Jimmy Carter: "Leave Gay Marriage To States To Decide" (Right On Jimmy!)

[NYcarbineer]

Still doesn't show they are not in the same category

Keep trying....I will sit back and snicker

What is your hypothesis that blacks are all gay based on? Since there continue to be more blacks, doesn't that contradict your theory? Maybe what you mean is you think blacks are all bi. Can you clarify?

Gladly,
Both blacks and gays are Americans and entitled to the equal protections of the 14th amendment

Great country isn't it?

Yes, they are . And they both have equal protection. That has nothing to do with gay marriage where liberals want gays to have something that other Americans don't have.

When same sex marriage is legalized, it is legal for all. Gays don't get anything that other Americans don't have .

using that argument then we must allow multiple marriage of all combinations and numbers of people. thats where this is going, and thats the real danger of calling a gay union a marriage.

[How is being able to marry the person you love "special treatment"??

Give me an example of another law that changes based on what you want.

I fish, I don't hunt, so they have to let me fish during hunting season, I don't want to hunt. What other law works like that?

Shoe on the other foot.

Imagine that gay marriage was the only legal form of marriage.

Would you consider it a special privilege to give heterosexuals the right to legal opposite sex marriage?

Would you be giving them something that other Americans didn't have?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are now allowed to marry anyone you want. Just like a homosexual. Equal treatment under the law

Marriage is man woman, marriage is two people. Tom -ay- to, tom -ah- to. You don't actually let people do that, you only picked another arbitrary standard. Get off your high horse, you are no different than they are. You just drew a different line.

It's amazing how self-professed libertarians show their true anti-libertarian colors when you poke them in the right places.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Still doesn't show they are not in the same category

Keep trying....I will sit back and snicker

What is your hypothesis that blacks are all gay based on? Since there continue to be more blacks, doesn't that contradict your theory? Maybe what you mean is you think blacks are all bi. Can you clarify?

Gladly,
Both blacks and gays are Americans and entitled to the equal protections of the 14th amendment

Great country isn't it?

Yes, they are . And they both have equal protection. That has nothing to do with gay marriage where liberals want gays to have something that other Americans don't have.

When same sex marriage is legalized, it is legal for all. Gays don't get anything that other Americans don't have .

using that argument then we must allow multiple marriage of all combinations and numbers of people. thats where this is going, and thats the real danger of calling a gay union a marriage.

Using your logic we should not be allowing same sex civil unions even, because they are the slippery slope to polygamous civil unions, and all sorts of other supposedly horrific civil unions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If same sex marriage is as detrimental to society as the RWnuts would have us believe,

why would so many of them at the same time be willing to allow states to legalize it? Doesn't the federal government have a duty to protect citizens from harmful actions by the states?

Shouldn't the proper course, applying RW reasoning to the matter, be that the federal government should outlaw same sex marriage,

in the interests of public safety and well-being?

So nobody here who opposes gay marriage wants the federal government to outlaw it outright?

WHY NOT?

 

[Silhouette]

Shoe on the other foot.

Imagine that gay marriage was the only legal form of marriage.

Would you consider it a special privilege to give heterosexuals the right to legal opposite sex marriage?

Would you be giving them something that other Americans didn't have?

What if zebras wanted, should we make a law encouraging zebras to eat meat?

That's as much sense as your sentence makes. Males and males or females and females will NEVER ever be able to beget children together. They will NEVER pair in a natural way to beget young. A gay marriage ALWAYS, by its nature, alienates one of the natural set of beings that is the natural parent of the child. Opposite gendered parents are a child's best experience for handling the real world; its blood relatives possessing the deep instinct to protect its own offspring. If a state wants to incentivize a situation where children have two opposite gendered parents, adoptive or natural, for numerous reasons for the psychological wellbeing, then that state has that right.

A state forced to accept gay marriage is a state forced to incentivize a family life that is ALWAYS devoid of at least one natural parent of a child in it.

A child opposite gender of the two "parents" that are gay, sees the world through a filter of "my gender isn't necessary...I am not necessary". That's how children grow up and see the manifest examples before their eyes...let alone the propaganda they're likely to hear in that house regarding their gender. I've heard lesbians talking openly about men. And let me tell you, it isn't flattering. Same with gay men, disdain and contempt dripping from their every word. It's why they're gay in the first place, a lot of them, if they weren't imprinted by a molestor. Many lesbians especially turn from men from just hatred of them. Conscious or subconscious. We are creating a culture where untreated mental issues pass for "normalcy". This is yet another mistake of legitmizing the wounds by "allowing them to be married as the cure"....children's wellbeing be damned.

Gay isn't a state of being, it's a functionality, a deviant behavior that's fine in the privacy of the practitioners...but that doesn't fit with the word "marriage" AT ALL.

Just like zebras don't hunt and eat meat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Shoe on the other foot.

Imagine that gay marriage was the only legal form of marriage.

Would you consider it a special privilege to give heterosexuals the right to legal opposite sex marriage?

Would you be giving them something that other Americans didn't have?

What if zebras wanted, should we make a law encouraging zebras to eat meat?

That's as much sense as your sentence makes. Males and males or females and females will NEVER ever be able to beget children together. They will NEVER pair in a natural way to beget young. A gay marriage ALWAYS, by its nature, alienates one of the natural set of beings that is the natural parent of the child. Opposite gendered parents are a child's best experience for handling the real world; its blood relatives possessing the deep instinct to protect its own offspring. If a state wants to incentivize a situation where children have two opposite gendered parents, adoptive or natural, for numerous reasons for the psychological wellbeing, then that state has that right.

A child opposite gender of the two "parents" that are gay, sees the world through a filter of "my gender isn't necessary...I am not necessary". That's how children grow up and see the manifest examples before their eyes...let alone the propaganda they're likely to hear in that house regarding their gender. I've heard lesbians talking openly about men. And let me tell you, it isn't flattering. Same with gay men, disdain and contempt dripping from their every word. It's why they're gay in the first place, a lot of them, if they weren't imprinted by a molestor. Many lesbians especially turn from men from just hatred of them. Conscious or subconscious. We are creating a culture where untreated mental issues pass for "normalcy". This is yet another mistake of legitmizing the wounds by "allowing them to be married as the cure"....children's wellbeing be damned.

Gay isn't a state of being, it's a functionality, a deviant behavior that's fine in the privacy of the practitioners...but that doesn't fit with the word "marriage" AT ALL.

Just like zebras don't hunt and eat meat.

Rubbish.

 

[Silhouette]

"What if zebras wanted, should we make a law encouraging zebras to eat meat?

That's as much sense as your sentence makes. Males and males or females and females will NEVER ever be able to beget children together. They will NEVER pair in a natural way to beget young. A gay marriage ALWAYS, by its nature, alienates one of the natural set of beings that is the natural parent of the child. Opposite gendered parents are a child's best experience for handling the real world; its blood relatives possessing the deep instinct to protect its own offspring. If a state wants to incentivize a situation where children have two opposite gendered parents, adoptive or natural, for numerous reasons for the psychological wellbeing, then that state has that right.

A state forced to accept gay marriage is a state forced to incentivize a family life that is ALWAYS devoid of at least one natural parent of a child in it.

A child opposite gender of the two "parents" that are gay, sees the world through a filter of "my gender isn't necessary...I am not necessary". That's how children grow up and see the manifest examples before their eyes...let alone the propaganda they're likely to hear in that house regarding their gender. I've heard lesbians talking openly about men. And let me tell you, it isn't flattering. Same with gay men, disdain and contempt dripping from their every word. It's why they're gay in the first place, a lot of them, if they weren't imprinted by a molestor. Many lesbians especially turn from men from just hatred of them. Conscious or subconscious. We are creating a culture where untreated mental issues pass for "normalcy". This is yet another mistake of legitmizing the wounds by "allowing them to be married as the cure"....children's wellbeing be damned.

Gay isn't a state of being, it's a functionality, a deviant behavior that's fine in the privacy of the practitioners...but that doesn't fit with the word "marriage" AT ALL.

Just like zebras don't hunt and eat meat."

Rubbish.

Lucid retort.

Care to address what I said and elaborate? Particularly this sentence:

A state forced to accept gay marriage is a state forced to incentivize a family life that is ALWAYS devoid of at least one natural parent of a child in it.

 

[kaz]

Seriously, be honest. You are a guy who has never dated a woman, aren't you? You know NOTHING about women and you endlessly feel the need to demonstrate that.

She knows how contemptuously you view it or do you reserve that just for gays?

Strawman. I didn't say contempt. And every time you say it I say ask the question without being a dick about it and putting words in my mouth if you expect an answer. Though I've already addressed that repeatedly. Even in this conversation.

The contempt is obvious when you ask why gays need "government validation". Ask closer to home.

Wow, the contempt is "obvious" to an a white liberal guy pretending to be an angry dyke. Very convincing, thanks. I don't bother with people who tell me what I think. Other than one thing, repent, you can be saved. Jesus loves you. End your abomination.

 

[Seawytch]

Seriously, be honest. You are a guy who has never dated a woman, aren't you? You know NOTHING about women and you endlessly feel the need to demonstrate that.

She knows how contemptuously you view it or do you reserve that just for gays?

Strawman. I didn't say contempt. And every time you say it I say ask the question without being a dick about it and putting words in my mouth if you expect an answer. Though I've already addressed that repeatedly. Even in this conversation.

The contempt is obvious when you ask why gays need "government validation". Ask closer to home.

Wow, the contempt is "obvious" to an a white liberal guy pretending to be an angry dyke. Very convincing, thanks. I don't bother with people who tell me what I think. Other than one thing, repent, you can be saved. Jesus loves you. End your abomination.

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

 

[kaz]

Seriously, be honest. You are a guy who has never dated a woman, aren't you? You know NOTHING about women and you endlessly feel the need to demonstrate that.

She knows how contemptuously you view it or do you reserve that just for gays?

Strawman. I didn't say contempt. And every time you say it I say ask the question without being a dick about it and putting words in my mouth if you expect an answer. Though I've already addressed that repeatedly. Even in this conversation.

The contempt is obvious when you ask why gays need "government validation". Ask closer to home.

Wow, the contempt is "obvious" to an a white liberal guy pretending to be an angry dyke. Very convincing, thanks. I don't bother with people who tell me what I think. Other than one thing, repent, you can be saved. Jesus loves you. End your abomination.

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

 

[Seawytch]

She knows how contemptuously you view it or do you reserve that just for gays?

Strawman. I didn't say contempt. And every time you say it I say ask the question without being a dick about it and putting words in my mouth if you expect an answer. Though I've already addressed that repeatedly. Even in this conversation.

The contempt is obvious when you ask why gays need "government validation". Ask closer to home.

Wow, the contempt is "obvious" to an a white liberal guy pretending to be an angry dyke. Very convincing, thanks. I don't bother with people who tell me what I think. Other than one thing, repent, you can be saved. Jesus loves you. End your abomination.

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

 

[kaz]

Strawman. I didn't say contempt. And every time you say it I say ask the question without being a dick about it and putting words in my mouth if you expect an answer. Though I've already addressed that repeatedly. Even in this conversation.

The contempt is obvious when you ask why gays need "government validation". Ask closer to home.

Wow, the contempt is "obvious" to an a white liberal guy pretending to be an angry dyke. Very convincing, thanks. I don't bother with people who tell me what I think. Other than one thing, repent, you can be saved. Jesus loves you. End your abomination.

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

Actually, that was your argument for a long time. But yes, I do remember that eventually you did change your argument to that parents are just babysitters who change their diapers and make sure they don't run into the street, parents aren't people who interact and emotionally grow kids, so gender doesn't matter. Then you got wrapped up in the ridiculous crap that it was a contest which sex is better at blowing noses and couldn't grasp that the world is made up of men and women and relating to both is critical.

 

[martybegan]

Strawman. I didn't say contempt. And every time you say it I say ask the question without being a dick about it and putting words in my mouth if you expect an answer. Though I've already addressed that repeatedly. Even in this conversation.

The contempt is obvious when you ask why gays need "government validation". Ask closer to home.

Wow, the contempt is "obvious" to an a white liberal guy pretending to be an angry dyke. Very convincing, thanks. I don't bother with people who tell me what I think. Other than one thing, repent, you can be saved. Jesus loves you. End your abomination.

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

You have no hard data to support, nor is there any hard data to reject your position on the effects of same gender parents on children in the long run. The data sets are too small, and the timeline going back is too short on most of this data set to make an assumption either way.

 

[Seawytch]

The contempt is obvious when you ask why gays need "government validation". Ask closer to home.

Wow, the contempt is "obvious" to an a white liberal guy pretending to be an angry dyke. Very convincing, thanks. I don't bother with people who tell me what I think. Other than one thing, repent, you can be saved. Jesus loves you. End your abomination.

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

You have no hard data to support, nor is there any hard data to reject your position on the effects of same gender parents on children in the long run. The data sets are too small, and the timeline going back is too short on most of this data set to make an assumption either way.

No hard data? Where have you been? There are plenty of studies and all point to children of gays being at no disadvantage to children of straights. Our children are fine, worry about the kids of divorce.

 

[Seawytch]

The contempt is obvious when you ask why gays need "government validation". Ask closer to home.

Wow, the contempt is "obvious" to an a white liberal guy pretending to be an angry dyke. Very convincing, thanks. I don't bother with people who tell me what I think. Other than one thing, repent, you can be saved. Jesus loves you. End your abomination.

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

Actually, that was your argument for a long time. But yes, I do remember that eventually you did change your argument to that parents are just babysitters who change their diapers and make sure they don't run into the street, parents aren't people who interact and emotionally grow kids, so gender doesn't matter. Then you got wrapped up in the ridiculous crap that it was a contest which sex is better at blowing noses and couldn't grasp that the world is made up of men and women and relating to both is critical.

Not even close my reluctant little hypocrite. Gender is immaterial in parenting is what I've said. Our kids are fine, worry about kids of divorce and kids of single parents.

 

[martybegan]

Wow, the contempt is "obvious" to an a white liberal guy pretending to be an angry dyke. Very convincing, thanks. I don't bother with people who tell me what I think. Other than one thing, repent, you can be saved. Jesus loves you. End your abomination.

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

You have no hard data to support, nor is there any hard data to reject your position on the effects of same gender parents on children in the long run. The data sets are too small, and the timeline going back is too short on most of this data set to make an assumption either way.

No hard data? Where have you been? There are plenty of studies and all point to children of gays being at no disadvantage to children of straights. Our children are fine, worry about the kids of divorce.

Again, data sets are too small, and the timeline is too short, considering the further back you go the smaller the data set gets.

One also has to take into account the general increased affluence of current gay couples that have kids compared to straight couples, which could skew any numbers you get from the studies.

And the kids of gay couples will be getting on the divorce bandwagon soon, book it.

Human nature coupled with sociological norms have led to kids being raised and having influence from parents of each sex for centuries/millenia. How can one say that changing this doesn't have any impact, regardless of the positives or negatives?

 

[Gadawg73]

It is a states issue and then the Supreme Court can rule on the Constitutionality of the law that each state writes. To date I have seen no state law written that would hold up Constitutionally denying gay couples equal protection under the law to marry someone of the same sex. This is really a non issue anyway because on the list of priorities I have it at 157th. I did raise gay marriage from 158th to 157th though. The interstate exit 4 miles from my house the guard rail needs weed trimming and I put that now behind gay marriage.

 

[Gadawg73]

Silly that anyone would worry about gay marriage. Only old mother hen women sit around and worry about this and men that are struggling with their own sexuality.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't know 'cause I'm not a white guy, just a white lesbian and the contempt is obvious to me. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask closer to home is all.

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

You have no hard data to support, nor is there any hard data to reject your position on the effects of same gender parents on children in the long run. The data sets are too small, and the timeline going back is too short on most of this data set to make an assumption either way.

No hard data? Where have you been? There are plenty of studies and all point to children of gays being at no disadvantage to children of straights. Our children are fine, worry about the kids of divorce.

Again, data sets are too small, and the timeline is too short, considering the further back you go the smaller the data set gets.

One also has to take into account the general increased affluence of current gay couples that have kids compared to straight couples, which could skew any numbers you get from the studies.

And the kids of gay couples will be getting on the divorce bandwagon soon, book it.

Human nature coupled with sociological norms have led to kids being raised and having influence from parents of each sex for centuries/millenia. How can one say that changing this doesn't have any impact, regardless of the positives or negatives?

I have no doubt that we will soon be on par with the straights as far as divorce. So?

Our kids are fine.

 

[martybegan]

Whatever you want to think is obvious to you. It was obviously a grin to you to pretend to be a lesbian instead of a guy who's never dated a woman and knows nothing about them. You didn't think that one through. My favorite is your bit about how the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Wow, that was ignorant. I see the dilemma though since you know nothing about women it was better to try to claim that then to pretend you know there's a difference while having no idea what it is.

Honey, if it makes you feel better about being a reluctant hypocrite to think I'm a dude, more power to you.

I never said the only difference between genders is their sex organs, I said that gender is immaterial in parenting. Not the same thing. Outcomes are the same for children whether they have two fathers, two mothers or a mother and a father...the kids turn out okay in all three situations.

Instead of asking gays why they want to be civilly married, ask closer to home.

You have no hard data to support, nor is there any hard data to reject your position on the effects of same gender parents on children in the long run. The data sets are too small, and the timeline going back is too short on most of this data set to make an assumption either way.

No hard data? Where have you been? There are plenty of studies and all point to children of gays being at no disadvantage to children of straights. Our children are fine, worry about the kids of divorce.

Again, data sets are too small, and the timeline is too short, considering the further back you go the smaller the data set gets.

One also has to take into account the general increased affluence of current gay couples that have kids compared to straight couples, which could skew any numbers you get from the studies.

And the kids of gay couples will be getting on the divorce bandwagon soon, book it.

Human nature coupled with sociological norms have led to kids being raised and having influence from parents of each sex for centuries/millenia. How can one say that changing this doesn't have any impact, regardless of the positives or negatives?

I have no doubt that we will soon be on par with the straights as far as divorce. So?

Our kids are fine.

I see a lot of attempts at self assurance, and not a lot of hard data. Of course, the concept of social sciences producing any sort of hard data is kind a laughable.