Court favors disclosing anti-gay marr...

Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors

There are 1782 comments on the KCRA-TV Sacramento story from May 20, 2014, titled Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors. In it, KCRA-TV Sacramento reports that:

Same-sex marriage opponents can't keep the identities of their campaign donors secret, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in upholding a lower court decision.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KCRA-TV Sacramento.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#1676 Jul 14, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Family is gay code for bad.
Wrong again, poodle. "Family" is fundie code for "we hate the gays and even we are too ashamed to admit it out loud so we'll pretend we're just looking out for families, instead."

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1679 Jul 15, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay dads' brains show activity akin to both parents': study
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/26/us-...
Having a baby alters new mothers' brain activity, researchers have found, and a new study adds the first evidence of such changes in the brains of gay men raising children they adopted through surrogacy.
The men's pattern of brain activity resembles that of both new mothers and new fathers in the study.
The research, reported on Monday, could feed into the debate over whether gay men should be allowed to adopt children. Many U.S. adoption agencies will not work with same-sex couples, and some states prohibit them from adopting.
The current study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was conducted in Israel, and builds on work by neuropsychologist Ruth Feldman of Bar-Ilan University and others, who showed that the brains of new mothers become hyper-reactive to their child's cries and other emotional cues.....The 48 gay fathers raising children with their husbands seemed to be both mom and dad, brain-wise. Their emotional circuits were as active as those of mothers and the interpretive circuits showed the same extra activity as that of heterosexual fathers'....in gay fathers, but not heterosexual ones, the brain also had extra communication lines between emotional and cognitive structures. The more time a man spent as primary caregiver, the greater the connectivity. It was as if playing both parental roles caused the brain to integrate the structures required for each.
"Fathers' brains are very plastic," Feldman said. "When there are two fathers, their brains must recruit both networks, the emotional and cognitive, for optimal parenting."
**********
In case you missed it, the study indicates gay dads provide optimal parenting.
"Fathers' brains are very plastic," Feldman said. "When there are two fathers, their brains must recruit both networks, the emotional and cognitive, for optimal parenting."
Twirl on SmirkySmurfette
Why have social scientists not conducted long term studies on male gay couples with children?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1680 Jul 15, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Where, in any of that drivel, does it say that a) those same attributes cannot be presented by an opposite gender parent, b) that children are harmed by not having both gendered parents, and c) where's your support for your claim that children of same-sex couples and single parents DON'T have those opposite gender influences that you seem to worship??
I know you think it's clever to copy/paste answers that don't address the questions on the table, but the more you do that, the more obvious it is that you have no clue what you're talking about and don't have the integrity to admit it.
Um, it addressed all those points, but you censored them.

Are you joining DNF in claiming a man is a mom?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1681 Jul 15, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
CFC Idaho is an offshoot of focus on the Family--a religious group with zero scientific credibility. This screed is full of gender cliches and traditionalist BS that they can't possibly back up.
<quoted text>
So an article that addresses your previous post is disqualified because of who posted it and not it's reasoning?

We call that bigotry. Bigotry is rooted in ignorance, which you have already proven.

Smile.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1684 Jul 15, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
As I've pointed out ad nauseum, it's not as easy as you imagine. First you have to break the law. Then you need a political organization that's willing to help you break the law. In otherwords, you have to contribute to criminal enterprises.
Yes, I do know that criminal enterprises regularly exert influence over government.
Donations of $50 or less are not reported. Send $50/day or week until you reach your donation amount. No law will be broken. Go to a post office or bank and buy a money order for $100. That's twice the $50 limit. Send it to your favorite cause and let us know when it's returned to you.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1685 Jul 15, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. This would be obvious to all but people with the simplest minds, my point is you are a hypocrite.
Wondering, at issue is disclosing the identity of people who are making substantial donations to political campaigns and issues. We are on an online commenting forum.
If you think the two are synonymous, then you are more crazy than I have given you credit for being.
Wondering wrote:
2. You have confirmed that you don't know. That makes you look even more asinine than you did. A feat I would have thought was impossible.
No, Wondering, I am well aware. You were the one who seemed to suffer from a TIA, and suddenly not have your bearings any longer.

The reality remains that you are a troll with nothing of value to offer the debate, who is utterly incapable of advancing a rational argument. This is why all of your posts devolve into mindless trolling with no point.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1686 Jul 15, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Donations of $50 or less are not reported. Send $50/day or week until you reach your donation amount. No law will be broken. Go to a post office or bank and buy a money order for $100. That's twice the $50 limit. Send it to your favorite cause and let us know when it's returned to you.
I know that the causes I donate to follow the law carefully. We know you don't care about law as long as you get your way. Apparently, the causes you donate to operate in the same vein.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1688 Jul 15, 2014
No, it's called education. Your screed tosses out notions with no proof of anything to back them up, and is published/endorsed by a group known to lie and to have no scientific gravitas whatsoever. It's reasoning boils down to "this is what we want to believe" when it needs to be "here's the evidence supporting our conclusions."

The ignorance is entirely yours, half-a-man.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So an article that addresses your previous post is disqualified because of who posted it and not it's reasoning?
We call that bigotry. Bigotry is rooted in ignorance, which you have already proven.
Smile.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1689 Jul 15, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, at issue is disclosing the identity of people who are making substantial donations to political campaigns and issues. We are on an online commenting forum.
If you think the two are synonymous, then you are more crazy than I have given you credit for being.
<quoted text>
No, Wondering, I am well aware. You were the one who seemed to suffer from a TIA, and suddenly not have your bearings any longer.
The reality remains that you are a troll with nothing of value to offer the debate, who is utterly incapable of advancing a rational argument. This is why all of your posts devolve into mindless trolling with no point.
You are a hypocrite, a liar and a troll. But you're funny.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1690 Jul 15, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that the causes I donate to follow the law carefully. We know you don't care about law as long as you get your way. Apparently, the causes you donate to operate in the same vein.
That is hilarious! Gays want to change laws, religion, anything they don't like and you claim I have no respect for the law. It doesn't get much funnier.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1691 Jul 15, 2014
lides wrote:
No, Wondering, I am well aware.
BTW, Mr. Well Aware, that is not an answer. What is my position? You seem to have no idea.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1692 Jul 15, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That is hilarious! Gays want to change laws, religion, anything they don't like and you claim I have no respect for the law. It doesn't get much funnier.
Yeah, we're using our constitutional right to petition the government. I'll be the last to claim none of our large movement has run afoul of the law. But the main organizations leading our efforts, at least, follow both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Actually, your stupidity would be awfully funny if it weren't so sad. You just can't resist making yourself a bigger fool.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1693 Jul 15, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, we're using our constitutional right to petition the government. I'll be the last to claim none of our large movement has run afoul of the law. But the main organizations leading our efforts, at least, follow both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Actually, your stupidity would be awfully funny if it weren't so sad. You just can't resist making yourself a bigger fool.
That's wonderful. Oh, I had a large movement this morning, feel great now.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1694 Jul 15, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why have social scientists not conducted long term studies on male gay couples with children?
Probably for the same reason they haven't studied the effects of having a Dad who has a vagina.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1695 Jul 15, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That is hilarious! Gays want to change laws, religion, anything they don't like and you claim I have no respect for the law. It doesn't get much funnier.
Excuse me but will you please explain how enforcing the Constitution is changing the law?

As I've said to you before buckwheat, marriage laws were CHANGED in over 29 states so you could prevent people from enjoying the same freedoms you enjoy.

Check the laws. SSM was not illegal prior to 1975! It was just never considered something people would do. Kinda like how folks figured no white woman would ever want to marry a black guy.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1696 Jul 16, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's wonderful. Oh, I had a large movement this morning, feel great now.
Next time you have that urge, please leave the board and use your toilet.
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#1697 Jul 16, 2014
We the people should know is donating to NAZI FASCIST groups and politicians.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1698 Jul 16, 2014
Wondering wrote:
You are a hypocrite, a liar and a troll. But you're funny.
The only troll here is you, Wondering. This fact is proven by post like the one to which I am responding, in which you fail to address the topic on any level.
Wondering wrote:
BTW, Mr. Well Aware, that is not an answer. What is my position? You seem to have no idea.
Wondering, you were the one who was asking what your position was. Perhaps, you should get screened for alzheimer's disease?

The simple fact of the matter is that your argument is not even worth repeating, because it is risible. Grow up, kiddo. You are utterly incapable of articulating a reason why contributors to political issues and campaigns should not disclose their identity and the size of their contribution.

I know you hate transparency and accountability, but you have been incapable of articulating a single valid reason for not disclosing this information. Your assertion that donors would fall victim to illegal assault speaks for itself, we already have laws against such activity, and you have no ability to indicate that such assaults actually would happen.

"Yet multiple federal judges and state boards have thrown out NOM-backed cases, concluding the reasons NOM cites for needing such secrecy LGBT people are bullies and will harass NOM supporters is bogus and without sufficient evidence. NOM has unsuccessfully challenged disclosure laws in Washington, Maine, Minnesota, New York, California, Rhode Island and Iowa. In fact, in every jurisdiction that NOM and its allies have tried to undermine public disclosure, they have lost."
http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed/section/legal-d...

NOM was advancing the very argument you are presenting here. It failed in each of these jurisdictions. Are you capable of finding a single instance in which disclosure in these jurisdictions led to an illegal assault?

Go ahead, Wondering, prove to me that you are actually smarter than a rock.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1699 Jul 16, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The only troll here is you, Wondering. This fact is proven by post like the one to which I am responding, in which you fail to address the topic on any level.
2. Wondering, you were the one who was asking what your position was. Perhaps, you should get screened for alzheimer's disease?
3. The simple fact of the matter is that your argument is not even worth repeating, because it is risible. Grow up, kiddo. You are utterly incapable of articulating a reason why contributors to political issues and campaigns should not disclose their identity and the size of their contribution.
4. I know you hate transparency and accountability, but you have been incapable of articulating a single valid reason for not disclosing this information. Your assertion that donors would fall victim to illegal assault speaks for itself, we already have laws against such activity, and you have no ability to indicate that such assaults actually would happen.
5. Go ahead, Wondering, prove to me that you are actually smarter than a rock.
1. I know, even you can't figure out why I waste my time on you.
2. False. I was asking YOU what my position was since you refer to it continuously. Still no answer. Hard question for the feeble minded?
3. Translation: I can't tell you what it is because I'm clueless. BWAHAHAHA!
4. Yes. We have all kinds of laws. When are these laws useful, before or after a crime is committed?
5. You aren't smart enough to see it. I'm you teacher and mentor. All you have learned is how to parrot some of the insults I send your way. You're like a kid that giggles when they hear a swear word.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1700 Jul 16, 2014
Wondering wrote:
I'm you teacher and mentor.
That's disturbing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Autos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Vpecker has updated from V8.9 to V9.0 Fri eobdtool 1
Vpecker easydiag scanner update to v4.13 (Nov '15) Fri eobdtool 12
Renault CAN CLIP V152 released (Nov '15) Thu eobdtool 4
Renault diagnostic tool , choose COM Bluetooth ... Thu eobdtool 2
Renault can clip v162 issues & solutions Thu eobdtool 2
Renault CAN Clip Diagnostic interface software... Thu eobdtool 3
Elsawin 5.3 Windows 7 32bit Installation with S... Thu uobd2 3
More from around the web