NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/23/lesbian.parents.ap/index.html

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- In the latest ruling to recognize rights of same-sex couples, the California Supreme Court has said gay and lesbian couples who raise children are lawful parents and must provide for their children if they break up.

The state's custody and child support laws that hold absent fathers accountable also apply to estranged gay and lesbian couples who used reproductive science to conceive, the high court ruled Monday.

Being a legal parent "brings with it the benefits as well as the responsibilities," said Justice Joyce Kennard.

Look! Homosexuals are being held to the same standards as heterosexuals! If they choose to take on legal guardianship of a child, and raise that child, they are responsible for that child even after a relationship breaks up!

However, groups opposing gay marriage decried the justices' actions.

"Today's ruling defies logic and common sense by saying that children can have two moms," said attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. "That policy establishes that moms and dads as a unit are irrelevant when it comes to raising children."

First off, the law has already established that a child can have two moms. Sorry dumbass. Second of all, I find it interesting that the "Liberty Counsel" obviously feels that children aren't entitled to proper support from those who have taken on their care, if those people happen to be homosexual.

I find it interesting that the "Liberty Counsel" obviously feels that children aren't entitled to proper support from those who have taken on their care, if those people happen to be homosexual.
Oh, for crying out loud. You know "the right" believes nothing of the sort! Jeeze.

First off, the law has already established that a child can have two moms. Sorry dumbass. Second of all, I find it interesting that the "Liberty Counsel" obviously feels that children aren't entitled to proper support from those who have taken on their care, if those people happen to be homosexual.I think they're opposed to it because it's just another nail in the coffin of legalized homophobia. That and it's easier to attack gay marriages as "wrong" if they don't have the same responsibilites as heterosexual marriages.

Oh, for crying out loud. You know "the right" believes nothing of the sort! Jeeze.

So what *do* they believe? That homosexuals don't need to provide for their children? That children with gay parents somehow get support by magic when the parents break up?

Oh, for crying out loud. You know "the right" believes nothing of the sort! Jeeze.

Look! The "Centrist" speaks!!

It shows why it's illegal in Sweden for non-heterosexual couples to adopt children or single mothers to obtain artificial insemination/fertilization in the first place, to avoid nonsensical problems like this entirely. Allowing stuff like this only creates situations where the courts and society end up treating children like property. They shouldn't have been guardians in the first place...

It shows why it's illegal in Sweden for non-heterosexual couples to adopt children or single mothers to obtain artificial insemination/fertilization in the first place, to avoid nonsensical problems like this entirely. Allowing stuff like this creates situation where the courts and society ends up treating children like property.

Alright, let's just keep everybody from eating cereal, so somebody won't possibly choke on a cornflake.

That's some great logic, there.

They shouldn't have been guardians in the first place...

I'll bite. Why not? Proof to back statements would be nice too.

Look! The "Centrist" speaks!!

I've noticed quite a lot of people criticizing Eutrusca for his beliefs by calling him a Centrist. I'd suggest that you knock off the baiting immediately.

I've noticed quite a lot of people criticizing Eutrusca for his beliefs by calling him a Centrist. I'd suggest that you knock off the baiting immediately.

In the interest of fairness, I would have to ask if it really constitutes baiting or whatever rule that supposedly was broken. I normally don't see anyone complaining about the use of "The Right" or "Rightists" or "Leftists" when used as a label, sometimes maliciously used, sometimes not, as baiting. Why Centrist then?

In the interest of fairness, I would have to ask if it really constitutes baiting or whatever rule that supposedly was broken. I normally don't see anyone complaining about the use of "The Right" or "Rightists" or "Leftists" when used as a label, sometimes maliciously used, sometimes not, as baiting. Why Centrist then?

Because he says he's a "Centrist", when he clearly isn't, and never has been.

Because he says he's a "Centrist", when he clearly isn't, and never has been.

He is according to his political compass, which is enough apparently.

It shows why it's illegal in Sweden for non-heterosexual couples to adopt children or single mothers to obtain artificial insemination/fertilization in the first place, to avoid nonsensical problems like this entirely. Allowing stuff like this only creates situations where the courts and society end up treating children like property. They shouldn't have been guardians in the first place...

Bullshit! (http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/1522/a/17834) Non-heterosexual couples can adopt children in Sweden, and single mothers obtain inseminations all the time. If you're this ignorant of Swedish society and laws, I think you should refrain from mentioning Sweden at all.

He is according to his political compass, which is enough apparently.

You know, you can have a political compass that says you're a staunch leftist, and still side with the right on most issues. It doesn't mean shit unless you are what is says you are.

In the interest of fairness, I would have to ask if it really constitutes baiting or whatever rule that supposedly was broken. I normally don't see anyone complaining about the use of "The Right" or "Rightists" or "Leftists" when used as a label, sometimes maliciously used, sometimes not, as baiting. Why Centrist then?It's not always the label, per se. It's sometimes how the label is used. Any label used with malicious intent is subject to Moderator attention. A particular incident may not be actionable, but it's certainly not encouraged.

Additionally, I strongly advise everyone to avoid using terms like "dumbass" when discussing controversial topics. It doesn't add anything to the discussion and is likely to just inflame other players.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Oh, for crying out loud. You know "the right" believes nothing of the sort! Jeeze.

Maby not the whole "right" (half the time I don't even know what these silly labels mean anymore), but the religious right seems to be opposed to this.

In the interest of fairness, I would have to ask if it really constitutes baiting or whatever rule that supposedly was broken. I normally don't see anyone complaining about the use of "The Right" or "Rightists" or "Leftists" when used as a label, sometimes maliciously used, sometimes not, as baiting. Why Centrist then?

Because it's being used as a subtle insult

Bullshit! (http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/1522/a/17834) Non-heterosexual couples can adopt children in Sweden, and single mothers obtain inseminations all the time. If you're this ignorant of Swedish society and laws, I think you should refrain from mentioning Sweden at all.

I think that was sarcasm on Greenlanders part... He's posted stuff about sweden and children before.

Well back to the original topic.... the only reason it seems to me that religious groups are opposing this is to qualify their position that homosexuals should not be allowed to be parents (( why not? who made them God!)) and if they dont have to support these kids then they arent legally parents. Once again religion shouldnt be allowed anywhere near a government building or laws....violating the constitution plus if you dont pay your ticket price (TAXES) you shouldnt get in!! I am all for any and all civil liberties for homosexual couples and with that come the responsiblities as well. Nobody has the right to go around and judge others--thats God's job. I know I have levied my opinon on certain subjects but I try not to be a hypocrite.

Oh, for crying out loud. You know "the right" believes nothing of the sort! Jeeze.

Good thing I didn't say anything about "the right", then, isn't it?

Oh, for crying out loud. You know "the right" believes nothing of the sort! Jeeze.
If Dempublicents agreed with you, would you admit that you know "the left" doesn't think that all US soldiers deserve death? At least you should stop preaching such ridiculous ideas.

You know, you can have a political compass that says you're a staunch leftist, and still side with the right on most issues.
The only way that could be is if you answered the questions dishonestly.

The political compass revealed Eutrusca to be a centrist because on most domestic issues, he is a centrist. Unfortunately the political compass does not talk much about foreign policy, so his hawkishness goes unrepresented on his score.

I think that was sarcasm on Greenlanders part... He's posted stuff about sweden and children before.
Why would he? Swedish society is far from falling apart, especially compared with America's society.

I think that was sarcasm on Greenlanders part... He's posted stuff about sweden and children before.

Oh, now I remember him! Now I also remember why I tend to ignore the disjointed and out of context things he usually brings up. Never mind!

I've noticed quite a lot of people criticizing Eutrusca for his beliefs by calling him a Centrist. I'd suggest that you knock off the baiting immediately.
I have to ask--what's the difference between what Potaria did and using scare quotes or the rolleyes smiley? It's all sarcasm of one form or another, and unless you all are planning on cracking down on sarcasm, well...

I mean, isn't a certain amount of smartassery expected in this forum? You sort of sign up for it when you wander in this place, don't you?

Oh, for crying out loud. You know "the right" believes nothing of the sort! Jeeze.

Sure they do, just like how "the left" wants America to lose the war in Iraq, withdraw all our troops, surrender to al-Qaeda, etc. etc. etc. Generalizations suck, don't they?

OOOOOOOOOOOOkay. Back on topic. Of course, they are complaining about this ruling. They can't pretend like their homophobia is 'in defense of the family' if homosexual rights and responsibilities are defending the family. Those *%@^ing justices are making it damn difficult to pretend like they aren't being hateful when they try to deny two loving people the right to create a home with all the rights, priveleges and responsibilities that go with it.

Those *%@^ing justices are making it damn difficult to pretend like they aren't being hateful when they try to deny two loving people the right to create a home with all the rights, priveleges and responsibilities that go with it.

Psst. The judges ruled in favor of the couple. It's the "moral" values crowd that is making the outcry.

I have to say, I'm a bit confused at all this talk about "gay rights." Don't homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals? Not to be offensive, but if a gay male wants to marry a female, he can, right? Equal rights for Gays seems to me to simply be Extra Rights for Gays. I do believe that homosexuality is immoral (the same way I believe heterosexuality outside of marriage is immoral), but lets call things what they are. I'm not a homophobe, as I will probably be called, as I have homosexual friends that I converse with and do things with; however, that does not mean I will condone their lifestyle. That is the same thing Matt Staver (who I happen to know as well) is saying. We as Americans should not condone a lifestyle that is an affront to the basis and the morals that this country was founded upon.

I have to say, I'm a bit confused at all this talk about "gay rights." Don't homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals? Not to be offensive, but if a gay male wants to marry a female, he can, right? Equal rights for Gays seems to me to simply be Extra Rights for Gays.

Ah, but then legal gay marriage ISN'T an extra right because it means a straight man could then marry another man, just like "if a gay male wants to marry a female, he can." Try again, idiot. :D

I do believe that homosexuality is immoral (the same way I believe heterosexuality outside of marriage is immoral), but lets call things what they are.

What about gay sex with a person you're married to (if/when gay marriage becomes legal)? Gays might have a loop-hole here.

We as Americans should not condone a lifestyle that is an affront to the basis and the morals that this country was founded upon.

Moral living is living generously and considerately. How is being gay not being generous or considerate?

Moral living is living generously and considerately. How is being gay not being generous or considerate?

He probably means prudishly and with strict conformation to his views.

I have to say, I'm a bit confused at all this talk about "gay rights." Don't homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals? Not to be offensive, but if a gay male wants to marry a female, he can, right? Equal rights for Gays seems to me to simply be Extra Rights for Gays. I do believe that homosexuality is immoral (the same way I believe heterosexuality outside of marriage is immoral), but lets call things what they are. I'm not a homophobe, as I will probably be called, as I have homosexual friends that I converse with and do things with; however, that does not mean I will condone their lifestyle. That is the same thing Matt Staver (who I happen to know as well) is saying. We as Americans should not condone a lifestyle that is an affront to the basis and the morals that this country was founded upon.

Not everyone has the same morals as you, friend

I have to ask--what's the difference between what Potaria did and using scare quotes or the rolleyes smiley? It's all sarcasm of one form or another, and unless you all are planning on cracking down on sarcasm, well...

I mean, isn't a certain amount of smartassery expected in this forum? You sort of sign up for it when you wander in this place, don't you?

People are picking on Eutrusca specifically and I don't think that should be tolerated. We, or at least I, come here for an intelligent discussion, not to be insulted for my opinions. I don't need to come here to be insulted.

I doubt that this forum is intended to be used to throw snide remarks at people that you don't agree with. It's just that the internet attracts people who like to argue that way in disproportionately large numbers (I'm sure anonymity plays a role in it, too). So no, I don't think that you should expect sarcasm to be directed at anyone when they're posting in a serious discussion. It's disrespectful, and it's a shame that people feel the need to do that in order to make their point (or, even worse, just to be an ass, as in Potaria's case).

Now, on topic. It's quite clear that when Staver says that this ruling "defies logic and common sense" that he's not saying that paying child support defies common sense. He's saying that a gay couple paying child support defies common sense because he believes that they cannot be the parents of the child in the first place and as such would not be responsible for paying child support.

Now, on topic. It's quite clear that when Staver says that this ruling "defies logic and common sense" that he's not saying that paying child support defies common sense. He's saying that a gay couple paying child support defies common sense because he believes that they cannot be the parents of the child in the first place and as such would not be responsible for paying child support.

A belief that, in and of itself, defies common sense and logic. It is quite obvious that homosexuals *can* be parents of a child. It happens quite frequently. And such children generally grow up to be virtually indistinguishable from children raised in the households of heterosexual couples, or those raised in single-parent households.

Legally, those who take on guardianship of a child are required to pay child support if they are no longer taking care of that child. The only thing that defies common sense and logic here is the suggestion that homosexuals should be held to any type of different standard.

People are picking on Eutrusca specifically and I don't think that should be tolerated. We, or at least I, come here for an intelligent discussion, not to be insulted for my opinions. I don't need to come here to be insulted.

I doubt that this forum is intended to be used to throw snide remarks at people that you don't agree with. It's just that the internet attracts people who like to argue that way in disproportionately large numbers (I'm sure anonymity plays a role in it, too). So no, I don't think that you should expect sarcasm to be directed at anyone when they're posting in a serious discussion. It's disrespectful, and it's a shame that people feel the need to do that in order to make their point (or, even worse, just to be an ass, as in Potaria's case).
Couple of things--Eutrusca gives as good as he gets when it comes to snide remarks, and when people snark him about his "centrism," it's because he has made a point of his centrism on more than one occasion. And as I asked Euroslavia, I think that a certain amount of snark is expected when you wander into the General forum. You can't be thin-skinned around here, and while there's a lot of snark, there's also a lot of good-natured ribbing that goes on. I've had knockdown dragouts with Eutrusca, and yet we still joke on threads where we agree or where the situation warrants it.

Couple of things--Eutrusca gives as good as he gets when it comes to snide remarks, and when people snark him about his "centrism," it's because he has made a point of his centrism on more than one occasion. And as I asked Euroslavia, I think that a certain amount of snark is expected when you wander into the General forum. You can't be thin-skinned around here, and while there's a lot of snark, there's also a lot of good-natured ribbing that goes on. I've had knockdown dragouts with Eutrusca, and yet we still joke on threads where we agree or where the situation warrants it.

Then I think both parties should save it for more laid back threads. Keep it out of a discussion like this. It's bad for your blood pressure. I don't expect that to happen, but I can always wish.

A belief that, in and of itself, defies common sense and logic. It is quite obvious that homosexuals *can* be parents of a child. It happens quite frequently. And such children generally grow up to be virtually indistinguishable from children raised in the households of heterosexual couples, or those raised in single-parent households.

Legally, those who take on guardianship of a child are required to pay child support if they are no longer taking care of that child. The only thing that defies common sense and logic here is the suggestion that homosexuals should be held to any type of different standard.

Whether the ruling defies logic depends on whether you have an unswerving faith in Christianity (as well as most other religions, but that's kind of a moot point in this situation). The courts don't make rulings based on the assumption of the existance of a god that gave us a set of laws, so, as you said, his claim is legally baseless. He think that in the big picture American laws are wrong.

Then I think both parties should save it for more laid back threads. Keep it out of a discussion like this. It's bad for your blood pressure. I don't expect that to happen, but I can always wish.
Looking back over the "progress" of this thread, I think this discussion died aborning--it never really got into a discussion phase.

Looking back over the "progress" of this thread, I think this discussion died aborning--it never really got into a discussion phase.

There's been a slight return, but I don't think there's a whole lot to discuss in the first place. The law already states how the case should be handled, so there's no argument there. This guy is obviously never going to think that the law is legitimate. I guess we could throw our support in favor or against the law, but the resulting argument over whether someone's opinions are correct would not only be pointless, it'd also be beating a long dead horse. It'd be a topic best left alone.

Whether the ruling defies logic depends on whether you have an unswerving faith in Christianity (as well as most other religions, but that's kind of a moot point in this situation).

Hardly. I have an unswerving faith in Christianity and have no problem at all with the ruling.

The courts don't make rulings based on the assumption of the existance of a god that gave us a set of laws, so, as you said, his claim is legally baseless. He think that in the big picture American laws are wrong.

He may think that American laws are wrong, but that hardly makes them devoid of logic or common sense.

Psst. The judges ruled in favor of the couple. It's the "moral" values crowd that is making the outcry.

The 'they' in my statement was the religious right not the justices. The justices are making it difficult for them (the religious right) to pretend like their denial of rights to same-sex couples is about protecting the children. Soon they are going to just have to admit that they just hate homosexuals because they're 'icky'.

Hardly. I have an unswerving faith in Christianity and have no problem at all with the ruling.

Ok, then I guess it depends on whether you believe that the Bible's mentioning of homosexuality was just a kosher law that can be disregarded now that hygene has reached acceptable levels or whether you think that it was a condemnation of homosexuality.

He may think that American laws are wrong, but that hardly makes them devoid of logic or common sense.

That's an opinoin. A widely held one, but still an opinion.

A homosexual couple has custody of a child. The child was adequitely cared for, so the legitimacy of the custody that both parents had is not in question. Therefore, if the couple splits up then the one not left in custody of the child has to pay child support.

A homosexual couple has custody of a child. Since the are homosexual, they are unfit to have a child since they cannot provide proper care for the child for x reason. It is not acceptable that one guardian has to pay child support if the couple does break up because if the question of whether one had to pay child support did arise, it would inevitably be found that the couple was not fit to have custody of the child in the first place (since they couldn't provide an adequite upbringing for the child) and as such neither should have custody of the child. If neither has custody of the child, then neither should recieve child support from the other.

It all depends on whether you think that a homosexual couple would legitimate parents for a child. It's an irreconcilable difference of opinion.

Ok, then I guess it depends on whether you believe that the Bible's mentioning of homosexuality was just a kosher law that can be disregarded now that hygene has reached acceptable levels or whether you think that it was a condemnation of homosexuality.

In truth, I doubt that the Bible mentions homosexuality at all. The few places where it seems to be mentioned are unclear - and often quite possibly mistranslated.

That's an opinoin. A widely held one, but still an opinion.

No, it isn't. Them being wrong is an opinon. Them being contrary to common sense and logic is not.

A homosexual couple has custody of a child. The child was adequitely cared for, so the legitimacy of the custody that both parents had is not in question. Therefore, if the couple splits up then the one not left in custody of the child has to pay child support.

This is perfectly logical, based on the assumptions made at the beginning.

A homosexual couple has custody of a child. Since the are homosexual, they are unfit to have a child since they cannot provide proper care for the child for x reason. It is not acceptable that one guardian has to pay child support if the couple does break up because if the question of whether one had to pay child support did arise, it would inevitably be found that the couple was not fit to have custody of the child in the first place (since they couldn't provide an adequite upbringing for the child) and as such neither should have custody of the child. If neither has custody of the child, then neither should recieve child support from the other.

That is somewhat logical. It is based upon an illogical premise, unless a logical reason that a homosexual is unfit to raise a child can be demonstrated. However, if such a reason were demonstrated, this would also be logical.

Two people can use logic and common sense and still come to very different conclusions, if their beginning assumptions are different.

It all depends on whether you think that a homosexual couple would legitimate parents for a child. It's an irreconcilable difference of opinion.

Your opinion depends on that. The definition of logic does not.

The 'they' in my statement was the religious right not the justices. The justices are making it difficult for them (the religious right) to pretend like their denial of rights to same-sex couples is about protecting the children. Soon they are going to just have to admit that they just hate homosexuals because they're 'icky'.

I think you have it backwards.

The religious right believes that homosexuals are 'icky'. Therefore, they will deny homosexuals the right to have a child because they believe that a homosexual is an unacceptable person for a child to grow up with.

Does your sexuality come up if one person is trying to adopt a child or if a woman is trying to get artificial insemination? If a man were to walk in to an adoption agency and ask to adopt a child, would they ask if he was gay? It seems as though the religious right is targeting homosexual couples more then they are individual homosexuals (who could just keep their sexuality unknown to all but their partner). It seems to me as though the idea of targeting homosexual couples is based more on wanting children to grow up in traditional families then with homosexual couples having children going against anything in the Bible. Does the Bible actually address this, even indirectly? Or is the crusade just for the sake of traditional families.

And when did the nuclear family become the 'traditional family'?

In truth, I doubt that the Bible mentions homosexuality at all. The few places where it seems to be mentioned are unclear - and often quite possibly mistranslated.

I guess that answers my question.



No, it isn't. Them being wrong is an opinon. Them being contrary to common sense and logic is not.

Ok, assuming that common sense is a set of ideas held by the majority people, then they're contrary to common sense.

But are they contrary to logic? Uh, I'd try an answer that but I'm dog tired. I can barely string together two sentences (I answered this quote last).

That is somewhat logical. It is based upon an illogical premise, unless a logical reason that a homosexual is unfit to raise a child can be demonstrated. However, if such a reason were demonstrated, this would also be logical.

That's the thing. The reason is "Because God doens't like homosexuals". This reason is beyond the scope of logic. You can't actually demonstrate that this is so. Another reason could be "A homosexual couple is not a traditional family. A traditional family is required for the well being of a child". I'm not familier with that argument any more, so I can't expand on that. Just insert that "a homosexual couple will turn the child gay, and that would comprimise his chances at getting in to heaven". I know that there are less goofy arguments that don't mention God, but I couldn't tell you what they are.

Your opinion depends on that. The definition of logic does not.

No contest.

I think you have it backwards.

The religious right believes that homosexuals are 'icky'. Therefore, they will deny homosexuals the right to have a child because they believe that a homosexual is an unacceptable person for a child to grow up with.

How is that different than what I said? The religious right hates homosexuals because 'they're icky'. Why is everyone struggling with pronouns this week. My message was clear.

Does your sexuality come up if one person is trying to adopt a child or if a woman is trying to get artificial insemination? If a man were to walk in to an adoption agency and ask to adopt a child, would they ask if he was gay? It seems as though the religious right is targeting homosexual couples more then they are individual homosexuals (who could just keep their sexuality unknown to all but their partner). It seems to me as though the idea of targeting homosexual couples is based more on wanting children to grow up in traditional families then with homosexual couples having children going against anything in the Bible. Does the Bible actually address this, even indirectly? Or is the crusade just for the sake of traditional families.

And when did the nuclear family become the 'traditional family'?

Exactly.

Does your sexuality come up if one person is trying to adopt a child

Yes, if they will even consider you at all, sexuality does come up. Of course, single parents are not often given the opportunity to adopt.

or if a woman is trying to get artificial insemination?

Depends on where you are. There have been attempts at laws to restrict artificial insemination and disallow lesbians, but I believe that most of them have fallen through.

If a man were to walk in to an adoption agency and ask to adopt a child, would they ask if he was gay?

If they considered him at all, generally, yes, they would ask.

It seems as though the religious right is targeting homosexual couples more then they are individual homosexuals (who could just keep their sexuality unknown to all but their partner).

Then you haven't been paying much attention. The difference is simply that the struggle over rights for couples has been thrust into the public eye much more. The religious right has also pushed against laws requiring equal opportunity practices with regards to sexuality - arguing that an employer should be able to fire/not hire someone simply on the basis of their individual sexuality. The religious right has been a big push in the policy of the military, which is to dishonorably discharge any soldier known to be gay. There are quite a few things the religious right have targetted at the individual homosexual.

It seems to me as though the idea of targeting homosexual couples is based more on wanting children to grow up in traditional families then with homosexual couples having children going against anything in the Bible. Does the Bible actually address this, even indirectly? Or is the crusade just for the sake of traditional families.

Some believe that the Bible directly addresses homosexuality as being wrong. This is the only backing that the religious right has for their assertion that mom, dad, 2.5 kids and dog is in any way better than a family run by a homosexual couple, or an actual traditional family, which would include mom, dad, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, etc. all living and working together.

I see no problem in both PARENTS being made to support their children.

It doesn't matter if it's Adam and Steve or Anna and Eve.

... It is quite obvious that homosexuals *can* be parents of a child. It happens quite frequently. And such children generally grow up to be virtually indistinguishable from children raised in the households of heterosexual couples, or those raised in single-parent households...


Why do people say stuff like that? There is no proof whatsoever for making that deduction at this time, it's a complete and utter hogwash 'blanket' statement of something that they 'want' to believe to be true.

The simple and easy way of telling when a conclusion like that is most likely to be erroneous is with simply knowing the facts that we CAN tell the statistical differences in children not only between heterosexual parents and single parents, but in the children from never married single parent families and divorced parent single parent families. We can statistically tell you the odds of how many hours a child is read to by the education level of their parent, the number of interactive hours per week with their parents and the success levels of children from these results...

So to make the blanket statement that it's been show that children from homosexual household come out the same as heterosexual household children and single parent household children, that makes no sense because that isn't a single group. Do they mean heterosexual married, heterosexual divorced and remarried or heterosexual never married, or single parent divorced, single parent never married or single parent educated or un-educated (did not graduate from high school) or what because statistically speaking, we CAN tell the differences. It is IMPOSSIBLE that homosexual or same-sex parenting will have no measurable affect on the children raised in those households, everything is measurable and lots of things are significant. Things like graduation rates, school grades and averages, drug use, depression and after-school activity participation etc., etc., etc.

This document doesn’t talk about same-sex parenting per-se, it talks about the differences in parenting period. Single, married, never married, education level and whatnot.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-89.pdf#search='children%20of%20single%20parents'

There are no significant studies that have meaningful results from say, families consisting of two fathers raising a daughter, there simply isn't enough families like this to produce the studies yet, they haven't been around long enough for us to know what the results are going to be. It's a new experiment, we are using our children as the guinea pigs for the benefit of wanting to justify our lifestyle choices.

Ok, assuming that common sense is a set of ideas held by the majority people, then they're contrary to common sense.

Flawed reasoning. The majority of people don't think that homosexuals can't be good parents, or that homosexuals don't deserve the rights associated with marriage.

Sorry dumbass.



Ephesians 4:29-32 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. 32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.

Oh, for crying out loud. You know "the right" believes nothing of the sort! Jeeze.

Apparently, they do. Why else would they speck out against the ruling that says homosexual parents must be held responsible for the continued upbringing of children they and their partner started raising?

Think about it...a lesbian couple...adopts, or uses medical science to have a child. One of the lesbians had nothing to do with creating the baby, right? Yet, this ruling states that, if the lesbian couple breaks off, the woman who had nothing, biologically to do with creating the child...would still be required to make some form of support payments, and otherwise continue their duties as parent to that child, which they first assumed, back when the lesbian couple was a couple.

To come out against such a ruling...well, what other conclusion can you draw other than that the Religious Right does not want that child to have an adequate upbringing? You'd think the Right would be celebrating such a ruling, considering how "pro-life" they are!

Oh, silly me...they are only pro-life until the life emerges from the womb...how could I have forgotten that? Once the life is out of the womb, they all give it a giant middle finger, cutting school lunch programs, day-care and afterschool programs, welfare and WIC programs, LIHEAP (which helps low-income families in the Northeast with their heating bills - which are sure to be absolutely outrageous this year, thanks to high oil prices) and other programs designed to actually give children a chance to have a decent life.

Bah, I can't go on, this sort of hypocrisy really disgusts me....

Ephesians 4:29-32 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. 32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.

Noted. Thank you.

Ephesians 4:29-32 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. 32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.

Am I the only one amused that Neo quoted this?

NOTE: Though I generally agree with the sentiment.

Apparently, they do. Why else would they speck out against the ruling that says homosexual parents must be held responsible for the continued upbringing of children they and their partner started raising?

Think about it...a lesbian couple...adopts, or uses medical science to have a child. One of the lesbians had nothing to do with creating the baby, right? Yet, this ruling states that, if the lesbian couple breaks off, the woman who had nothing, biologically to do with creating the child...would still be required to make some form of support payments, and otherwise continue their duties as parent to that child, which they first assumed, back when the lesbian couple was a couple.

To come out against such a ruling...well, what other conclusion can you draw other than that the Religious Right does not want that child to have an adequate upbringing? You'd think the Right would be celebrating such a ruling, considering how "pro-life" they are!

Oh, silly me...they are only pro-life until the life emerges from the womb...how could I have forgotten that? Once the life is out of the womb, they all give it a giant middle finger, cutting school lunch programs, day-care and afterschool programs, welfare and WIC programs, LIHEAP (which helps low-income families in the Northeast with their heating bills - which are sure to be absolutely outrageous this year, thanks to high oil prices) and other programs designed to actually give children a chance to have a decent life.

Bah, I can't go on, this sort of hypocrisy really disgusts me....


Teehee - know how you feel - but then asking if the Repub's are hypocrites is like asking if the pope's a hypocrite... I mean catholic... well either.

Found this report on gay parenting from the american psychological association
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html


Here's the guts of it:
Beliefs that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation (Cramer, 1986; Falk, 1989; Gibbs, 1988; Patterson, 1996). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing (Kweskin & Cook, 1982; Lyons, 1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981; Mucklow & Phelan, 1979; Pagelow, 1980; Rand, Graham, & Rawlings, 1982; Thompson, McCandless, & Strickland, 1971), nor have lesbians' romantic and sexual relationships with other women been found to detract from their ability to care for their children (Pagelow, 1980). Recent evidence suggests that lesbian couples who are parenting together tend to divide household and family labor relatively evenly (Hand, 1991; Patterson, 1995a) and to report
satisfaction with their couple relationships (Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992; Patterson, 1995a). Research on gay fathers has similarly found no reason to believe them unfit as parents (Barret & Robinson, 1990; Bigner and Bozett, 1990; Bozett, 1980, 1989).


Overall, then, results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory

Anyways what's all the fuss about - until three hundred years ago the most common failies were cosanguinal/joint, there were lots of adults, and the families of the children went to live with one of their parents' families depending on gender. Cousins were raised as siblings, and often not by parents but by aunts or older siblings.

Nuclear families only arose with the industrial age as people moved in from the countryside and had to become more mobile.

This sacredness of the conjugal/nuclear/bourgeois family is rubbish... live and let live people!

NOTE: Though I generally agree with the sentiment.

I do as well. Some things just tend to set me off though, before I have a chance to really think about it.

So to make the blanket statement that it's been show that children from homosexual household come out the same as heterosexual household children and single parent household children, that makes no sense because that isn't a single group. Do they mean heterosexual married, heterosexual divorced and remarried or heterosexual never married, or single parent divorced, single parent never married or single parent educated or un-educated (did not graduate from high school) or what because statistically speaking, we CAN tell the differences. It is IMPOSSIBLE that homosexual or same-sex parenting will have no measurable affect on the children raised in those households, everything is measurable and lots of things are significant. Things like graduation rates, school grades and averages, drug use, depression and after-school activity participation etc., etc., etc.

The ignorance of statistics in this statement is astounding. If I say statistically blond women do better in school that brunette women, then the only difference between the groups is haircolor. A good statistical analysis would compare women that are comparable in every way save haircolor. That's how statistics are collected. So you would compare a child parented by two homosexual parents to a comparable home with two heterosexual parents. That's how it works in well-done, peer-reviewed studies. You know, the kind of studies we keep requesting from you and never get? Those studies.

I do as well. Some things just tend to set me off though, before I have a chance to really think about it.

Actually, I was impressed by the patience of your reply to Neo. I have a little trouble stomaching hypocrisy. Stupid ulcer. ;)

Flawed reasoning. The majority of people don't think that homosexuals can't be good parents, or that homosexuals don't deserve the rights associated with marriage.

They was being used to represent the religious right. I'm saying they're going against common sense if most people believe that homosexuals can be good parents.

They was being used to represent the religious right. I'm saying they're going against common sense if most people believe that homosexuals can be good parents.

Ah, ok. I thought "they" was referring to the laws, LOL.

*snip*


You sure do a lot of yapping for someone that didn't actually bother reading the link, nor perhaps comprehending the basic premise of the post at all (before writing your drivel)...

Statistically speaking, there WILL be measurable differences, period, to suggest otherwise only goes to prove that you don’t know much about childhood studies. Regardless though, I already said that we don't have ANY meaningful studies of same-sex male parents living together (married or otherwise) and raising children (these studies and family styles haven’t been around long to enough to have results yet)...

Here's that first link again... Perhaps this time you'll read a bit before you start babbling about second grade statistics comprehension again.


http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-89.pdf#search='children%20of%20single%20parents'

Bullshit! (http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/1522/a/17834) Non-heterosexual couples can adopt children in Sweden, and single mothers obtain inseminations all the time. If you're this ignorant of Swedish society and laws, I think you should refrain from mentioning Sweden at all.

Most people on this forum probably can't read Swedish...

I have to say, I'm a bit confused at all this talk about "gay rights." Don't homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals? Not to be offensive, but if a gay male wants to marry a female, he can, right? Equal rights for Gays seems to me to simply be Extra Rights for Gays.

Yeah, and when gay marriage is legalized, a straight man will be able to marry another man. Equal even by your logic. The point is that a gay male DOESN'T want to marry a female, because he's gay! If marriages were by default a same-sex arrangement, wouldn't you be petitioning the government for the option to marry your opposite-sex love? If you give a group of people wheat bread, but some of them are allergic to wheat, you can't really say that you're giving them all the equal chance to feed themselves. Same idea.

Marriage is about love, not what some dumbass religion thinks. If gays are counted as legal parents, then they should have all the resposibilities of parents. The religious right is so friggin stupid.

If you give a group of people wheat bread, but some of them are allergic to wheat, you can't really say that you're giving them all the equal chance to feed themselves. Same idea.


That's not half bad actually. :D But the other point of view would then be, "you don't get to go in to a Jewish Deli and demand they make you a Ham sandwich or go into a vegitarian restaurant and insist that they start to offer Veal because you have a right to eat too."

If gays are counted as legal parents, then they should have all the resposibilities of parents. The religious right is so friggin stupid.

I think the operative word there is bolded now. Everyone knows homosexuals and gays can have children, I think the protestors of that ruling are saying that same-sex couples should never be counted as legal parents of the same child, only one of them can be.


Once they have been declared the legal parents though, I agree, they can't simply change their minds and walk away, NOR have the other parent strip away their visitation rights or otherwise try to act like they weren't a parent.

However though, the argument against it is that same sex couples should never have had shared parental rights in the first place. That's just my understanding of their opposition, perhaps someone else could share a different light on it for us.

You sure do a lot of yapping for someone that didn't actually bother reading the link, nor perhaps comprehending the basic premise of the post at all (before writing your drivel)...

Statistically speaking, there WILL be measurable differences, period, to suggest otherwise only goes to prove that you don’t know much about childhood studies. Regardless though, I already said that we don't have ANY meaningful studies of same-sex male parents living together (married or otherwise) and raising children (these studies and family styles haven’t been around long to enough to have results yet)...

Here's that first link again... Perhaps this time you'll read a bit before you start babbling about second grade statistics comprehension again.


http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-89.pdf#search='children%20of%20single%20parents'

Ha! Does the link have anything to do with my statements? Oh, wait, NOPE. My 'drivel' was about the fact that you made a lot of comments that have nothing to do with a proper statistical study. Of course you would know that if you knew anything about how a proper statistical study is done. But people have been lecturing you about that for, oh, I don't know, how long have you been posting on NationStates?

I don't know anything about childhood studies, huh? I know that you have never shown one single properly done study on how homosexual parents are less fit. You've shown (or tried to) how single homosexual parents might be worse than married heterosexual parents, but that doesn't prove that their homosexuality has anything to do with it. In fact, it's evidence that homosexuals should be permitted to marry. But it offers no evidence regarding homosexual parents whatsoever.

Also, I'll explain this another time to you. In a proper statistical study you compare things that are alike in all ways save one, if you're going to make a comparison of that one thing. For example, if I'm comparing married parents to non-married parents, then you compare those that are of the same economic class, same education level, etc. Your study does not do that. In fact, your study has a tendency to do the opposite. Your study is left open for numerous interpretations as to likely causes or related issues. That's how you're coming to a conclusion that no one else agrees with. You simply refuse to see that your conclusion is not supported by the statistics. You are claiming that being unmarried statistically causes a worse outcome for the children, but if being an unmarried parent is more common among lower economic classes or lower education levels then any of the three could be the defining factor in childrearing. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

Those nutty people at the APA seem to not agree with your amazing statistical prowess. Strange how all those doctors can't seem to see what you see so clearly. Maybe they learned how to read those silly little statistics and are bound by a slightly valuable thing most people know to be logic. You should try it. It's fun. It makes the things one says make sense.

That's not half bad actually. :D But the other point of view would then be, "you don't get to go in to a Jewish Deli and demand they make you a Ham sandwich or go into a vegitarian restaurant and insist that they start to offer Veal because you have a right to eat too."

This assumes that there is somewhere else to eat available to you. There are not only Jewish delis or vegetarian restaurants in the US. If there was, there would be a very viable reason for complaint. Also, what if I wanted to open up a restaurant that serves meat and the government said, "nope, you can't let those people eat meat. It's evil." Again completely reasonable complaints would come of that. Your example is exactly the point. They are demanding that your church offer same-sex marriages or that you engage in same-sex marriage. They are demanding the right to open places that 'serve' same-sex marriages and where they can go to partake. Your analogy actually supports the same-sex marriage cause.

That's not half bad actually. :D But the other point of view would then be, "you don't get to go in to a Jewish Deli and demand they make you a Ham sandwich or go into a vegitarian restaurant and insist that they start to offer Veal because you have a right to eat too."

Yes, but the government is not in the business of being a government only for Jews or vegitarians. The government is supposed treat all citizens equally.

This assumes that there is somewhere else to eat available to you. There are not only Jewish delis or vegetarian restaurants in the US. If there was, there would be a very viable reason for complaint. Also, what if I wanted to open up a restaurant that serves meat and the government said, "nope, you can't let those people eat meat. It's evil." Again completely reasonable complaints would come of that. Your example is exactly the point. They are demanding that your church offer same-sex marriages or that you engage in same-sex marriage. They are demanding the right to open places that 'serve' same-sex marriages and where they can go to partake. Your analogy actually supports the same-sex marriage cause.

Um, no. There are rules about what meat you can serve and what food processes must be followed before you can open a restaurant or sell food to the public. There are all kinds of rules about what you cannot sell and what rules need to followed even when you do want to sell permissible meats.

USDA standards are laws and they are pretty clear. There is a strict interpretation of the rules and standards are enforced. They will even cross the border of the religious and cultural slaughter-houses (look at Hmong slaughterhouses for example) to enforce what is and what is not acceptable and legal meat for sale in America. If standards are not met, they will shut it down.

Marriage laws are no different in that there are standards that are mandated by the public and regulated by the government before approval is given for the application for the legal marriage contract.

Um, no. There are rules about what meat you can serve and what food processes must be followed before you can open a restaurant or sell food to the public. There are all kinds of rules about what you cannot sell and what rules need to followed even when you do want to sell permissible meats.

USDA standards are laws and they are pretty clear. There is a strict interpretation of the rules and standards are enforced. They will even cross the border of the religious and cultural slaughter-houses (look at Hmong slaughterhouses for example) to enforce what is and what is not acceptable and legal meat for sale in America. If standards are not met, they will shut it down.

None of those rules are based upon the sexuality of the people involved in packing the meat (or the sexuality of the animal that goes into making the meat, for that matter).

Alright, let's just keep everybody from eating cereal, so somebody won't possibly choke on a cornflake.

That's some great logic, there.

um...no...

That's not the same logic...great or not

The person you quoted wasn't using the whole "this is potentially dangerous so we'll let no one do it" argument. He was talking about a law in sweden that prevents stupid incidents such as the one the author of this thread pointed out.

Um, no. There are rules about what meat you can serve and what food processes must be followed before you can open a restaurant or sell food to the public. There are all kinds of rules about what you cannot sell and what rules need to followed even when you do want to sell permissible meats.

USDA standards are laws and they are pretty clear. There is a strict interpretation of the rules and standards are enforced. They will even cross the border of the religious and cultural slaughter-houses (look at Hmong slaughterhouses for example) to enforce what is and what is not acceptable and legal meat for sale in America. If standards are not met, they will shut it down.

Marriage laws are no different in that there are standards that are mandated by the public and regulated by the government before approval is given for the application for the legal marriage contract.

And that's where the analogy falls apart, because you can descriminate by the type of meat but you can't discriminate based on the sex of a human being.

And that's where the analogy falls apart, because you can descriminate by the type of meat but you can't discriminate based on the sex of a human being.


It's not descrimination, it's definition. Definition of what is required to obtain the license, contract or item recognized by the government.

You can't sell dog meat simply by trying to fool the public with a fake USDA stamp and writing beef on the package. You have to meet established criteria or else they'll lock you up.

Marriage licenses are the same way, you have to meet the current minimum requirements before your marriage license aplication is granted. Such as, meet the age, sex and not being currently married requirements.

Lets think of the age requirement as the standard in dispute.

Scenario: The citizens voted/polled and the results find that 3% says 13 and 7% say 14, and 20% say 15 and 40% say 16 and the last 30% say 17+, so then the governing legislature agrees to maintain a 16 year old standard and makes it a requirement for approval via the state laws regarding marriage.

Who then is to complain that they can't marry 13 year olds? The 3%? Does the 3% get to dictate to the other 97% that their standards must be satisfied despite the objections of the vast majority? No, of course not.

Similarly, back to the basic food and personal choice concept:

If you want to consume dog meat or slaughter horses for shish-kabobs, I'm sure you can find a way to humanely slaughter a canine or pony and cook it up for yourself and your family. However, the community you live in does not have to grant you a license to sell your dog and horse meat at the local butcher shop nor supply it via the community approved standard of distributing foods and meats (USDA approved etc.,).

Eating it and living with your food style choice is entirely up to you, you decide if you want to partake and consume that flavor of food, but you don't have the right to dictate and demand the rest of the community you live in to accept or even recognize your right to opt for those choices...

The very permission, whether or not your activity is legal or not, or if it is to be allowed to continue at all and you can choose to eat and enjoying it in the privacy of your own home while the community around you objects to the very idea of you eating horse and dog meat, is suspect and dependant on their tolerance, not your right to mandate.

Community does have the right to dictate and mandate standards of behavior, whether you like it or not.

Community does have the right to dictate and mandate standards of behavior, whether you like it or not.
Only up to a point. Communities can't say "our standards dictate that black people can't live here" or "that gay people can't live here." They can't act in a discriminatory manner--the Supreme Court has said so numerous times.

What has happened, and this is what drives the right-wing insane, is that the Supreme Court and the lower courts has, slowly, begun to recognize more and more groups as being the victims of discrimination. It was bad enough for them when it was black people, and then women, but now that it's gays, they've just gone apeshit.

It's really this simple--either the 9th and 14th Amendments apply to everyone or they don't. To my mind, there's no question--they apply, and eventually, the judges will rule that way and gays will take their rightful place as full members of American society, whether you like it or not.

*snip*

This is absolutely true. What they would have to do then is to simply change the community standards. If the people who want to eat dog and horse and marry 13 year olds becomes a larger and larger portion of the community, or impacts a favorable response from the rest of the community to their cause, then the community standard will change to meet that demand. It doesn't change anything I said.



Note of contention though: Your attempt to use the example of race and ethnicity bigotry as an example of the treatment the homosexual community is dealing with now is not really a very good example, they are not the same, not really.

You can not predict from heredity, nor parentage, the creation of a new member of the homosexual community by knowing the heritage of the biological parents. But the same is not true of your examples of racial bigotry. Asian people have Asian children, Native American people have Native American children, Caucasians have Caucasian children. Traits of heredity and genetics are passed down from the parent to the child, always, every time. Homosexuality, whatever it's cause (genetics, in the womb nurture, or choice after birth), is not a ethnic birth right (but your examples are ethnicity examples). They are not the same thing. The homosexual community could be compared to the deaf community, or another sub-culture like that, but not an ethnic or racial comparison.

This is absolutely true. What they would have to do then is to simply change the community standards. If the people who want to eat dog and horse and marry 13 year olds becomes a larger and larger portion of the community, or impacts a favorable response from the rest of the community to their cause, then the community standard will change to meet that demand. It doesn't change anything I said.
No--you missed the point. When the courts ruled against discriminatory behavior, they didn't do it based on a change of community standards. They did it because their understanding of the Constitution required them to treat people equally before the law. The other example I was thinking of dealt with porn--the famous Larry Flynt case pretty much killed the community standards argument. The reason that states can regulate things like what meats can be served or at what age people can get married is based on the state's ability to show a compelling interest in that regulation. If the courts--state or federal--feel that the state's interest isn't compelling, they can toss it, community standards be damned.

Note of contention though: Your attempt to use the example of race and ethnicity bigotry as an example of the treatment the homosexual community is dealing with now is not really a very good example, they are not the same, not really.

You can not predict from heredity, nor parentage, the creation of a new member of the homosexual community by knowing the heritage of the biological parents. But the same is not true of your examples of racial bigotry. Asian people have Asian children, Native American people have Native American children, Caucasians have Caucasian children. Traits of heredity and genetics are passed down from the parent to the child, always, every time. Homosexuality, whatever it's cause (genetics, in the womb nurture, or choice after birth), is not a ethnic birth right (but your examples are ethnicity examples). They are not the same thing. The homosexual community could be compared to the deaf community, or another sub-culture like that, but not an ethnic or racial comparison.
But they are the same, because whether or not homosexuality is genetic, the individuals are still members of the human race and are still citizens, and are therefore deserving of 9th and 14th Amendment protections. The whole idea of anti-discrimination legislation and court decisions started with ethnicity, but there's no reason to limit it to that, and it hasn't been--you can't discriminate on the basis of sex, age, and in a number of cases, sexual orientation. The right for gays to marry is in essence the same as the rights for interracial heterosexual marriage--it's based on the same logic.

This is absolutely true. What they would have to do then is to simply change the community standards. If the people who want to eat dog and horse and marry 13 year olds becomes a larger and larger portion of the community, or impacts a favorable response from the rest of the community to their cause, then the community standard will change to meet that demand. It doesn't change anything I said.



Note of contention though: Your attempt to use the example of race and ethnicity bigotry as an example of the treatment the homosexual community is dealing with now is not really a very good example, they are not the same, not really.

You can not predict from heredity, nor parentage, the creation of a new member of the homosexual community by knowing the heritage of the biological parents. But the same is not true of your examples of racial bigotry. Asian people have Asian children, Native American people have Native American children, Caucasians have Caucasian children. Traits of heredity and genetics are passed down from the parent to the child, always, every time. Homosexuality, whatever it's cause (genetics, in the womb nurture, or choice after birth), is not a ethnic birth right (but your examples are ethnicity examples). They are not the same thing. The homosexual community could be compared to the deaf community, or another sub-culture like that, but not an ethnic or racial comparison.

You can't necessarily predict dwarfism, but it's still a protected class and you can't descriminate on the basis of dwarfism.

One cannot descriminate on sex due to the fourteenth amendment and this has be decided time and again by the supreme court. You want the licenses to descriminate on the basis of sex, but they can't do so any more than a driver's license or gun license can. Marriage was found to be a basic right by SCOTUS and it's only time before they uphold the combination of that and the fourteenth amendment.

Also, community standards don't decide certain things. You cannot amend rights by community standards alone. If the community hates Nazis they can't deny the freedom of speech. The government is designed to prevent tyranny by majority. This is just another case.

No--you missed the point. When the courts ruled against discriminatory behavior, they didn't do it based on a change of community standards. They did it because their understanding of the Constitution required them to treat people equally before the law. The other example I was thinking of dealt with porn--the famous Larry Flynt case pretty much killed the community standards argument. The reason that states can regulate things like what meats can be served or at what age people can get married is based on the state's ability to show a compelling interest in that regulation. If the courts--state or federal--feel that the state's interest isn't compelling, they can toss it, community standards be damned.

I didn’t miss your point, I disagree. It’s not really different from what I said at all.

You have to 'influence' the opinion of the judges to your cause, to make the change... But even then, IF the community opinion is too strong against it even the Judge’s rulings won't be able to stop them from making it the way they want. In America amendments stop Judges, but my community example is cross cultural and not limited to particular religions and governments, it's an excercise in humanity entirely.

It always comes back to community standards. When they tolerate it, it will happen then, even if they are just barely tolerant enough to accept something reluctantly, what I've said still holds true, but only so long as the will to fight for or against something is overpowered by their lack of ‘passion’ for the fight because they don’t think it is ‘important’ enough to bother with the fight (the community opinion I was talking about).

But they are the same, because whether or not homosexuality is genetic, the individuals are still members of the human race and are still citizens, and are therefore deserving of 9th and 14th Amendment protections. The whole idea of anti-discrimination legislation and court decisions started with ethnicity, but there's no reason to limit it to that, and it hasn't been--you can't discriminate on the basis of sex, age, and in a number of cases, sexual orientation. The right for gays to marry is in essence the same as the rights for interracial heterosexual marriage--it's based on the same logic.

The humanity arguments are right, like I said by comparing the gay community and the deaf community, their members come from all ethnicities and races and cultures and ages. They are not themselves an ethnic race though.

Inter-racial marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage though. The rights of humans to be humans is the same, but the right to get the communities blessing on your union is going back to my meat choices from the posts above example. Community standards can change, but community standards get to determine what the definition of marriage is (one man one woman, one man and three women, two men, two women, ten year olds or sixty year olds only), it doesn't matter what the rules are, the existence of the rules and who controls the power to write the definition of that 'thing', is the community opinion with the power.

You have to 'influence' the opinion of the judges to your cause, to make the change... But even then, IF the community opinion is too strong against it even the Judge’s rulings won't be able to stop them from making it the way they want. In America amendments stop Judges, but my community example is cross cultural and not limited to particular religions and governments, it's an excercise in humanity entirely.

INFLUENCE? That's specifically the problem. Judges don't make law. They interpret it. They have already said you cannot descriminate based on sex or sexuality and that marriage is a fundamental right. Community standards have nothing to do with civil rights. There was a time in this country when community standards were that women and black were second-class citizens. Then in 1962 an amendment was passed and judges could were required to support it. If community standards suddenly decided that blacks and women were second-class citizens it wouldn't matter. The judges uphold the US Constitution not the community standards. Now if an amendment was passed then, things might change, but good luck getting that one to happen.

And by the way, you're cross-cultural, cross-religious example of denying rights to homosexuals is primarily only held by SOME of the people who believe in the Judeo-Christian God (include Islam, Mormons, etc.)

You can't necessarily predict dwarfism, but it's still a protected class and you can't descriminate on the basis of dwarfism.

Sure you can, Lets just go ask fifty people who are afflicted by dwarfism if they suffer from discrimination and see what they say shall we? Or can I assume that you take it back as an example?

One cannot descriminate on sex due to the fourteenth amendment and this has be decided time and again by the supreme court. You want the licenses to descriminate on the basis of sex, but they can't do so any more than a driver's license or gun license can. Marriage was found to be a basic right by SCOTUS and it's only time before they uphold the combination of that and the fourteenth amendment.

Yes, we do. We discriminate on age and sex all the time. Age and need even, some conceal and carry gun laws are extremely rigorously difficult to get. Marriage and Hunting license can discriminate by age as well as number of participants (Moose hunting license lotteries require four names of adults citizens in Minnesota and only one license winning per seven year period etc.,) and residency and tax payer status (far more stipulations than marriage licenses only requiring two adult names, one man, one woman and both of age and no previous marriages etc.,) before they are approved. Marriage might be a right, but it still gets definition by the state (community).

Also, community standards don't decide certain things. You cannot amend rights by community standards alone. If the community hates Nazis they can't deny the freedom of speech. The government is designed to prevent tyranny by majority. This is just another case.

As I said in the other post, Amendments stop Judges. Community will still matters and carries the most weight.

INFLUENCE? That's specifically the problem. Judges don't make law. They interpret it. They have already said you cannot descriminate based on sex or sexuality and that marriage is a fundamental right. Community standards have nothing to do with civil rights. There was a time in this country when community standards were that women and black were second-class citizens. Then in 1962 an amendment was passed and judges could were required to support it. If community standards suddenly decided that blacks and women were second-class citizens it wouldn't matter. The judges uphold the US Constitution not the community standards. Now if an amendment was passed then, things might change, but good luck getting that one to happen.

And by the way, you're cross-cultural, cross-religious example of denying rights to homosexuals is primarily only held by SOME of the people who believe in the Judeo-Christian God (include Islam, Mormons, etc.)

Nah, the Judges who are influenced in one era oppose the Judges in the same position of another era. Community opinion influences Judges too, they themselves are products of it. Your understanding influences you interpretation of the law and your community and your upbringing influence your understanding. It's a fact of life, we are humans, not robots.

My position still stands... Community standards are the end-all afterall.

Nah, the Judges who are influenced in one era oppose the Judges in the same position of another era. Community opinion influences Judges too, they themselves are products of it. Your understanding influences you interpretation of the law and your community and your upbringing influence your understanding. It's a fact of life, we are humans, not robots.

My position still stands... Community standards are the end-all afterall.

What if those "standards" unfairly targeted YOU as being a second-class citizen? Would you "sit down and shut up" or would you work to try to change the law in your favor? How would YOU feel if the law told you that your life and your happiness were no longer important? That you couldn't have the most desperate desire of your heart, just because the rest of the community didn't want you to have it, for whatever reason?

Sure you can, Lets just go ask fifty people who are afflicted by dwarfism if they suffer from discrimination and see what they say shall we? Or can I assume that you take it back as an example?

Legally. I'd like to assume you understand the difference between legal and illegal discrimination. Or shall I explain it?

Yes, we do. We discriminate on age and sex all the time. Age and need even, some conceal and carry gun laws are extremely rigorously difficult to get. Marriage and Hunting license can discriminate by age as well as number of participants (Moose hunting license lotteries require four names of adults citizens in Minnesota and only one license winning per seven year period etc.,) and residency and tax payer status (far more stipulations than marriage licenses only requiring two adult names, one man, one woman and both of age and no previous marriages etc.,) before they are approved. Marriage might be a right, but it still gets definition by the state (community).

Minimum age is not a protected class. Sex is. You cannot limit rights by sex according to the fourteenth amendment. Number of participants or witnesses has nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment, but sex does. I'll say it again, you cannot discriminate by sex according the fourteenth amendment and ALL previous application. You are basically making the same argument that was made about mixed race marriages thirty years ago. That was also overturned by judges even though the community disapproved. Judges didn't define marriage, they interpreted the Constitutional amendment that forbids discrimination. And, yes, the same arguments were made, all people have the same right to marry a person of the 'same race' ('opposite sex'). it was illegal then and it's illegal now.

I noticed the only example of governmental sexual discrimination is marriage license. Quite simply this is why it's only time before this is overturned as well.

As I said in the other post, Amendments stop Judges. Community will still matters and carries the most weight.

And, you said it wrongly. Community will means nothing if there is not law to support it. Judge interpret law. It's their job. It is not their job to interpret community will. They are not an elected post and do not have constituents. I'm sure you're familiar with our Constitution, no? Amendments don't just stop judges, they provide them with the legal support for their decisions. This one is specifically supported by the fourteenth amendment. If the community wishes to lift fourteenth amendment protection they will have to lift the fourteenth amendment.

Nah, the Judges who are influenced in one era oppose the Judges in the same position of another era. Community opinion influences Judges too, they themselves are products of it. Your understanding influences you interpretation of the law and your community and your upbringing influence your understanding. It's a fact of life, we are humans, not robots.

My position still stands... Community standards are the end-all afterall.

What about examples where judges have opposed the community like in allowing mixed race marriages because it was supported by law? The majority of the country was definitely opposed to it at the time. Judges may be influenced by the community but they are BOUND by the law. By definition, law is the end-all afterall.

Nah, the Judges who are influenced in one era oppose the Judges in the same position of another era. Community opinion influences Judges too, they themselves are products of it. Your understanding influences you interpretation of the law and your community and your upbringing influence your understanding. It's a fact of life, we are humans, not robots.

My position still stands... Community standards are the end-all afterall.I think I see where you're coming from, and I agree with you, up to a point. You're right--judges are members of the communities on which they rule, especially at the lower echelons of the judicial system, and so radical change in what could be considered "community standards" doesn't usually come from those levels. The community still dictates the reality to some extent.

But what court rulings--especially those regarding first amendment protection of porn and the Loving decision--have shown is that in legal terms, community standards are pretty much useless, because they allow individual communities to dictate standards of acceptable conduct to other communities, and the courts have said 1) that community standards are undefinable and 2) that we can't allow pockets of discrimination to exist based on the notion of community standards.

I think what has happened in this discussion is that we've been using the same terms but different usages or connotations of those terms, and thus the confusion.

I think I see where you're coming from, and I agree with you, up to a point. You're right--judges are members of the communities on which they rule, especially at the lower echelons of the judicial system, and so radical change in what could be considered "community standards" doesn't usually come from those levels. The community still dictates the reality to some extent.

But what court rulings--especially those regarding first amendment protection of porn and the Loving decision--have shown is that in legal terms, community standards are pretty much useless, because they allow individual communities to dictate standards of acceptable conduct to other communities, and the courts have said 1) that community standards are undefinable and 2) that we can't allow pockets of discrimination to exist based on the notion of community standards.

I think what has happened in this discussion is that we've been using the same terms but different usages or connotations of those terms, and thus the confusion.

I think Ph33r is using it in a broader sense so pockets of discrimination would not apply, but we don't allow mass discrimination based on broader community standards either. The bill of rights, a representative democracy and the judicial system were all created to prevent tyranny by majority, to allow the government to do what's best for us despite ourselves. After 9/11, the community standards very well could have changed to not allow Muslims into our country or to take rights away from Muslims. The courts have an obligation to prevent this from occurring no matter what our outrage dictates. They are BOUND by law and not community standards. (Of course amendments are available, but it's a slow process that requires agreement by the vast majority of people in a vast majority of states. I guess the hope is that we would come to our senses in that time.)

In case I'm unclear, I'm agreeing with you, but amending your points a bit.

Ok, then I guess it depends on whether you believe that the Bible's mentioning of homosexuality was just a kosher law that can be disregarded now that hygene has reached acceptable levels or whether you think that it was a condemnation of homosexuality.

No, it more depends on if you want to force your beliefs on everybody else, legislativly.



It's not descrimination, it's definition. Definition of what is required to obtain the license, contract or item recognized by the government.

You can't sell dog meat simply by trying to fool the public with a fake USDA stamp and writing beef on the package. You have to meet established criteria or else they'll lock you up.

Marriage licenses are the same way, you have to meet the current minimum requirements before your marriage license aplication is granted. Such as, meet the age, sex and not being currently married requirements.

Lets think of the age requirement as the standard in dispute.

Scenario: The citizens voted/polled and the results find that 3% says 13 and 7% say 14, and 20% say 15 and 40% say 16 and the last 30% say 17+, so then the governing legislature agrees to maintain a 16 year old standard and makes it a requirement for approval via the state laws regarding marriage.

Who then is to complain that they can't marry 13 year olds? The 3%? Does the 3% get to dictate to the other 97% that their standards must be satisfied despite the objections of the vast majority? No, of course not.

Similarly, back to the basic food and personal choice concept:

If you want to consume dog meat or slaughter horses for shish-kabobs, I'm sure you can find a way to humanely slaughter a canine or pony and cook it up for yourself and your family. However, the community you live in does not have to grant you a license to sell your dog and horse meat at the local butcher shop nor supply it via the community approved standard of distributing foods and meats (USDA approved etc.,).

Eating it and living with your food style choice is entirely up to you, you decide if you want to partake and consume that flavor of food, but you don't have the right to dictate and demand the rest of the community you live in to accept or even recognize your right to opt for those choices...

The very permission, whether or not your activity is legal or not, or if it is to be allowed to continue at all and you can choose to eat and enjoying it in the privacy of your own home while the community around you objects to the very idea of you eating horse and dog meat, is suspect and dependant on their tolerance, not your right to mandate.

Community does have the right to dictate and mandate standards of behavior, whether you like it or not.

I'd say that a basic standard of right and wrong, not the "will of the community" is what laws should be based on.


I didn’t miss your point, I disagree. It’s not really different from what I said at all.

You have to 'influence' the opinion of the judges to your cause, to make the change... But even then, IF the community opinion is too strong against it even the Judge’s rulings won't be able to stop them from making it the way they want. In America amendments stop Judges, but my community example is cross cultural and not limited to particular religions and governments, it's an excercise in humanity entirely.

It always comes back to community standards. When they tolerate it, it will happen then, even if they are just barely tolerant enough to accept something reluctantly, what I've said still holds true, but only so long as the will to fight for or against something is overpowered by their lack of ‘passion’ for the fight because they don’t think it is ‘important’ enough to bother with the fight (the community opinion I was talking about).



The humanity arguments are right, like I said by comparing the gay community and the deaf community, their members come from all ethnicities and races and cultures and ages. They are not themselves an ethnic race though.

Inter-racial marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage though. The rights of humans to be humans is the same, but the right to get the communities blessing on your union is going back to my meat choices from the posts above example. Community standards can change, but community standards get to determine what the definition of marriage is (one man one woman, one man and three women, two men, two women, ten year olds or sixty year olds only), it doesn't matter what the rules are, the existence of the rules and who controls the power to write the definition of that 'thing', is the community opinion with the power.

In the civil rights movement, federal troops were used to enforce the law against the community will.