Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

(Andre Lieven) writes:

So, your absurd claim that kids " don't need " both parents is
amply belied by merely checking out whats going in a public
school.

And, my last g/f was a US high school teacher, so I have seen
it on that level, as well.

You are confusing "need" with "do better with". Or maybe we aren't
talking the same language. In my language, need means require.

(Andre Lieven) writes:

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

The two parent family is well proven to be the best manner in which
to raise chidren well. See " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A
25 Year Landmark Study ", Judith Wallerstein.

If two people

MS-statement. Its not " two people ", as if any two are OK.

Its a *mother and a father*.

Feel free to show me gay couples that can provide *a mother and
a father*...

are better than one when raising children, that's one
reason for the state (if "it thinks" having better children is its
business) to have marriage. It's not a reason for treating people
differently on the basis of their sexual preferences.

Wrong, when their demand is for a sexually based privilige.

Don't qualify, don't get. Its that basic.

Words, words, words.

What they? What privilege?

(Andre Lieven) writes:

Are you seriously wishing to state that marriage has nothing to do
with the creation and raising of children ? Especially, but not
only, historically ?

Feel free to back this claim up.

I am not making this claim. Why do you think I am (if you do)?

Henry Spencer ) writes:
In article ,
Andre Lieven wrote:
In any case, on this point, it makes the case that a child *needs*
a *mother *and* a father.
NO same sex couple can provide that...

Only if you assume that a "mother" must be biologically female, and a
"father" biologically male. It's the personalities, not the chromosomes,
which interact with the kids.

Actually, its both. This has been shown in studies where children
raised by two women lived, and where those children still needed
and wanted a proper, full time, man's rearing and education.

This is an issue of millions of years of biology, and we mess with
that at the children's peril. Surely, the record of the kids raised
in the last thirty years is... dismal.

Children raised by same-sex couples are probably better off than children
raised by single parents.

Since *both* are sub-optimal situations, all this is is moving around
the casualties...

Since we already have a whole bunch of the
latter, I see no significant harm to society -- and perhaps some good --
if we officially condone the former.

I would far prefer that we start to re-stigmatise the latter. Its
also a large tragedy, and we don't do better by doing *more of
the worse*...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

But, you offer *no positive arguments* in favour of your claimed view.

Case dismissed...

And I think all arguments against gay state sanctioned marriage can be
called religious beliefs, and people shouldn't try to impose their
religous beliefs on others.

I'm against gay " marriage ", and I'm an *atheist*.

So, you're... wrong.

Try again.

Same thing. I'm FOR allowing gay "marriage" and I'm an atheist with
Buddhist tendencies. Does it matter?

It proves that you claim that " opposition to gay marriage=religious
grounds, 100% of the time " was... *false*.

If you wish to continue to defend what has already been proven
as false, it stands to reason that logic would infer that
other statements of yours are false...

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Herb Schaltegger lid) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

Equating sexual preference, gender identity and other innate
psychological traits with the desire for a car is a coarse analogy at
best and extremely
callow, at worst. What many committed gay couples want is the same
rights
and responsibilities afforded straight couples. Nothing more, nothing
less.

Without *earning* them, I do understand that.

If one refuses to learn to drive a car, one has NO claim on a driver's
license...

What the heck are you trying to say, Andre? That gay folks should learn to
screw straight people and learn to like it? Please elaborate.

That their chosen failure to qualify, doesn't leave them with a " right "
that they chose to not qualify for. Period.

If it helps
you to realize the utter absurdity of such a position, please realize that
many gay people (my sister included) have a history of failed straight
relationships, followed often by much longer-term, happier gay
relationships. Once they realize that it really IS them, they find better
(same-sex) partners.

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT " citation'. "

By your logic and reasoning, U.S. blacks in the 50's (hell, now!)
shouldn't want the same treatment as whites because they don't have the
"qualification" of white-ness.

Ah, I was wondering if anyone was going to drag out the fallacious
race card...

It's not fallacious at all. And it doesn't have to be race: it could very
well be gender, religious beleif or any other not-easily-changable personal
characteristic. That's the usual determinant used by a Court to see if
it's a suspect classification being used to make an otherwise-arbitrary
distinction.

Non sequitur. In democracies, the people DO get a say over how things
will be.

A tyranny of courts is not preferable to a tyranny of any other
knd.

Black families are still families, with a mother *and* a father.

Not all of them.

Non sequitur. Far more than gay relationships... which by *self
definition* are *guaranteed* to be without either the mother or the
father.

Thus, they meet the qualification for marriage. No problem there,
so your analogy fails.

No, it doesn't. The issue is qualification for marriage only. You say a
straight couple comprised on one male and one female are the only people
who are allowed (I agree) or ought to be allowed (I disagree) to be
married. However, many groups have historically been denied rights (and
responsibilities) for many things in society, restrictions which today are
seen as arbitrary and baseless, even if they seemed acceptable and perhaps
even felt to be justified at the time.

So ? " That something I say is like this was done, in other times,
for other reasons, and over other issues " is NOT " proof " that this
is the case *with this issue*.

Again, you're begging the question, and trying to ride on the backs
of other people, over other issues.

The race (or gender or religion) aspect applies to other things besides
marriage that have been historically restricted by many cultures to only
those of a preferred group: the right to buy and hold land,the right to
inherit property, the freedom to divorce, the right to vote, the right to
hold office, the right to serve militarily, etc. Such freedoms have long
been denied many people on the basis of similar irrational grounds.

Ibid. PROVE that thats the case *with this issue*.

I could as easily say " The Saturn V was a rocket. The Delta 5 is
a rocket. Therefore, Delta 5s should carry three men to the Moon... "

The same could apply to women until historically recently, or to
Jews in a Christian country, Catholics in a Protestant one, etc.

Or, to 10 years olds wanting to marry, or to 8 year olds wanting
a driver's license...

Study the development of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution
and you might see why minimum age restrictions pass Constitutional muster
while other restrictions based upon membership in a suspect classification
do not.

Are you implying " Infallibility of SCOTUS " ?

By this I mean gender, race, and religion. Sexual preference may be
included as a subset of gender issues, it may end up standing on its own or
it may fail entirely as a suspect classification; time and the Supreme
Court will tell. I will point out, however, that even the Supreme Court
gets it wrong - the Dred Scott decision being an obvious case in point.

As do not a few recent cases... See Bush v/ Gore... g

Bah.

Indeed. Lets do away with all rules.

Pi does equal 3...

No, let's follow the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and
do away with arbitrary distinctions which serve only to feed the smug
moralism of the small-minded.

Then, explain the Violence Against *Women* Acts...

Seems its perfectly OK to discriminate... against the " right "
groups...

BTW, ad homs at views you don't share, only shows the lack of
an actual positive argument of the ad hom-er...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

So, your absurd claim that kids " don't need " both parents is
amply belied by merely checking out whats going in a public
school.

It's all a matter of definitions, isn't it? What do you mean by need?

Beyond food and oxygen, what does anyone mean by " need " ?

If you believe that fathers are dispensible with, then thats one
view, albeit one that flies in the face of reams of evidence.
If you believe that fathers are *not* dispensible, then claiming
that they're unneeded is fallacious, and self-contradictory.

You can call my claim absurd if you want. To me need means require.

And, that definition fits. Study the evidence...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

So, your absurd claim that kids " don't need " both parents is
amply belied by merely checking out whats going in a public
school.

And, my last g/f was a US high school teacher, so I have seen
it on that level, as well.

You are confusing "need" with "do better with". Or maybe we aren't
talking the same language. In my language, need means require.

Non sequitur. Some " needs " can be worked around, albeit at costs
of complexity, lower efficiency, etc.

Turned out that Apollo 13 didn't " need " a functioning Service
Module, if the " win " was measured by " land safely and alive ".

I would think that most parents want rather *more* for their kids.
Can't tell that by the millions of " single-by-*choice* " women,
though...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

The two parent family is well proven to be the best manner in which
to raise chidren well. See " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A
25 Year Landmark Study ", Judith Wallerstein.

If two people

MS-statement. Its not " two people ", as if any two are OK.

Its a *mother and a father*.

Feel free to show me gay couples that can provide *a mother and
a father*...

are better than one when raising children, that's one
reason for the state (if "it thinks" having better children is its
business) to have marriage. It's not a reason for treating people
differently on the basis of their sexual preferences.

Wrong, when their demand is for a sexually based privilige.

Don't qualify, don't get. Its that basic.

Words, words, words.

What they? What privilege?

Marriage. Duh.

Its clearly not a " right ". Rights aren't dependant on the
filling of *qualifications*.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

Are you seriously wishing to state that marriage has nothing to do
with the creation and raising of children ? Especially, but not
only, historically ?

Feel free to back this claim up.

I am not making this claim.

LOL. You snipped out where you said as much.

Why do you think I am (if you do)?

Restore what you sniped out, and I'll show you.
But, since you snipped it out, its up to you to
correct what you did...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.