Folks like @urbaurba @ACTIVISTDALEK @NotGayDalek @proudliberalmom are getting hysterical on Twitter, joining longtime debater @SearchCz because I said someone should not be pressured to leave their tech job because they supported a mainstream position on marriage laws.
The latest round of tweets:
I don't know why this person thinks my blog postings have any less validity than their own tweets. Statements are either true or not, regardless of who says them or how.
That was in response to me noting that children are best off with a married mother & father. Marc, apparently, is claiming that men bring nothing to personal relationships that women can't bring, and vice-versa. I'd be worried if Marc was my partner.
I never brought up that study. Arguing studies on Twitter is pointless. Marriage neutering advocates like this would never accept any study that shows children are best off with mother+father, and even if they did, would they let that stop their demand for "equality" anyway? Let's get real.
I never said it did.
When I said "Constitution allows treating different kinds of associations differently." This was the response:
When I wrote "Children will have to deal with both sexes. They are best off being raised by both." This was the response:
There is no credible research that says otherwise. It is amazing how a political or personal agenda will allow someone to deny basic reality about biology. Meanwhile, there are many people who identify as gay or lesbian who can see this obvious truth, because they haven't allowed themselves to be usurped into a Leftist agenda.
That was in response to me pointing out that even in pro-gay cultures, marriage was understood to unite the sexes. Ancient Greece, for one.
Are they allowed to get a state marriage license? Yes, because the state needn't pry into their intent. The state already has birth certificates, which still indicate male or female, though I'm sure the wacky gender confusion activists will attack that before too long. Anyway, one male + one female - that requirement can be determined to have been met by state documents. No need to question them about their sexual likes and dislikes, their medical condition, or their intention. Oh, and by the way, many people who say they never wants kids end up having them later, even if by "accident" (which NEVER happens without both a man and a woman - go back to take basic biology courses if you are confused about that.)
Questioning is one thing. Denying basic biology is another.
State governments represent the governed. Laws are enacted either through legislative representatives or direct vote of the people. The people ARE allowed to set limits on marriage licenses. That is why, in some states, first cousins can get a marriage license and in other states they can't, even if they are members of a suspect class/historically oppressed minority.
The people who wrote and adopted the Constitution, including every Amendment, understood marriage as something uniting the sexes. The people who wrote the 14th Amendment would laugh you out the door if you said it required the state to license a brideless "marriage".
I wrote "But we're talking public policy applied to KINDS of associations." To which came the response…
Man+woman is the reproductive kind, even if not all can or will. Absent a man, or absent a woman, it isn't the reproductive kind.
I've gone over all of these things in depth here:
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/p/same-sex-marriage-reviewing-basics.html
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/search/label/marriage%20neutering
The latest round of tweets:
Activist Dalek @ACTIVISTDALEK
YOU ARE HILARIOUS. DO YOU THINK REPEATING YOURSELF IN A BLOG POST MAKES YOU MORE CORRECT OR IS CHANGING ANYONE'S MINDS? #LULZ
I don't know why this person thinks my blog postings have any less validity than their own tweets. Statements are either true or not, regardless of who says them or how.
Marc Abrams @urbaurba
If you are going to claim something is harmful, the burden of proof is on you…
…and saying "It's basic biology" isn't proof of anything.
That was in response to me noting that children are best off with a married mother & father. Marc, apparently, is claiming that men bring nothing to personal relationships that women can't bring, and vice-versa. I'd be worried if Marc was my partner.
Marc Abrams @urbaurba 17hYes, in many cases they are, that is why when someone claims to have a study saying that motherless or fatherless parenting is just as good or even better than mother+father parenting, it isn't valid if the studies didn't compare similarly situated mother+father families, meaning the parents INTENTIONALLY became parents. That was my point.
Same sex couples are the most INTENTIONAL parents.
Marc Abrams @urbaurba
And the most famous anti same sex parenting study out there, Regnerus…
I never brought up that study. Arguing studies on Twitter is pointless. Marriage neutering advocates like this would never accept any study that shows children are best off with mother+father, and even if they did, would they let that stop their demand for "equality" anyway? Let's get real.
Marc Abrams @urbaurba
And obviously, marriage doesn't have to involve children.
I never said it did.
When I said "Constitution allows treating different kinds of associations differently." This was the response:
Marc Abrams @urbaurbaInterracial marriage is not a different kind of association. Skin color is irrelevant to marriage, sex is not.
Like interracial marriage, master-slave associations?
When I wrote "Children will have to deal with both sexes. They are best off being raised by both." This was the response:
Marc Abrams @urbaurba
And you are entitled to your opinion, fortunately actual scientific research doesn't agree.
There is no credible research that says otherwise. It is amazing how a political or personal agenda will allow someone to deny basic reality about biology. Meanwhile, there are many people who identify as gay or lesbian who can see this obvious truth, because they haven't allowed themselves to be usurped into a Leftist agenda.
Marc Abrams @urbaurbaMan+woman = has produced 7 billion currently operating units. Man+man = 0. Woman+woman = 0. Obviously they are different.
Except when it's two women or two men who want to be married? That's not equal right.
Marc Abrams @urbaurba
Which 'pro-gay cultures' are you referring to?
That was in response to me pointing out that even in pro-gay cultures, marriage was understood to unite the sexes. Ancient Greece, for one.
Marc Abrams @urbaurba
Are people who (gasp!) never want kids allowed to marry?
Are they allowed to get a state marriage license? Yes, because the state needn't pry into their intent. The state already has birth certificates, which still indicate male or female, though I'm sure the wacky gender confusion activists will attack that before too long. Anyway, one male + one female - that requirement can be determined to have been met by state documents. No need to question them about their sexual likes and dislikes, their medical condition, or their intention. Oh, and by the way, many people who say they never wants kids end up having them later, even if by "accident" (which NEVER happens without both a man and a woman - go back to take basic biology courses if you are confused about that.)
SearchCz @SearchCz
questioning things once accepted wholesale=universally praiseworthy
Questioning is one thing. Denying basic biology is another.
SearchCz @SearchCz
licenses issued on behalf of the entire state, not just a sampling of voters.
State governments represent the governed. Laws are enacted either through legislative representatives or direct vote of the people. The people ARE allowed to set limits on marriage licenses. That is why, in some states, first cousins can get a marriage license and in other states they can't, even if they are members of a suspect class/historically oppressed minority.
Marc Abrams @urbaurba
And rights based on the US Constitution, not popular opinion, the bible or any other religious text.
The people who wrote and adopted the Constitution, including every Amendment, understood marriage as something uniting the sexes. The people who wrote the 14th Amendment would laugh you out the door if you said it required the state to license a brideless "marriage".
SearchCz @SearchCzIt's not marriage equality, but neutering marriage enshrines in public policy that marriage laws are about the subjective feelings of people, not about children. That is going to have an impact on law and culture. Children will lose.
the encouragement to marry, then parent, remains with marriage equality
I wrote "But we're talking public policy applied to KINDS of associations." To which came the response…
SearchCz @SearchCz 16h
like the kind that joins without any chance of reproducing?
Man+woman is the reproductive kind, even if not all can or will. Absent a man, or absent a woman, it isn't the reproductive kind.
I've gone over all of these things in depth here:
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/p/same-sex-marriage-reviewing-basics.html
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/search/label/marriage%20neutering
Who pressured Eich to resign?
ReplyDeleteCan you explain why the state's interest in how children are raised ought to be concerned with whether or not the adults in question produced the children in question?
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that the state ALREADY freely sanctions 2nd marriages in which children will be raised by a biological parent and a step-parent.