Have Gays never been disenfranchised?

[McCulloch]

To quote Dr. ML King's daughter, no one is enslaving homosexuals...or making them sit in the back of the bus. Gays have never been disenfranchised as a group.

Have Gays never been disenfranchised?

[East of Eden]

Yet another case of Gays being disenfranchised... from Texas

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/18/r ... -children/

You're moving the goalposts, I've already said earlier when I said disenfranchise I meant the common usage of not being allowed to vote as blacks and women were.

It may not fit your definition of disenfranchisement, but it is an egregious injustice nevertheless. This judge should be ashamed of himself and probably be removed from the bench.

The judge thinks children need a mother and father, which I agree with.

Your agreement is not legally relevant. Until such time as we require all children to live with a mother and a father, enforcing this rule reflects a clear and unjustifiable bias, and a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. This action is morally and legally indefensible.

Which parent don't you think kids need, a mom or dad?

Yes or no. Do you think every child should be compelled to live with a heterosexual couple? Would you enforce taking children away from single parents to give to heterosexual couples?


If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it is and exceedingly hypocritical argument to even bring up this question.

The optimal situation is a mother and a father. As far as single parenting, the rate of poverty in single mother households is 26.4% versus 6.4% for two-parent families. Children from single-parent families are twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems as those living with married parents. Studies have showed that children of single parents are more likely to display risky behaviors such as smoking, drinking, delinquency, violence, unsafe sexual activity, and suicide attempts.

[Ooberman]

Yet another case of Gays being disenfranchised... from Texas

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/18/r ... -children/

You're moving the goalposts, I've already said earlier when I said disenfranchise I meant the common usage of not being allowed to vote as blacks and women were.

It may not fit your definition of disenfranchisement, but it is an egregious injustice nevertheless. This judge should be ashamed of himself and probably be removed from the bench.

The judge thinks children need a mother and father, which I agree with.

Your agreement is not legally relevant. Until such time as we require all children to live with a mother and a father, enforcing this rule reflects a clear and unjustifiable bias, and a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. This action is morally and legally indefensible.

Which parent don't you think kids need, a mom or dad?

Yes or no. Do you think every child should be compelled to live with a heterosexual couple? Would you enforce taking children away from single parents to give to heterosexual couples?


If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it is and exceedingly hypocritical argument to even bring up this question.

The optimal situation is a mother and a father. As far as single parenting, the rate of poverty in single mother households is 26.4% versus 6.4% for two-parent families. Children from single-parent families are twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems as those living with married parents. Studies have showed that children of single parents are more likely to display risky behaviors such as smoking, drinking, delinquency, violence, unsafe sexual activity, and suicide attempts.

Don't you see your fallacy? You say "The optimal is Mother and Father", then you go into Single parent studies.

Why not show the studies that show same-sex parents do just as good a job as different-sex parents?


Or, how about reference the fact that most of human history has been a community, or the clan, raising children - much like we use Daycare, Schools and other institutions to take up the slack?


Surely, the optimal isn't a Mother and Father both staying home with the child. That would be a burden on society, not an advantage.


All in all, the theists who argue against same-sex parenting have no facts, only religious beliefs.

[Ooberman]

Also, I want everyone to be vigilant about another Christian trick when debating these things.


They will say "Behavior X (something the Bible doesn't like) is bad because it brings bad things into the world, like... (then they will list some things that are ONLY sins according to their religion).

For example, they might say something like:

"Gay parents are bad for society because it potentially increases the risk their children will choose a gay lifestyle!"

That is, since "gay is bad" is a doctrine they hold, they point out that it results in more bad behavior.

Or, they will say "Holland is horrible because there is gay sex, drugs and prostitution". Of course, these things aren't bad. They CAN be abused, or can be misused, or bad people can do bad things with them, but they aren't inherently bad.

In other words, they have a different list of social ills than other people. They just assert their list is superior.


It's as if I added "going to church" as an Evil. I would then say "Christianity is bad because it increases the number of people going to church! Obviously, then, Christianity is bad!"

It would be the same fallacy: create an Evil out of whole cloth, then declare my opponent in favor of Evil.

[East of Eden]

Yet another case of Gays being disenfranchised... from Texas

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/18/r ... -children/

You're moving the goalposts, I've already said earlier when I said disenfranchise I meant the common usage of not being allowed to vote as blacks and women were.

It may not fit your definition of disenfranchisement, but it is an egregious injustice nevertheless. This judge should be ashamed of himself and probably be removed from the bench.

The judge thinks children need a mother and father, which I agree with.

Your agreement is not legally relevant. Until such time as we require all children to live with a mother and a father, enforcing this rule reflects a clear and unjustifiable bias, and a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. This action is morally and legally indefensible.

Which parent don't you think kids need, a mom or dad?

Yes or no. Do you think every child should be compelled to live with a heterosexual couple? Would you enforce taking children away from single parents to give to heterosexual couples?


If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it is and exceedingly hypocritical argument to even bring up this question.

The optimal situation is a mother and a father. As far as single parenting, the rate of poverty in single mother households is 26.4% versus 6.4% for two-parent families. Children from single-parent families are twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems as those living with married parents. Studies have showed that children of single parents are more likely to display risky behaviors such as smoking, drinking, delinquency, violence, unsafe sexual activity, and suicide attempts.

Don't you see your fallacy? You say "The optimal is Mother and Father", then you go into Single parent studies.

Because Micatala switched from gay adoption to single parenting.

Why not show the studies that show same-sex parents do just as good a job as different-sex parents?


Or, how about reference the fact that most of human history has been a community, or the clan, raising children - much like we use Daycare, Schools and other institutions to take up the slack?

A clan, meaning both women and men, right? For about all of that human history marriage has also been seen as between men and women.

Surely, the optimal isn't a Mother and Father both staying home with the child. That would be a burden on society, not an advantage.

It wouldn't be a burden for the kids. IMHO daycare = daytime orphanages. If you're not going to raise the kid don't have one.

All in all, the theists who argue against same-sex parenting have no facts, only religious beliefs.

Wrong.

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research

"There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often

If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense"

I'll be looking forward to your retraction of your claim there are no studies showing such results. Maybe that TX judge has more knowledge than you about this.

BTW, I reject the premise that people can't vote based on their religious beliefs, or even their lack of them.

[East of Eden]

Also, I want everyone to be vigilant about another Christian trick when debating these things.


They will say "Behavior X (something the Bible doesn't like) is bad because it brings bad things into the world, like... (then they will list some things that are ONLY sins according to their religion).

For example, they might say something like:

"Gay parents are bad for society because it potentially increases the risk their children will choose a gay lifestyle!"

That is, since "gay is bad" is a doctrine they hold, they point out that it results in more bad behavior.

Or, they will say "Holland is horrible because there is gay sex, drugs and prostitution". Of course, these things aren't bad. They CAN be abused, or can be misused, or bad people can do bad things with them, but they aren't inherently bad.

In other words, they have a different list of social ills than other people. They just assert their list is superior.


It's as if I added "going to church" as an Evil. I would then say "Christianity is bad because it increases the number of people going to church! Obviously, then, Christianity is bad!"

It would be the same fallacy: create an Evil out of whole cloth, then declare my opponent in favor of Evil.

Is pointing out the following finding of children from gay homes a 'Christian trick'?

"Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."

[kayky]

A mother and a father being optimal would depend largely on the quality of the people involved. But then one can use statistics to prove nearly anything. By the way, I was a working mother. My daughter is now a successful lawyer and all-around great human being. This is also in spite of the fact that I divorced her father when she was 13.

[East of Eden]

A mother and a father being optimal would depend largely on the quality of the people involved. But then one can use statistics to prove nearly anything. By the way, I was a working mother. My daughter is now a successful lawyer and all-around great human being. This is also in spite of the fact that I divorced her father when she was 13.

Good for you, but that doesn't disprove the data on single parenting.

[Ooberman]

Yet another case of Gays being disenfranchised... from Texas

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/18/r ... -children/

You're moving the goalposts, I've already said earlier when I said disenfranchise I meant the common usage of not being allowed to vote as blacks and women were.

It may not fit your definition of disenfranchisement, but it is an egregious injustice nevertheless. This judge should be ashamed of himself and probably be removed from the bench.

The judge thinks children need a mother and father, which I agree with.

Your agreement is not legally relevant. Until such time as we require all children to live with a mother and a father, enforcing this rule reflects a clear and unjustifiable bias, and a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. This action is morally and legally indefensible.

Which parent don't you think kids need, a mom or dad?

Yes or no. Do you think every child should be compelled to live with a heterosexual couple? Would you enforce taking children away from single parents to give to heterosexual couples?


If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it is and exceedingly hypocritical argument to even bring up this question.

The optimal situation is a mother and a father. As far as single parenting, the rate of poverty in single mother households is 26.4% versus 6.4% for two-parent families. Children from single-parent families are twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems as those living with married parents. Studies have showed that children of single parents are more likely to display risky behaviors such as smoking, drinking, delinquency, violence, unsafe sexual activity, and suicide attempts.

Don't you see your fallacy? You say "The optimal is Mother and Father", then you go into Single parent studies.

Because Micatala switched from gay adoption to single parenting.

Why not show the studies that show same-sex parents do just as good a job as different-sex parents?


Or, how about reference the fact that most of human history has been a community, or the clan, raising children - much like we use Daycare, Schools and other institutions to take up the slack?

A clan, meaning both women and men, right? For about all of that human history marriage has also been seen as between men and women.

Surely, the optimal isn't a Mother and Father both staying home with the child. That would be a burden on society, not an advantage.

It wouldn't be a burden for the kids. IMHO daycare = daytime orphanages. If you're not going to raise the kid don't have one.

All in all, the theists who argue against same-sex parenting have no facts, only religious beliefs.

Wrong.

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research

"There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often

If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense"

I'll be looking forward to your retraction of your claim there are no studies showing such results. Maybe that TX judge has more knowledge than you about this.

BTW, I reject the premise that people can't vote based on their religious beliefs, or even their lack of them.

And there's the Gish Gallop...

Let's take the first one.

First, the error in thinking that "being on welfare" is bad. Notice they think there is a causation between being gay parents and being on welfare; as if being raised in a gay family turns you into a ward of the State.

The key point is that people who are gay may also be on welfare. If they adopt a kid, or have one from a previous marriage, it has little to do with their sexuality.\


There is only fear mongering. The implication is that gay parents might turn their kids into welfare kids.

This is unwarranted. Meaning, it is irrational.


Second, there is the implication that sexuality has to do with any of the symptoms of poverty.

It's the same thing the KKK did for blacks: associate being Black with poverty and make it seem both were unacceptable, where in fact, it had nothing to do with race, except in the way blacks were discriminated against by white people.


In this same way, Christians are waging war on other ways to live. They use fear tactics that have nothing to do with the issue.

[East of Eden]

Yet another case of Gays being disenfranchised... from Texas

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/18/r ... -children/

You're moving the goalposts, I've already said earlier when I said disenfranchise I meant the common usage of not being allowed to vote as blacks and women were.

It may not fit your definition of disenfranchisement, but it is an egregious injustice nevertheless. This judge should be ashamed of himself and probably be removed from the bench.

The judge thinks children need a mother and father, which I agree with.

Your agreement is not legally relevant. Until such time as we require all children to live with a mother and a father, enforcing this rule reflects a clear and unjustifiable bias, and a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. This action is morally and legally indefensible.

Which parent don't you think kids need, a mom or dad?

Yes or no. Do you think every child should be compelled to live with a heterosexual couple? Would you enforce taking children away from single parents to give to heterosexual couples?


If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it is and exceedingly hypocritical argument to even bring up this question.

The optimal situation is a mother and a father. As far as single parenting, the rate of poverty in single mother households is 26.4% versus 6.4% for two-parent families. Children from single-parent families are twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems as those living with married parents. Studies have showed that children of single parents are more likely to display risky behaviors such as smoking, drinking, delinquency, violence, unsafe sexual activity, and suicide attempts.

Don't you see your fallacy? You say "The optimal is Mother and Father", then you go into Single parent studies.

Because Micatala switched from gay adoption to single parenting.

Why not show the studies that show same-sex parents do just as good a job as different-sex parents?


Or, how about reference the fact that most of human history has been a community, or the clan, raising children - much like we use Daycare, Schools and other institutions to take up the slack?

A clan, meaning both women and men, right? For about all of that human history marriage has also been seen as between men and women.

Surely, the optimal isn't a Mother and Father both staying home with the child. That would be a burden on society, not an advantage.

It wouldn't be a burden for the kids. IMHO daycare = daytime orphanages. If you're not going to raise the kid don't have one.

All in all, the theists who argue against same-sex parenting have no facts, only religious beliefs.

Wrong.

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research

"There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often

If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense"

I'll be looking forward to your retraction of your claim there are no studies showing such results. Maybe that TX judge has more knowledge than you about this.

BTW, I reject the premise that people can't vote based on their religious beliefs, or even their lack of them.

And there's the Gish Gallop...

Let's take the first one.

First, the error in thinking that "being on welfare" is bad.

Huh, it doesn't matter to you if your child is on the dole or self supporting? It matters to society.

Notice they think there is a causation between being gay parents and being on welfare; as if being raised in a gay family turns you into a ward of the State.

That's what the evidence show, whether you like it or not.

The key point is that people who are gay may also be on welfare. If they adopt a kid, or have one from a previous marriage, it has little to do with their sexuality.\


There is only fear mongering. The implication is that gay parents might turn their kids into welfare kids.

This is unwarranted. Meaning, it is irrational.


Second, there is the implication that sexuality has to do with any of the symptoms of poverty.

It's the same thing the KKK did for blacks: associate being Black with poverty and make it seem both were unacceptable, where in fact, it had nothing to do with race, except in the way blacks were discriminated against by white people.


In this same way, Christians are waging war on other ways to live. They use fear tactics that have nothing to do with the issue.

Curb your hyperbole. Does this means you're waging war on Christians because you have a different viewpoint? Let me go get my helmet.

[Ooberman]

First, the error in thinking that "being on welfare" is bad.

Huh, it doesn't matter to you if your child is on the dole or self supporting? It matters to society.[/quote]

1. This has nothing to do with gay rights.
2. Even if we were arguing against single parenting, I find your line of accusation that being on the dole is bad. Tell that to a single mother who can't pay for food.

What would you prefer? That she starve to death until she can find a husband?

Your line of reasoning is so arrogant.

Now you have a problem with society trying to help less fortunate people?

Notice they think there is a causation between being gay parents and being on welfare; as if being raised in a gay family turns you into a ward of the State.

That's what the evidence show, whether you like it or not.

No! You are purposely lying now! You even admitted this was a shift to single parenting and NOT gay parenting.

You are only trying to score points, not address the topic.

The key point is that people who are gay may also be on welfare. If they adopt a kid, or have one from a previous marriage, it has little to do with their sexuality.\


There is only fear mongering. The implication is that gay parents might turn their kids into welfare kids.

This is unwarranted. Meaning, it is irrational.


Second, there is the implication that sexuality has to do with any of the symptoms of poverty.

It's the same thing the KKK did for blacks: associate being Black with poverty and make it seem both were unacceptable, where in fact, it had nothing to do with race, except in the way blacks were discriminated against by white people.


In this same way, Christians are waging war on other ways to live. They use fear tactics that have nothing to do with the issue.

Curb your hyperbole. Does this means you're waging war on Christians because you have a different viewpoint? Let me go get my helmet.

That a joke is your only response for your utter disregard to stay on topic or make meaningful points is revealing.

I think you owe it to yourself and everyone else to back up and talk specifically about the data that YOU think is against GAY parents, not SINGLE parents.

The fact is, you can't find any significant statistic that means children of gay parents (natural or adopted) fare any worse than any other marginalized minority.


And, yes, I am waging war on that kind of utterly disingenuous Christianity.