Alan Keyes: Gay Marriage Ruling A 'Just Cause For War'

[naturalmwa]

I'm not quibbling at all, you are moving the goal posts.

You last paragraph is irrelevant to your initial point. My benefits argument is absolutely valid to address your original point. It's not about whether it's a justification for or against gay marriage. That's a different discussion. Stick on point. You are saying the gov't should stay out of the bedrooms. The gov't does. You are inviting the gov't into your bedroom in a major way. You want the gov't to sanction your marriage, to recognize it. Either you aren't unsure of what you are saying in your original point or you are intentionally moving the goal posts to make your case and then claiming I'm making claims you never made.

Who do you think determines whether something is a civil right? The gay community? The polygamist community? It's the gov't. So, how can you claim you don't want the gov't in the way. They are the driver, the engine, the means to get you what you want. Otherwise, the issue is decided by the people via state legislatures, which is not what you want. The truth of the matter is my position falls more in line with your position than yours does. Isn't that rich in irony.

You were intentionally vague because you didn't want to be pinned down. Again, your weren't just speaking about the attitudes because to get what you want would require action, action from the gov't. The gov't isn't in your bedroom now. You want them involved, you want them in your bedroom. You want the opposite of what you are professing in your original statement.

The benefit is absolutely germane to the discussion for the points I've already addressed and you seem to ignore or dodge. True or false? Gay couples held weddings "prior" to legalization in states that didn't permit ssm? The answer is a resounding TRUE. That is EXACTLY the position you are arguing in your original position. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp it but if you looked at it objectively you'd see it. You are looking for the gov't involvement to sanction your marriage. The reason I brought up the benefits is because this has been one of the arguments made by the ssm folks for why ssm should be allowed and was discriminatory. Ignore it all you want it was the primary reason provided to justify ssm. So, you want gov't "out of your bedroom" about as badly as I want the Cards to beat the Cubs this week (FTR I'm a huge Cub fan who hates the Cards). Just be honest about it. It doesn't change your arguments for ssm but it's stops these baseless arguments like your original statement. They are great cliches, they just aren't rooted in fact.

Of course the two points are irrelevant to each other. They are two separate points from two seperate arguments. The first is answering your question about what I think people feel about poligamy. The second is explaining how you have yet to actually provide a unique reason to oppose SSM. I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[theIowaHawk]

[QUOTE="PhantomFlyer, post: 254547, member: 11666"Good grief, do I get to cite the large number of studies that show it is harmful? Studies paid for by the anti-ssm side? [/QUOTE]

Please do. We will anxiously await your citations.

 

[mstp1992]

LOL. Yes, paid for by pro-ssm groups, based on incredibly small sample sizes, and over short time periods (we haven't had large numbers of gays raising couples very long). Good grief, do I get to cite the large number of studies that show it is harmful? Studies paid for by the anti-ssm side? Of course, those studies suffer from the same flaws, which is why I didn't claim they prove harm. At least I'm not trying to be a political hack (like you are doing so magnificently) and showing objectivity by saying "we don't know". We need more time to study the issue to account for the long term impact.

Most of what you say is worthless, so why do I care what you think about the Varnum ruling?

Prickett et al (2015). "Public debate on same-sex marriage often focuses on the disadvantages that children raised by same-sex couples may face. On one hand, little evidence suggests any difference in the outcomes of children raised by same-sex parents and different-sex parents. On the other hand, most studies are limited by problems of sample selection and size, and few directly measure the parenting practices thought to influence child development. This research note demonstrates how the 2003-2013 American Time Use Survey (n = 44,188) may help to address these limitations. Two-tier Cragg's Tobit alternative models estimated the amount of time that parents in different-sex and same-sex couples engaged in child-focused time. Women in same-sex couples were more likely than either women or men in different-sex couples to spend such time with children. Overall, women (regardless of the gender of their partners) and men coupled with other men spent significantly more time with children than men coupled with women, conditional on spending any child-focused time. These results support prior research that different-sex couples do not invest in children at appreciably different levels than same-sex couples. We highlight the potential for existing nationally representative data sets to provide preliminary insights into the developmental experiences of children in nontraditional families."
Note in the acknowledgement section who funded the study (This research was supported by Grant 5 R24 HD042849, Population Research Center, and Grant 5 T32 HD007081, Training Program in Population Studies, awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).

Or from Manning et al (2014), "Recent legal cases before the Supreme Court of the United States were challenging federal definitions of marriage created by the Defense of Marriage Act and California's voter approved Proposition 8 which limited marriage to different-sex couples only. Social science literature regarding child well-being was being used within these cases, and the American Sociological Association sought to provide a concise evaluation of the literature through an amicus curiae brief. The authors were tasked in the assistance of this legal brief by reviewing literature regarding the well-being of children raised within same-sex parent families. This article includes our assessment of the literature, focusing on those studies, reviews and books published within the past decade. We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability. We discuss challenges and opportunities for new research on the well-being of children in same-sex parent families." (or you can read about it here as well).

And please note the funding sources for the study (This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD050959). Additional support was provided by the American Sociological Assosication.)

Rosenfeld (2010) "The results show that children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures."

Rosenfeld again in 2013. "There is no statistically significant difference in making normal progress through school between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by heterosexual married couples after family socioeconomic status is taken into account...
If formal marriage of the parents is beneficial to children, and if the goal of public policy is to maximize children’s chances of success, then perhaps the logical public policy prescription would be to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in the United States."

His main funding comes from the National Science Foundation, with supplemental funding from Stanford's Institute for Research in the Social Sciences and the UPS endowment at Stanford University.

I have more if you want to read them.

 

[theIowaHawk]

LOL. Only you could find sense in her comments. She only corrected her answer when Alito showed her the flaw in her logic.

Is this a joke? It was her first response. It wasn't after he corrected it, hell I cited to the entire oral argument. Can't believe I'm even reposting this:

""Justice Samuel Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?

Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.

Alito: What would be the reason?

Bonauto: There’d be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because …

Hell, I'm not defending, nor advocating her position, as I've made my position clear on here. Don't lie about her statements.

 

[theIowaHawk]

No, it just proves you are illiterate and one hack. Only you keep talking about Varnum when the issue before us is the US Constitution and the constitutionality of ssm. You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I should give you a free pass.

You do realize that Varnum was based on interpreting Federal case law and the 14th amendment....right?

Right?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Again:

Phantom, you believe that Marriage, under the "old definition" should be sanctioned by government, but that under the "new definition", it no longer should be.

Can you please, please post what the bases of the "old definition" were to want government sanctioning?

You posted the article claiming this very thing, "old" vs. "new", but not once posted what was actually within the "old" definition. For all I know, your "old" definition bases are exactly like the new definition.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

It's just a coincidence every argument you make in regards to ssm happens to align with your religious beliefs.

So does my support for laws against murder. Your point?

 

[PhantomFlyer]

[QUOTE="PhantomFlyer, post: 254547, member: 11666"Good grief, do I get to cite the large number of studies that show it is harmful? Studies paid for by the anti-ssm side?

Please do. We will anxiously await your citations.[/QUOTE]
Use google, it's this nifty little tool that you can use.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Is this a joke? It was her first response. It wasn't after he corrected it, hell I cited to the entire oral argument. Can't believe I'm even reposting this:

""Justice Samuel Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?

Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.

Alito: What would be the reason?

Bonauto: There’d be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because …

Hell, I'm not defending, nor advocating her position, as I've made my position clear on here. Don't lie about her statements.

Wrong. I posted her entire entire exchange on the question, so how can you say I lied about her comments. Unlike you, I didn't take a snippet of the exchange but posted the entire thing. You've provided a snippet of what she said. Nice try though and as usual you got it wrong.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Wrong. I posted her entire entire exchange on the question, so how can you say I lied about her comments. Unlike you, I didn't take a snippet of the exchange but posted the entire thing. You've provided a snippet of what she said. Nice try though and as usual you got it wrong.

Is this, seriously, a joke? I took that from your post. I don't need to repost your post, I provided a link to the entire oral argument. Alito asked her the question...that was her response. You claim that she only brought those up AFTER he corrected her, which is blatantly false........read your own copying-pasting of the exchange. Seriously, scroll up.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Please do. We will anxiously await your citations.

Use google, it's this nifty little tool that you can use.[/QUOTE]

And there it is. You "could" post all of these scientific studies...but, um, well, um, gosh, you should just google it yourself! Brilliant.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Again:

Phantom:

Can you please, please post what the bases of the "old definition" were to want government sanctioning?

 

[mstp1992]

Please do. We will anxiously await your citations.

Use google, it's this nifty little tool that you can use.[/QUOTE]
Ummm, no, that won't cut it. Use a legitimate scientific literature database like Pubmed, PsycINFO, Science Direct, you know, research that's actually peer reviewed.

 

[Arbitr8]

When ISIS finally takes over the gays will have a lot more to worry about than quickie marriages.

 

[mstp1992]

When ISIS finally takes over the gays will have a lot more to worry about than quickie marriages.

So, you're stupid on multiple levels. Your mama must be proud of her ignorant, bigoted son.

 

[gusto79]

So does my support for laws against murder. Your point?

Don't pretend your religion isn't the reason you are against gay marriage.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Use google, it's this nifty little tool that you can use.

Ummm, no, that won't cut it. Use a legitimate scientific literature database like Pubmed, PsycINFO, Science Direct, you know, research that's actually peer reviewed.[/QUOTE]
Sure it will. The pro ssm studies were bought and paid for by those advocating gay marriage. Peer review? LOL. Social science studies. How naive are you? How long do you think we've had children by being raised in any significant number, so we can study the long term impact. Nice try though. You probably were one of the biggest supporters of the Kinsey study. Useful idiots are plentiful. I love the "peer review" if that some magical formula that guarantees a study is correct. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of peer reviewed studies that have been gotten a thumbs up, only later to be found out it should have been a thumbs down. Vitamins, saturated fats, supplements, coffee, are only a few of the recent studies that have come out contradicting earlier, peer reviewed studies.

Use some common sense. As we say when looking at a baseball players stats over a short period of time, we say it's too small a sample size. It applies in this instance, but you keep fighting the good fight, like a good puppet soldier.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Don't pretend your religion isn't the reason you are against gay marriage.

So, only people who are religious are against gay marriage? And you'll have no trouble finding all the quotes I've used citing religion as my reason against ssm. I guess you aren't bright enough to take me up on my $1000 offer if that's the case.

 

[lucas80]

I thought Keyes was dead. Good thing he isn't for Democrats. This is the kind of stuff that really helps us lefties.

 

[mstp1992]

Ummm, no, that won't cut it. Use a legitimate scientific literature database like Pubmed, PsycINFO, Science Direct, you know, research that's actually peer reviewed.

Sure it will. The pro ssm studies were bought and paid for by those advocating gay marriage. Peer review? LOL. Social science studies. How naive are you? How long do you think we've had children by being raised in any significant number, so we can study the long term impact. Nice try though. You probably were one of the biggest supporters of the Kinsey study. Useful idiots are plentiful. I love the "peer review" if that some magical formula that guarantees a study is correct. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of peer reviewed studies that have been gotten a thumbs up, only later to be found out it should have been a thumbs down. Vitamins, saturated fats, supplements, coffee, are only a few of the recent studies that have come out contradicting earlier, peer reviewed studies.

Use some common sense. As we say when looking at a baseball players stats over a short period of time, we say it's too small a sample size. It applies in this instance, but you keep fighting the good fight, like a good puppet soldier.[/QUOTE]
No, read the real science funded by public sources and those awarded through competitive grants, and published in peer-reviewed academic journals. I provided the funding sources, yet you chose to ignore them. That fact alone makes you ignorant; hence anything else you say about the topic is just a reflection of your own ignorance.
Obviously, you can't contribute anything significant to your claim so why should you be taken seriously?

You aren't a scientist, are you?

 

[gusto79]

So, only people who are religious are against gay marriage? And you'll have no trouble finding all the quotes I've used citing religion as my reason against ssm. I guess you aren't bright enough to take me up on my $1000 offer if that's the case.

I don't doubt that you've never used religion on here as your reason for being against ssm. You know using religion is a bad argument so you avoid it. Kudos to you for that. But it's obvious to anybody that has read your posts over the years that you are against ssm because of your religion and that you work backwards from there to find the legal arguments you support. Which is fine. But if you were honest you'd admit you are against ssm first and foremost because of your religion.

 

[Arbitr8]

So, you're stupid on multiple levels. Your mama must be proud of her ignorant, bigoted son.

I have no opinion either way on homosexual marriage however I do know how Islam feels about it, you do realize there is no room for discussion with them on the subject.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Sure it will. The pro ssm studies were bought and paid for by those advocating gay marriage. Peer review? LOL. Social science studies. How naive are you? How long do you think we've had children by being raised in any significant number, so we can study the long term impact. Nice try though. You probably were one of the biggest supporters of the Kinsey study. Useful idiots are plentiful. I love the "peer review" if that some magical formula that guarantees a study is correct. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of peer reviewed studies that have been gotten a thumbs up, only later to be found out it should have been a thumbs down. Vitamins, saturated fats, supplements, coffee, are only a few of the recent studies that have come out contradicting earlier, peer reviewed studies.

Use some common sense. As we say when looking at a baseball players stats over a short period of time, we say it's too small a sample size. It applies in this instance, but you keep fighting the good fight, like a good puppet soldier.

No, read the real science funded by public sources and those awarded through competitive grants, and published in peer-reviewed academic journals. I provided the funding sources, yet you chose to ignore them. That fact alone makes you ignorant; hence anything else you say about the topic is just a reflection of your own ignorance.
Obviously, you can't contribute anything significant to your claim so why should you be taken seriously?

You aren't a scientist, are you?[/QUOTE]
So, you can't address my point about small samples and limited time. Got it. You could have stopped several posts ago then.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Again:

Phantom:

Can you please, please post what the bases of the "old definition" were to want government sanctioning?

 

[PhantomFlyer]

And again, I've answered this questions several times (probably asked by you once or twice). I'm done playing this game where I have to answer the question a dozen times. Do some homework and read through the threads and find the answer if you are really interested.

 

[theIowaHawk]

And again, I've answered this questions several times (probably asked by you once or twice). I'm done playing this game where I have to answer the question a dozen times. Do some homework and read through the threads and find the answer if you are really interested.

You have, according to you............but you can't even point to, or reproduce it.

Because you haven't, ever, answered it.

 

[Thomas Barnes]

Please do. We will anxiously await your citations.

Use google, it's this nifty little tool that you can use.[/QUOTE]

I have read a lot from you in recent days. I have never met anyone that hates or dislikes gay people as much as you. You are very mad about this. I am not a person that says gays should have extra rights but my gosh you really go all the way!!

 

[naturalmwa]

I have read a lot from you in recent days. I have never met anyone that hates or dislikes gay people as much as you. You are very mad about this. I am not a person that says gays should have extra rights but my gosh you really go all the way!!

Who's asking for extra rights?

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

Once you have read that and presumably reaffirmed your view that Alan Keyes is a lunatic, try flipping the question around. Suppose SCOTUS rules against gay marriage. States don't have to do them, and if a state does, other states don't have to honor them. Would that also be a cause for war?

Or, if you think Keyes is right, do you think gay activists and their supporters would be justified in starting a war? If one is justified, why not the other?

I find it fascinating that Keyes references Dred Scott.

Why are you upset? Doesn't Alan have his right to an opinion or is that just another right liberal radicals are trying to eradicate. I don't think Alan cares what you think...I mean really.

 

[naturalmwa]

Why are you upset? Doesn't Alan have his right to an opinion or is that just another right liberal radicals are trying to eradicate. I don't think Alan cares what you think...I mean really.

I don't think you understand how respecting the right to an opinion works.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

I don't think you understand how respecting the right to an opinion works.

I think I understand fully how it works. BTW the Hawk fans I met in Jacksonville were very nice people...what few were there.

 

[naturalmwa]

I think I understand fully how it works. BTW the Hawk fans I met in Jacksonville were very nice people...what few were there.

Oh, I see ya trying to change the subject. OK, I'll let you off easy this time. Welcome to HROT, you ought to develop a thick skin, some wit and a little paranoia to really enjoy this place.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

Oh, I see ya trying to change the subject. OK, I'll let you off easy this time. Welcome to HROT, you ought to develop a thick skin, some wit and a little paranoia to really enjoy this place.

I like your style here...and Hawk fans. I have to warn you though...I am a "militant Christian"...but I don't do anything half way...thanks for the welcome bud.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I don't think you understand how respecting the right to an opinion works.

Damnit, he has a right to free speech!

 

[naturalmwa]

I like your style here...and Hawk fans. I have to warn you though...I am a "militant Christian"...but I don't do anything half way...thanks for the welcome bud.

Oh, we are going to be close friends. Post often.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Use google, it's this nifty little tool that you can use.

I have read a lot from you in recent days. I have never met anyone that hates or dislikes gay people as much as you. You are very mad about this. I am not a person that says gays should have extra rights but my gosh you really go all the way!![/QUOTE]
Yes, I hate gays. You got me. sigh. Another idiot poster chimes in with stupid reasoning. The future of our country is really doomed if you are representative of the reasoning skills used to make reach conclusions.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

You have, according to you............but you can't even point to, or reproduce it.

Because you haven't, ever, answered it.

Yep, it's been answered but see to understand that one must be capable of reading. It's becoming apparent, you can't, so you should ask your wife, mother, child, or the old man down the block, to read for you and then go to night school so you can learn how to read.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Yep, it's been answered but see to understand that one must be capable of reading. It's becoming apparent, you can't, so you should ask your wife, mother, child, or the old man down the block, to read for you and then go to night school so you can learn how to read.

Interesting how many posts you make claiming to not want to take the time to go back and repost..........yet you can't repost a single time where you answered it.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Interesting how many posts you make claiming to not want to take the time to go back and repost..........yet you can't repost a single time where you answered it.

Why? It's been answered. Why do you continue to ask questions that have been asked and answered? You've asked, I've answered. Then you ask the same question again. Are you going senile, or suffering from the early stages of Alzheimers?

Since you seem to like to do this I'm going to do the same thing to highlight your affliction. Every post I respond to you I will aske the question, "why do you continue to ask questions that have been asked and answered". You can answer the question, but I'll still ask the question because that seems to be the only thing that gets through to you.

 

[mstp1992]

Why? It's been answered. Why do you continue to ask questions that have been asked and answered? You've asked, I've answered. Then you ask the same question again. Are you going senile, or suffering from the early stages of Alzheimers?

Since you seem to like to do this I'm going to do the same thing to highlight your affliction. Every post I respond to you I will aske the question, "why do you continue to ask questions that have been asked and answered". You can answer the question, but I'll still ask the question because that seems to be the only thing that gets through to you.

I'll admit you're a pretty good debater. You seem to have a handle on material that supports your point.

Here is an honest question for you and then I'll drop the subject (at least for this thread, since this is already too long ).

Are you opposed to SCOTUS 'allowing' same-sex marriage due to moral reasons as well as legal reasons, or is it just a legal issue for you? (I know 'allowing' is not the right term, but I think I'm having a sudden episode of aphasia)