- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
What? Politics in government? Say it aint so!
What? Politics in government? Say it aint so!The nice thing is these two cases put the conservatives on the bench in a bind. If they want to argue for Prop 8 and against federal constitutional preemption, then they will have trouble upholding DOMA and its federal intervention in state law. They can't have it both ways, though of course Scalia and Thomas are total hacks and don't seem to care about coherency in their opinions, just their political agenda.
And what's the next challenge going to be?
I know that pre-conceived ideologues compulsively clamor for "proof", which they will reject everytime it's presented.According to NFSS, just 1.7 percent of young adults ages 18 to 39 reported having a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship. The experience of long-term stability in same-sex households is rarer still. Among those who reported having a mother who had a same-sex relationship, 91 percent said they lived with their mothers when they were in the relationship. Fifty-seven percent reported living with their mother and her partner for more than four months, and 23 percent for at least three years. Among young adults whose fathers had a same-sex relationship, 42 percent said they lived with them during the relationship; 24 percent said they lived with their fathers and fathers’ partners for more than four months; and less than 2 percent for at least three years.
Only two respondents whose mothers had a same-sex relationship reported that this living arrangement lasted all 18 years of their childhood. No respondents with fathers who had a same-sex relationship reported such longevity.
The NFSS surveyed young adult respondents about their own relationship history and quality, economic and employment status, health outcomes, abuse history, educational attainment, relationship with parents, psychological and emotional well-being, substance use, and sexual behaviors and outcomes.
Compared to young adults in traditional, intact families, young adults whose mothers had a same-sex relationship tended to fare worse than their peers in intact biological families on 24 of the 40 outcomes examined. For example, they were far more likely to report being sexually victimized, to be on welfare, or to be currently unemployed.
Young adults whose fathers had a same-sex relationship showed significant differences from their peers in intact families on 19 of the outcomes. For example, they were significantly more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted infection, or to have been forced to have sex against their will.
It's called 'same-sex' marriage, not 'gay'-marriage for a reason. I'm hetero, I cannot marry a man. I am under all the same restrictions as everyone else.No, the other restrictions apply to EVERYBODY.
Anti-SSM laws apply to only one class of people, making them discriminitory by definition.
I meant if prop 8 does NOT survive the challenge. What will the next challenge be using the same civil right argument. Which was mine and my new friend Sonia Sotomayor's question.I don't think prop eight is going to survive its first challenge. The lawyers supporting prop eight did not exactly make a slam dunk of a argument.
Meaningless, obviously.Well since the majority of gays are from heterosexual parents, I guess we should outlaw heterosexual marriage right?
I don't think prop eight is going to survive its first challenge. The lawyers supporting prop eight did not exactly make a slam dunk of a argument.
oh man are gonna get it nowMeaningless, obviously.
Homosexuality is a birth defect, nothing more, and since birth defects of all kinds can result from procreational behavior, we should just ban procreation, right?
Your absurdity deserved an in-kind response.
That's how I see this. If you have a violent history, you shouldn't be able to walk into wall-mart and buy a gun. If you yell 'fire' in a theater, you are harming people, and should do some time. So, unless your marriage creates a net harm to society, you should be allowed to do it. All else being equal I don't see how same-sex marriage is any more harmful than other marriages we already allow. To the same logic I don't see why pot should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco are legal. If the purpose is to reduce consumption of harmful drugs, then alcohol and tobacco are the first to go.The right to bear arms is a right, is it unrestricted? No. Is the first amednment unrestricted? No. What makes you think a civil right cannot be restricted?
Of course not, they really couldn't. Their only real claim is religious and, since we have a secular government, religious claims don't fly. So they have had to talk around religion and get the religious message across without mentioning religion. It turns a stupid argument into an utterly incomprehensible one.
Meaningless, obviously.
Homosexuality is a birth defect, nothing more, and since birth defects of all kinds can result from procreational behavior, we should just ban procreation, right?
Your absurdity deserved an in-kind response.
That's how I see this. If you have a violent history, you shouldn't be able to walk into wall-mart and buy a gun. If you yell 'fire' in a theater, you are harming people, and should do some time. So, unless your marriage creates a net harm to society, you should be allowed to do it. All else being equal I don't see how same-sex marriage is any more harmful than other marriages we already allow. To the same logic I don't see why pot should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco are legal.
Of course not, they really couldn't. Their only real claim is religious and, since we have a secular government, religious claims don't fly. So they have had to talk around religion and get the religious message across without mentioning religion. It turns a stupid argument into an utterly incomprehensible one.
"Now"???oh man are gonna get it now
I don't see why; we don't ban any other marriage on the basis that one or both parties has any other birth defect.oh man are gonna get it now
The quote from you that I responded to was rhetoric. I replied to your rhetoric with my own rhetoric. Who's the one being hypocritical here? At least I freely admit it.So on one hand you are complaining about Dems doing it, but then you want to do the same thing? Yeah really keeping it real, real hypocriitcal.
Nothing you said debunks or refutes what I said in your quote. Is that REALLY the best you have? If so, you've lost.
That doesn't change what I said.Tobacco and alcohol are highly regulated industry's.
False.The absurdity is calling being gay a birth defect.
Meaningless.Much like your claim in being a centrist is absurd.
At it's worst...being adopted by a same-sex couple is still better than staying in the system.
I could have used you over on the "Beyond Gay Marriage" thread. Man was I ever outnumbered. And then Sonia, of all people, bailed me out yesterday."Now"???
Pre-conceived ideologues have been shoving it to me for the past few days now! :lol:
But I've presented accurately and with proof, so I just dismiss their Donald Duck fits and realize a word to the wise is sufficient.
...it was just a prediction and with the experience of over 30,000 posts I bet you were thinking the same thing.I don't see why; we don't ban any other marriage on the basis that one or both parties has any other birth defect.
Homosexuality can be a birth defect and ssm still be allowed.
All of which makes prop eight's continuing existence as likely as a snowballs chance in a furnace.
And the opponents are making a similar utterly incomprehensible argument as well: marriage is a civil right. Hence the questioning referenced, which indicates that the state cannot restrict said civil right in any way shape or form.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?