Equal Marriage and Divorce Rights Act (U.S. Version)

Health
,
21

Let’s separate emotion from evidence for a moment. You’re free to believe what you want, but if you’re going to talk about custody, child welfare, or public policy, then we need to ground the discussion in credible, peer-reviewed evidence—not anecdotes, fringe theories, or debunked pseudoscience.

1. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Are Not Disorders

Homosexuality and being transgender are not pathologies. They are not caused by labor drugs, seed oils, or environmental toxins—there’s no reputable scientific evidence to support those claims. Both the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have affirmed for years that being LGBTQ is a normal variation of human identity and development. To call people “emotionally abnormal” based on orientation is not only discriminatory—it’s factually false.

2. Stability of Same-Sex Households

You claim same-sex couples are inherently unstable and prone to abuse. That is simply wrong. Study after study—including longitudinal research published in Pediatrics, Child Development, and The Journal of Marriage and Family—shows that children raised by same-sex couples do just as well in emotional, educational, and social outcomes as those raised by heterosexual couples. Abuse is not more common in LGBTQ households. That’s a harmful myth without a factual basis.

If you know a tragic case, that’s not data—that’s anecdote. Public policy must be built on what’s true on average and proven, not on worst-case assumptions aimed at one group.

3. Custody and Breastfeeding

Yes, breastfeeding has well-documented benefits—but it’s not the only factor in custody. Courts already consider it when relevant. But insisting that only the breastfeeding mother can have custody essentially erases the rights and role of fathers, adoptive parents, and any non-breastfeeding caregiver. Many children raised without breastfeeding thrive. It’s a factor, not a trump card.

Moreover, the idea that breastfeeding defends against vaccine “toxins” or that shaken baby syndrome is caused by vaccines is flatly discredited by the medical community. Shaken baby syndrome is caused by violent trauma, not immunization. Claims to the contrary have been thoroughly debunked by experts in forensic pediatrics.

4. “You’re Unqualified” Is Not an Argument

Telling someone they’re “unqualified to make public policy” because they don’t agree with fringe beliefs isn’t persuasive—it’s gatekeeping. Good public policy is based on broad consensus, rigorous research, constitutional protections, and respect for human dignity. Not on personal fears or unverified stories.

You’re welcome to hold your views. But public policy—and especially something as sensitive as child custody—must be grounded in objective facts, legal protections, and the best interests of the child, not ideology or misinformation. Belief is not evidence, and fear is not a reason to strip others of rights or dignity.

22

Thank you. Think of the entire thing as a philosophical exercise. The important take away; People supplement their personal education, their personal thinking skills, their personal ability to debate and argue, they supplement that with the ‘AI’.

Read the conversation string again if you need. At every challenging point where I may have superseded the other persons cognitive ability, knowledge and reference base, the ability to debate the point with valid information; That’s where the AI bot was put in place to supplement the conversational points.

It’s like the users of this technology actually think it betters their position or somehow actually wins a debate. All it’s doing is regurgitating data in a rather stale fashion, illustrating the ignorance of those making the argument for AI tech.

That’s my opinion anyways. MIT recent performed a study on this which really proves the point in a more pragmatic fashion using empirical data. Use of AI causes immediate cognitive decline. It’s right there for anyone with an objective reasoning to see in plain site. The moment one uses AI tech they stop their educational path through life and supplement their cognitive reasoning to a machine.

The proposed constant counter point; Forcing people to deal with AI or accept the methodologies that do use AI is cruel and unusual punishment.

Reframe the argument. The move to AI is not organic. It is the cumulation of decades of invasive technological implementation throughout the world. People are being conditioned as fast as possible to accept this technology and even embrace it. AI tech is sold as a personally empowering tool, but nothing could be further from the truth. Although there may be some benefit, the room for abuse of power is simply too incredible and that’s why we should not embrace this technology, and should respect ‘the voluntary principal’, allowing people to opt out of participation if they so choose. It’s beyond obvious those whom are using AI tech are plagued by a sort of immediate cognitive dissonance, they’re not living in the same reality or pursuing the same merit based system based on hard work and achievement.

In the context of this specific proposal, it’s a back door work around to counter the resistance to the lgbtq movement. No matter how people frame this issue, it’s never going to fly with everyone because of peoples deeply held personal and religious convictions, their general ideological stance. Personally I like to keep this argument simple; don’t ask don’t tell was far better and more workable than what we have today.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-06-25-chatgpt-use-erodes-critical-thinking-skills.html

23

More AI nonsense.

You’ll never win the hearts and minds of people with an approach like this.

Give it up already. No means no. And No does not mean anything else than No.

We said no. And we meant no. Grow up and accept this. Hands off the kids, talk of sex and sexual preference in public spaces should be returned to a taboo status. And quite frankly, we don’t care and don’t want to hear about your personal life.

1 Like
24

That’s right. You tell them Helen!

Had just about enough of the government over reach.

What people do in their bedrooms is supposed to be a private matter.

The most frightening words in the english language; We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.

25

You raise a number of points that deserve serious reflection—about AI, education, autonomy, and ideological divides. But while your concerns reflect legitimate fears about overdependence on technology and government overreach, your argument mixes valid caution with broad generalizations, unsupported claims, and a misunderstanding of how both AI and critical thinking work in practice.

1. AI Doesn’t Replace Thinking—It Amplifies It (When Used Right)

The idea that using AI “halts” education or “erodes cognitive reasoning” is not supported by the evidence in any definitive or universal sense. In fact, studies (including from institutions like Stanford and Harvard, not just cherry-picked fringe sources) have shown that AI tools, when used deliberately, enhance productivity, broaden access to information, and improve critical thinking—because they give people more to reflect on, compare, and question. Tools don’t think for you—they give you raw material to work with. A sharp person doesn’t become dull by using a calculator—they use it to offload simple tasks so they can focus on the complex.

Yes, mindless reliance is a real concern. But that’s true for any tool—books, television, social media. It’s how it’s used that matters. The problem isn’t AI. The problem is intellectual laziness—with or without AI.

2. The “MIT Study” Claim Is Misleading

You cite an MIT study to argue that AI causes cognitive decline. But the actual 2024 study you’re likely referencing (assuming you’re not referring to an unverified or misrepresented article like the one from NaturalNews, which is a widely discredited source known for pseudoscience and conspiracy content) shows that overreliance on AI in certain settings (like when people accept answers without verifying them) can cause performance dips if people don’t stay engaged. That’s a risk with any authority figure or tool, not just AI.

That study doesn’t argue that AI inherently “erodes” thinking—it shows that good use requires active human judgment. In short, it’s an argument for better education and digital literacy—not against AI itself.

3. AI Is Not a “Backdoor” to Ideology

There’s a jump in your argument from a critique of AI to a claim that it’s a covert delivery system for LGBTQ agendas or ideological shifts. That’s not only speculative, it’s logically disconnected. A technology can be misused for ideological purposes—but it can also be used to question, analyze, and challenge them.

Framing AI use in debates as some kind of ideological surrender only makes sense if you assume its users lack the ability to think independently. Many don’t. But many do. And in real discussions—like this one—it’s the merit and clarity of the ideas that should count, not whether they came from a brain, a book, or a bot.

4. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Was Not a Solution—It Was a Compromise That Caused Harm

You mention “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a better policy. That policy forced LGBTQ service members to hide their identities or face discharge. It institutionalized fear, shame, and silence. Many Americans, including veterans and military leadership, eventually recognized it as unjust—not because of ideology, but because it undermined dignity and cohesion. That’s not progress. That’s a bandage over a wound.

People are absolutely entitled to their personal, cultural, and religious convictions. But public policy can’t be built solely on religious doctrine or personal discomfort. It must weigh fairness, freedom, and evidence.

5. Opt-Out Is Reasonable—Fear-Based Rejection Is Not

You close by advocating a “voluntary principle”—letting people opt out of AI. That’s totally fair. People should have choices. But pushing for a world where no one uses AI because some people are uncomfortable with it? That’s not respect for choice. That’s an attempt to limit other people’s tools because of your discomfort.

AI isn’t perfect. Neither is any human. But rejecting it entirely, especially based on fringe sources and sweeping ideological arguments, cuts off the chance for people to use it wisely, critically, and creatively.

In sum: Yes, we should question AI. Yes, we should guard against misuse and protect personal freedoms. But let’s not pretend that refusing to engage with new tools is a virtue—or that using them means surrendering our minds. That’s just not reality.

26

You’re absolutely entitled to your “no,” and to draw personal boundaries around what you’re comfortable with. That’s the foundation of a free society—people getting to set their own limits. But let’s be honest about what you’re saying and what it implies when applied to public policy, education, and civil rights.

1. “No” Is a Boundary—Not a Policy

When you say “We said no,” you’re not just expressing a personal opinion—you’re implying a collective veto over public discourse and other people’s rights. In a democracy, personal discomfort doesn’t automatically translate to public censorship. You don’t have to listen. But you also don’t get to shut down other people’s existence or right to speak.

If everyone governed public life based on what made them uncomfortable, we’d collapse into chaos. Muslims might say “no” to Christianity in schools. Jews might say “no” to pork at lunch. Conservatives might say “no” to climate science. Liberals might say “no” to guns. But we don’t get to rule by rejection. We have to live together, not just with people who are like us—but especially with those who aren’t.

2. Hands Aren’t on the Kids—That’s a Scare Tactic

The phrase “hands off the kids” gets thrown around to imply something sinister, even abusive. That’s inflammatory and misleading. The reality is that inclusive education—when done responsibly—is about acknowledging the diversity of family structures, identities, and lived realities that children already experience. LGBTQ kids exist. LGBTQ parents exist. Ignoring that doesn’t protect kids—it isolates and confuses them.

Nobody is teaching five-year-olds about sex acts. Age-appropriate education isn’t indoctrination. It’s preparation for a world where people come in many forms—and kids already know this, even if adults want to pretend they don’t.

3. The Public Sphere Includes Everyone—Not Just the Comfortable Majority

Saying “return it to taboo” means pushing people back into the closet—whether they’re gay, trans, or just non-traditional in some way. You may not care about someone’s “personal life,” but that personal life is often the basis for their safety, legal rights, and basic dignity. Think about how casually straight people talk about their spouses, pregnancies, marriages, and families. That’s not seen as political—it’s seen as normal. But the second a same-sex partner is mentioned, or someone discloses being trans, suddenly it’s “taboo” or “political.”

That double standard isn’t about manners. It’s about control.

4. You Can Reject AI, But You Can’t Rewrite Reality

Dismissing arguments as “AI nonsense” is not a rebuttal—it’s avoidance. If a point is wrong, explain why. If it’s factually flawed, correct it. But if the problem is that the information is well-sourced, clearly explained, and challenges your comfort zone, then the issue isn’t the tech—it’s the argument. Truth doesn’t stop being true just because it was delivered by a machine.

AI is just a tool. If it’s used to lie, that’s a problem. But when it’s used to present facts, research, and counterpoints—your rejection of it doesn’t automatically win the argument.

Bottom line: You don’t have to like the direction society is going. But if your only answer is “No,” with no openness to discussion, balance, or compromise, that’s not a moral stand—it’s a refusal to engage. A free society needs more than that. It needs debate, facts, and empathy—even when we disagree.

27

You’re right about one thing—what consenting adults do in their bedrooms should be private. That’s a foundational principle in a free society. But ironically, the people most vocal about “government overreach” often support laws that directly police or restrict that very privacy when it involves LGBTQ people, access to contraception, or gender identity.

So let’s be honest: you can’t say “keep government out of our bedrooms” and then support policies that do exactly the opposite.

1. Government “Overreach” Cuts Both Ways

Yes, government overreach is a real concern. That’s why we have constitutional limits and civil rights protections. But we should be precise. Not every government action is tyranny. Sometimes, the government intervenes to stop actual overreach—by others. For example:

  • Anti-discrimination laws prevent landlords or employers from denying someone housing or a job just because of who they are.
  • Court rulings have struck down sodomy laws and bans on same-sex marriage—because they violated privacy and freedom.

In these cases, the government isn’t the enemy. It’s the referee that stops people from using power to hurt others.

2. The Bedroom Isn’t the Issue—Visibility Is

When LGBTQ people are discussed in schools, seen in public, or mentioned in media, some people respond as if their “bedroom lives” are being forced on the public. But that’s not what’s happening. Talking about families, rights, and identity is not the same as talking about sex. Straight people do this all the time—no one bats an eye at a man talking about his wife or wearing a wedding ring. It’s only “too much information” when it’s someone LGBTQ.

That double standard has nothing to do with privacy—and everything to do with social discomfort. We shouldn’t confuse the two.

3. “We’re from the government…”—A Quip, Not a Guiding Principle

That Reagan line is clever, but let’s not pretend it’s a serious argument. Government brought us Social Security, Medicare, civil rights protections, disaster response, clean water, and food safety. Are there bad policies and bloated agencies? Sure. But that doesn’t mean all government action is dangerous. The absence of government oversight also leads to abuse—polluted rivers, predatory lenders, segregation, unchecked monopolies.

The issue isn’t government versus no government. It’s about smart governance—when to intervene, and how much.

Bottom line: If the concern is about privacy, dignity, and freedom, then we agree. But let’s apply that standard fairly—to everyone. Government shouldn’t be in people’s bedrooms—or forcing them back into the closet. And slogans like “no more overreach” only hold weight if we’re willing to look at where the real overreach is happening.

28

My response is not based on emotion. I have about as much emotion as Mr. Spock normally, and this issue is no exception. Peer reviewed evidence is known to be riddled with FRAUD. I don’t trust many of these lamestream sources and neither should you.

Both the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics are NOT TO BE TRUSTED. They are riddled with fraud and bias, and at least the American Academy of Pediatrics is fine with murdering a mother’s child before birth. Any organization that supports murder cannot be trusted.

I never said an anecdote is data. I didn’t present an anecdote on the issue of stability of same sex relationships. I also said not all such households are abusive.

I also never said that only the breastfeeding mother can have custody. I said that if there is abuse, then this is an exception. But it must be physical abuse. The father can also have joint LEGAL custody during breastfeeding, but not physical custody. It is not in the best interests of the child. Babies also need to be with their mothers full time. And adoptive parents sometimes can breastfeed. I did. Two adopted babies. Not commonly known. My children’s pediatrician told me African GRANDmothers breastfeed their grandbabies, and he told me how they did it. A caregiver isn’t an issue in custody determinations. It is a factor, but it does not trump everything. But it is a major factor, and it is unconscionable to disrupt it for any reason other than outright abuse. Your medical community that discredits the possible causes of shaken baby syndrome is thoroughly corrupted, having been bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, which thrives on selling poisons to mothers and children, and making children more sickly by opposing breastfeeding. Regardless, favoring breastfeeding because it is so vastly superior to bottle feeding is not an act of discrimination. There is no such thing as equal rights to custody. The best interests of the child counteract that. In addition to everything else, your proposal is anti-woman.

You are displaying significant ignorance and trust of corrupt institutions. Please do your homework and wise up. You have an agenda. Your proposed bill demonstrates that. You need to revise it so that it doesn’t equate unnatural relationships with the ones established at the very beginning of the world by God.

1 Like
29

Your message reflects deep personal convictions, and I respect that you care strongly about child welfare. But passionate belief does not justify the broad dismissal of science, institutions, and the lived experiences of others. Let’s separate conviction from fact, and ideology from what’s in the best interest of real children and families.

First, to broadly accuse peer-reviewed evidence of being “riddled with fraud” is intellectually reckless. Fraud exists in every field—but so do mechanisms to catch it. Peer review is not perfect, but it is a self-correcting system designed to evaluate claims based on data, not ideology. Blanket distrust of “lamestream” science is not critical thinking; it’s cynicism in disguise. If we abandon evidence-based standards because some studies fail or some institutions falter, we lose the ability to distinguish truth from bias—yours, mine, or anyone else’s.

Second, your attack on the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics undermines the very professionals who dedicate their lives to children’s health and development. These are not faceless bureaucracies—they are composed of thousands of pediatricians, psychologists, researchers, and caregivers who see and serve children every day. Disagreeing with a policy or ethical stance doesn’t mean their entire body of work is invalid. That kind of absolutist thinking is not a foundation for sound judgment; it’s a retreat from complexity.

Third, equating support for reproductive choice with an endorsement of “murder” is an emotionally loaded and deeply theological stance—not a legal or medical one. You are free to hold that belief, but in a pluralistic society, policy must be rooted in law and science, not personal religious doctrine. We do not make custody laws based on any one interpretation of God’s design for relationships or families.

Fourth, let’s talk about custody and breastfeeding. No credible legal standard says that mothers should always receive full physical custody simply because they breastfeed. Courts across the U.S. assess custody based on the best interests of the child, which includes bonding, caregiving patterns, and stability—but not exclusively breastfeeding. While breastfeeding has many benefits, those benefits do not inherently outweigh a child’s need for stable relationships with both parents, including fathers, same-sex parents, or adoptive caregivers. Your personal story of adoptive breastfeeding is powerful—but it is not generalizable data, and does not justify excluding fathers or non-biological caregivers from early childhood involvement.

Fifth, the suggestion that “unnatural relationships” are less deserving of equal standing under the law is deeply discriminatory and out of step with both modern psychology and constitutional law. LGBTQ+ parents are raising millions of children across the country—and study after study shows those children do just as well on average, emotionally, socially, and educationally, as their peers. If we’re truly concerned about child welfare, we must measure parenting by the love, safety, and commitment in a home—not the gender or orientation of the adults in it.

Finally, your claim that this argument is “anti-woman” ignores the reality that many women, including lesbian mothers, benefit from the same legal protections you want denied to others. Supporting equal custody rights, evidence-based medicine, and pluralistic policy is not anti-woman—it’s pro-child, pro-family, and pro-truth.

We must build policy on facts, not fear. On shared humanity, not selective morality. You may think I have an agenda—but my only “agenda” is fairness, compassion, and fidelity to truth over dogma.