Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[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.

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.

There's nothing that needs explaining. Kids need parents, the gender is immaterial. No more 'splaining needed.

 

[kaz]

There's nothing that needs explaining. Kids need parents, the gender is immaterial. No more 'splaining needed.

Pulling it out of your ass again. Even your own "studies" didn't claim that, only you did. I see what you're saying though. Kids just need wet nurses, caretakers and house keepers and gays can do that as well as straights. A servant could do the job just as well. As long as their physical needs are cared for, that's all that matters. They aren't people who are learning to function in the world or anything.

And you only have sex with women because they have the right hardware. Other than that, you'd be indifferent between dating men and women, the gender is immaterial. No more 'splainining needed.

Admit it, you're a lily white male New England liberal elitist who thinks it's cool to be a lesbo on a message board.

 

[Seawytch]

There's nothing that needs explaining. Kids need parents, the gender is immaterial. No more 'splaining needed.

Pulling it out of your ass again. Even your own "studies" didn't claim that, only you did. I see what you're saying though. Kids just need wet nurses, caretakers and house keepers and gays can do that as well as straights. A servant could do the job just as well. As long as their physical needs are cared for, that's all that matters. They aren't people who are learning to function in the world or anything.

And you only have sex with women because they have the right hardware. Other than that, you'd be indifferent between dating men and women, the gender is immaterial. No more 'splainining needed.

Admit it, you're a lily white male New England liberal elitist who thinks it's cool to be a lesbo on a message board.

Yes, actually the study I provided claimed exactly that, that gender is immaterial in parenting. All the studies of gay parents prove that. Kids need parents. They don't need a mother and a father, they need parents that love and care for them.

 

[kaz]

There's nothing that needs explaining. Kids need parents, the gender is immaterial. No more 'splaining needed.

Pulling it out of your ass again. Even your own "studies" didn't claim that, only you did. I see what you're saying though. Kids just need wet nurses, caretakers and house keepers and gays can do that as well as straights. A servant could do the job just as well. As long as their physical needs are cared for, that's all that matters. They aren't people who are learning to function in the world or anything.

And you only have sex with women because they have the right hardware. Other than that, you'd be indifferent between dating men and women, the gender is immaterial. No more 'splainining needed.

Admit it, you're a lily white male New England liberal elitist who thinks it's cool to be a lesbo on a message board.

Yes, actually the study I provided claimed exactly that, that gender is immaterial in parenting. All the studies of gay parents prove that. Kids need parents. They don't need a mother and a father, they need parents that love and care for them.

So a study that failed to prove there is alien life is proof there is no alien life. Got it.

Also, they have not studied gender in heterosexual parenting, only homosexual parenting.

If it weren't for the hardware you would date men or women, it doesn't matter. It's just the sexual equipment you care about.

Children only need their basic needs met. Parents are simply babysitters, housekeepers and cooks. That is what parenting is about.

Wow, what a debater you are. LOL.

If you had any intellectual integrity and just argued that gay parents should not be hesitant to have children because if they are good parents then the kids will turn out fine, it would be a short discussion because I would agree with you. But your view of parenting is a throwback to the fifties.

Admit you're a white guy, you've so shown at this point that you're not female or lesbian. You are a liberal Archie Bunker.

 

[dcraelin]

There's nothing that needs explaining. Kids need parents, the gender is immaterial. No more 'splaining needed.

Pulling it out of your ass again. Even your own "studies" didn't claim that, only you did. I see what you're saying though. Kids just need wet nurses, caretakers and house keepers and gays can do that as well as straights. A servant could do the job just as well. As long as their physical needs are cared for, that's all that matters. They aren't people who are learning to function in the world or anything.
And you only have sex with women because they have the right hardware. Other than that, you'd be indifferent between dating men and women, the gender is immaterial. No more 'splainining needed.
Admit it, you're a lily white male New England liberal elitist who thinks it's cool to be a lesbo on a message board.

Yes, actually the study I provided claimed exactly that, that gender is immaterial in parenting. All the studies of gay parents prove that. Kids need parents. They don't need a mother and a father, they need parents that love and care for them.

Studies studies studies

let me re-post this
a Book and a couple of articles on the failure of studies
Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us Wrong Why experts keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them Scientists finance wizards doctors relationship gurus celebrity CEOs ... consultants health officials and more David H. Freedman 9780316087919 Amazon.com Books
Lies Damned Lies and Medical Science - David H. Freedman - The Atlantic
Not breaking news many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong Science theguardian.com

I think there is some truth to the idea that colleges have a generally liberal social bias....and that is where most "studies" of gay marriage likely come from.

The issue of Gay marriage needs to be decided by voters......not judges.

 

[Seawytch]

The issue of gay marriage should and is being "decided" the same way interracial marriage was "decided". Good thing voters didn't get to vote on that.

 

[kaz]

The issue of gay marriage should and is being "decided" the same way interracial marriage was "decided". Good thing voters didn't get to vote on that.

Why is that a good thing?

 

[Seawytch]

The issue of gay marriage should and is being "decided" the same way interracial marriage was "decided". Good thing voters didn't get to vote on that.

Why is that a good thing?

Because it wouldn't have passed until the 90s...in some states it still might not.

 

[kaz]

The issue of gay marriage should and is being "decided" the same way interracial marriage was "decided". Good thing voters didn't get to vote on that.

Why is that a good thing?

Because it wouldn't have passed until the 90s...in some states it still might not.

The 90s? LOL, I lived in Virgina many years, you're full of shit. Courts have done far more damage making law than the few things they have done right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's time we replace these rogue judges. We don't want dictators deciding what is law.

Yeah, we don't want the 14th amendment being applied in the USA, it's not right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

Why is this important?

Good question, why are freedom, liberty, equality, Human Rights and such things important?

 

[Seawytch]

The issue of gay marriage should and is being "decided" the same way interracial marriage was "decided". Good thing voters didn't get to vote on that.

Why is that a good thing?

Because it wouldn't have passed until the 90s...in some states it still might not.

The 90s? LOL, I lived in Virgina many years, you're full of shit. Courts have done far more damage making law than the few things they have done right.

Yes, according to Gallup, interracial marriage didn't enjoy majority support of voters until the mid 1990s.

So, you think Loving was a bad decision?

 

[kaz]

The issue of gay marriage should and is being "decided" the same way interracial marriage was "decided". Good thing voters didn't get to vote on that.

Why is that a good thing?

Because it wouldn't have passed until the 90s...in some states it still might not.

The 90s? LOL, I lived in Virgina many years, you're full of shit. Courts have done far more damage making law than the few things they have done right.

Yes, according to Gallup, interracial marriage didn't enjoy majority support of voters until the mid 1990s.

So, you think Loving was a bad decision?

At least Loving followed the technical aspect of the law, but I see no reason government should be involved in all the things it insists on being involved with and the people go along with. Government should be a referee, not a kindergarten teacher. Gay judges are just making up law though.

 

[hazlnut]

Louisiana judge Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

One more down.

How long until the Fox Newsies see they are on the same side of History as the segregationists? The wrong one.

 

[elektra]

The issue of gay marriage should and is being "decided" the same way interracial marriage was "decided". Good thing voters didn't get to vote on that.

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?

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?

You quoted a study but where is the link?

 

[deltex1]

Could someone summarize the 235 posts about a subject no one gives a shit about?

 

[dcraelin]

The issue of gay marriage should and is being "decided" the same way interracial marriage was "decided". Good thing voters didn't get to vote on that.

Why is that a good thing?

Because it wouldn't have passed until the 90s...in some states it still might not.

The 90s? LOL, I lived in Virgina many years, you're full of shit. Courts have done far more damage making law than the few things they have done right.

Yes, according to Gallup, interracial marriage didn't enjoy majority support of voters until the mid 1990s.
So, you think Loving was a bad decision?

At least Loving followed the technical aspect of the law, but I see no reason government should be involved in all the things it insists on being involved with and the people go along with. Government should be a referee, not a kindergarten teacher. Gay judges are just making up law though.

The Loving case is refered to constantly by gay marriage advocates as an appeal to emotion tho they know...or should that it is irrelevant to their case.
Quoting Wikipedia on Loving v Virginia:
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

“

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

”

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

“

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

”

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."

 

[kaz]

Why is that a good thing?

Because it wouldn't have passed until the 90s...in some states it still might not.

The 90s? LOL, I lived in Virgina many years, you're full of shit. Courts have done far more damage making law than the few things they have done right.

Yes, according to Gallup, interracial marriage didn't enjoy majority support of voters until the mid 1990s.
So, you think Loving was a bad decision?

At least Loving followed the technical aspect of the law, but I see no reason government should be involved in all the things it insists on being involved with and the people go along with. Government should be a referee, not a kindergarten teacher. Gay judges are just making up law though.

The Loving case is refered to constantly by gay marriage advocates as an appeal to emotion tho they know...or should that it is irrelevant to their case.
Quoting Wikipedia on Loving v Virginia:
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

“

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

”

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

“

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

”

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."

It's even more basic than that.

In Virginia, the law changed who you can marry if you are black or white.

Today in States without gay marriage, being straight or gay does not change who you can marry.

The 14th says the law must treat all citizens the same. Heterosexual marriage laws treat everyone the same. Laws restricting race do not.

The role of the courts is to make that technical determination, it's not to make life fair.

Gays have yet to name a single other law that changes based on what someone wants.

 

[bodecea]

The issue of gay marriage should and is being "decided" the same way interracial marriage was "decided". Good thing voters didn't get to vote on that.

Why is that a good thing?

Because it wouldn't have passed until the 90s...in some states it still might not.

The 90s? LOL, I lived in Virgina many years, you're full of shit. Courts have done far more damage making law than the few things they have done right.

Courts don't make laws...they strike laws down if they are unconstitutional.

 

[elektra]

The issue of gay marriage should and is being "decided" the same way interracial marriage was "decided". Good thing voters didn't get to vote on that.

Why is that a good thing?

Because it wouldn't have passed until the 90s...in some states it still might not.

The 90s? LOL, I lived in Virgina many years, you're full of shit. Courts have done far more damage making law than the few things they have done right.

Courts don't make laws...they strike laws down if they are unconstitutional.

Judges if one is to be accurate, and in this case they are acting unconstitutional.