Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The entrenched conviction that children need both a mother and a father inflames culture wars over single motherhood, divorce, gay marriage, and gay parenting. Research to date, however, does not support this claim. Contrary to popular belief, studies have not shown that "compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children" (Popenoe, quoted in Center for Marriage and Family, p. 1).
Research has not identified any gender-exclusive parenting abilities (with the partial exception of lactation). Our analysis confirms an emerging consensus among prominent researchers of fathering and child development. The third edition of Lamb's (1997) authoritative anthology directly reversed the inaugural volume's premise when it concluded that "very little about the gender of the parent seems to be distinctly important" (p. 10). Likewise, in Fatherneed, Pruett (2000), a prominent advocate of involved fathering, confided, "I also now realize that most of the enduring parental skills are probably, in the end, not dependent on gender" (p. 18).
Yes, unfortunately, to the detriment of the child. It should be outlawed. Screw up their minds at such a young age! It should be considered child abuse and endangerment.
You're right you know. Bigots like yourself should be outlawed because your ideas are far more abusive and damaging. The quicker people like yourself are swept out to the trash heap of history the better. I can't wait until your beliefs are viewed as so archaic that only people with the same simple minded opinions will support your position, while the rest of society will shun you .
Are you complaining about democracy? Because most people who support gay marriage on every other issue are practical democracy worshipers. Basically, they love democracy as long as it means they are getting what they want.
This is it. Marriage has limits, marriage has always had limits. Pretty much all of these people crying for same-sex marriage are still strongly opposed to polygamy. For that matter, they have no interest in lowering the age requirements, or allowing cousins to marry. Hell the bible says its perfectly fine for uncles and nieces to marry(which obviously was common in the past). But who wants to lift that restriction?
Just a bunch of hypocrites who "want what they want". They could really care less how they get it.
The irony is that, they think "democracy is wrong" on this issue. So they are trying to get the restrictions to same-sex marriage struck down as "unconstitutional", based on a 150 year-old amendment.
Everyone who isn't a complete moron knows that the 14th amendment was never intended to prohibit the states from regulating marriage in the way they already do. These restrictions aren't "new laws", they were on the books prior to the 14th amendment even being passed. There is no way the 14th amendment would have been passed if anyone in America honestly believed that it would have granted the right to marriage to homosexuals, all the way back in 1868.
Thus if the prohibitions are struck down, the reality is that it was the consequence of the equivalent of the federal courts "voting" to change the meaning of the constitution. Because it cannot possibly be what was intended by the people who wrote or ratified that amendment.
Basically what these morons want is "judicial democracy" instead of citizen democracy. These morons want "tyranny of the elite". They are crying for an oligarchy of nine life-termed men to give them what they want, because they cannot stand democracy.
They are unfit for it, and don't deserve it.
There was a time when marriage "meant" that white people could not marry black people. That state of affairs persisted in many states until the Supreme Court recognized that states could not prohibit interracial marriages in 1967, citing the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.
Democracy does not give the majority the right to override fundamental individual rights. That's what courts exist to protect. For a century, the 14th Amendment did not protect interracial marriage. And then it did, when the Court finally dealt with it. Equal Protection and Due Process (and the Privileges and Immunities Clause) give legal force to amorphous but important rights. The judiciary is obligated to protect those rights against legislative attack, whether by the federal or state & local governments.
Your analysis of the 14th Amendment amounts to time capsule democracy.
The entrenched conviction that children need both a mother and a father inflames culture wars over single motherhood, divorce, gay marriage, and gay parenting. Research to date, however, does not support this claim. Contrary to popular belief, studies have not shown that "compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children" (Popenoe, quoted in Center for Marriage and Family, p. 1).
Research has not identified any gender-exclusive parenting abilities (with the partial exception of lactation). Our analysis confirms an emerging consensus among prominent researchers of fathering and child development. The third edition of Lamb's (1997) authoritative anthology directly reversed the inaugural volume's premise when it concluded that "very little about the gender of the parent seems to be distinctly important" (p. 10). Likewise, in Fatherneed, Pruett (2000), a prominent advocate of involved fathering, confided, "I also now realize that most of the enduring parental skills are probably, in the end, not dependent on gender" (p. 18).
Most people don't realize that up modern times that it was common for the extended family and community to help play part in child rearing. Children only being raised by a single parent household in contrary to most human history.
Yes, unfortunately, to the detriment of the child. It should be outlawed. Screw up their minds at such a young age! It should be considered child abuse and endangerment.
"Overall, the belief that children of lesbian and gayparents suffer deficits in personal development has no empirical foundation. .....
The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples.
For instance, Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasqua, and Joseph (1995) reported that lesbian couples' parenting awareness skills were stronger than those of heterosexual couples. This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers. In one study, Brewaeys and her colleagues (1997) likewise reported more favorable patterns of parent-child interaction among lesbian as compared to heterosexual parents, but in another, they found greater similarities (Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003)."
I guess no special rights for some people in some states.
Special rights? Such as what? You must be getting your threads confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199
You gotta love that. Put human rights up to a popular vote! Go democracy! U! S! A! U! S! A!
Because we live in backwards TX, my gf and I are going all the way to New Mexico, 900 miles away, to get married. Not only is there a constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriage here, it is also prohibited by state law And because it isn't legal in our home state, our marriage in New Mexico will be largely symbolic, since we will, of course, have no legal protection that the marriage offers us once we get back home. I told her that I wanted to marry there because it was important that it be legal, even if it wasn't in TX, and she understood. I hope SCOTUS will pass this throughout the US. Equal rights for gay couples is long overdue. If SCOTUS doesn't, we are planning to relocate to New Mexico, in large part because of the legal protection we will have.
Please explain what a male and a female do when it comes to parenting. What is the dad role and what is the mom role. Why does having a penis make a male more able to do those things? Why does the lack of a penis make a female not able to do those things?
I had a great mom and dad. My dad told me about my period because my mom was too shy to discuss such things. He also took me fishing and taught me to shoot. I can and do all of those with my children. I even managed to teach 2 boys how to pee standing up, and how to treat a lady. All while being a female.
Please explain what role I can not fill because of my sex.
You seem to have a penis infatuation, as you bring it up quite often. Apparently, to you, men and women are completely interchangable. I would say several million years of evolution have men and women developing in the separate beings that 'most' of us are today.
Are you complaining about democracy? Because most people who support gay marriage on every other issue are practical democracy worshipers. Basically, they love democracy as long as it means they are getting what they want.
This is it. Marriage has limits, marriage has always had limits. Pretty much all of these people crying for same-sex marriage are still strongly opposed to polygamy. For that matter, they have no interest in lowering the age requirements, or allowing cousins to marry. Hell the bible says its perfectly fine for uncles and nieces to marry(which obviously was common in the past). But who wants to lift that restriction?
Just a bunch of hypocrites who "want what they want". They could really care less how they get it.
The irony is that, they think "democracy is wrong" on this issue. So they are trying to get the restrictions to same-sex marriage struck down as "unconstitutional", based on a 150 year-old amendment.
Everyone who isn't a complete moron knows that the 14th amendment was never intended to prohibit the states from regulating marriage in the way they already do. These restrictions aren't "new laws", they were on the books prior to the 14th amendment even being passed. There is no way the 14th amendment would have been passed if anyone in America honestly believed that it would have granted the right to marriage to homosexuals, all the way back in 1868.
Thus if the prohibitions are struck down, the reality is that it was the consequence of the equivalent of the federal courts "voting" to change the meaning of the constitution. Because it cannot possibly be what was intended by the people who wrote or ratified that amendment.
Basically what these morons want is "judicial democracy" instead of citizen democracy. These morons want "tyranny of the elite". They are crying for an oligarchy of nine life-termed men to give them what they want, because they cannot stand democracy.
They are unfit for it, and don't deserve it.
It certainly does have limits. There are rational reasons for not wanting couples to enter into polygamy or allowing children to marry though. There are no rational reasons for not allowing gay couples to marry however. The reasons states give are thin and easily destroyed. The concept of interpreting the laws is to interpret them as we continue to mature as a society. There is no way the founding fathers would view exceptions to the 4th amendment any more favorably either. That could also go for the 14th amendment in terms of Jim Crow laws. Since the federal government took no action on them for 100 years it's obvious they could have never passed it if the States would be stripped of their rights to regulate black people. Once again, a right winger how little understanding of the constitution.
In 1967, no I don't think they would have. In 2015, I think they will. A lot happened in the intervening years.
In terms of society, I don't think it's an overstatement to say that there has been a sea change in terms of recognizing the dignity and humanity of gay people.
In terms of jurisprudence, the Court, led by Justices Kennedy, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Stevens, and O'Connor, has undergone a major shift in its view of laws that single out and separate gay people from the rest of America. Lower courts have caught those signals and, after Windsor, rapidly took the gay marriage step (until now with the 6th Circuit).
I expect the Supreme Court to go the same direction.
I guess most court watchers will predict a 6-3 or 5-4 majority to rule ssm bans unconstitutional. I'm not as sure of Kennedy and Roberts as the experts, so 5-4 upholding bans won't shock me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
And because it isn't legal in our home state, our marriage in New Mexico will be largely symbolic, since we will, of course, have no legal protection that the marriage offers us once we get back home. I told her that I wanted to marry there because it was important that it be legal, even if it wasn't in TX, and she understood. I hope SCOTUS will pass this throughout the US. Equal rights for gay couples is long overdue. If SCOTUS doesn't, we are planning to relocate to New Mexico, in large part because of the legal protection we will have.