Cognitive dissonance: Oppose gay-marriage because children of unmarried couples fare less than from married couples....

One of the main arguments against gay marriage that we hear over and over again is that it is bad for the children raised by same-sex couples. Well, opposing same-sex marriage is not going to change that those children are raised by same-sex couples, whether their parents are married or not.

When pressed why it is bad for the children, the argument often is comparatively, namely that children living in unmarried families, like single mothers, unmarried co-habiting parents, step-parents, etc fare less good than children from happy married couples.

Every time I hear this argument, I am stunned by the inane stupidity of the argument. This argument is the prime argument to promote same-sex marriage. Because if their parents would be allowed to marry, the children should be better of? Not?

Well, if you press them on the details, what you find out is that they try to link two arguments. One is the one I just described, the second is that a child needs a father and a mother, and the link they want to make is that same-sex couples can never offer a mother and a father, and thus need to be compared to the unmarried and single parents trying to raise kids.

Unfortunately, the second argument has already been shot down by social science research, which shows that children raised by functional same-sex couples are equally or even better off than children of married heterosexual couples.

if we combine these, allowing same-sex parents to marry is actually going to help their children. Maybe that is where they are afraid for..... Maybe they are afraid to look incompetent because the kids of the gays are actually doing better......

Will the same-sex marriages haters risk a ruling that will affect the whole nation?

Today, the ruling on the prop 8 trial will be announced. The same-sex marriage haters have already filed a motion for a stay of the decision pending appeal if the case is going to be ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Based on the specifics of the motion wording, you can bet it is a win for US!

So, appeal. The current ruling ONLY affects California, and leaves the rest of the country out of the loop. A loss at the appeal court would widen this to a loss for a whole range of states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. and of course, if they appeal it to the US supreme court, it would affect the whole nation.

So, if they want to slow down how many states (have to) recognize same-sex marriages, they would be far better of to not appeal and give away California. Why? There case was a disaster. At the appeals court, they cannot bring new arguments. So, the case will be decided pretty much based on what is now on the record. And that record is, well, shitty at least. Maybe better to qualify it as non-existing.

So, what would be the alternative? Let it stand. Throw California under the train and move on. Because this means that if another gay couple in one of the other states of the union finally wants to be treated as a full citizen, they have to start their own case. With their own lawyer, their own witnesses etc. And this gives the haters one MAJOR opportunity. Time to prepare themselves better. To have real experts. And maybe they will be lucky to find a judge who is more activist and willing to impose his own conservative dogma on the case.

Of course, some day, some case will reach the US supreme court. It can be sooner if they appeal now, or maybe later if they take the loss of one state and try to build a more solid case in the next court battle. The later would be a better strategy, because it they get more favorable evidence into the records, they actually will have a higher change of winning when they finally reach the US supreme court.

But rest assured, they won't be this smart. If their performance at the trial is a indicator, they are so convinced they are right that they are willing to risk it all, just to be right! You almost would think they are actually in favor of same-sex marriage.

And because of that, we have to thank them for helping our cause. So, please, file an appeal and help us to finally ride this country of a grave injustice!

JONAH: Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing

JONAH, the lasted shield for con artist Arthur Abba Goldberg has changed its name from Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexciality to Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing. read this good:

"New alternative to Healing"

What? If I am sick, I just want to heal. Not some alternative idea that being sick is a growing moment or something equivalently bizarre than that. But apparently, that is what they want to offer. So, lets explore first why they are actually correct, and second, what those alternatives could be.

They are correct!

Of course they are correct, homosexuality cannot be changed by therapy, the long list of ex-ex-gay people, the rampant number of suicides among those that tried the ex-gay path, and the incredible low success rate or gay-aversion therapy underline that healing from the gay is impossible. Thank God oops, Yahweh, for that. And I am sop glad that JONAH is now falling in line with what most reputable psychologists already know, you cannot prey oops, pray away the gay.

The alternatives!

So, what are those alternatives to healing? Do not look further than Alan Downing, one of the senior therapists of JONAH. In stead of offering healing, he uses his clients to fulfill his unmet needs for manly flesh. Yes, sexual harassment is indeed an alternative to healing. Or what about the "Cuddle Room"

Lets stop the charade. JONAH is just a cover for unlimited homosexual experience in a way that you can proclaim to the world that you actually try to prey on oops, prey away the gay!

Vilsack must resign

Whow, is the administration so afraid for right-wing extremists that they now do their career lynchings for them? Looks like it. The short story. A notorious blogger, Andrew Breitbart, posts a doctored tape so he can attack the NAACP and the administration. The tape is doctored to make it look like that a mid-level, hard-working, African-American department of agriculture official, Shirley Sherrod, is racist. Reverse racism that is. That she did not help white farmers as much as she would help black farmers. Administration and NAACP overreact. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack calls her on the way home, doesn't want to listen to her, pressures her to resign immediately. Real tape surfaces, becomes obvious that the tape is doctored, administration sees they f***ed up, they apologize, give her her job back, probably with promotion. Problem solved?

NO

I think this is outrageous. Once we toss out due process, in case like this, we have started to do the career lynchings for the right-wing racists who have only one agenda, and that is to topple this administration. I think that the resignation of all officials involved, to start with Tom Vilsack, is needed. Really, can we trust the rule of the law when we have officials who trow those rules overboard the minute a mid-level employee is accused of being racist?

Gay segregation in the Army?

I thought the segregation had ended, but it looks like the Pentagon just wants it back, but now for openly gay personnel. Well, it would make things really interesting if they did. Because, until you have outed yourself,you can just spy on the dick size of the hetro machos, but oh my god, when you are caught, you are limited to just fantasizing about it when you are along in the special shower for yourself..... Well, it is better than losing your job, but wasn't the purpose to protect the fragile heterosexuals from the predatory gay men?

To the Straight Guy at the Party Last Night

This post is continuously flagged at craigslist as inappropriate, restored and flagged again. So I duplicate it here.

---

A mutual friend of ours threw a big party for her 30th birthday, tons of people were there and it was a lot of fun. Somewhere along the line you and I ended up on the balcony for some fresh air at the same time. We started chatting; we talked about sports, books, tv – discovered we both are about to start our masters degrees and spent some time debating the pro’s and con’s of the educational system. We talked about hanging out sometime, and you wanted to meet my girlfriend.

I understand how upsetting it was for you when I blinked mildly in surprise and said I was here with my husband. I know it was a shock to your system, if your face had turned any paler I might have called 911. You made a good recovery though - that hurried mutter of “I’m not like that” was very polite and you only knocked over two drinks and one vase in your hurry to rush to anywhere other than near me. I can’t blame you – I forgot how delicate you straight boys are. So I wanted to give you a few helpful hints about where you went wrong last night.

1) As a general rule we don’t walk around with big signs around our neck proclaiming our sexuality. No scarlet letters, no scent of hellfire and brimstone… sorry about that.

2) We do not generally assume that everyone within 5 feet of us must also be homosexual – it was nice of you to immediately reassure me that you are hetero, but it was really unnecessary.

3) Homosexuality is not infectious. While I am sure you meant no disrespect with your hasty departure; in the future you can rest assured that taking a few extra seconds in your mad dash for safety will not result in you being turned gay. It will however keep you from destroying expensive vases and knocking over senior citizens.

4) This next one may come as a surprise; but you are not, in fact, irresistible. The fact that you have a dick does not instantly turn me into a bundle of uncontrolled lust. Contrary to popular opinion, being in the same room with a straight man does not cause a gay man to instantly lose all common sense and basic common courtesy. Though I am not so sure about the reverse.

5) Homosexuals in general get a little irked when people treat us like some sort of leper. Rushing to another mutual friend of ours and advising him of my sexuality, so he could be “forewarned” was really uncalled for.

6) Upon being told (by said mutual friend) to stop being an idiot and that you were not my type anyway… it generally confuses the issue when you then proceed to become upset that I DON’T find you attractive. Three seconds ago you were running through a crowd of people with your hands cupped protectively over your junk as if I might attack you at any moment with a blowjob. See hint number 4.

7) We homosexuals have an odd sense of humor – I can’t help that. Something about watching you freak out as if all the demons of hell were after you just struck me as vastly amusing.

8) While being pissed at me for dissolving into uncontrollable laughter might be understandable… gathering a couple guys together to “teach the fag a lesson” is not.

9) You might also want to drink a little less and be a little more careful about the guys you approach for your little proto-hate-mob.

10) Assuming the two tall muscle-bound bruisers must be uber-hetero and just as appalled by my presence as you was your first mistake. It was an understandable one though. How were you to know that pflag tshirt the first guy was wearing wasn’t a sports team? Also the rainbow ring the second guy was wearing could have meant anything I am sure.

11) In retrospect I suppose that upon hearing your not very subtle hate-talk and seeing who you were heading for; I could have said something instead of just laughing harder. I apologize for that. I should have just introduced you to my husband instead of letting you walk up to him and ask him if he wanted to help you teach “that fag over there” a lesson. I hope that broken nose heals up cleanly.

Marriage: An $80,000,000 word

The proposition 8 campaign in California costed more than $80,000,000.00. The goal, limiting the use of the word marriage in legal context in the state of California. It wasn't about rights, because in California, the supreme court has ruled that gays should have exactly the same rights. Something they reiterated after Prop 8 passed and it was challenged in court. It is also not limiting the use of the word in religious context. Everybody can get married at a LGBT-friendly church. Just let it sink in. Just let it sink in that this campaign was about whether same-sex couples may use the word marriage in a legal context. Nothing else.

Just think about what could have been done with $80,000,000.00? I know what I would do. What would you do?