Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias: Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality?

[Flopper]

Laughing....so you know better than Justice Scalia, huh? Good luck with that.

Two justices should recuse themselves because they have officiated same sex marriages, if they do the proper thing, I'm not sure you will like the resulting 4-3 decision.

Just post that you hate gay Americans and leave it at that.

You'll at least be honest and will stop looking ridiculous.

Gays have been afforded every right that every other man or woman has. But that's not good enough, they want to be treated special. When a chosen lifestyle is the determinate factor for constitutional rights, where does it stop, what is the next "victim class" to demand special treatment?

What 'special rights' are you imagining?

The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.

The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.

Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?

What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.

The far left drones and their propaganda!

I know these far left drones can not post one "gay" person who has been arrested for being in a "gay" marriage..

I don't hate anyone, except activist that try to make victims where none exist. Gays have been afforded every right that every other man or woman has. But that's not good enough, they want to be treated special. When a chosen lifestyle is the determinate factor for constitutional rights, where does it stop, what is the next "victim class" to demand special treatment?

Bingo. There is no stopping point. Legally speaking, when the precedent is set for a minority group of repugnant behaviors (those the majority rejects) to be free from regulation of the majority, then any other repugnant behavior can and must apply. What then would be the logical reasoning to reject them? The majority objects? Or, wait, let me guess, the original minority repugnant group rejects the new one? That's it. Democracy is done at that point.

Nope. That's just the slippery slope fallacy. And the majority supports gay marriage. So even applying your standards, you fail.

How about the right of children to have a mother and father in their home?

Irrelevant to gay marriage. As gays and lesbians are having children anyway. Denying them marriage doesn't magically mean that their children now have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that their parents will never be married.

Which hurts the children. Your solution fails to provide the benefit you claim. But instead causes the harm you insist your solution will prevent.

You're exactly wrong. Twice.

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

The Prince Trust study doesn't measure 'same sex role models'. But GOOD same sex role models. And no where does it mention same sex parents or measure anything about parenting. Nor does it ever state that the only place a child can find a good same sex role model is a parent.

You assume all of that. And you can't back up any of it.

Worse, there have been more than a dozen studies on the issue of the health of children of same sex couples. And the overwhelming consensus is that these kids are just fine:

Children of same-sex parents have above average health and wellbeing, research by the University of Melbourne shows.

The research was based on data from the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, which involved input from 315 same-sex parents and a total of 500 children. Of these participating families, 80 percent had female parents while 18 percent had male parents.

"It appears that same-sex parent families get along well and this has a positive impact on health," said Dr Simon Crouch from the Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program, Centre for Health Equity at the University of Melbourne.

Children of same sex parents healthier Study

And again....

Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents. In fact, one comprehensive study of children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers concluded that children raised by same-sex parents did not differ from other children in terms of emotional functioning, sexual orientation, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, learning and grade point averages. Where research differences have been found, they have sometimes favored same-sex parents. For example, adolescents with same-sex parents reported feeling more connected at school. Another study reported that children in gay and lesbian households are more likely to talk about emotionally difficult topics, and they are often more resilient, compassionate and tolerant.

Same-sex Parents and Their Children

That from the 25,000 member American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy.

And again.....

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.....

...."Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

Kids Of Same-Sex Parents Do Fine - CBS News

And again....

One area the researchers found no differences in was the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents. Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.

“Levels of anxiety, depression, self-esteem and other measures of social and psychological behaviors were generally similar,” Biblarz said. “While all children probably get teased for one thing or another, children with gay parents may experience a higher degree of teasing and ridicule. It is impressive then that their psychological well-being and social adjustment does not significantly differ, on average, from that of children in comparable heterosexual-parent families. Exploring how lesbian and gay parent families help children cope with stigma could prove helpful to all kinds of families.”

Sociology Study examines gender roles of children with gay parents USC News

This from a University of Southern California Study.

And again....

Psychological adjustment of children raised lesbian and gay families is really no different than children in straight families. All the studies, no matter how people did the research found the same thing, which is that kids are not disadvantaged by being raised in lesbian and gay parent families. There might even be particular areas where they have strengths, it just depends on how you look at the research.

Interview with Lesbian and Gay Parenting Expert Dr. Abbie Goldberg

You ignore them all. No rational person ever would.

I would think a gay marriage would be far better for the children of a single gay parent than remaining single. A single parent who has to raise children without a helpmate and work 40 hours a week is often a disaster for the children particular young children. Two parents are better than one even if they are of the same sex. .

 

[Skylar]

I would think a gay marriage would be far better for the children of a single gay parent than remaining single. A single parent who has to raise children without a helpmate and work 40 hours a week is often a disaster for the children particular young children. Two parents are better than one even if they are of the same sex. .

I'd say it would be as least as good as two parents of opposite sex in some ways. Unplanned pregnancies make up as high as 75% of all births. Virtually every birth to a same sex couple is intentional. Meaning that they can insure that they are prepared emotionally and financially.

 

[Silhouette]

I would think a gay marriage would be far better for the children of a single gay parent than remaining single. A single parent who has to raise children without a helpmate and work 40 hours a week is often a disaster for the children particular young children. Two parents are better than one even if they are of the same sex. .

Well, the survey of over 2,000 young adults self-reporting says that what you would think isn't correct.

It found that the lack of the child's same gender as a role model means they are left with a harrowing lack of belonging to society. Any gay person of the opposite gender as the child will be imparting a daily message to that child "your gender NEVER matters". Adults process things differently. The formative mind of a child sees it that way and forms its self-esteem accordingly.

That's why a single hetero parent would be better than gay parents because at least that parent is reaching out in subtle or overt ways to the same gender that child is, if they are opposite of the parent. Then in the child's mind at least he sees "I still matter to mother...I still have a place in the world".. Never so in a gay household.

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

 

[OKTexas]

All emotional bullshit, there is no biological reason they should be treated different from any other man or woman, once you move from hard standards to soft standards we will have no standards. That is the goal of the left, no one is responsible, there is an excuse for everything, that will come back to bite you in the ass.

Not emotional bullshit- those are the hard facts- facts which you denied- and bizarrely respond to.

Clearly they haven't- and I am glad to point that out again- and frankly you will never 'reconsider your position'

Here is what homosexuals did not have:

The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.

The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.

Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?

What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.

They already had equal rights with their biological equivalents, of course they want to be treated special, I thought you lefties were all about science, seems to me emotion is ruling the day on this one.

Clearly they didn't have 'equal rights'- since they were targeted for legal persecution



Clearly they haven't- and I am glad to point that out again- and frankly you will never 'reconsider your position'

Here is what homosexuals did not have:

The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.

The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.

Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?

What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.

Get out of the past already, the discussion is today. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that they are biologically no different than any other man or woman and are afforded every right their gender dictates.

As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:

They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.

And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.

It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.

 

[Skylar]

I would think a gay marriage would be far better for the children of a single gay parent than remaining single. A single parent who has to raise children without a helpmate and work 40 hours a week is often a disaster for the children particular young children. Two parents are better than one even if they are of the same sex. .

Well, the survey of over 2,000 young adults self-reporting says that what you would think isn't correct.

It found that the lack of the child's same gender as a role model means they are left with a harrowing lack of belonging to society. Any gay person of the opposite gender as the child will be imparting a daily message to that child "your gender NEVER matters". Adults process things differently. The formative mind of a child sees it that ways and forms its self-esteem accordingly.

No it didn't. It measured the lack of a GOOD role model of the same sex. The study measures nothing of same sex parenting, or any kind of parenting. It doesn't say where those good role models come from.

It could be a parent. Or a sibling. Or an aunt. Or an uncle. Or friend. Or someone from Big Brothers, Big Sisters. Or a mentor. Or a scout leader. Or a coworker. Or teacher. Or a member of the Clergy. Or coach. Or any of a myriad of other sources.

You insist it can only be a parent. The Prince Trust Study never says this. And you citing you is meaningless.

Worse, there are a dozen studies that directly measured the effects of same sex parenting. And found that children raised by same sex parents are fine. You ignore them for no reason.

No rational person ever would.

 

[Skylar]

Not emotional bullshit- those are the hard facts- facts which you denied- and bizarrely respond to.

Clearly they haven't- and I am glad to point that out again- and frankly you will never 'reconsider your position'

Here is what homosexuals did not have:

The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.

The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.

Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?

What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.

They already had equal rights with their biological equivalents, of course they want to be treated special, I thought you lefties were all about science, seems to me emotion is ruling the day on this one.

Clearly they didn't have 'equal rights'- since they were targeted for legal persecution



Clearly they haven't- and I am glad to point that out again- and frankly you will never 'reconsider your position'

Here is what homosexuals did not have:

The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.

The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.

Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?

What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.

Get out of the past already, the discussion is today. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that they are biologically no different than any other man or woman and are afforded every right their gender dictates.

As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:

They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.

And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.

It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.

'Changed' and 'Always' aren't really equivalents, OK.

 

[Silhouette]

You wouldn't be opposed to each Justice on the US Supreme Court receiving a copy of the Prince's Trust study to read in full before they cast their vote then? You feel that confident that I misrepresented it eh? Put your money where your mouth is. Let's package up nine of those reports and send them to DC before April, OK?

 

[Skylar]

You wouldn't be opposed to each Justice on the US Supreme Court receiving a copy of the Prince's Trust study to read in full before they cast their vote then? You feel that confident that I misrepresented it eh? Put your money where your mouth is. Let's package up nine of those reports and send them to DC before April, OK?

Not in the slightest. As it doesn't even mention same sex parenting, nor measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Despite your claims otherwise.

You wouldn't object to each Justice on the US Supreme Court receiving a copy of the dozen or so studies that actually do measure the effects of same sex parenting on children, would you?

 

[Syriusly]

Not emotional bullshit- those are the hard facts- facts which you denied- and bizarrely respond to.

Clearly they haven't- and I am glad to point that out again- and frankly you will never 'reconsider your position'

Here is what homosexuals did not have:

The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.

The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.

Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?

What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.

They already had equal rights with their biological equivalents, of course they want to be treated special, I thought you lefties were all about science, seems to me emotion is ruling the day on this one.

Clearly they didn't have 'equal rights'- since they were targeted for legal persecution



Clearly they haven't- and I am glad to point that out again- and frankly you will never 'reconsider your position'

Here is what homosexuals did not have:

The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.

The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.

Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?

What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.

Get out of the past already, the discussion is today. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that they are biologically no different than any other man or woman and are afforded every right their gender dictates.

As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:

They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.

And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.

It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.

No- they were not treated equally. I really am trying to correct you politely.

Let us focus on one specific example of discrimination- Don't Ask, Don't tell

Prior to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, there was a general policy of discharging homosexuals- for being homosexuals- from the Armed Forces- when it was convenient- and this policy was ignored when it was inconvenient.

Don't Ask Don't tell codified this policy- giving homosexuals some protections from being discharged simply for being gay, but in reality, provided a specific legal language for discharging homosexuals, if they were revealed to be homosexuals.

So tell me- how are women and men- who were gay- treated equally with heterosexuals- under that law?

 

[Syriusly]

You wouldn't be opposed to each Justice on the US Supreme Court receiving a copy of the Prince's Trust study to read in full before they cast their vote then? You feel that confident that I misrepresented it eh? Put your money where your mouth is. Let's package up nine of those reports and send them to DC before April, OK?

Go for it- really Silhouette- I am all for you sending those reports to the Supreme Court.

Please do it.

Here is the address

U.S. Mail:Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

 

[Skylar]

There are excellent reasons for rejecting APA affiliated studies. Rational people would reject studies that reject actual data in favor of "how one and one's buddies feel the conclusion should be"..

Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.

Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data; and reporting findings.

Key aspects of the researcher's craft are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study.
Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come.

Examine or adopt this book for teaching a course "

And who says that is the standard the APA uses?

And of course, you've ignored EVERY study that contradicts you. Even studies from completely different countries. You ignored the Unversity of Melbourne Study, the University of Southern California Study, the findings of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, even noted experts on the effects of same sex parenting.

You ignore any study, from any source, with any sample size, from any country, any university, any organization using any methodology....if it contradicts you.

No rational person would.

 

[Silhouette]

There are excellent reasons for rejecting APA affiliated studies. Rational people would reject studies that reject actual data in favor of "how one and one's buddies feel the conclusion should be"..
*******
Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.

Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data; and reporting findings.

Key aspects of the researcher's craft are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study.
Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come.

And who says that is the standard the APA uses?

It is one the APA endorses. Follow the link to see which parent website hosts it

 

[Silhouette]

But shouldn't we be talking about how the Supremes are eroding state laws by shadow-attrition denial-of-stays? Is Windsor reversed now? Should Ms. Windsor give her money back now that the Court is "saying" (cumulatively, pre-emptively, biased) states don't really get to have the say on marriage?

I'm confused..

 

[Skylar]

And who says that is the standard the APA uses?

It is one the APA endorses. Follow the link to see which parent website hosts it [/QUOTE]

Its a book among thousands. Who says this is the method that APA 'endorses'. Or that its the method used in any of the studies you're ignoring?

And what of all the studies that have nothing to do with APA that you also ignore? You ignored the Unversity of Melbourne Study, the University of Southern California Study, the findings of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, even noted experts on the effects of same sex parenting.

But you can't explain why. Nor can you give us a rational reason to ignore the APA, one of the largest and most respected psychiatric organizations in the nation.

 

[Skylar]

But shouldn't we be talking about how the Supremes are eroding state laws by shadow-attrition denial-of-stays?

You've spammed the Prince Trust Study more than a dozen times in this thread. What does that have to do with the 'how the Supremes are eroding state laws by shadow-attrition denial-of-stays'?

Is Windsor reversed now?

Nope. You're laughably wrong and utterly imaginary interpretation of Windsor is pretty much DOA though. And we've been telling you that for a year. Justice Scalia, for closer to two:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US

The USSC's position has been consistent. Its just you who suddenly realized that you've never had the slightest idea what you're talking about.

I'm confused..

Obviously. And have been for approaching 2 years.

 

[OKTexas]

They already had equal rights with their biological equivalents, of course they want to be treated special, I thought you lefties were all about science, seems to me emotion is ruling the day on this one.

Clearly they didn't have 'equal rights'- since they were targeted for legal persecution



Clearly they haven't- and I am glad to point that out again- and frankly you will never 'reconsider your position'

Here is what homosexuals did not have:

The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.

The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.

Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?

What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.

Get out of the past already, the discussion is today. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that they are biologically no different than any other man or woman and are afforded every right their gender dictates.

As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:

They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.

And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.

It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.

'Changed' and 'Always' aren't really equivalents, OK.

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, I'm done with you loser.

 

[Syriusly]

There are excellent reasons for rejecting APA affiliated studies

You not liking the APA is not an excellent reason.

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly they didn't have 'equal rights'- since they were targeted for legal persecution



Clearly they haven't- and I am glad to point that out again- and frankly you will never 'reconsider your position'

Here is what homosexuals did not have:

The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.

The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.

Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?

What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.

Get out of the past already, the discussion is today. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that they are biologically no different than any other man or woman and are afforded every right their gender dictates.

As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:

They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.

And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.

It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.

'Changed' and 'Always' aren't really equivalents, OK.

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, I'm done with you loser.

You have been 'done' from the beginning of this thread.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm confused..

Yes- you are- the Supreme Court is not reconsidering Windsor. Windsor settled that Federal legislation cannot tell States what their marriage laws can be.

Now the Supreme Court will consider whether state marriage laws regarding same gender marriage are constitutional- like the Supreme Court has considered 3 other previous cases regarding state marriage laws.

 

[Skylar]

Clearly they didn't have 'equal rights'- since they were targeted for legal persecution



Clearly they haven't- and I am glad to point that out again- and frankly you will never 'reconsider your position'

Here is what homosexuals did not have:

The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.

The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.

Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?

What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.

Get out of the past already, the discussion is today. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that they are biologically no different than any other man or woman and are afforded every right their gender dictates.

As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:

They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.

And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.

It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.

'Changed' and 'Always' aren't really equivalents, OK.

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, I'm done with you loser.

Laughing......the difference between 'changed' and 'always' isn't semantics. They describe opposites. Gays have not 'always' had the same protections as everyone else. They've been explicitly targeted for most of our nation's history.