It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
They don't simply "find out". It is estimated that more than 75% of homosexual men were sexually abused by men as children. When there are recruitment efforts in the schools, that contributes as well.
You need to start providing links for your claims.
I know in past threads you've used both outdated and discredited sources.
. . . a genetic link has long been considered the most likely cause of left-handedness yet a specific gene has until now remained elusive. This is the first potential genetic influence on human handedness to be identified, and the first putative genetic effect on variability in human brain asymmetry. LRRTM1 is a candidate gene for involvement in several common neurodevelopmental disorders, and may have played a role in human cognitive and behavioral evolution. www.anythinglefthanded.co.uk...
This is why sociology professor Paul Amato, chair of the Family section of the American Sociological Association and president-elect of the National Council on Family Relations, wrote that the Regnerus study was “better situated than virtually all previous studies to detect differences between these [different family] groups in the population. . . .
We are disappointed that many media outlets have not done their due diligence in investigating the scientific validity of prior studies, and acknowledging the superiority of Regnerus’s sample to most previous research.
another study, recently published in the Journal of Marriage and Family comes to conclusions that parallel those of Regnerus’s study. This study finds that “children in same-sex parent families scored lower than their peers in married, 2-biological parent households” on two academic outcomes, and that these baseline differences can probably be attributed in part to higher levels of family instability in same-sex families, compared to intact, biological married families. This study was also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey of school-age children; moreover, the same-sex parents in this study lived together. The parallels between the findings in this study and Regnerus’s study call into question the New Republic’s claim that the Regnerus study “gets everything wrong.”
Amato was arguably the most prominent sociologist involved in scandal: He is the President Elect of the National Council on Family Relations, the leading professional association for family scholars; he has been chair of the Family Section of the American Sociological Association; and he has a named chair at Penn State University, where he is a Distinguished Professor. We know from his own commentary on the study in Social Science Research that Amato was a paid consultant to Regnerus (confirmed by UT-released documents). In that commentary, he cautioned that Regnerus’s results shouldn’t be used to undermine gay and lesbian civil rights, but he also lent legitimacy to the study and did not criticize its obvious flaws. I have seen the emails between Amato and Mark Regnerus that Scott Rose writes about here, which were obtained through public records document requests. familyinequality.wordpress.com...
If the constitution does not speak about marriage, then the entire matter is open to debate and invalidates the idea that gay marriage is an ''equal rights'' issue. Of course, the media, the gay movement and its backers will continue to use emotional arguments and name calling as opposed to objectivity and reason.
originally posted by: macman
a reply to: kaylaluv
Your use of the 14th is not valid in this.
First, the Constitution states nothing in regards to marriage.
There is no "right" to marry someone. Marriage was a religious standing.
originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
If the constitution does not speak about marriage, then the entire matter is open to debate and invalidates the idea that gay marriage is an ''equal rights'' issue. Of course, the media, the gay movement and its backers will continue to use emotional arguments and name calling as opposed to objectivity and reason.
originally posted by: macman
a reply to: kaylaluv
Your use of the 14th is not valid in this.
First, the Constitution states nothing in regards to marriage.
There is no "right" to marry someone. Marriage was a religious standing.
and you need to tell me ''equal rights'' according to who or what...and if their definition included the ''equal rights'' of gays to get ''married''.
I didn't say anything about gay people getting married. I asked you ..... should humans all have equal rights?
originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
you need to tell me ''equal rights'' according to who or what..
.and if their definition included the ''equal rights'' of gays to get ''married''.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Well, no "hopes", other than that people could be helped. I believe a lot of the emotional issues many homosexuals have are a part of the cause, and could be alleviated if that could be. I want help for that the same as for any other problem.
When you told your mother you were "gay", did she think that was what she'd sensed, at the time you told her?
Do you remember when you first started having any sexual interest at all?
YOUR source cites ''race, nationality and religion'' as limitations, NOT sexual orientation. Thus ''equal rights'' as far as marriage is concerned...does not extend to include those with strange sexual orientations. Next.
@flyersfan.... here is a statement from the United Nations on how 'equal rights' is APPLIED to humans.
Declaration of Human Rights - United Nations General Assembly December 10 1948
Some excerpts -
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
''equal rights'' does not extend to include those with strange sexual orientations.
originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
you posted UN literature and we see that does not include sexual orientation as a limitation. From YOUR OWN source, we see that ''equal rights'' as far as marriage is concerned does not extend to homosexuals who want to ''marry''.
did I say I dont know what the word ''equal'' means? Please link us to the exact post. refresh my memory . Or I will report your post.
originally posted by: FlyersFan
originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
you posted UN literature and we see that does not include sexual orientation as a limitation. From YOUR OWN source, we see that ''equal rights'' as far as marriage is concerned does not extend to homosexuals who want to ''marry''.
YOU said you don't know what the word 'equal' means
originally posted by: Annee
No one ever asks or questions why states were given the right to Marriage laws. I personally find that interesting.
originally posted by: Annee
State Marriage laws are definitely one of those things some love to bring up in this type discussion.
originally posted by: Annee
The state rights of marriage was purely discriminatory to begin with. It gave communities the right to pick and choose who they wanted to live in their little social structure, and the right to exclude those they didn't.
originally posted by: Annee
However, Federal laws against discrimination trump all state laws. That's where the Constitution comes in (14th amendment).
originally posted by: Annee
While states will still have the right of Marriage laws, such as age, blood tests, etc -- they will not be able to deny a couple from getting married because of who they are.
originally posted by: Annee
Once LGBT are included as a Federally protected minority, which they will be, people like Big Earl will have no legal standing in actions against his view of Men not acting as Men. Or a personal view of illicit behavior -- unless that view is consistent across the board of all his customers.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: macman
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: macman
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman
It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.
The Constitution does not grant the right or the privilege to marry. It is therefore left up the the State to decide. This is very clearly defined.
It doesn't have to specify marriage -- it deals with any and all privileges, generally speaking.
It doesn't have to specify?????
This truly is mind boggling.
So, how can a state restrict someone with poor eyesight from driving?
It isn't implied nor addressed in the Constitution, and according to you, doesn't need to be specifically addressed.
Because driving with poor eyesight can hurt or kill others - the reason protects the general public. Now you are talking about the public's right to life, which IS specifically addressed in the Constitution. Not allowing two gays to marry each other because being gay is "icky" is simply discrimination.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: macman
It doesn't have to specify?????
This truly is mind boggling.
That's right. It doesn't have to specify. Can you show me where the Constitution specifies our right to vote? No, you cannot. Because the Constitution does not grant us the right to vote.