Tweetlink of the week.

'Let's fuck up children's most important connections and then be really proud of ourselves...!'

That has got to be the weakest link you've ever posted Crid. Seriously, this diatribe has no legal or intellectual merit whatsoever.

>> There is something slightly absurd about a small panel of jurists -- as few as five individuals -- ruling on what is constitutionally permissible in terms of defining what a family is.

Our society has had many decisions made by as few as 5(Supreme Court Judges)individuals.

>> Haven't thousands of years of history, experience, and (for those of you who believe) divine revelation already shown us what a family is?

What complete bullshit. Let's just look at what we like in the bible and ignore the rest.

>> Thus, as stated two paragraphs earlier, gay and hetero Americans are free to make voluntary, consensual lifestyle decisions.

There are still many states where one can be prosecuted for homosexual acts, prosecuted at the whims of the state.

>> To do so is to play "pretend" with an important truth -- namely, that nature or God (however you conceive of the creative force of the universe) made human procreation and continuity dependent on the teamwork (admittedly poorly performed far too often) of two people of opposite genders.

Who the fuck is this guy to presume what an unknowable god intended? Homo Sapien procreation and society looked more like other (current) primate societies for one hell of a lot longer than the current Judeo Christian flavor.

Seriously, I hope you just posted an incorrect link, because this is some vile non-think crap.

oops- meant to post this link...

http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201108080012

If you don't think children need mothers, you should proceed accordingly.

Besides, the tweet linked specifically this comment:

While the over privileged, overindulged and almost 100% white homosexual lobby pushes for the right to throw yet another huge party another generation of unemployable African American males show what happens when children aren´t raised in traditional homes.

I trust the Tweeter and didn't bother to read the article.

What did it say?

>> I trust the Tweeter and didn't bother to read the article.

>> While the over privileged, overindulged and almost 100% white homosexual lobby pushes for the right to throw yet another huge party another generation of unemployable African American males show what happens when children aren´t raised in traditional homes.

I can only guess that your account has been hacked. You know how to get hold of me personally.

I saw the personal angle about five seconds after posting, but decided to live with it. I still haven't read the article. Again, the part that the tweet cited was the comment, which I like.

While the over privileged, overindulged and almost 100% white homosexual lobby pushes for the right to throw yet another huge party another generation of unemployable African American males show what happens when children aren´t raised in traditional homes.

We can quibble with the specifics if you want— It may not just be partying white guys who are happy about this, but whoever it is, they aren't worried for children who won't know the intimate love of a mother or father. And maybe it won't always be poor black kids who miss out on that love, but I think most people supporting this have had lived in a mentality of hearts ravaged by divorce, and are ready to let a generation of white kids feel that weirdness, too.

I sincerely believe the GM is a nasty, if imprecise expression through policy of the bitterness adults feel for their own slights from fate and family... But these are human problems, not legal ones. If this truly is 'compassion,' it's misplaced.

More if you want it.

"another generation of unemployable African American males show what happens when children aren´t raised in traditional homes."

But what the anti-gay crowd are effectively arguing IS that a single-parent household is better for the child than a two-parent household. I'm quite sure most anti-gay folk will never come close to internalizing this contradiction in their own views, but which of the following do you think would statistically have better outcomes?

1. A child raised in a single-mother household
2. A child raised in a two-parent household

It's not so much the so-called "traditional" part that helps (I think it does to some degree), but the fact that it's just much easier to parent if two people are helping with the job of parenting.

Anyway, if you have to resort to "tradition" it means you have no argument - 'arguing from tradition' is one of the most glaringly obvious logical fallacies.

Q: What's the fundamental difference between banning marriage between different races, and banning marriage between those of different sexual orientations? A: I know, I know, one is based on some arbitrary bullshit like skin color, and the other is based on overtly gender-discriminatory arbitrary bullshit like whether one member has a vagina and the other a penis.

I can't even believe that this is a "debate" in the 21st century. It's surreal, it's like I stepped out of a time machine into an era where interracial marriage was considered a "debate", or actually, it's like I stepped out of a time machine and into the stone ages, where primitive cave-dwellers who can barely grunt are running around bashing gay people on the head with clubs.

This about sums up my feelings on it:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

The difference, lobster, is that there is no fucking way on gods green earth that a child will result in two men or two women having sex. Ever. Never. Ever. Never. Ever. Procreation of a child is not ever possible. This is not the case in interracial marriage and since the dawn of time - be it pair bonding or matrimony by private type contracts - this has been a family focusd institution based on child rearing and inheritance for those CHILDREN... Not grown adults who demand government benefits for not participating in that process and validation that they are accepted.

Never. Procreation never happens naturally, by accident, or otherwise in a same sex union.

Fatherless.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/03/29/police-pimp-forced-girl-to-tattoo-eyelids-with-his-name/

Name me one affluential gay person who has used their energies and the attention drawn to this whole marriage issue to focus a bright light on single parenthood and how they could possibly contribute to that solution in anyway whatsoever - even if they were to only use their momentum on this issue alone to address this....

They don't give a shit about anyone but themselves or their gimmies (as a whole) so fuck'em. They want benefits! They want they're obamaphones. They want to be the legitimate recipients of benefits that will cause distress on an already effed up system and create a situation where no one will have benefits of any kind.... Especially those whom it was
Created to protect. The children (those in poverty will suffer the worst of it).

-Feebzy

It's like people who don't pay taxes voting for an increase in taxes that will result in more benefits to them with no responsibilities in exchange.

I agree on the tax breaks. I don't believe that married people should have special privileges. I believe tax burden should be lowered for EVERYONE. But that isn't their aim. They want the Benes without the responsibilities of one major difference between them and hetero couples - and I would argue perhaps the ONLY major difference. They don't have the financial burdeon (majority) of having kids. Many don't buy homes and if they do, not in places where there are high property taxes that go to schools.

Now the double income no kids crowed (I don't include gay parents in my leveling scorn) wants to be treated equal but will do nothing to frame the argument in any other terms than their financial best interests, tax breaks etc.

Sorry Amy. I got nothin.

I would have much more respect if they spent their time and energy dismantling social security, Obamacare, our inequitable tax code instead of getting Obama elected. Obama getting elected and their unwavering support of him and demanding gimmies at the price of the rest of the middle and lower class leaves me uninterested in to their sorrows.

Someone denies work, shelter or some other human right to a gay person I would stand shoulder to shoulder alongside in their defense. Without question. But not this.

Payroll tax removed entirely for feds. Government involvement of any kind out of marriage - they should only be supporting the adherence of personal contracts through our court system. Not a one size fits all custody, child support, etc etc. You want to be "married" in the civil context - great. Write up a contract and do it. You want to be married in the church. Great. Do it!!!

But the transference of property rights and inheritance should be automatic for those who have children. What did people do before governments? They should not fear that the state will steal those familial derived benefits away in case of death. Especially in cases where mothers did not go out to work but rather stayed home to raise well adjusted children with manners who don't wind up stealing peoples cars or purses.