Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[elektra]

Equality, would that mean that every child has a Mother and a Father, a right to, protected by the 14th Amendment, and seeing how that is Equality, you can not change the meaning of Marriage, which would force children who are adopted into a homosexual man-man relationship.

Equality, The Government must do everything in its power to give orphaned children a mother and father, that is equality, marriage is a man and a wife.

 

[Dana7360]

How are you being deprived of your liberty and property when gay people get married or when a judge rightly rules according to the constitution in favor of gay marriage?

The majority can be over ruled by a judge when the majority votes for a law that's unconstitutional. Almost every judge in almost every case ruled that according to the constitution those laws are unconstitutional.

Yet, Judges ruled in favor for Slavery, so not everything a Judge does is legal or constitutional. Now which part of the constitution states a heterosexual child shall be adopted by a homosexual man man government ruled, regulated, and created Family.

The same place the constitution gives heterosexual couples the right to adopt.

The 14th Amendment requires equality. The government must treat everyone equal. So if heterosexuals can legally adopt, so can homosexuals.

Please show me the place in the constitution that prevents homosexuals the right to adopt.

Is that how the 14th Amendment states what you think, quote the amendment before you start throwing around the term, equality.

Equality does not appear in the 14th Amendment.

Dana7360 is simply wrong, an incorrect understanding of the 14th Amendment and the use of words with different meanings and intent, which means everything when one starts changing laws and even more so when you begin to Design a New Society.

The Constitution forbids and restricts the ability of any Generation to Design a New Society.

You seriously need to actually read the amendment. The first section is the one that you want to pay attention to. Just saying I'm wrong doesn't mean that I am actually wrong. Notice there's no exceptions for anyone no matter their sexual orientation.

It's you who is wrong.

It's also you who has not shown me any part of the constitution that says that it's illegal or unconstitutional for homosexual people to adopt. Or that's it's constitutional for a law to be passed denying homosexuals the right to adopt.

Why not do some research first before you post.? That way it won't be so easy for me to prove you wrong and you show all of cyberspace what a fool you are.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

Like I said, you need to read the 14th Amendment, highlight the word EQUALITY.

Now which part do you think gives you the power to dictate what a relationship will be.

It clearly says no one can write or pass a law that takes the privileges and immunities of an American citizen. It also says that you can't deny anyone equal protection of the laws.

Interesting, the courts agree with me and have struck down state bans of homosexuals adopting. So no matter what you say, the courts agree with me and that's what we have to live by. Not your lies.

Now, tell me where in the constitution it says that homosexual people can't adopt or where it says that a law can be passed that takes that right from homosexual people. I've asked you that question several times now and you're too cowardly to answer it. Because there is nothing in the constitution that says homosexuals can't adopt nor is there anywhere in the constitution that says a state can establish a law that bans homosexuals from adopting.

Your whole lame argument is unconstitutional, illogical and stupid.

Just saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong. In fact you saying it over and over makes you even more wrong since I've presented the honest facts to you.

You're a typical conservative. You refuse to acknowledge honest facts when they're presented to you.

I'm done with you. Don't bother to reply. I won't read or reply to it. I lost all my patience for stupid, lies and hate in the 20th century.

 

[elektra]

'So where are these "endless studies"?'


There are none.


Indeed, at trial those opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples have failed to produce any evidence indicating that children in homes with same-sex parents are at a 'disadvantage.'

I like studies, you have any?

Yes, this article in one of our quality broadsheets is about a study by Cambridge University.
Children in gay adoptions at no disadvantage - Health News - Health Families - The Independent

Actually, that article announced a study that had not been released at the time of the article. Nobody ever posts the studies, why is that, they are everywhere but nobody ever actually links to one.

Very telling, well I guess we can rest assured, that based on the article, everything is fine. Boy I wish I had a good article to counter your article. Damn.

Oh dear, to quote Cambridge University,
A new report published by the Centre for Family Research in the University of Cambridge has found that children adopted by gay couples are at no disadvantage compared to children adopted by heterosexual couple. The research dispels myths that the masculine or feminine tendencies of children are impacted by the sexuality of their parents, confirming the assertions of gay rights campaigners.
Notice the words "report" and "published"

Yes, Oh, dear, quote Cambridge University, or be more specific and quote something from within Cambridge University.

So go ahead and quote, last time you linked to an article that was from 2011 announcing something that was not released yet. So go ahead and quote Cambridge.

Now, how come this is not a "study", why is it only a "report".

Research? What research, you did not post any research, so how about posting the research you make a claim about.

Myths, how did you or anyone establish these, "myths" and dispel them. Again we need the research for that, or does one simply need to state, "Cambridge" to establish the validity of all one believes.

And how old is this work? Cause it would seem that changing the meaning of words before such valuable research is completed is a bit, dangerous, maybe. So is there more research going on or is this the final word, cause it seems to me that you have already started forcing heterosexual children into relationships with homosexual men and woman not of their choosing.

I wonder if that research you are so proud of says 11 year old boys love to be adopted by 50 year old homosexual men. And if an 11 year old would not like it, why would you force a baby into that kind of a relationship.

So many questions I am sure your great Cambridge answers, I can not wait for you to quit talking about this report or research from 2011, and start posting quotes from it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Equality, would that mean that every child has a Mother and a Father, a right to, protected by the 14th Amendment, and seeing how that is Equality, you can not change the meaning of Marriage, which would force children who are adopted into a homosexual man-man relationship.

Equality, The Government must do everything in its power to give orphaned children a mother and father, that is equality, marriage is a man and a wife.

I'm glad I'm a small government republican, the idea that government is there to fix everything is (a) a very liberal idea and (b) scares the crap out of me.


>>>>

 

[elektra]

Yet, Judges ruled in favor for Slavery, so not everything a Judge does is legal or constitutional. Now which part of the constitution states a heterosexual child shall be adopted by a homosexual man man government ruled, regulated, and created Family.

The same place the constitution gives heterosexual couples the right to adopt.

The 14th Amendment requires equality. The government must treat everyone equal. So if heterosexuals can legally adopt, so can homosexuals.

Please show me the place in the constitution that prevents homosexuals the right to adopt.

Is that how the 14th Amendment states what you think, quote the amendment before you start throwing around the term, equality.

Equality does not appear in the 14th Amendment.

Dana7360 is simply wrong, an incorrect understanding of the 14th Amendment and the use of words with different meanings and intent, which means everything when one starts changing laws and even more so when you begin to Design a New Society.

The Constitution forbids and restricts the ability of any Generation to Design a New Society.

You seriously need to actually read the amendment. The first section is the one that you want to pay attention to. Just saying I'm wrong doesn't mean that I am actually wrong. Notice there's no exceptions for anyone no matter their sexual orientation.

It's you who is wrong.

It's also you who has not shown me any part of the constitution that says that it's illegal or unconstitutional for homosexual people to adopt. Or that's it's constitutional for a law to be passed denying homosexuals the right to adopt.

Why not do some research first before you post.? That way it won't be so easy for me to prove you wrong and you show all of cyberspace what a fool you are.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

Like I said, you need to read the 14th Amendment, highlight the word EQUALITY.

Now which part do you think gives you the power to dictate what a relationship will be.

It clearly says no one can write or pass a law that takes the privileges and immunities of an American citizen. It also says that you can't deny anyone equal protection of the laws.

Interesting, the courts agree with me and have struck down state bans of homosexuals adopting. So no matter what you say, the courts agree with me and that's what we have to live by. Not your lies.

Now, tell me where in the constitution it says that homosexual people can't adopt or where it says that a law can be passed that takes that right from homosexual people. I've asked you that question several times now and you're too cowardly to answer it. Because there is nothing in the constitution that says homosexuals can't adopt nor is there anywhere in the constitution that says a state can establish a law that bans homosexuals from adopting.

Your whole lame argument is unconstitutional, illogical and stupid.

Just saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong. In fact you saying it over and over makes you even more wrong since I've presented the honest facts to you.

You're a typical conservative. You refuse to acknowledge honest facts when they're presented to you.

I'm done with you. Don't bother to reply. I won't read or reply to it. I lost all my patience for stupid, lies and hate in the 20th century.

Where does the constitution state, that you get to decide and design what a family is?

Equal protection can only be give to equal things, we are not simply speaking of marriage, we are speaking of the rights of children. Equal protection requires the innocent, those who are weak politically, because of age, to be protected, equally. Equal would be a fertile family, a biological family.

14th Amendment, equal protection, yes I am all for equal protection, I protect the children, you try and protect the homosexual men who would adopt boys.

very nice of you

 

[Seawytch]

And yet despite your claim of it being preposterous, you can't counter the actual study I provided that debunks your "ideal" view. If straight parents were, in fact, superior as you claim, you'd be able to find evidence to support your claims. So far? None.

You'd also think someone would have been able to provide such evidence in all the court cases that the anti gay folks keep losing.

So far? The "expert witness" was laughed out of court.

I don't dispute the study, it sounds perfectly reasonable. I never said I dispute it. What is preposterous is your conclusion.

OK, so they did a two year study for children and wow, the lives of the children by a set of observable and quantifiable measures showed they weren't devastated by it. Nothing I said indicates I disagree with that. In fact if I did think that, I would oppose all gay adoptions, I would not just give prioritization to heterosexual couples for only government adoptions. I said kids can grow up fine. I also said I grew up in a single parent household, obviously I don't think and never said not two hetero parents = loser.

But you are way overreaching in your conclusion in a two year study of children there is no difference over the course of a lifetime. The study doesn't remotely show that. I'd like to see you show where they make that claim, I bet they don't.

Wrong study. I was talking about the one that concluded that with the partial exception of lactation, there are no gender roles essential to parenting. Wiley Do Children Need Both a Mother and a Father

As far as studies of our children, there are studies that span longer than two years. The two year study was exclusively about adopted children. That one was pretty conclusive regardless. Over that two year period, despite taking higher risk kids, end results were the same regardless of whether the parents were gay or straight.

 

[BluesLegend]

God banned gay marriage, good luck with striking that down.

 

[Seawytch]

Where's the study Kaz? You allegedly have "endless" ones. You can't counter any of mine, can't provide a single one of your own...but you can deflect.

Where is your "67 Studies", Seawytch, Seawytch has yet to link to one when challenged, Seawytch will link to an article, but never a study.

People quote studies all the time, but those studies are not free to be seen, we have to take the word of a .com or a .org that the study states what they claim and that the study is valid.

So after being challenged, seawytch knows studies will not be produced.

lets see yours seawytch, I challenged seawytch first, so where are those 67 studies or was it 71? I actually said I would accept 1, but I got none.

You've been provided at least three. You are ignoring them. That's not my problem but yours. You, on the other hand, have provided none.

 

[Seawytch]

'So where are these "endless studies"?'


There are none.


Indeed, at trial those opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples have failed to produce any evidence indicating that children in homes with same-sex parents are at a 'disadvantage.'

I like studies, you have any?

You like them? Really? Then why haven't YOU posted any? Where is your study that proves that straights make better parents? You don't seem to "like" the study IP Freely provided. You don't "like" the Australian study. You didn't seem to like the Tufts University Study or the University of California San Francisco study. And the Florida State University study that looked at adopted kids? You didn't seem to like that one much.

So what studies do you "like" exactly?

I have yet to state that I have a study that supports my post, seawytch has.

I have never sited a study to qualify my facts, seawytch does

so the burden is on the person who claims to have studies, not on the person who never referenced a study.

You replied to a post with three different studies. Is English not your first language? Serious question.

 

[kaz]

[Wrong study. I was talking about the one that concluded that with the partial exception of lactation, there are no gender roles essential to parenting. Wiley Do Children Need Both a Mother and a Father

As far as studies of our children, there are studies that span longer than two years. The two year study was exclusively about adopted children. That one was pretty conclusive regardless. Over that two year period, despite taking higher risk kids, end results were the same regardless of whether the parents were gay or straight.

First, that's an article stating opinion about what studies say. Second, nothing in that article contradicted me. Do children "need" two heterosexual parents? What does that mean? I said why it's ideal, that statement doesn't contradict anything.

Then there's this one. "In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities." Again so? My argument had no point that had anything to do with parenting ability. If it did, then two parents of the better parenting sex would be ideal. Duh. I said the world is men and women and ideal if for any child to have a close parental relationship with both sexes, I said nothing about one being better parents than the other.

They also concluded the children do as well. Again, according to what standard? I'm simply referring to their emotional well being. My brother, sister and I had one mother, we all have multiple graduate degrees. Obviously we overcame that, by what measure did we need a father at all? We're all above average in education, intelligence, income and any other measure.

Those aren't the measures that I am referring to. I also for example had to fight self confidence issues. Obviously I did it, growing up in a small town and ending up working on Wall Street and senior management at GE before starting my own company. But the further we get ahead to start, the better off we are. A lot of the most successful people I know are driven by their insecurities. So that would almost lead to the reverse conclusion when you try to measure what they did. I think a sense of well being is critical in life. You can slice and dice and justify any way you want, but kids with two parents of the opposite sex have the greatest sense of well being.

 

[Seawytch]

[Wrong study. I was talking about the one that concluded that with the partial exception of lactation, there are no gender roles essential to parenting. Wiley Do Children Need Both a Mother and a Father

As far as studies of our children, there are studies that span longer than two years. The two year study was exclusively about adopted children. That one was pretty conclusive regardless. Over that two year period, despite taking higher risk kids, end results were the same regardless of whether the parents were gay or straight.

First, that's an article stating opinion about what studies say. Second, nothing in that article contradicted me. Do children "need" two heterosexual parents? What does that mean? I said why it's ideal, that statement doesn't contradict anything.

Then there's this one. "In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities." Again so? My argument had no point that had anything to do with parenting ability. If it did, then two parents of the better parenting sex would be ideal. Duh. I said the world is men and women and ideal if for any child to have a close parental relationship with both sexes, I said nothing about one being better parents than the other.

They also concluded the children do as well. Again, according to what standard? I'm simply referring to their emotional well being. My brother, sister and I had one mother, we all have multiple graduate degrees. Obviously we overcame that, by what measure did we need a father at all? We're all above average in education, intelligence, income and any other measure.

Those aren't the measures that I am referring to. I also for example had to fight self confidence issues. Obviously I did it, growing up in a small town and ending up working on Wall Street and senior management at GE before starting my own company. But the further we get ahead to start, the better off we are. A lot of the most successful people I know are driven by their insecurities. So that would almost lead to the reverse conclusion when you try to measure what they did. I think a sense of well being is critical in life. You can slice and dice and justify any way you want, but kids with two parents of the opposite sex have the greatest sense of well being.

You make claims with nothing but your opinion to back it up. Children raised by gays and lesbians are at no disadvantage to children raised by heterosexuals, but you're still going to insist, without evidence, that straights are better than gays at parenting.

Kids need two parents to have the greatest sense of well being, the gender is immaterial.

 

[kaz]

You make claims with nothing but your opinion to back it up.

Um...yeah. You don't learn anything by living in the world, you only learn from academic studies. Actually, you haven't prevented a single study that says there is no effect of not having heterosexual parents, you've presented nothing other than that kids can succeed with gay parents, a point that isn't in contention between us. You've offered zero beyond that.

 

[kaz]

but you're still going to insist, without evidence, that straights are better than gays at parenting.

Lying bitch, I never said that, not once. In fact every time you presented that strawman, I told you that is completely not what I am claiming. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Go back to school and learn to read. I'm just putting you back in the fun category until you can respond to my actual argument.

Kids need two parents to have the greatest sense of well being, the gender is immaterial.

And you offer nothing but your opinion, without evidence, to back that up. Neither study you showed even claimed that.

The lord is wrathful and forgiving. All you are going to get for your abhorant lifestyle now is his wrath. Repent, go straight, and you will learn his love.

 

[Seawytch]

but you're still going to insist, without evidence, that straights are better than gays at parenting.

Lying bitch, I never said that, not once. In fact every time you presented that strawman, I told you that is completely not what I am claiming. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Go back to school and learn to read. I'm just putting you back in the fun category until you can respond to my actual argument.

Kids need two parents to have the greatest sense of well being, the gender is immaterial.

And you offer nothing but your opinion, without evidence, to back that up. Neither study you showed even claimed that.

The lord is wrathful and forgiving. All you are going to get for your abhorant lifestyle now is his wrath. Repent, go straight, and you will learn his love.

Actually the link I provided showed you just that.

"Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents," said sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith Stacey of NYU analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. "That a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical," Stacey said.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
​

So, as I stated before, two parents is ideal not two straight parents.

 

[kaz]

the gender is immaterial.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success

No, you slutty whore, I did not say that. I don't mix serious and fun, and as long as you nail that strawman to your ass, I won't respond to the rest of your argument. You have to pick. I have taken no position on parenting abilities. That has zero to do with my point. Nothing.

What's wrong with your reading ability are:

1) You turned a specific statement of failure to be able to measure differences (which your study said, not saying it's true, just analyzing your own posts), into a sweeping statement they proved there is no difference. Failing to prove there is extra-terrestrial life is not proof there isn't any.

2) You have yet to once accurately state my view. I won't continue to address any point from you, bimbo, until you do. Ask yourself one question. If you're right and I'm wrong, wouldn't you WANT to address my actual view instead of endlessly skewing it and addressing strawman? If I'm wrong and you could argue that, you would pin that on me rather than your strawman that I compared parenting ability? Show me the quote I ever compared parenting ability, then find a church and repent your sinful ways and be saved.

 

[Seawytch]

the gender is immaterial.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success

No, you slutty whore, I did not say that. I don't mix serious and fun, and as long as you nail that strawman to your ass, I won't respond to the rest of your argument. You have to pick. I have taken no position on parenting abilities. That has zero to do with my point. Nothing.

What's wrong with your reading ability are:

1) You turned a specific statement of failure to be able to measure differences (which your study said, not saying it's true, just analyzing your own posts), into a sweeping statement they proved there is no difference. Failing to prove there is no extra-terrestrial life is not proof there isn't any.

2) You have yet to once accurately state my view. I won't continue to address any point from you, bimbo, until you do. Ask yourself one question. If you're right and I'm wrong, wouldn't you WANT to address my actual view instead of endlessly skewing it and addressing strawman? If I'm wrong and you could argue that, you would pin that on me rather than your strawman that I compared parenting ability? Show me the quote I ever compared parenting ability, then find a church and repent your sinful ways and be saved.

Do you just wake up cranky? Must be living as a reluctant hypocrite all these years...hating and detesting the "institution" of marriage you are in.

Seawytch: Kids need two parents to have the greatest sense of well being, the gender is immaterial.

Kaz: And you offer nothing but your opinion, without evidence, to back that up. Neither study you showed even claimed that.

Seawytch: {quoting study} In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.

So when you say that a man and a woman are the ideal parents, you aren't saying that straights are better? If you don't think that, why are you dismissing research showing there is little significance in the gender of the parents?

 

[kaz]

Kaz: And you offer nothing but your opinion, without evidence, to back that up. Neither study you showed even claimed that.

How do you know that since you have never once addressed my actual view? How do you know I'm wrong if you don't even know what I think?

Jesus loves you, today is Sunday. Find a church and repent.

 

[kaz]

I'll address this one more time. Then you can take it up with an elementary school teacher to explain the English language to you.

Do you just wake up cranky? Must be living as a reluctant hypocrite all these years...hating and detesting the "institution" of marriage you are in.

Strawman. I have told you at least a dozen times that the government in my marriage is irrelevant and unnecessary to me. That isn't the strawman you just stated. You also can't comprehend my telling you that if you don't address my actual points, I'm going to just have fun with you.


Seawytch: Kids need two parents to have the greatest sense of well being, the gender is immaterial.

Seawytch: {quoting study} In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities

Your fallacy #1: Researchers failed to prove there is extra-terrestrial life, hence proving there is no extra-terrestrial life.

Your fallacy #2: No difference in parenting abilities is equivalent to that it doesn't affect the child. Abilities are only one factor in raising children. The world is full of men and women. That there is no difference in ability doesn't contradict that it's best for a child to have a parental relationship with a parent of each sex before they go out into the world that will comprise of half the world being in one sex and half in the other.

I am the oldest, and growing up for the most part without a father, I did not learn how to act like a man. My grandfather spent time with me. It certainly helped, but it wasn't the same seeing him a couple times a month. It took me time to figure that out. And it's never the same, figuring out how to be a man and growing up with someone to show you. Relating to women I have no problem with.

I'll address this one more time.So when you say that a man and a woman are the ideal parents, you aren't saying that straights are better?

LOL, you removed the word "ability" here. That is the difference. I argued heterosexual parents are better for the kid. And for the reasons I keep repeating and you keep evading. Then you keep going to the strawman that I said it's about "ability."

If you don't think that, why are you dismissing research showing there is little significance in the gender of the parents?

So you pulled a couple of academic studies, and I'm supposed to ignore the world around me? LOL. And your response to the endless studies they've done on parental gender roles and their affect on children of both sexes is to deny it exists. Sort of. You keep demanding it, but won't actually state it doesn't exist.

I'm telling you this straight up. I summarized for like the twentieth time my actual argument here. You haven't comprehended it once. I will not repeat it again. I will just mock you if you don't start actually addressing my actual argument. That is the choice. I don't care. And I expect when you don't do it and I have fun, you'll start whining again even though I told you what I am going to do. Long term memory, basic logic and reading comprehension are not your strengths.

 

[Seawytch]

I'll address this one more time. Then you can take it up with an elementary school teacher to explain the English language to you.

Do you just wake up cranky? Must be living as a reluctant hypocrite all these years...hating and detesting the "institution" of marriage you are in.

Strawman. I have told you at least a dozen times that the government in my marriage is irrelevant and unnecessary to me. That isn't the strawman you just stated. You also can't comprehend my telling you that if you don't address my actual points, I'm going to just have fun with you.


Seawytch: Kids need two parents to have the greatest sense of well being, the gender is immaterial.

Seawytch: {quoting study} In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities

Your fallacy #1: Researchers failed to prove there is extra-terrestrial life, hence proving there is no extra-terrestrial life.

Your fallacy #2: No difference in parenting abilities is equivalent to that it doesn't affect the child. Abilities are only one factor in raising children. The world is full of men and women. That there is no difference in ability doesn't contradict that it's best for a child to have a parental relationship with a parent of each sex before they go out into the world that will comprise of half the world being in one sex and half in the other.

I am the oldest, and growing up for the most part without a father, I did not learn how to act like a man. My grandfather spent time with me. It certainly helped, but it wasn't the same seeing him a couple times a month. It took me time to figure that out. And it's never the same, figuring out how to be a man and growing up with someone to show you. Relating to women I have no problem with.

I'll address this one more time.So when you say that a man and a woman are the ideal parents, you aren't saying that straights are better?

LOL, you removed the word "ability" here. That is the difference. I argued heterosexual parents are better for the kid. And for the reasons I keep repeating and you keep evading. Then you keep going to the strawman that I said it's about "ability."

If you don't think that, why are you dismissing research showing there is little significance in the gender of the parents?

So you pulled a couple of academic studies, and I'm supposed to ignore the world around me? LOL. And your response to the endless studies they've done on parental gender roles and their affect on children of both sexes is to deny it exists. Sort of. You keep demanding it, but won't actually state it doesn't exist.

I'm telling you this straight up. I summarized for like the twentieth time my actual argument here. You haven't comprehended it once. I will not repeat it again. I will just mock you if you don't start actually addressing my actual argument. That is the choice. I don't care. And I expect when you don't do it and I have fun, you'll start whining again even though I told you what I am going to do. Long term memory, basic logic and reading comprehension are not your strengths.

Right...so Kaz is going based on his "experience"...damn the researchers.

In the end we can agree that kids don't need a mother and a father, they need parents.

 

[kaz]

I'll address this one more time. Then you can take it up with an elementary school teacher to explain the English language to you.

Do you just wake up cranky? Must be living as a reluctant hypocrite all these years...hating and detesting the "institution" of marriage you are in.

Strawman. I have told you at least a dozen times that the government in my marriage is irrelevant and unnecessary to me. That isn't the strawman you just stated. You also can't comprehend my telling you that if you don't address my actual points, I'm going to just have fun with you.


Seawytch: Kids need two parents to have the greatest sense of well being, the gender is immaterial.

Seawytch: {quoting study} In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities

Your fallacy #1: Researchers failed to prove there is extra-terrestrial life, hence proving there is no extra-terrestrial life.

Your fallacy #2: No difference in parenting abilities is equivalent to that it doesn't affect the child. Abilities are only one factor in raising children. The world is full of men and women. That there is no difference in ability doesn't contradict that it's best for a child to have a parental relationship with a parent of each sex before they go out into the world that will comprise of half the world being in one sex and half in the other.

I am the oldest, and growing up for the most part without a father, I did not learn how to act like a man. My grandfather spent time with me. It certainly helped, but it wasn't the same seeing him a couple times a month. It took me time to figure that out. And it's never the same, figuring out how to be a man and growing up with someone to show you. Relating to women I have no problem with.

I'll address this one more time.So when you say that a man and a woman are the ideal parents, you aren't saying that straights are better?

LOL, you removed the word "ability" here. That is the difference. I argued heterosexual parents are better for the kid. And for the reasons I keep repeating and you keep evading. Then you keep going to the strawman that I said it's about "ability."

If you don't think that, why are you dismissing research showing there is little significance in the gender of the parents?

So you pulled a couple of academic studies, and I'm supposed to ignore the world around me? LOL. And your response to the endless studies they've done on parental gender roles and their affect on children of both sexes is to deny it exists. Sort of. You keep demanding it, but won't actually state it doesn't exist.

I'm telling you this straight up. I summarized for like the twentieth time my actual argument here. You haven't comprehended it once. I will not repeat it again. I will just mock you if you don't start actually addressing my actual argument. That is the choice. I don't care. And I expect when you don't do it and I have fun, you'll start whining again even though I told you what I am going to do. Long term memory, basic logic and reading comprehension are not your strengths.

Right...so Kaz is going based on his "experience"...damn the researchers.

In the end we can agree that kids don't need a mother and a father, they need parents.

Your researches as I keep explaining to you didn't contradict my argument. Find the elementary school teacher to explain it to you. I have tried. Maybe they can draw you a picture with crayons.

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you.