. I think that many of the things that are happening today are child abuse, and it's because we live in a crazy, upside down world. And it's only going to get worse.

 

[buttercup]

PS: Interesting how you have avoided my questions in response to your previous prattle about moms and dads while going on to post more clap trap. Here are the questions again:

The topic is discrimination, so, my questions to you are :

1. Do you think that discrimination against gays will enhance the likely hood that more children will have a mother and a father?

2. Do you think that discrimination against gays will help or harm the children currently in their care?

take your time

I didn't answer that question because of how it was worded. Be specific, when you use the word "discrimination" what exactly are you talking about?

So you think that my post 972 is "funny" ??Please explain

I was laughing specifically about the line that said "punish children".... The irony.