quote:
I had this idea the other night, what do you think: Trade your current insurance plan for one that is half as good so that another person, maybe an uninsured relative, would also be able to get some basic level of coverage. Assuming it could actually be underwritten, would you do it?
ha! if i had knew someone who was sick and uninsured and i liked them, i would do it. it’s funny we just had a meeting about our new insurance (we are switching at the end of the month) and it was announced that under the new plan “domestic partners” can be included on your plan and a bunch of people cheered lol. i was like 2 seconds from raising my hand and asking if i could put my dog on my insurance but then i realized id probably look like a total moron or a dick in front of everyone.
i still dont understand why pets cant go on your insurance but “domestic partners” can. can someone please explain to me?!
BrooklynCouch — We covered this yesterday. You must be a terrible lawyer. The Equal Protection clause is CENTRAL to all law.
By BrooklynCouch on August 4, 2010 7:07 PM
“You can’t marry your sister–is that unconstitutional and inhuman? Or your already-married friend, or your mother, or a child, or your dog.”
NO ONE is allowed to marry a family member.
NO ONE is allowed polygamous marriage.
NO ONE is allowed to marry (or have sex with) an animal.
This is the 14th Amendment. Equal Protection.
The law ALLOWS, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES special protections and privileges to heterosexual couples who have signed a marriage contract. Homosexual couples are DENIED the ability to enter into this same contractual relationship. This is prima facie a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause…. unfortunately, it’s not treated as a prima facie violation because the arguments against same-sex marriage are FULL of non-sequitors and pleas to religion and culture.
The law is supposed to be applied CONSISTENTLY and applied fairly regardless of the majority’s current opinion. This is what the Founding Fathers intended.
Society’s early assumptions about the superiority of the traditional family form have been challenged by the results of empirical research. Early in the Twentieth Century, it was widely believed that traditional family settings were necessary in order for children to adjust well. Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.[142][143][144] Since the end of the 1980’s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.[143]
Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature.[5][145][142][146][143] In fact, the promotion of this notion, and the laws and public policies that embody it, are clearly counter to the well-being of children.[142] No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being.[147][142][143] Society is replete with role models from whom children and adolescents can learn about socially prescribed male and female roles.[143]
Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[5][4][142][148][149][150] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[142] These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents.[6]
The abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree.Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents.[151] 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.[152][153][6][143]
Professor Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rightsâ€.[155] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[156] the American Psychiatric Association,[157] the American Psychological Association [158], the American Psychoanalytic Association [159], the National Association of Social Workers,[5] the Child Welfare League of America,[160] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[161] and Canadian Psychological Association.[162]
d: thanks for the explanation. Can’t promise to be more positive…it’s better theatre the other way ;).
Europe may be teetering on the brink, but I don’t see how it’s different (in effect, not in specifics) from here. We may have dodged the bullet of the recession, but at a very high price. And at least partially, Europe’s problems are a result of our financial edginess.
m4l, presumably it will put more money in people’s pockets either through a reduction in the interest rate or a reduction in the principal and then a reboot of the monthly payment based on those terms.
If it does not do that then it is an EPIC FAIL. I wouldn’t put it past this administraion to f&^ck it up!!!!!!
quote:
forgive a portion of the mortgage debt of millions of Americans who owe more than what their homes are worth
are you F*ing kidding me!?!? i pay more in rent than what my neighborhood is worth, where the hell is MY relief huh!?!? F U obama i hope a pigeon carrying parvo shi+s on your eggshaped head cuz that is what you are doing to many people!
And don’t bother with BC anymore. he behaves like a 12 year old child, running in and out of the room to get attention.
His personality is obviously such that he can’t engage in a dialogue because, as you and I and the others know, he cannot support his opinions logically.
quote:
DIBS — I’m afraid to go to that website. Is http://www.silverdaddies.com a porn site?
it’s where broke ass gay man children go to find someone to support them. no taxes being paid on any of that shi+ im sure.
*rob*
quote:
I had this idea the other night, what do you think: Trade your current insurance plan for one that is half as good so that another person, maybe an uninsured relative, would also be able to get some basic level of coverage. Assuming it could actually be underwritten, would you do it?
ha! if i had knew someone who was sick and uninsured and i liked them, i would do it. it’s funny we just had a meeting about our new insurance (we are switching at the end of the month) and it was announced that under the new plan “domestic partners” can be included on your plan and a bunch of people cheered lol. i was like 2 seconds from raising my hand and asking if i could put my dog on my insurance but then i realized id probably look like a total moron or a dick in front of everyone.
i still dont understand why pets cant go on your insurance but “domestic partners” can. can someone please explain to me?!
*rob*
By more4less on August 5, 2010 1:22 PM
As VP with, perhaps, Romney (if Romney renounces MA-style healthcare and actually gets the nomination)
BrooklynCouch — We covered this yesterday. You must be a terrible lawyer. The Equal Protection clause is CENTRAL to all law.
By BrooklynCouch on August 4, 2010 7:07 PM
“You can’t marry your sister–is that unconstitutional and inhuman? Or your already-married friend, or your mother, or a child, or your dog.”
NO ONE is allowed to marry a family member.
NO ONE is allowed polygamous marriage.
NO ONE is allowed to marry (or have sex with) an animal.
This is the 14th Amendment. Equal Protection.
The law ALLOWS, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES special protections and privileges to heterosexual couples who have signed a marriage contract. Homosexual couples are DENIED the ability to enter into this same contractual relationship. This is prima facie a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause…. unfortunately, it’s not treated as a prima facie violation because the arguments against same-sex marriage are FULL of non-sequitors and pleas to religion and culture.
The law is supposed to be applied CONSISTENTLY and applied fairly regardless of the majority’s current opinion. This is what the Founding Fathers intended.
Society’s early assumptions about the superiority of the traditional family form have been challenged by the results of empirical research. Early in the Twentieth Century, it was widely believed that traditional family settings were necessary in order for children to adjust well. Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.[142][143][144] Since the end of the 1980’s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.[143]
Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature.[5][145][142][146][143] In fact, the promotion of this notion, and the laws and public policies that embody it, are clearly counter to the well-being of children.[142] No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being.[147][142][143] Society is replete with role models from whom children and adolescents can learn about socially prescribed male and female roles.[143]
Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[5][4][142][148][149][150] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[142] These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents.[6]
The abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree.Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents.[151] 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.[152][153][6][143]
Professor Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rightsâ€.[155] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[156] the American Psychiatric Association,[157] the American Psychological Association [158], the American Psychoanalytic Association [159], the National Association of Social Workers,[5] the Child Welfare League of America,[160] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[161] and Canadian Psychological Association.[162]
d: thanks for the explanation. Can’t promise to be more positive…it’s better theatre the other way ;).
Europe may be teetering on the brink, but I don’t see how it’s different (in effect, not in specifics) from here. We may have dodged the bullet of the recession, but at a very high price. And at least partially, Europe’s problems are a result of our financial edginess.
m4l, presumably it will put more money in people’s pockets either through a reduction in the interest rate or a reduction in the principal and then a reboot of the monthly payment based on those terms.
If it does not do that then it is an EPIC FAIL. I wouldn’t put it past this administraion to f&^ck it up!!!!!!
quote:
forgive a portion of the mortgage debt of millions of Americans who owe more than what their homes are worth
are you F*ing kidding me!?!? i pay more in rent than what my neighborhood is worth, where the hell is MY relief huh!?!? F U obama i hope a pigeon carrying parvo shi+s on your eggshaped head cuz that is what you are doing to many people!
*rob*
No tybur, it’s a dating site.
And don’t bother with BC anymore. he behaves like a 12 year old child, running in and out of the room to get attention.
His personality is obviously such that he can’t engage in a dialogue because, as you and I and the others know, he cannot support his opinions logically.
I pity his clients in whatever law he practices.