A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

Lol, you know better than that.

 

That is irrelevant. The 14th amendment precludes banning same sex couples from marriage. Procreation has no relevance.

irrelevant and outdated court case.

 

Lol it quite specifically states they are as good or better.

Still waiting for you to post a peer reviewed study that "debunked" the Australian study you claim was debunked.

 

That's a foolish argument, its basically saying that if all the hurdles are removed then everything will be wonderful. There will always be hurdles, and everyone faces them and has to deal with them.

Of course people do better when there is a support system around them. That's true of all people.

Gays claiming bigotry is the reason gay families are not doing well is a weak excuse particularly in this day.

Every kid faces bullying and teasing. If you want a real problem in a family, try financial problems, or infidelity.

Typical hater attitude. Rather than educate or changing attitudes through example you simply want to kill everyone who disagrees with you. How tolerant. That's why nobody believes the gay mob when they claim all they want is to live their lives.

The next time you face bigotry, if you want to see the cause look in the mirror. You reap what you sow.

 

Quote the article.

 

And?

If one gay couple raises a great kid, and one does not - does that mean you get to ban all gay couples from having kids?
We don't base constitutional rights on statistical probability - we base them on the individual American Citizen.

 

I accept your concession.

 

In other words, you cannot quote the article where it claims gay parents are better than regular parents.

 

Objective standards of measurement as opposed to subjective measures. Subjective measures made by the lesbian parents themselves regarding their parental habits. The studies I referred to used only OBJECTIVE measures. Poverty rates, Juvenile Delinquency rates, Drug and alcohol abuse rates, HS dropout rates of the children. Im sure if they instead asked the single mothers how well they were parenting their children, a different picture would emerge.

Nobody has ever banned gay people from having kids. ONLY heterosexual couples were banned from cohabitating or engaging in sexual relations without a marriage license.

 

Which has nothing to do with MARRIED gay couples. You seem to have a real bug up your ass about single parents - whatever. it has nothing to do with MARRIED gay parents.

 

no, not in other words. My post was perfectly clear. You claimed the Australian peer reviewed study was debunked. I challenged you twice now to back up that claim. You dodged both times, thus conceding the argument.

Thank you.

 

Sure it does. Encouraging heterosexual couples to marry reduces the number of single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Encouraging gay couples to marry does not.
We could issue safety inspection stickers, license plates and vehicle registration for your pretty red tricycle, but it wouldn't really serve any legitimate governmental interest even if it does make you feel better about riding your pretty red tricycle

 

Asinine comment on your part. Encouraging single gay mothers to marry HAS THE EXACT same effect. It reduces the number of single mothers. What is so hard about that to understand?

 

you have to demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest in the DENIAL of a right, not in the inclusion. You know this of course, so this game you play is quite pathetic.

 

It's irrelevant. A governmental interest must be demonstrated to DENY a right. No such interest is needed to exercise one.

This is a silly game Dixon plays, and has done so for years. Now he will whine and cry strawman.

 

No. If one of the lesbian couple gives birth, only she and the biological father are obligated to care for the child. There has already been a case where the sperm donor was held to be liable to provide and care for the child while the mothers lesbian lover has no obligation.

 

A legitimate governmental interest must be served for any discrimination by the government. No one but you is talking about a governmental interest in exercising any right

 

lol, .....................

This is why you lost in court. You need to show a legitimate interest served by banning same sex couples from marriage. No such interest exists, which is why you lost.

 

That's what they nee to show if the intent was to exclude same sex couples. That was never the intent. The intent was always to INCLUDE opposite sex couples.
Municipal pet licenses limited to owners of dogs isn't intended to exclude owners of cats and is instead intended to include owners of pets known to pose a danger of biting people. If the owners of cats rise up, protest in the street, demanding licenses for their cats, and government resists the change, it doesn't transform the governments intent into one intending to exclude cat owners.

 

Lol, Same sex couples were excluded, specifically, from marriage. Can't do that. it's why you lost in court.

have nothing to do with same sex marriage.

 

Yes, you were perfectly clear, regarding your link http://theconversation.com/in-families-with-same-sex-parents-the-kids-are-all-right-42605 which I read, you claimed:

I replied:

You failed to do so.


Search on the Australian study, that is if you are not too lazy. Whats interesting to me is that so many in this forum demand other people do their work for them, when I read something I question I do my own research - I would rather find the studies and reports for myself rather than depend upon a potentially biased person to feed peselected papers to me.

Whether you refuse to believe it, or it is hand fed to you, or you are lazy and prefer to live in ignorance, the truth does not change. The concession is not the Truth, the concession is in your willingness to learn.

 

Odd that when you respond to my posts you edit my posts to present a false appearance. Be honest. Don't lie.

I'll repeat my previous post.

 

I bet there no schizophrenics either until it was given a name ...lol

 

I leave out the irrelevant parts. You claimed the peer reviewed study from Australia was debunked. You got called on that, and you have been furiously dodging ever since. Either admit you made a silly comment, or provide the peer reviewed study that debunked it. Then we can move on to whatever you are obsessing about.

 

Do you really believe that there is a danger of our population be coming dangerously low because of homosexual marriages or people my procreating? Come on