Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It

[David Hartung]

Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.

There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3

Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu

[...]
Abstract
Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it
rejects these truths. Marriage is society�s least restrictive means of
ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of
marriage�monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence�the state
strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
[...]

[raven1]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:12:57 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
wrote:

>Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.

Which might be valid if marriage's sole agreed-upon definition was the
union of one man and one woman, which it demonstrably is not, and you
can ask a Mormon or a Muslim if you don't want to take my word for it.

[Dakota]

From the link:

State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and
women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children.
---
Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
offers little protection for children. Marriage itself doesn't require
people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.

[jane]

On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> > There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>

> >http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-...

>
> > Or:http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> > [...]
> > Abstract
> > Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
> > the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman,
> > and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining
> > marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of

> > marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least

> > restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By

> > encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and
> > permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own

> > role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.
> > The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is
> > and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not
> > undermine, true marriage.
> > [...]
>
>  From the link:
>
> State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and
> women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children.
> ---
> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
> offers little protection for children. Marriage itself doesn't require
> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.

We currently have a 50% divorce rate. I don't think that "State
recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.

[wy]

Yeah, but don't tell Hartung that, he won't believe you.

[David Hartung]

On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>> ---
>> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved

>> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't require

>> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
>> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.
>
> We currently have a 50% divorce rate. I don't think that "State
> recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.

The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said in
another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the broken
family, we fix many of our society's problems.

From the article:
[...]
A study published by the left-leaning research institution Child Trends
concluded:

[I]t is not simply the presence of two parents…but the presence of
two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.[10]

[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for
children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a
family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers,
and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher
risks of poor outcomes.… There is thus value for children in promoting
strong, stable marriages between biological parents.[11]

According to another study, “[t]he advantage of marriage appears to
exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both
parents.”[12] Recent literature reviews conducted by the Brookings
Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs at Princeton University, the Center for Law and Social Policy,
and the Institute for American Values corroborate the importance of
intact households for children.[13]

These statistics have penetrated American life to such a great extent
that even President Barack Obama refers to them as well known:

We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father
are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine
times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to
end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or
run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the
foundations of our community are weaker because of it.[14]

Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and
children.

Social science claiming to show that there are “no differences” in
outcomes for children raised in same-sex households does not change this
reality. In fact, the most recent, sophisticated studies suggest that
prior research is inadequate to support the assertion that it makes “no
difference” whether a child was raised by same-sex parents.[15] A survey
of 59 of the most prominent studies often cited for this claim shows
that they drew primarily from small convenience samples that are not
appropriate for generalizations to the whole population.[16]

Meanwhile, recent studies using rigorous methods and robust samples
confirm that children do better when raised by a married mother and
father. These include the New Family Structures Study by Professor Mark
Regnerus at the University of Texas–Austin [17] and a report based on
Census data recently released in the highly respected journal
Demography.[18]
[...]

[wy]

On 21 Mar, 15:00, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >> ---
> >> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
> >> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't require
> >> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
> >> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.
>
> > We currently have a 50% divorce rate.  I don't think that "State
> > recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
>
> The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said in
> another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the broken
> family, we fix many of our society's problems.

It's not just fixing the family, it's fixing any of the hundreds of
things that cause a broken family, from infidelity to mental and
physical disabilities to poverty and joblessnes to abuse to tons of
other stuff. The way it gets fixed is through therapy or health
services, which cost MONEY, lots of it. No money, no fixing. Not to
mention that there's a shortage of people and resources in those areas
who'd be in a position to help all those broken families. If half of
marriages end in divorce and half of the other half having ongoing
rough spots, then you're looking at fixing about 40 million
marriages. Where are you going to find enough people and resources to
fix them all at the same time? It's easier just to break off the
marriage and move on with your life and find happiness elsewhere. In
fact, often people will find happier marriages the second or even
third time around. So you wan to deny people the pursuit of
happiness, is that it?

[raven1]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:00:50 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
wrote:

>On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>> ---
>>> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
>>> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't require
>>> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
>>> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.
>>
>> We currently have a 50% divorce rate. I don't think that "State
>> recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
>
>The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said in
>another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the broken
>family, we fix many of our society's problems.

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. But it doesn't
strike me that preventing same-sex couples from marrying does anything
to "fix the broken family". Quite the opposite, in fact.

[JTEM]

David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
[---idiocy---]

Solutions map to problems while
cheap rationalizations borne on
ignorance fail to solve the problem.

Here's how you expose your views as
nothing more than cheap rationalizations:

Two gay men marrying doesn't stop a child
from having parents. Two gay men marrying
doesn't stop anyone from reproducing, it
can't stop anyone from forming a family.

Simply put: Denying a gay couple the right
to marry doesn't help a single child, not
even in your incredibly narrow sense of "Help."

What would?

Banning divorce. Banning gay marriage won't
provide nor preserve a single nuclear family
for any child, but banning divorce would. You
could also...

Mandate children. Banning gay marriage doesn't
preserve let along create a single nuclear
family, but requiring heterosexual couples to
have children as a condition of marriage would.
It would force some couples to reproduce, which
is what you claim marriage is all about. You
should also...

Mandate birth control before marriage. Denying
gay citizens equal access to all government
institutions doesn't preserve nor create a single
nuclear family, but requiring all heterosexuals to
practice birth control prior to marriage would. You
can't have out-of-wedlock babies if you can't get
pregnant. Thus, the only babies that will ever be
born will be to legally married adults of mixed
gender couples.

Now what WON'T preserve/promote nuclear families?
Denying gay couples their equal right! What will
preserve/promote nuclear families? Denying
heterosexual couples the right to divorce... or the
choice on whether or not to reproduce.

YOUR solution -- denying gay couples their rights
as citizens -- doesn't address the problem AS YOU
HAVE LAID IT OUT.

Idiot.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[plainolamerican]

On Mar 21, 12:12 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>

> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-...

>
> Or:http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> [...]
> Abstract
> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of

> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

> marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state

> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
> [...]

only religious myth believers persecute gays.

[Syd M.]

On Mar 21, 1:12 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
>

AKA, more homophobic propaganda.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Mar 21, 3:00 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >> ---
> >> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
> >> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't require
> >> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
> >> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.
>
> > We currently have a 50% divorce rate.  I don't think that "State
> > recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
>
> The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said in
> another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the broken
> family, we fix many of our society's problems.
>
>

Nice ten-cent sentiment.
Too bad it's BS.

PDW

[Joe Cooper]

raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in
news:gngmk812916r74ip1...@4ax.com:

To me, marriage is a social sanctioning of procreation. Hard to
accomplish that goal with same-sex unions.

I'm not opposed to same-sex contractual unions - I simply reserve the
term "marriage" for sanctioned procreation.

--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/
More than 146 million Americans were employed back in 2007. Now, only
142.2 million Americans have a job even though our population has grown.
Where in the world is this "economic recovery" that proggies keep talking
about?

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
> raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in
> news:gngmk812916r74ip1...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:12:57 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>
>> Which might be valid if marriage's sole agreed-upon definition was the
>> union of one man and one woman, which it demonstrably is not, and you
>> can ask a Mormon or a Muslim if you don't want to take my word for it.
>
> To me, marriage is a social sanctioning of procreation. Hard to
> accomplish that goal with same-sex unions.
>
> I'm not opposed to same-sex contractual unions - I simply reserve the
> term "marriage" for sanctioned procreation.

What do you call it when a man and a woman get married but decide not to have
any kids?

--
(` |) | Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
_) |) | -- Pablo Picasso
a.a #2171 |

[David Hartung]

Nice way to shut down a discussion, to call your opponent "homophobic"
or "bigoted". It also exposes your own intellectual sloth.

[wy]

Accusing another of intellectual sloth? This comgin from the one who
has mastered it himself?

[Syd M.]

Well, when the shoe fits, asshole.

PDW

[David Hartung]

Have a nice day sir.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <-Nqdndd5SIcHotbM...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:

> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-ma
> tters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3

The Heritage Foundation??? Seriously?

> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> [...]
> Abstract
> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> rejects these truths. Marriage is societyąs least restrictive means of

> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

> marriage‹monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence‹the state

> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
> [...]

And how does marriage between gays violate any of those things?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <T5SdnajVnLd-xdbM...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:

> On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >> ---
> >> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
> >> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't require
> >> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
> >> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.
> >
> > We currently have a 50% divorce rate. I don't think that "State
> > recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
>
> The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said in
> another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the broken
> family, we fix many of our society's problems.

Please tell us you're not one of those douchebags who wants to ban
divorce, or at least make it much harder to obtain.

> From the article:
> [...]
> A study published by the left-leaning research institution Child Trends
> concluded:
>

> [I]t is not simply the presence of two parentsŠbut the presence of

> two biological parents that seems to support children¹s development.[10]

Way to insult adoptive families.

Why do the parents have to be biological? Shouldn't how loving a parent
is be more important than biology?

Otherwise, you might as well kill all the orphans. That's the logical
extension of that stupid argument.

> [R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for
> children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a
> family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
> Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers,
> and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher

> risks of poor outcomes.Š There is thus value for children in promoting

> strong, stable marriages between biological parents.[11]
>
> According to another study, ³[t]he advantage of marriage appears to
> exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both
> parents.²[12] Recent literature reviews conducted by the Brookings
> Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
> Affairs at Princeton University, the Center for Law and Social Policy,
> and the Institute for American Values corroborate the importance of
> intact households for children.[13]
>
> These statistics have penetrated American life to such a great extent
> that even President Barack Obama refers to them as well known:
>
> We know the statistics‹that children who grow up without a father
> are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine
> times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to
> end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or
> run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the
> foundations of our community are weaker because of it.[14]

Is this because of only one parent in the home or is it because a single
parent of the female persuasion is far too often living in poverty?

> Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and
> children.
>
> Social science claiming to show that there are ³no differences² in
> outcomes for children raised in same-sex households does not change this
> reality.

Facts don't change reality? Really?

> In fact, the most recent, sophisticated studies suggest that
> prior research is inadequate to support the assertion that it makes ³no
> difference² whether a child was raised by same-sex parents.[15] A survey
> of 59 of the most prominent studies often cited for this claim shows
> that they drew primarily from small convenience samples that are not
> appropriate for generalizations to the whole population.[16]
>
> Meanwhile, recent studies using rigorous methods and robust samples
> confirm that children do better when raised by a married mother and
> father. These include the New Family Structures Study by Professor Mark
> Regnerus at the University of Texas­Austin [17] and a report based on
> Census data recently released in the highly respected journal
> Demography.[18]
> [...]

You have all these references mentioned in the text you illegally pasted
in, but you chose not to include the actual references. Why is that?

[wy]

On 21 Mar, 18:42, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <T5SdnajVnLd-xdbMnZ2dnUVZ_rudn...@giganews.com>,

>  David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
> > On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
> > > On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> > >> ---
> > >> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
> > >> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't require
> > >> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
> > >> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.
>
> > > We currently have a 50% divorce rate.  I don't think that "State
> > > recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
>
> > The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said in
> > another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the broken
> > family, we fix many of our society's problems.
>
> Please tell us you're not one of those douchebags who wants to ban
> divorce, or at least make it much harder to obtain.

He is.

>
> >  From the article:
> > [...]
> > A study published by the left-leaning research institution Child Trends
> > concluded:
>

> >      [I]t is not simply the presence of two parents but the presence of

> > two biological parents that seems to support children s development.[10]
>
> Way to insult adoptive families.
>
> Why do the parents have to be biological? Shouldn't how loving a parent
> is be more important than biology?
>
> Otherwise, you might as well kill all the orphans. That's the logical
> extension of that stupid argument.

Go easy on Hartung. He's already admitted that all his ideas are just
a hodge podge of thoughts that he's never been able to elegantly
articulate. He really doesn't think through things very well, the
Mississippi sun he lives under has a way of always just melting his
thinking into a soup of nonsense because the heat just saps all his
mental energy.

> >      [R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for
> > children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a
> > family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
> > Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers,
> > and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher

> > risks of poor outcomes. There is thus value for children in promoting

> > strong, stable marriages between biological parents.[11]
>
> > According to another study, [t]he advantage of marriage appears to
> > exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both
> > parents. [12] Recent literature reviews conducted by the Brookings
> > Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
> > Affairs at Princeton University, the Center for Law and Social Policy,
> > and the Institute for American Values corroborate the importance of
> > intact households for children.[13]
>
> > These statistics have penetrated American life to such a great extent
> > that even President Barack Obama refers to them as well known:
>
> >      We know the statistics that children who grow up without a father
> > are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine
> > times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to
> > end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or
> > run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the
> > foundations of our community are weaker because of it.[14]
>
> Is this because of only one parent in the home or is it because a single
> parent of the female persuasion is far too often living in poverty?

Well, just looking at Dr. Phil, you'd think half of married Americans
are raising screwed up kids because most of those married American
parents are screwed up themselves. There's your foundation for a
solid traditional family unit.

>
> > Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and
> > children.
>
> > Social science claiming to show that there are no differences in
> > outcomes for children raised in same-sex households does not change this
> > reality.
>
> Facts don't change reality? Really?

In Hartung's backwards, upside down, cock-eyed koo tunnelvision
universe, yes. The only real facts are the ones that favor his wobbly
views on life.

>
> > In fact, the most recent, sophisticated studies suggest that
> > prior research is inadequate to support the assertion that it makes no
> > difference whether a child was raised by same-sex parents.[15] A survey
> > of 59 of the most prominent studies often cited for this claim shows
> > that they drew primarily from small convenience samples that are not
> > appropriate for generalizations to the whole population.[16]
>
> > Meanwhile, recent studies using rigorous methods and robust samples
> > confirm that children do better when raised by a married mother and
> > father. These include the New Family Structures Study by Professor Mark
> > Regnerus at the University of Texas Austin [17] and a report based on
> > Census data recently released in the highly respected journal
> > Demography.[18]
> > [...]
>
> You have all these references mentioned in the text you illegally pasted
> in, but you chose not to include the actual references. Why is that?

The Mississippi sun made him lazy.

[Don Kresch]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:12:57 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>

scrawled in blood:

>Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.

So why are you trying? Marriage is a contract between
consenting individuals. Your attempt to define it narrowly as one man
and one woman will not stand.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Mar 21, 8:57 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:12:57 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> scrawled in blood:
>
> >Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
>         So why are you trying? Marriage is a contract between
> consenting individuals. Your attempt to define it narrowly as one man
> and one woman will not stand.

More woman, yes

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 21, 10:12 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>

> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-...

>
> Or:http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> [...]

> Abstract
> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> rejects these truths. Marriage is society?s least restrictive means of

> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

> marriage?monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence?the state

> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.

If any heterosexual married couple devalues their own
marriage, thinks less of it and is less committed to it
because Josh and Earl can get married too, then Josh
and Earl weren't actually the underlying problem.

Are you somehow going to regard your own wife in a
different light the day gay marriage becomes leagl in
your state, if that day comes? What about your children?


NBL

[David Hartung]

On 03/21/2013 05:42 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> You have all these references mentioned in the text you illegally pasted
> in, but you chose not to include the actual references. Why is that?

Read the entire paper.

[David Hartung]

On 03/21/2013 05:35 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <-Nqdndd5SIcHotbM...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>
>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>
>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-ma
>> tters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>
> The Heritage Foundation??? Seriously?
>
>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>
>> [...]
>> Abstract
>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society�s least restrictive means of

>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

>> marriage�monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence�the state

>> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
>> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
>> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
>> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
>> [...]
>
> And how does marriage between gays violate any of those things?

Again, read the article.

[David Hartung]

On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>
>

> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> [...]
> Abstract
> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of

> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

> marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state

> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
> [...]

I posted this about 8 hours ago and rather predictably, few of the
responses have attempted to address the points made in the paper. Most
posters have ignored the article and reverted to fact free attacks and
name calling. What makes this so very funny is that those who engage in
the name calling have the gall to hold themselves as morally superior.

The Supreme Court will very likely overturn Proposition 8, will make
same sex marriage legal in the entire country. This will not be the end
of the story. I suspect that by the time my grandkids are the age I am
now, history classes will be talking about the legalization of same sex
marriage the same way it now talks about Dred Scott.

[Uncle Vic]

sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org> wrote in
news:kifr6l$iro$1...@dont-email.me:

> In alt.atheism Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>> raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in
>> news:gngmk812916r74ip1...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:12:57 -0500, David Hartung
>>> <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>>
>>> Which might be valid if marriage's sole agreed-upon definition was
>>> the union of one man and one woman, which it demonstrably is not,
>>> and you can ask a Mormon or a Muslim if you don't want to take my
>>> word for it.
>>
>> To me, marriage is a social sanctioning of procreation. Hard to
>> accomplish that goal with same-sex unions.
>>
>> I'm not opposed to same-sex contractual unions - I simply reserve the
>> term "marriage" for sanctioned procreation.
>
> What do you call it when a man and a woman get married but decide not
> to have any kids?
>

Sanity?

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Dakota]

On 3/21/2013 2:00 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>> ---
>>> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
>>> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't
>>> require
>>> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
>>> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for
>>> them.
>>
>> We currently have a 50% divorce rate. I don't think that "State
>> recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
>
> The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said
> in another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the
> broken family, we fix many of our society's problems.
>
> From the article:
> [...]
> A study published by the left-leaning research institution Child
> Trends concluded:
>

> [I]t is not simply the presence of two parents�but the presence
> of two biological parents that seems to support children�s

> development.[10]
>
> [R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for
> children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a
> family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
> Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried
> mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face

> higher risks of poor outcomes.� There is thus value for children in

> promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.[11]
>

> According to another study, �[t]he advantage of marriage appears to

> exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both

> parents.�[12] Recent literature reviews conducted by the Brookings

> Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
> Affairs at Princeton University, the Center for Law and Social Policy,
> and the Institute for American Values corroborate the importance of
> intact households for children.[13]
>
> These statistics have penetrated American life to such a great extent
> that even President Barack Obama refers to them as well known:
>

> We know the statistics�that children who grow up without a father

> are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine
> times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely
> to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems,
> or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the
> foundations of our community are weaker because of it.[14]
>
> Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and
> children.
>

> Social science claiming to show that there are �no differences� in

> outcomes for children raised in same-sex households does not change
> this reality. In fact, the most recent, sophisticated studies suggest
> that prior research is inadequate to support the assertion that it

> makes �no difference� whether a child was raised by same-sex

> parents.[15] A survey of 59 of the most prominent studies often cited
> for this claim shows that they drew primarily from small convenience
> samples that are not appropriate for generalizations to the whole
> population.[16]
>
> Meanwhile, recent studies using rigorous methods and robust samples
> confirm that children do better when raised by a married mother and
> father. These include the New Family Structures Study by Professor

> Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas�Austin [17] and a report

> based on Census data recently released in the highly respected journal
> Demography.[18]
> [...]
>
>

Dave "forgot" to include a link to the source of this screed. Not
surprisingly, it comes from a right wing organization.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

or

http://tinyurl.com/alxoo6z

[Dakota]

On 3/21/2013 2:00 PM, David Hartung wrote:

> On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>> ---
>>> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
>>> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't
>>> require
>>> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
>>> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for
>>> them.
>>
>> We currently have a 50% divorce rate. I don't think that "State
>> recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
>
> The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said
> in another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the
> broken family, we fix many of our society's problems.
>
> From the article:
> [...]
> A study published by the left-leaning research institution Child
> Trends concluded:
>

> [I]t is not simply the presence of two parents�but the presence
> of two biological parents that seems to support children�s

> development.[10]
>
> [R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for
> children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a
> family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
> Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried
> mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face

> higher risks of poor outcomes.� There is thus value for children in

> promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.[11]
>

> According to another study, �[t]he advantage of marriage appears to

> exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both

> parents.�[12] Recent literature reviews conducted by the Brookings

> Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
> Affairs at Princeton University, the Center for Law and Social Policy,
> and the Institute for American Values corroborate the importance of
> intact households for children.[13]
>
> These statistics have penetrated American life to such a great extent
> that even President Barack Obama refers to them as well known:
>

> We know the statistics�that children who grow up without a father

> are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine
> times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely
> to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems,
> or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the
> foundations of our community are weaker because of it.[14]
>
> Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and
> children.
>

> Social science claiming to show that there are �no differences� in

> outcomes for children raised in same-sex households does not change
> this reality. In fact, the most recent, sophisticated studies suggest
> that prior research is inadequate to support the assertion that it

> makes �no difference� whether a child was raised by same-sex

> parents.[15] A survey of 59 of the most prominent studies often cited
> for this claim shows that they drew primarily from small convenience
> samples that are not appropriate for generalizations to the whole
> population.[16]
>
> Meanwhile, recent studies using rigorous methods and robust samples
> confirm that children do better when raised by a married mother and
> father. These include the New Family Structures Study by Professor

> Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas�Austin [17] and a report

[wy]

On 21 Mar, 23:23, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 05:35 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <-Nqdndd5SIcHotbMnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@giganews.com>,

> >   David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
> >> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> >> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>

> >>http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-...

> >> tters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>
> > The Heritage Foundation??? Seriously?
>
> >> Or:http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> >> [...]
> >> Abstract
> >> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
> >> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> >> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> >> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> >> rejects these truths. Marriage is society s least restrictive means of

> >> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

> >> marriage monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence the state

> >> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> >> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> >> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> >> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
> >> [...]
>
> > And how does marriage between gays violate any of those things?
>
> Again, read the article.

Yeah, Jeanne, read the article and do it over and over and over again
until it sinks into you exactly the way it did for Hartung - with that
warm and fuzzy feeling in his tummy at having found something just as
compatibly erroneous in its views as his own.

[David Hartung]

On 03/21/2013 10:36 PM, Dakota wrote:
> On 3/21/2013 2:00 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
>>> On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ---
>>>> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
>>>> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't
>>>> require
>>>> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
>>>> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> We currently have a 50% divorce rate. I don't think that "State
>>> recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
>>
>> The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said
>> in another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the
>> broken family, we fix many of our society's problems.
>>
>> From the article:
>> [...]
>> A study published by the left-leaning research institution Child
>> Trends concluded:
>>

>> [I]t is not simply the presence of two parents…but the presence
>> of two biological parents that seems to support children’s

>> development.[10]
>>
>> [R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for
>> children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a
>> family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
>> Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried
>> mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face

>> higher risks of poor outcomes.… There is thus value for children in

>> promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.[11]
>>

>> According to another study, “[t]he advantage of marriage appears to

>> exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both

>> parents.”[12] Recent literature reviews conducted by the Brookings

>> Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
>> Affairs at Princeton University, the Center for Law and Social Policy,
>> and the Institute for American Values corroborate the importance of
>> intact households for children.[13]
>>
>> These statistics have penetrated American life to such a great extent
>> that even President Barack Obama refers to them as well known:
>>

>> We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father

>> are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine
>> times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely
>> to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems,
>> or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the
>> foundations of our community are weaker because of it.[14]
>>
>> Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and
>> children.
>>

>> Social science claiming to show that there are “no differences” in

>> outcomes for children raised in same-sex households does not change
>> this reality. In fact, the most recent, sophisticated studies suggest
>> that prior research is inadequate to support the assertion that it

>> makes “no difference” whether a child was raised by same-sex

>> parents.[15] A survey of 59 of the most prominent studies often cited
>> for this claim shows that they drew primarily from small convenience
>> samples that are not appropriate for generalizations to the whole
>> population.[16]
>>
>> Meanwhile, recent studies using rigorous methods and robust samples
>> confirm that children do better when raised by a married mother and
>> father. These include the New Family Structures Study by Professor

>> Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas–Austin [17] and a report

>> based on Census data recently released in the highly respected journal
>> Demography.[18]
>> [...]
>>
>>
> Dave "forgot" to include a link to the source of this screed. Not
> surprisingly, it comes from a right wing organization.
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it
>
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/alxoo6z

May I respectfully suggest that you look at the post which began this
thread?

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 21, 10:30 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:12:57 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>

> Which might be valid if marriage's sole agreed-upon definition was the
> union of one man and one woman, which it demonstrably is not, and you
> can ask a Mormon or a Muslim if you don't want to take my word for it.

Or the biblical patriarchs, many of which had more than one wife.
Even in the New Testament, Paul of Tarsus admonishes his flock that
bishops "should have only one wife," alluding to the fact that many
early christians had more than one.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 21, 12:00 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >> ---
> >> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
> >> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't require
> >> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
> >> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.
>
> > We currently have a 50% divorce rate.  I don't think that "State
> > recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
>
> The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said in
> another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the broken
> family, we fix many of our society's problems.

If you make divorce difficult, the end result is that the murder rate
goes up. There's absolutely nothing to be gained from making
incompatible men and women stay together "for the children."

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 21, 10:12 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>

> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-...
>

> Or:http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> [...]
> Abstract
> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it
> rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of
> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of
> marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state
> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
> [...]

Actually, children don't need a father, per se. There are many
matriarchal societies, like that of the traditional Navajo, where the
male role model is filled by a member of the mother's family, usually
by her brothers. In traditional times, it was fairly common for the
father not to even live in the mother's hogan.

What children need are male and female care-gives that model
appropriate behavior for *that* *particular* *culture*. There's
nothing magical about being egg- or sperm-donors - if there was,
adoption would never be successful.

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 05:35 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <-Nqdndd5SIcHotbMnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@giganews.com>,

> >   David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
> >> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> >> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>

> >>http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-...

> >> tters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>
> > The Heritage Foundation??? Seriously?
>
> >> Or:http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> >> [...]
> >> Abstract
> >> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
> >> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> >> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> >> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> >> rejects these truths. Marriage is society s least restrictive means of

> >> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

> >> marriage monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence the state

> >> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> >> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> >> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> >> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
> >> [...]
>
> > And how does marriage between gays violate any of those things?
>
> Again, read the article.

As an adopted child who did *not* grow up with her "biological"
parents, I don't need to read the article. I know it's hooey if it
says that biological parents are any better than adoptive parents at
raising a child.

[Dakota]

On 3/21/2013 10:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>
>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>
>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>>
>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>
>> [...]
>> Abstract
>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
>> the
>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society�s least restrictive means of

>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

>> marriage�monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence�the state

>> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
>> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
>> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
>> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true
>> marriage.
>> [...]
>
> I posted this about 8 hours ago and rather predictably, few of the
> responses have attempted to address the points made in the paper. Most
> posters have ignored the article and reverted to fact free attacks and
> name calling. What makes this so very funny is that those who engage
> in the name calling have the gall to hold themselves as morally superior.
>
> The Supreme Court will very likely overturn Proposition 8, will make
> same sex marriage legal in the entire country. This will not be the
> end of the story. I suspect that by the time my grandkids are the age
> I am now, history classes will be talking about the legalization of
> same sex marriage the same way it now talks about Dred Scott.

At least you realize that you're on the losing side, Dave. That should
tell you something.

[Dakota]

On 3/21/2013 11:10 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 10:36 PM, Dakota wrote:
>> On 3/21/2013 2:00 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
>>>> On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily
>>>>> dissolved
>>>>> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't
>>>>> require
>>>>> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried
>>>>> people who
>>>>> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> We currently have a 50% divorce rate. I don't think that "State
>>>> recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
>>>
>>> The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said
>>> in another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the
>>> broken family, we fix many of our society's problems.
>>>
>>> From the article:
>>> [...]
>>> A study published by the left-leaning research institution Child
>>> Trends concluded:
>>>

>>> [I]t is not simply the presence of two parents�but the presence
>>> of two biological parents that seems to support children�s

>>> development.[10]
>>>
>>> [R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for
>>> children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a
>>> family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
>>> Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried
>>> mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face

>>> higher risks of poor outcomes.� There is thus value for children in

>>> promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.[11]
>>>

>>> According to another study, �[t]he advantage of marriage appears to

>>> exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both

>>> parents.�[12] Recent literature reviews conducted by the Brookings

>>> Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
>>> Affairs at Princeton University, the Center for Law and Social Policy,
>>> and the Institute for American Values corroborate the importance of
>>> intact households for children.[13]
>>>
>>> These statistics have penetrated American life to such a great extent
>>> that even President Barack Obama refers to them as well known:
>>>

>>> We know the statistics�that children who grow up without a father

>>> are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine
>>> times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely
>>> to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems,
>>> or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the
>>> foundations of our community are weaker because of it.[14]
>>>
>>> Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and
>>> children.
>>>

>>> Social science claiming to show that there are �no differences� in

>>> outcomes for children raised in same-sex households does not change
>>> this reality. In fact, the most recent, sophisticated studies suggest
>>> that prior research is inadequate to support the assertion that it

>>> makes �no difference� whether a child was raised by same-sex

>>> parents.[15] A survey of 59 of the most prominent studies often cited
>>> for this claim shows that they drew primarily from small convenience
>>> samples that are not appropriate for generalizations to the whole
>>> population.[16]
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, recent studies using rigorous methods and robust samples
>>> confirm that children do better when raised by a married mother and
>>> father. These include the New Family Structures Study by Professor

>>> Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas�Austin [17] and a report

>>> based on Census data recently released in the highly respected journal
>>> Demography.[18]
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>> Dave "forgot" to include a link to the source of this screed. Not
>> surprisingly, it comes from a right wing organization.
>>
>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it
>>
>>
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/alxoo6z
>
> May I respectfully suggest that you look at the post which began this
> thread?

You're right. Sorry.

[HHW]

On Mar 21, 12:35 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 3/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> > > Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> > > There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>

> > >http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-...

>
> > > Or:http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> > > [...]
> > > Abstract
> > > Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
> > > the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman,
> > > and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining
> > > marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of

> > > marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least

> > > restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By

> > > encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and

> > > permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own

> > > role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.
> > > The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is
> > > and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not
> > > undermine, true marriage.
> > > [...]
>

> >  From the link:
>
> > State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and
> > women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children.

> > ---
> > Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved

> > offers little protection for children. Marriage itself doesn't require

> > people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
> > have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.
>
> We currently have a 50% divorce rate.  I don't think that "State
> recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.

I once read that our federal tax code impacts married couples
specially four hundred times.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<c3254d3e-9c83-4cfb...@mz7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mar 21, 12:00�pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> > On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> > >> ---
> > >> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
> > >> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't require
> > >> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
> > >> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.
> >
> > > We currently have a 50% divorce rate. �I don't think that "State
> > > recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
> >
> > The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said in
> > another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the broken
> > family, we fix many of our society's problems.
>
> If you make divorce difficult, the end result is that the murder rate
> goes up. There's absolutely nothing to be gained from making
> incompatible men and women stay together "for the children."

Not to mention how badly all that hostility affects the children.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <2K2dnf6gU_E0TdbM...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:

> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> > Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
> >
> > There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
> >
> > http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-
> > matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
> >
> >
> > Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
> >
> > [...]
> > Abstract
> > Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
> > biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> > reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> > does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> > rejects these truths. Marriage is societyąs least restrictive means of

> > ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of
> > marriage‹monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence‹the state
> > strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> > country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> > depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> > demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
> > [...]
>
> I posted this about 8 hours ago and rather predictably, few of the
> responses have attempted to address the points made in the paper. Most
> posters have ignored the article and reverted to fact free attacks and
> name calling. What makes this so very funny is that those who engage in
> the name calling have the gall to hold themselves as morally superior.
>
> The Supreme Court will very likely overturn Proposition 8, will make
> same sex marriage legal in the entire country. This will not be the end
> of the story. I suspect that by the time my grandkids are the age I am
> now, history classes will be talking about the legalization of same sex
> marriage the same way it now talks about Dred Scott.

No. They will be learning that marriage equality was the equivalent of
the 13th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.

And they will be just as disgusted that gays were once discriminated
against as they are disgusted at the fact that Americans owned chattel
slaves and that the freed slaves and their descendants were denied their
basic civil rights for a hundred years after the slaves were legally
freed.

If you think it will go any other way, I feel very sad for you because
you are going to be sorely disappointed. Society will tick on barely
noticing, society will not have collapsed, everybody'll just be living
their lives thinking those last few Phelpsian homophobes are total
loons. Most kids have known gay people since they were old enough to
recognize faces; it's a total non-issue to them. They KNOW, from their
own lives, that the silliness the anti-gays try to peddle to scare
people is total bullshit because none of the gay people they know behave
anything like those moronic strawmen.

It's going to get really lonely out in the homophobic ghetto. Even their
kids and grandkids are going to look at them as bigots; he'll be the
bigot granddad that they tolerate because they love him.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <idonk8p14bthk5jg1...@4ax.com>,
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:31:53 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The Supreme Court will very likely overturn Proposition 8, will make
> >same sex marriage legal in the entire country. This will not be the end
> >of the story. I suspect that by the time my grandkids are the age I am
> >now, history classes will be talking about the legalization of same sex
> >marriage the same way it now talks about Dred Scott
>

> Because it's the Ethical, moral, and reasonable think to do.


Just want to make sure you read that correctly.

He said that overturning Prop 8 will be the equivalent of the Dred Scott
Decision, near-unanimously considered the worst decision in the history
of the USSC.

That's what he thinks overturning Prop 8 is.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Thursday, 21 March 2013 17:12:57 UTC, David Hartung wrote:
>
> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu

>
>
>
>
> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,

Not so much a truth as a Truth, i.e. an article of faith which is often true, but sometimes false.

> the
>
> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman,

Not for much longer ;-)

> and the
>
> reality that children need a mother and a father.

What they need is a loving household. Whereas they are probably best, on average, having role models of each gender, a hetrosexual couple at war are likely to be a lot worse than a homosexual couple, or some more exotic combination, where real love and care is taking place.

> Redefining marriage
>
> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it
>
> rejects these truths.

We _already_ radically redefined the institution of marriage in the West. The change from a situation of "Civil Death" where a married woman, in law, became a mere appendage to her husband was a far more radical change that the one in progress, which is a mere extension and doesn't affect hetrosexual marriage at all.

Anyone who values the institution of marriage should rejoice that the benefits are being extended to a constituency for which the existing version is of no use.

[David Hartung]

No problem, we all do that from time to time.

[David Hartung]

On 03/22/2013 12:38 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
> On Mar 21, 12:00 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>> On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ---
>>>> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
>>>> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't require
>>>> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
>>>> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.
>>
>>> We currently have a 50% divorce rate. I don't think that "State
>>> recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
>>
>> The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said in
>> another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the broken
>> family, we fix many of our society's problems.
>
> If you make divorce difficult, the end result is that the murder rate
> goes up. There's absolutely nothing to be gained from making
> incompatible men and women stay together "for the children."

You just illustrated the whole problem.

I don't know if you are, or ever have been married, but any couple who
has a truly successful marriage, has had to work at being "compatible".
MOst people I see, who get divorced, are in a situation in which one or
both members of the couple are unwilling to make the effort necessary to
have a truly successful marriage.

[David Hartung]

You appear to be drawing conclusions without all the facts, and as is
usual in such situations, your conclusion is faulty. Read the paper.

[David Hartung]

On 03/22/2013 01:00 AM, Dakota wrote:
> On 3/21/2013 10:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>>
>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>>
>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>>>
>>>
>>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> Abstract
>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
>>> the
>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of

>>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

>>> marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state

>>> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
>>> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
>>> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
>>> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true
>>> marriage.
>>> [...]
>>
>> I posted this about 8 hours ago and rather predictably, few of the
>> responses have attempted to address the points made in the paper. Most
>> posters have ignored the article and reverted to fact free attacks and
>> name calling. What makes this so very funny is that those who engage
>> in the name calling have the gall to hold themselves as morally superior.
>>
>> The Supreme Court will very likely overturn Proposition 8, will make
>> same sex marriage legal in the entire country. This will not be the
>> end of the story. I suspect that by the time my grandkids are the age
>> I am now, history classes will be talking about the legalization of
>> same sex marriage the same way it now talks about Dred Scott.
>
> At least you realize that you're on the losing side, Dave. That should
> tell you something.

What does it tell me? That the American people seem to have learned
nothing in the last 160 or so years?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <-OCdnaNad4sEstHM...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:

> On 03/22/2013 01:00 AM, Dakota wrote:
> > On 3/21/2013 10:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> >> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> >>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
> >>>
> >>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-i
> >>> t-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>> Abstract
> >>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
> >>> the
> >>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> >>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> >>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> >>> rejects these truths. Marriage is societyｹs least restrictive means of

> >>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

> >>> marriage砧onogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence逆he state

> >>> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> >>> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> >>> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> >>> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true
> >>> marriage.
> >>> [...]
> >>
> >> I posted this about 8 hours ago and rather predictably, few of the
> >> responses have attempted to address the points made in the paper. Most
> >> posters have ignored the article and reverted to fact free attacks and
> >> name calling. What makes this so very funny is that those who engage
> >> in the name calling have the gall to hold themselves as morally superior.
> >>
> >> The Supreme Court will very likely overturn Proposition 8, will make
> >> same sex marriage legal in the entire country. This will not be the
> >> end of the story. I suspect that by the time my grandkids are the age
> >> I am now, history classes will be talking about the legalization of
> >> same sex marriage the same way it now talks about Dred Scott.
> >
> > At least you realize that you're on the losing side, Dave. That should
> > tell you something.
>
> What does it tell me? That the American people seem to have learned
> nothing in the last 160 or so years?

They've learned an immense amount in the last 160 or so years.

That's why we're becoming more civilized and less intolerant.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <-OCdnaFad4sss9HM...@giganews.com>,

Because they no longer see anything worth saving.

[David Hartung]

On 03/22/2013 06:21 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <-OCdnaNad4sEstHM...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/22/2013 01:00 AM, Dakota wrote:
>>> On 3/21/2013 10:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-i
>>>>> t-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Abstract
>>>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
>>>>> the
>>>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
>>>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>>>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

>>>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society¹s least restrictive means of

>>>>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

>>>>> marriage‹monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence‹the state

>>>>> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
>>>>> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
>>>>> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
>>>>> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true
>>>>> marriage.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I posted this about 8 hours ago and rather predictably, few of the
>>>> responses have attempted to address the points made in the paper. Most
>>>> posters have ignored the article and reverted to fact free attacks and
>>>> name calling. What makes this so very funny is that those who engage
>>>> in the name calling have the gall to hold themselves as morally superior.
>>>>
>>>> The Supreme Court will very likely overturn Proposition 8, will make
>>>> same sex marriage legal in the entire country. This will not be the
>>>> end of the story. I suspect that by the time my grandkids are the age
>>>> I am now, history classes will be talking about the legalization of
>>>> same sex marriage the same way it now talks about Dred Scott.
>>>
>>> At least you realize that you're on the losing side, Dave. That should
>>> tell you something.
>>
>> What does it tell me? That the American people seem to have learned
>> nothing in the last 160 or so years?
>
> They've learned an immense amount in the last 160 or so years.
>
> That's why we're becoming more civilized and less intolerant.

Less intolerant? Are you blind?

[David Hartung]

On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>
>
> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> [...]
> Abstract
> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it
> rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of
> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of
> marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state
> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
> [...]

Here are the thoughts of at least one gay man on the subject of same sex
marriage: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/
[...]
I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I
am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage,
rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a
self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as
a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.

The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political
correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless
marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
[...]

I must stress, the above is only a small excerpt. I encourage all to
read the entire piece. I find it thought provoking.

[Dakota]

There is no evidence that same-sex couples will make any more or less
of that effort than opposite-sex couples.

[Dakota]

I was also adopted - as an infant. I can't say if my life would have
been better or worse had I been raised by my biological parents. For
decades I waited in vain for the "true' Howard Hughes will to reveal
that I was his sole beneficiary. :)

[Dakota]

From the paper:

Decades of social science, including the latest studies using large
samples and robust research methods, show that children tend to do
best when raised by a mother and a father.
----------
That statement is true. However, those studies compare two parent
households to single parent households and have no bearing on the
same-sex marriage issue other than expressing the likelihood that a
child raised by a single gay parent would not do as well as one raised
by two gay parents.

[Dakota]

On 3/22/2013 5:16 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 01:00 AM, Dakota wrote:
>> On 3/21/2013 10:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>>>
>>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> Abstract
>>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
>>>> the
>>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman,
>>>> and the
>>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

>>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society�s least restrictive

>>>> means of
>>>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

>>>> marriage�monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence�the state

>>>> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of
>>>> this
>>>> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
>>>> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
>>>> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true
>>>> marriage.
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I posted this about 8 hours ago and rather predictably, few of the
>>> responses have attempted to address the points made in the paper. Most
>>> posters have ignored the article and reverted to fact free attacks and
>>> name calling. What makes this so very funny is that those who engage
>>> in the name calling have the gall to hold themselves as morally
>>> superior.
>>>
>>> The Supreme Court will very likely overturn Proposition 8, will make
>>> same sex marriage legal in the entire country. This will not be the
>>> end of the story. I suspect that by the time my grandkids are the age
>>> I am now, history classes will be talking about the legalization of
>>> same sex marriage the same way it now talks about Dred Scott.
>>
>> At least you realize that you're on the losing side, Dave. That should
>> tell you something.
>
> What does it tell me? That the American people seem to have learned
> nothing in the last 160 or so years?
>

I wonder what lessons 160 years ago Dave believes the American people
have failed to learn. 160 years ago would be 1853. The campaign to
abolish slavery was gaining considerable momentum around that time and
the Civil War would begin seven years later. Perhaps that's why the
160 year figure was selected. Dave has, we must remember, expressed
the opinion that a business owner's right to deny service based on
race has been unconstitutionally violated by non-discrimination laws.

[linuxgal]

SkyEyes wrote:

> Or the biblical patriarchs, many of which had more than one wife.
> Even in the New Testament, Paul of Tarsus admonishes his flock that
> bishops "should have only one wife," alluding to the fact that many
> early christians had more than one.

Or perhaps it refers to serial monogamy like we have today. Newt
"Family Values" Gingrich with three wives, just one at a time.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[David Hartung]

The information available, which is cited in the paper indicates that
there is significant problems with gay parents and children, What
evidence do you have to support your position?

[John Manning]

On 3/22/2013 5:38 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <2K2dnf6gU_E0TdbM...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>>
>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>>
>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-
>>> matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>>>
>>>
>>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> Abstract
>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society¹s least restrictive means of

Excellent commentary, Jeanne.

[John Manning]

Perhaps Dave wants the Confederate South to "rise again"?

[Dakota]

On 3/22/2013 7:01 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>
>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>
>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>>
>>
>>
>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>
>> [...]
>> Abstract
>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
>> the
>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society�s least restrictive means of

>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

>> marriage�monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence�the state

>> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
>> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
>> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
>> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true
>> marriage.
>> [...]
>
> Here are the thoughts of at least one gay man on the subject of same
> sex marriage: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/
> [...]
> I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but
> I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made
> marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as
> a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself
> as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.
>
> The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political
> correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless
> marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
> [...]
>
> I must stress, the above is only a small excerpt. I encourage all to
> read the entire piece. I find it thought provoking.

I found it thought provoking as well. The author describes his
infatuation at the age of eight with a male movie character as the
point when he realized he was gay. He goes on to laud Philia love and
denigrating Eros love. I had to look the terms up to be sure they
meant what I thought they did. The first site returned by a Google
search on keywords 'philia love' was this one.

http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/a/Philia.htm

There I learned that:

Definition: Philia means close friendship or brotherly love in Greek.
It is one of the four types of love in the Bible.

A link at that site led me to:

Definition: Eros is the physical, sensual love between a husband and wife.
...

The Apostle Paul noted that it is wise for people to marry to fulfill
their godly desire for this type of love:
--------
The author talks about the many men with whom he claims to have shared
Philia love. Despite his longings for sex with them, he "enjoyed
something far greater, something which surpassed carnality in every
way: philia (the love between true friends)�a love unappreciated by so
many because eros is promoted in its stead."

It is worthy of note that he made that comparison without personal
experience of the physical aspect of love. I have learned from
experience that sex outside of a loving relationship is far less
enjoyable than that within one.

Eventually, he heeds Paul's words though that was not the primary
reason for his desire to marry. From the story:

The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the best,
but it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even
though I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be
extremely rewarding.

My future bride and I first met while singing in a youth choir. By the
time I popped the question, we had become the very best of friends.
�Soul mates� is the term we used to describe each other.
------
He doesn't tell us whether he told his "soul mate" of his sexual
orientation but did mention that he and his wife tried "diligently" to
procreate. Upon learning that medical problems prevented them from
doing so, they adopted a male child and, two year later, adopted his
brother. It's nice that the two kids were separated from each other
for only two years.

He describes the emotions he felt upon adopting the child thusly:

Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and sense
of purpose. I kept repeating, �I�m a dad,� over and over again.
Nothing else mattered. I knew exactly where I fit in within this huge
universe. When we brought home his brother nearly two years later, I
was prepared: I could not wait to take him up in my arms and declare
our kinship and my unconditional love and irrevocable responsibility
for him.
---------
One paragraph later, that unconditional love and irrevocable
responsibility was undermined a bit when he and his "soul mate"
divorced. Here he describes what happened next:

At first, I felt liberated. I dated some great guys, and was in a
couple of long-term relationships. Over several years, intellectual
honesty led me to some unexpected conclusions: (1) Creating a family
with another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a
woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an
objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.
---------
Okay. He hadn't expected to learn that "creating a family with another
man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman". Of
course, it's not "completely" equal. However, despite his unsupported
claim, raising children in a family with same-sex parents is not "an
objective evil."

Ten years after the divorce, he and his wife reunited and, for two
years, have been a sexless but happy couple with two kids. The older
son is now sixteen; his brother's age is not disclosed.

He shares the following touching moment with his readers.

One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son
walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he
paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then
continued on.
-------
He could have stopped there but went on to write this:

With two dads in the house, this little moment of warmth and
tenderness would never have occurred.
---------
While it's true that a two-dad household would not have a mom to kiss
on the cheek, a child in such a family might as easily have kissed one
of his dads on the cheek or shared countless other moments of warmth
and tenderness.

I, for one, do not consider the author's opinions of any value in the
discussion about same-sex marriage. The religious influences on his
life scream out at us from the page and have led him into a bizarre
approximation of a family. He is certainly not a role model in any
positive way. I hope, for the kids sakes, that living with their train
wreck of a father will not have any long term adverse effect on either
of them.

I find it noteworthy that the author is a "co-founder of the National
Capital Tea Party Patriots."

[John Manning]

On 3/22/2013 11:48 AM, Dakota wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 7:01 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>>
>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>>
>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> Abstract
>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
>>> the
>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of

>>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

>>> marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state

> philia (the love between true friends)—a love unappreciated by so many

> because eros is promoted in its stead."
>
> It is worthy of note that he made that comparison without personal
> experience of the physical aspect of love. I have learned from
> experience that sex outside of a loving relationship is far less
> enjoyable than that within one.
>
> Eventually, he heeds Paul's words though that was not the primary reason
> for his desire to marry. From the story:
>
> The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the best, but
> it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even though
> I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be
> extremely rewarding.
>
> My future bride and I first met while singing in a youth choir. By the
> time I popped the question, we had become the very best of friends.

> “Soul mates” is the term we used to describe each other.

> ------
> He doesn't tell us whether he told his "soul mate" of his sexual
> orientation but did mention that he and his wife tried "diligently" to
> procreate. Upon learning that medical problems prevented them from doing
> so, they adopted a male child and, two year later, adopted his brother.
> It's nice that the two kids were separated from each other for only two
> years.
>
> He describes the emotions he felt upon adopting the child thusly:
>
> Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and sense of

> purpose. I kept repeating, “I’m a dad,” over and over again. Nothing

Bizarre and creepy. The guy can't simply allow himself to be who he is.

[David Hartung]

On 03/22/2013 09:48 AM, Dakota wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 7:01 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>>
>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>>
>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> Abstract
>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
>>> the
>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of

>>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

>>> marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state

> philia (the love between true friends)—a love unappreciated by so many

> because eros is promoted in its stead."
>
> It is worthy of note that he made that comparison without personal
> experience of the physical aspect of love. I have learned from
> experience that sex outside of a loving relationship is far less
> enjoyable than that within one.
>
> Eventually, he heeds Paul's words though that was not the primary reason
> for his desire to marry. From the story:
>
> The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the best, but
> it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even though
> I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be
> extremely rewarding.
>
> My future bride and I first met while singing in a youth choir. By the
> time I popped the question, we had become the very best of friends.

> “Soul mates” is the term we used to describe each other.

> ------
> He doesn't tell us whether he told his "soul mate" of his sexual
> orientation but did mention that he and his wife tried "diligently" to
> procreate. Upon learning that medical problems prevented them from doing
> so, they adopted a male child and, two year later, adopted his brother.
> It's nice that the two kids were separated from each other for only two
> years.
>
> He describes the emotions he felt upon adopting the child thusly:
>
> Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and sense of

> purpose. I kept repeating, “I’m a dad,” over and over again. Nothing

So because hi life experience is not what you would like it to be, and
because he holds a contrary opinion, you deny value to his opinion. That
is very interesting indeed.

[David Hartung]

Is this what you call tolerant?

[wy]

"Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than
heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents,"
said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in
Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and
lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50
percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said.
"That translates to greater commitment on average and more
involvement."

http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html

And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few
differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and
other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness,
tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to
some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to
provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system,
studies show."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html

Snap out of your right wingnut religious wacko tunnelvision already.

[wy]

On 22 Mar, 11:12, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 09:48 AM, Dakota wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/22/2013 7:01 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> >> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> >>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> >>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>

> >>>http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-...

Just as you deny everything to the contrary yourself. How very
interesting indeed, indeed.

[Joe Cooper]

sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org> wrote in
news:kifr6l$iro$1...@dont-email.me:

> In alt.atheism Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>> raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in
>> news:gngmk812916r74ip1...@4ax.com:

>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:12:57 -0500, David Hartung
>>> <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>>

>>> Which might be valid if marriage's sole agreed-upon definition was
>>> the union of one man and one woman, which it demonstrably is not,
>>> and you can ask a Mormon or a Muslim if you don't want to take my
>>> word for it.
>>
>> To me, marriage is a social sanctioning of procreation. Hard to
>> accomplish that goal with same-sex unions.
>>
>> I'm not opposed to same-sex contractual unions - I simply reserve the
>> term "marriage" for sanctioned procreation.
>
> What do you call it when a man and a woman get married but decide not
> to have any kids?

Tragedy.



--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/
More than 146 million Americans were employed back in 2007. Now, only
142.2 million Americans have a job even though our population has grown.
Where in the world is this "economic recovery" that proggies keep talking
about?

[duke]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:35:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <-Nqdndd5SIcHotbM...@giganews.com>,

> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>

>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>

>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-ma

>> tters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>
>The Heritage Foundation??? Seriously?
>

>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>
>> [...]
>> Abstract
>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it
>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society�s least restrictive means of
>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of
>> marriage�monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence�the state
>> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
>> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
>> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
>> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
>> [...]
>

>And how does marriage between gays violate any of those things?

It's the trip to the fires of hell that are different.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[duke]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:57:27 -0500, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:12:57 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>

>scrawled in blood:

>
>>Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>

> So why are you trying? Marriage is a contract between
>consenting individuals. Your attempt to define it narrowly as one man
>and one woman will not stand.

God already defined it that way.

[Dakota]

I've just read the paper again and haven't found anything about
significant problems with gay parents and children. If you would cut
and paste what you consider to be the relevant material, I would
appreciate it.

As for evidence, unfortunately, as the article notes, sample sizes are
limited. This is because bigots have prevented a significant number of
gays to marry or to adopt children. However, the fact that the sample
sizes are small does not mean that the results of the existing studies
are incorrect. When the bigots are defeated in court, the sample sizes
will increase and the studies will present the evidence be it good or
be it bad.

[Dakota]

I do not deny him the right to live as he chooses. I simply say that
his life should not be considered an ideal model.

You, on the other hand, wish to deny others the right to live as they
choose.

Why don't you go back through my post and respond to the points I made
rather than focusing on my conclusion? For example, his claim that
raising children in a same-sex family is an objective evil. Or his
claim that same sex-families can have no little moments of warmth and
tenderness.

[John Manning]

> "Social science claiming to show that there are “no differences” in

> outcomes for children raised in same-sex households does not change this
> reality. In fact, the most recent, sophisticated studies suggest that

> prior research is inadequate to support the assertion that it makes “no
> difference” whether a child was raised by same-sex parents.[15] A survey

> of 59 of the most prominent studies often cited for this claim shows
> that they drew primarily from small convenience samples that are not
> appropriate for generalizations to the whole population.[16]"
>

LGBT Parenting Recognized by Science Just as Effective as Heterosexual
Parenting


"Scientific research has been generally consistent
in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit
and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children
are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as
children reared by heterosexual parents.

"According to scientific literature reviews,
there is no evidence to the contrary."


LGBT parenting and Same-sex marriage and the family

Scientific literature indicates that parents' financial,
psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage
and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within
a legally recognized union (either a opposite-sex or same-sex union).

As a result, professional scientific associations have argued
for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized as it will be
beneficial to the children of same-sex couples.[19][20][21][33]

Scientific research has been generally consistent in
showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable
as heterosexual parents, and their children are as
psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared
by heterosexual parents.[20][34][35]

According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence
to the contrary.[36][37][38][39].

~~ *Extensive* documentation at link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

[sully]

On Mar 22, 12:23 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:35:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <-Nqdndd5SIcHotbMnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@giganews.com>,

> > David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
> >> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> >> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>

> >>http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-...

> >> tters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>
> >The Heritage Foundation??? Seriously?
>
> >> Or:http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> >> [...]
> >> Abstract
> >> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
> >> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> >> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> >> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it
> >> rejects these truths. Marriage is society s least restrictive means of
> >> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of
> >> marriage monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence the state
> >> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> >> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> >> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> >> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
> >> [...]
>
> >And how does marriage between gays violate any of those things?
>
> It's the trip to the fires of hell that are different.

You'll be there to welcome them!

[sully]

On Mar 22, 12:24 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:57:27 -0500, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> >On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:12:57 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> >scrawled in blood:
>
> >>Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> >    So why are you trying? Marriage is a contract between
> >consenting individuals. Your attempt to define it narrowly as one man
> >and one woman will not stand.
>
> God already defined it that way.

No, god told me that it was ok for same sex couples to marry.

[David Hartung]

On 03/22/2013 03:31 PM, Dakota wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 10:12 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 09:48 AM, Dakota wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 7:01 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Abstract
>>>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
>>>>> the
>>>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman,
>>>>> and the
>>>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>>>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

>>>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society�s least restrictive

>>>>> means of
>>>>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

>>>>> marriage�monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence�the state

>>> philia (the love between true friends)�a love unappreciated by so many

>>> because eros is promoted in its stead."
>>>
>>> It is worthy of note that he made that comparison without personal
>>> experience of the physical aspect of love. I have learned from
>>> experience that sex outside of a loving relationship is far less
>>> enjoyable than that within one.
>>>
>>> Eventually, he heeds Paul's words though that was not the primary
>>> reason
>>> for his desire to marry. From the story:
>>>
>>> The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the best, but
>>> it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even though
>>> I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be
>>> extremely rewarding.
>>>
>>> My future bride and I first met while singing in a youth choir. By the
>>> time I popped the question, we had become the very best of friends.

>>> �Soul mates� is the term we used to describe each other.

>>> ------
>>> He doesn't tell us whether he told his "soul mate" of his sexual
>>> orientation but did mention that he and his wife tried "diligently" to
>>> procreate. Upon learning that medical problems prevented them from
>>> doing
>>> so, they adopted a male child and, two year later, adopted his brother.
>>> It's nice that the two kids were separated from each other for only two
>>> years.
>>>
>>> He describes the emotions he felt upon adopting the child thusly:
>>>
>>> Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and
>>> sense of

>>> purpose. I kept repeating, �I�m a dad,� over and over again. Nothing

I responded as I did because it seems that your unwillingness to grant
him credibility colours your your opinion.

[Don Martin]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:14:53 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

>> You appear to be drawing conclusions without all the facts, and as is
>> usual in such situations, your conclusion is faulty. Read the paper.
>>
> From the paper:
>
>Decades of social science, including the latest studies using large
>samples and robust research methods, show that children tend to do
>best when raised by a mother and a father.
>----------
>That statement is true. However, those studies compare two parent
>households to single parent households and have no bearing on the
>same-sex marriage issue other than expressing the likelihood that a
>child raised by a single gay parent would not do as well as one raised
>by two gay parents.

Apparently this dipshit does not know any actual gay people and
therefore is unaware that gay couples are typically composed of one
individual who exhibits more feminine attitudes and behaviors and one
who exhibits the more masculine ones. The studies I am aware of that
examine children raised by gay couples indicate that these kids are no
worse off than kids raised by straights. Indeed, the gay-raised kids
appear to be better off as a group. They tend to be wanted, for one
thing, and they have stimulating, intellectually engaged parents.
Since a high proportion of gays are professionals, the kid's being
raised in an economically advantaged home does not hurt, either.

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Don Martin]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 05:16:56 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
wrote to Dakota:

>> At least you realize that you're on the losing side, Dave. That should
>> tell you something.
>
>What does it tell me? That the American people seem to have learned
>nothing in the last 160 or so years?

It would appear that they have learned a great deal, from the
wrongness of discrimination (whether racial, economic, or religious)
to the benefits of limiting the number of their offspring. Some
atavistic individuals, such as yourself, deny such advances. Would
you not be happier in the company of like-minded persons?

[Don Martin]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:31:51 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/22/2013 5:16 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 01:00 AM, Dakota wrote:
>>> On 3/21/2013 10:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Abstract
>>>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
>>>>> the
>>>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman,
>>>>> and the
>>>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>>>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

>>>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society�s least restrictive

>>>>> means of
>>>>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

>>>>> marriage�monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence�the state

He is, I believe, a Mississippian.

[wy]

On 22 Mar, 18:05, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 03:31 PM, Dakota wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/22/2013 10:12 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> >> On 03/22/2013 09:48 AM, Dakota wrote:
> >>> On 3/22/2013 7:01 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> >>>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> >>>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> >>>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>

> >>>>>http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-...

>
> >>>>> Or:http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> Abstract
> >>>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman,
> >>>>> and the
> >>>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> >>>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> >>>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive

> >>>>> means of
> >>>>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

> >>>>> marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state

> >>> philia (the love between true friends)—a love unappreciated by so many

> >>> because eros is promoted in its stead."
>
> >>> It is worthy of note that he made that comparison without personal
> >>> experience of the physical aspect of love. I have learned from
> >>> experience that sex outside of a loving relationship is far less
> >>> enjoyable than that within one.
>
> >>> Eventually, he heeds Paul's words though that was not the primary
> >>> reason
> >>> for his desire to marry. From the story:
>
> >>> The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the best, but
> >>> it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even though
> >>> I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be
> >>> extremely rewarding.
>
> >>> My future bride and I first met while singing in a youth choir. By the
> >>> time I popped the question, we had become the very best of friends.

> >>> “Soul mates” is the term we used to describe each other.

> >>> ------
> >>> He doesn't tell us whether he told his "soul mate" of his sexual
> >>> orientation but did mention that he and his wife tried "diligently" to
> >>> procreate. Upon learning that medical problems prevented them from
> >>> doing
> >>> so, they adopted a male child and, two year later, adopted his brother.
> >>> It's nice that the two kids were separated from each other for only two
> >>> years.
>
> >>> He describes the emotions he felt upon adopting the child thusly:
>
> >>> Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and
> >>> sense of

> >>> purpose. I kept repeating, “I’m a dad,” over and over again. Nothing

Translation: Hartung can't refute any of Dakota's points because he's
admited he still hasn't been able to find a way to elegantly
articulate his self-admitted hodgepodge of thoughts on the subject.
It's easier for him to simply duck under the cover of other right
wingnut's words without feeling a need to have to explain anything
that he can't explain on his own - blame it on his intellectual
impotence.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <ttbpk8t72esaqs7pm...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:57:27 -0500, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:12:57 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> >scrawled in blood:
> >
> >>Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
> >
> > So why are you trying? Marriage is a contract between
> >consenting individuals. Your attempt to define it narrowly as one man
> >and one woman will not stand.
>
> God already defined it that way.

Why do you think you can force your religious belief on people who don't
share it?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <x-2dnY_sfuuG1dHM...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:

> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:

> > Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
> >

> > There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
> >

> > http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-
> > matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3

> >
> >
> > Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
> >
> > [...]
> > Abstract
> > Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
> > biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> > reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> > does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> > rejects these truths. Marriage is societyąs least restrictive means of

> > ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of
> > marriage‹monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence‹the state
> > strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> > country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> > depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> > demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
> > [...]
>
> Here are the thoughts of at least one gay man on the subject of same sex
> marriage: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/
> [...]
> I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I
> am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage,
> rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a
> self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as
> a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.
>
> The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political
> correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless
> marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
> [...]
>
> I must stress, the above is only a small excerpt. I encourage all to
> read the entire piece. I find it thought provoking.

Why do you think the opinion of one gay man nobody has ever even heard
of has any more meaning than the opinions of thousands and thousands of
gay men?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <jJ-dnWSmrcS36NHM...@giganews.com>,

You call pity and sympathy for someone lying to himself intolerant?

Why?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <bKqdnVnaCJBF3tHM...@giganews.com>,
David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:

> On 03/22/2013 06:21 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <-OCdnaNad4sEstHM...@giganews.com>,

> > David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/22/2013 01:00 AM, Dakota wrote:

> >>> On 3/21/2013 10:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> >>>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> >>>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why
> >>>>> -i
> >>>>> t-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> Abstract
> >>>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
> >>>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> >>>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> >>>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society1s least restrictive means of

> >>>>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

> >>>>> marriageŠmonogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanenceŠthe state

> >>>>> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
> >>>>> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
> >>>>> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
> >>>>> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true
> >>>>> marriage.
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>

> >>>> I posted this about 8 hours ago and rather predictably, few of the
> >>>> responses have attempted to address the points made in the paper. Most
> >>>> posters have ignored the article and reverted to fact free attacks and
> >>>> name calling. What makes this so very funny is that those who engage
> >>>> in the name calling have the gall to hold themselves as morally
> >>>> superior.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Supreme Court will very likely overturn Proposition 8, will make
> >>>> same sex marriage legal in the entire country. This will not be the
> >>>> end of the story. I suspect that by the time my grandkids are the age
> >>>> I am now, history classes will be talking about the legalization of
> >>>> same sex marriage the same way it now talks about Dred Scott.
> >>>
> >>> At least you realize that you're on the losing side, Dave. That should
> >>> tell you something.
> >>
> >> What does it tell me? That the American people seem to have learned
> >> nothing in the last 160 or so years?
> >

> > They've learned an immense amount in the last 160 or so years.
> >
> > That's why we're becoming more civilized and less intolerant.
>
> Less intolerant? Are you blind?

Enlighten me.

[Alex W.]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:00:50 -0500, David Hartung wrote:

> On 03/21/2013 01:35 PM, jane wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 2:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>> ---
>>> Government encouragement of a commitment that can be easily dissolved
>>> offers little protection for chilromdren. Marriage itself doesn't require
>>> people to take responsibility for their children. Unmarried people who
>>> have children are also legally required to take responsibility for them.
>>
>> We currently have a 50% divorce rate. I don't think that "State
>> recognition of marriage protects children" one single bit.
>
> The easy dissolution of a marriage is part of the problem. As I said in
> another thread, IN the USA, the family is broken. If we fix the broken
> family, we fix many of our society's problems.

You mean like the good old days when divorce was difficult to
impossible to obtain and where spouses (male and female) and
their offspring were stuck with unsuitable, uncapable or abusive
partners/parents? The good old days where marital failure was
almost exclusively blamed on wives regardless of the facts? The
good old days when there was no recourse if the spouse/parent was
a drunk, was violent, was a child abuser?


>
> From the article:
> [...]
> A study published by the left-leaning research institution Child Trends
> concluded:
>
> [I]t is not simply the presence of two parents嚙皺but the presence of
> two biological parents that seems to support children嚙踝蕭s development.[10]

"seems to"?


>
> [R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for
> children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a
> family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.

A marriage without the safety valve of divorce is not a
low-conflict marriage.


>
> Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and
> children.

My parents divorced, and the time after was the best because then
there was no more marital warfare.


>
> Social science claiming to show that there are 嚙踝蕭no differences嚙踝蕭 in

> outcomes for children raised in same-sex households does not change this
> reality. In fact, the most recent, sophisticated studies suggest that

> prior research is inadequate to support the assertion that it makes 嚙踝蕭no
> difference嚙踝蕭 whether a child was raised by same-sex parents.[15] A survey

> of 59 of the most prominent studies often cited for this claim shows
> that they drew primarily from small convenience samples that are not
> appropriate for generalizations to the whole population.[16]

Which is a problem to *all* studies because there are, as yet,
too few same-sex families to allow for genuinely representative
and meaningful studies.

[Dakota]

Again, you've snipped the part you are afraid to confront. Here it is
again, Dave.

For example, his claim that raising children in a same-sex family is
an objective evil. Or his claim that same sex-families can have no

little moments of warmth and tenderness.

[David Hartung]

Until you stop calling names, there can be no honest discussion. Like it
or not, one can oppose your position and not be a bigot.

Research is ongoing, as it should be, but right now the results we do
have seem to indicate that kids with parents same sex relationships do
worse.

[David Hartung]

On 03/22/2013 07:31 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <bKqdnVnaCJBF3tHM...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/22/2013 06:21 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <-OCdnaNad4sEstHM...@giganews.com>,
>>> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/22/2013 01:00 AM, Dakota wrote:
>>>>> On 3/21/2013 10:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why
>>>>>>> -i
>>>>>>> t-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Abstract
>>>>>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
>>>>>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>>>>>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it
>>>>>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society1s least restrictive means of
>>>>>>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

>>>>>>> marriage�monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence�the state

Look at the name calling in this discussion. I take a view which many
here oppose, and am called names because of it.

[David Hartung]

Your response is yet more intolerance.

[David Hartung]

You simply refuse to see your own bias. This man speaks of his own
experience. You may not like his conclusions, but that dislike does not
mean he is not credible.

[David Hartung]

On 03/22/2013 07:26 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <x-2dnY_sfuuG1dHM...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>>>
>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>>>
>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-
>>> matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
>>>
>>>
>>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> Abstract
>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the
>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the
>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society¹s least restrictive means of

>>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of
>>> marriage‹monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence‹the state
>>> strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this
>>> country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage
>>> depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and
>>> demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
>>> [...]
>>
>> Here are the thoughts of at least one gay man on the subject of same sex
>> marriage: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/
>> [...]
>> I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I
>> am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage,
>> rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a
>> self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as
>> a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.
>>
>> The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political
>> correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless
>> marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
>> [...]
>>
>> I must stress, the above is only a small excerpt. I encourage all to
>> read the entire piece. I find it thought provoking.
>
> Why do you think the opinion of one gay man nobody has ever even heard
> of has any more meaning than the opinions of thousands and thousands of
> gay men?

So you deny him the validity of his experiences?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <NN6dnecPp7Jah9DM...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:

> On 03/22/2013 07:29 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <jJ-dnWSmrcS36NHM...@giganews.com>,
> > David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/22/2013 10:03 AM, John Manning wrote:
> >>> On 3/22/2013 11:48 AM, Dakota wrote:
> >>>> On 3/22/2013 7:01 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> >>>>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> >>>>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-wh
> >>>>>> y-
> >>>>>> it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it#_ftn3
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or: http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>> Abstract
> >>>>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary,
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage
> >>>>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> >>>>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society1s least restrictive means of

> >>>> 3Soul mates2 is the term we used to describe each other.

> >>>> ------
> >>>> He doesn't tell us whether he told his "soul mate" of his sexual
> >>>> orientation but did mention that he and his wife tried "diligently" to
> >>>> procreate. Upon learning that medical problems prevented them from doing
> >>>> so, they adopted a male child and, two year later, adopted his brother.
> >>>> It's nice that the two kids were separated from each other for only two
> >>>> years.
> >>>>
> >>>> He describes the emotions he felt upon adopting the child thusly:
> >>>>
> >>>> Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and sense of

> >>>> purpose. I kept repeating, 3I1m a dad,2 over and over again. Nothing

How?

What am I supposedly intolerant of?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <NN6dneQPp7I5h9DM...@giganews.com>,

How is calling you on your religious bigotry intolerance?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <NN6dneUPp7LTh9DM...@giganews.com>,

Lie.

[David Hartung]

And once more you refuse to see the point.

[David Hartung]

Think about it.

[Dakota]

He has no experience of raising children in a same-sex family so his
claims are mere speculation and, therefore, not credible.

[wy]

You mean the only results you're willing to look at - biased, right
wingnut, religious fanatic, homophobe paranoid ones. There are plenty
of results to the contrary out there that your tunnelvision absolutely
refuses to even glance.

[wy]

On 22 Mar, 22:59, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 07:31 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <bKqdnVnaCJBF3tHMnZ2dnUVZ_u6dn...@giganews.com>,

> >   David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 03/22/2013 06:21 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> >>> In article <-OCdnaNad4sEstHMnZ2dnUVZ_tGdn...@giganews.com>,

Well, that must tell you something about your views. If enough people
say it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
it's probably very much a duck, you know.

[wy]

On 22 Mar, 23:03, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 08:30 PM, Dakota wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/22/2013 5:05 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> >> On 03/22/2013 03:31 PM, Dakota wrote:
> >>> On 3/22/2013 10:12 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> >>>> On 03/22/2013 09:48 AM, Dakota wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/22/2013 7:01 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> >>>>>> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> >>>>>>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> >>>>>>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>

> >>>>>>>http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-...

>
> >>>>>>> Or:http://tinyurl.com/bvr6uxu
>
> >>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>> Abstract
> >>>>>>> Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are
> >>>>>>> complementary,
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman,
> >>>>>>> and the
> >>>>>>> reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining
> >>>>>>> marriage
> >>>>>>> does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it

> >>>>>>> rejects these truths. Marriage is society s least restrictive

> >>>>>>> means of
> >>>>>>> ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of

> >>>>>>> marriage monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence the state

> >>>>> philia (the love between true friends) a love unappreciated by so

> >>>>> many
> >>>>> because eros is promoted in its stead."
>
> >>>>> It is worthy of note that he made that comparison without personal
> >>>>> experience of the physical aspect of love. I have learned from
> >>>>> experience that sex outside of a loving relationship is far less
> >>>>> enjoyable than that within one.
>
> >>>>> Eventually, he heeds Paul's words though that was not the primary
> >>>>> reason
> >>>>> for his desire to marry. From the story:
>
> >>>>> The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the
> >>>>> best, but
> >>>>> it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even
> >>>>> though
> >>>>> I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be
> >>>>> extremely rewarding.
>
> >>>>> My future bride and I first met while singing in a youth choir. By
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> time I popped the question, we had become the very best of friends.

> >>>>> Soul mates is the term we used to describe each other.

> >>>>> ------
> >>>>> He doesn't tell us whether he told his "soul mate" of his sexual
> >>>>> orientation but did mention that he and his wife tried
> >>>>> "diligently" to
> >>>>> procreate. Upon learning that medical problems prevented them from
> >>>>> doing
> >>>>> so, they adopted a male child and, two year later, adopted his
> >>>>> brother.
> >>>>> It's nice that the two kids were separated from each other for
> >>>>> only two
> >>>>> years.
>
> >>>>> He describes the emotions he felt upon adopting the child thusly:
>
> >>>>> Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and
> >>>>> sense of

> >>>>> purpose. I kept repeating, I m a dad, over and over again. Nothing

I gotta laugh every time you accuse others of bias. You're the single
most biased person without a scintalla of objectivity in this group.
It also doesn't help that your IQ has dipped way below 80 and you
still "choose" to live in Mississippi. Speaking of choice, how about
you try to "choose" to live elsewhere to pump up your IQ. I guess
it's hard not to want to go on being gay, huh?

[wy]

On 22 Mar, 23:04, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 07:26 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <x-2dnY_sfuuG1dHMnZ2dnUVZ_q-dn...@giganews.com>,

> >   David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 03/21/2013 12:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> >>> Another good paper explaining why we should not redefine marriage.
>
> >>> There is a lot of good information here, and it is well sourced.
>

> >>>http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-...

Oh, so the only gay person that has "valid" experiences is one that
supports your tunnelvision view on gay marriage. Never mind all the
other gays and their own valid experiences that have a counter view of
that. Like I said, Hartung is the most biased and subjective person
in this group.