Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He chose not to be part of his daughter's lifeIt's still her father's fault for not being aroundYou are fabricating information. You don't know that it was the mother that broke up the family.I feel bad for her mother. No doubt she made sacrifices being a single parent. She stood by her child and did her best. And her daughter berates good mother's that give their children the best and places her father's companionship above a step parent that took up the mantel he was too much of a dead beat to carry himself.
She seems like she is angry with the world and not the only person she should be angry with.
What a way to honor her mother.
Her mother married a man, had a child and then broke up the family.
The only information that we have on the father comes from his ex-wife, though her daughter, who was 2 and 3 at the time in question.
Also if I had a child I'd do everything in my power to see that child. If I couldn't while she was a youth, I Damn sure would when she was an adult. Didn't seem like that happened.
Her mother stayed with her, her father ran away. The father is the dirt bag in this story. The mother made sacrifices for her child.
Where I think she is justified feeling that she was slighted for not having her father in her life, it's her father's fault.
I'm sorry she comes of as an angry little child blaming the parent that did by her.
From the article,
"In her essay, she explains that when she was 2 or 3, her mother, who already knew that she was gay, left Barwick’s father to have a relationship with a woman."
The lesbian mommy married some poor guy, got the child she wanted, then booted him to the curb.
THe mother "sacrificed" the child's family so that she could have what she wanted, not what anyone else wanted.
We have no information to that effect.
YOu are just reflexively assuming the man is the bad guy.
I don't care for agenda driven speculation.For all we know the mother did not let the father come around.
I'm onlyworking with the information provided. Making up some story about the mother not letting dad see her is really rather pointless.A 2 or 3 year old in not in a position to know what is going on between her parents. She knows nothing about what happened other than what her mother told her.
I don't consider posters on the internet desperate to blame the gays because they are icky and evil to be reliable either.I do not consider ex-spouses to be reliable sources.
The Regenerus study has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday...and laughed out of court.
Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.
Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.
The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.
Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.
Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.
I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.
Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.
Funny how, when the consensus was against you, that was not a reason to consider the issue closed.
A Constitutional Amendment can change or get rid of anything....good luck with it tho....it's been tried and failed over 9000 times in our nation's history...........only successful 17 individual times after the first 10.The people have also passed other laws thru Propositions that have been struck down as unConstitutional. But you would support those laws anyways, right? Including a Proposition passed that severly restricted gun possession?
If a majority of the people in the USA voted to amend the constitution to restrict gun ownership, then yes, I would accept the will of the people.
But gun rights and gay marriage are not even close constitutionally. One is specifically addressed in an amendment, the other is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
But if you want gay marriage to be constitutional, call for a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it. Then it would be a done deal. How about it?
exactly, so your gun control analogy is bullshit, I already knew that.
You just called yourself out for bullshit. Marriage equality is already Constitutional you silly Chickenfish. It's YOU that needs the Constitutional Amendment to prevent gays from marrying or to have your national referendum. Good luck. With a national referendum system, maybe we can get single payer healthcare...or at least a Public Option. You get the campaign going, I'll donate to it.
The little game where gays and libs have argued, successfully that marriage means something that no one thought it did just a few years ago,
It is literally Orwellian.
The "Debate" as it was, was not waged in the legislative branch. Nor was it really waged even in the courts.
It consisted of sophist word games that were shoved down the throat of the American public over and over again as propaganda.
The double think is incredible.
"Only bigots are against gay marriage."
Bill Clinton and Obama were both against gay marriage less then 5 year ago.
And yet they got the gay vote overwhelmingly.
THis is not how democracy is supposed to work.
The Regenerus study has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday...and laughed out of court.
Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.
Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.
The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.
Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.
Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.
I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.
Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.
Funny how, when the consensus was against you, that was not a reason to consider the issue closed.
the consensus is still against them. not just in the USA but world wide.
The Regenerus study has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday...and laughed out of court.
Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.
Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.
The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.
Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.
Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.
I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.
Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.
Funny how, when the consensus was against you, that was not a reason to consider the issue closed.
the consensus is still against them. not just in the USA but world wide.
Link?
2%, and at what number shall we stop the American value of treating everyone equally?Come on America, why are we leting 5% of the population drive what is discussed and what is important?
WTF have we become? A nation of politically correct morons?
Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.
The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.
Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.
Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.
I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.
Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.
Funny how, when the consensus was against you, that was not a reason to consider the issue closed.
the consensus is still against them. not just in the USA but world wide.
Link?
well lets see now. 1 billion muslims, against
500 million hindus and buddists, against
1 billion chinese, against
60% of americans, against
1 billion catholics and protestants, against
you do the math, you may have 5% of the population of the world. BTW 95% is more than a consensus.
A Constitutional Amendment can change or get rid of anything....good luck with it tho....it's been tried and failed over 9000 times in our nation's history...........only successful 17 individual times after the first 10.If a majority of the people in the USA voted to amend the constitution to restrict gun ownership, then yes, I would accept the will of the people.
But gun rights and gay marriage are not even close constitutionally. One is specifically addressed in an amendment, the other is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
But if you want gay marriage to be constitutional, call for a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it. Then it would be a done deal. How about it?
exactly, so your gun control analogy is bullshit, I already knew that.
gay marriage is not in the constitution----------where do you get this shit?
They are pretending that the word marriage always meant, between any two PEOPLE, not between a man and a woman.
It normallyis both parents fault they divorced. But that isn't really relevant her father still could have been part of her life. It's still her father's fault.It's still her father's fault for not being aroundYou are fabricating information. You don't know that it was the mother that broke up the family.Her mother married a man, had a child and then broke up the family.
The only information that we have on the father comes from his ex-wife, though her daughter, who was 2 and 3 at the time in question.
Also if I had a child I'd do everything in my power to see that child. If I couldn't while she was a youth, I Damn sure would when she was an adult. Didn't seem like that happened.
Her mother stayed with her, her father ran away. The father is the dirt bag in this story. The mother made sacrifices for her child.
Where I think she is justified feeling that she was slighted for not having her father in her life, it's her father's fault.
I'm sorry she comes of as an angry little child blaming the parent that did by her.
From the article,
"In her essay, she explains that when she was 2 or 3, her mother, who already knew that she was gay, left Barwick’s father to have a relationship with a woman."
The lesbian mommy married some poor guy, got the child she wanted, then booted him to the curb.
THe mother "sacrificed" the child's family so that she could have what she wanted, not what anyone else wanted.
No. It's her mother's fault that they divorced, and we have NO information, except what came from the mother on why the dad isn't around.
Or do you think a 3 year old is in a position to judge what is going on in the divorce?
He chose not to be part of his daughter's lifeIt's still her father's fault for not being aroundYou are fabricating information. You don't know that it was the mother that broke up the family.Her mother married a man, had a child and then broke up the family.
The only information that we have on the father comes from his ex-wife, though her daughter, who was 2 and 3 at the time in question.
Also if I had a child I'd do everything in my power to see that child. If I couldn't while she was a youth, I Damn sure would when she was an adult. Didn't seem like that happened.
Her mother stayed with her, her father ran away. The father is the dirt bag in this story. The mother made sacrifices for her child.
Where I think she is justified feeling that she was slighted for not having her father in her life, it's her father's fault.
I'm sorry she comes of as an angry little child blaming the parent that did by her.
From the article,
"In her essay, she explains that when she was 2 or 3, her mother, who already knew that she was gay, left Barwick’s father to have a relationship with a woman."
The lesbian mommy married some poor guy, got the child she wanted, then booted him to the curb.
THe mother "sacrificed" the child's family so that she could have what she wanted, not what anyone else wanted.
We have no information to that effect.
YOu are just reflexively assuming the man is the bad guy.
I don't care for agenda driven speculation.For all we know the mother did not let the father come around.
I'm onlyworking with the information provided. Making up some story about the mother not letting dad see her is really rather pointless.A 2 or 3 year old in not in a position to know what is going on between her parents. She knows nothing about what happened other than what her mother told her.
I don't consider posters on the internet desperate to blame the gays because they are icky and evil to be reliable either.I do not consider ex-spouses to be reliable sources.
A Constitutional Amendment can change or get rid of anything....good luck with it tho....it's been tried and failed over 9000 times in our nation's history...........only successful 17 individual times after the first 10.If a majority of the people in the USA voted to amend the constitution to restrict gun ownership, then yes, I would accept the will of the people.
But gun rights and gay marriage are not even close constitutionally. One is specifically addressed in an amendment, the other is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
But if you want gay marriage to be constitutional, call for a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it. Then it would be a done deal. How about it?
exactly, so your gun control analogy is bullshit, I already knew that.
The little game where gays and libs have argued, successfully that marriage means something that no one thought it did just a few years ago,
It is literally Orwellian.
The "Debate" as it was, was not waged in the legislative branch. Nor was it really waged even in the courts.
It consisted of sophist word games that were shoved down the throat of the American public over and over again as propaganda.
The double think is incredible.
"Only bigots are against gay marriage."
Bill Clinton and Obama were both against gay marriage less then 5 year ago.
And yet they got the gay vote overwhelmingly.
THis is not how democracy is supposed to work.
Neither Clinton or Obama ever tried to take rights away from gays and both sought to expand them. There have been more advances in gay equality under President Obama than all other presidents combined.
Pathetic fail.
A Constitutional Amendment can change or get rid of anything....good luck with it tho....it's been tried and failed over 9000 times in our nation's history...........only successful 17 individual times after the first 10.
exactly, so your gun control analogy is bullshit, I already knew that.
gay marriage is not in the constitution----------where do you get this shit?
They are pretending that the word marriage always meant, between any two PEOPLE, not between a man and a woman.
No, we KNOW what equal protection and application mean.
Until 1965 marriage meant between two people...of the same race.
A Constitutional Amendment can change or get rid of anything....good luck with it tho....it's been tried and failed over 9000 times in our nation's history...........only successful 17 individual times after the first 10.
exactly, so your gun control analogy is bullshit, I already knew that.
The little game where gays and libs have argued, successfully that marriage means something that no one thought it did just a few years ago,
It is literally Orwellian.
The "Debate" as it was, was not waged in the legislative branch. Nor was it really waged even in the courts.
It consisted of sophist word games that were shoved down the throat of the American public over and over again as propaganda.
The double think is incredible.
"Only bigots are against gay marriage."
Bill Clinton and Obama were both against gay marriage less then 5 year ago.
And yet they got the gay vote overwhelmingly.
THis is not how democracy is supposed to work.
Neither Clinton or Obama ever tried to take rights away from gays and both sought to expand them. There have been more advances in gay equality under President Obama than all other presidents combined.
Pathetic fail.
Bill Clinton had gays kicked out of the military under Don't ask/Don't tell.
Funny how you just forgot about that.
Obama ran on a platform of being against gay marriage in 2008.
Timeline of Obama s Evolving on Same-Sex Marriage - ABC News
"FEBRUARY 1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” reads a typed, signed statement from then-Illinois state senate candidate Obama in response to a questionnaire by the Chicago LGBT newspaper “Outlines.” "
"OCTOBER 2004: “What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama said in an interview with WTTW Chicago public television."
“I don’t think marriage is a civil right,” Obama said when asked whether there’s an inherent right to marry."
"DECEMBER 2010: “My feelings about this are constantly evolving.I struggle with this. At this point, what I’ve said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have,” Obama said in response to a question from ABC’s Jake Tapper at a White House press conference."
exactly, so your gun control analogy is bullshit, I already knew that.
gay marriage is not in the constitution----------where do you get this shit?
They are pretending that the word marriage always meant, between any two PEOPLE, not between a man and a woman.
No, we KNOW what equal protection and application mean.
Until 1965 marriage meant between two people...of the same race.
No, until 1965 marriage meant between a man and a woman of the same race.
You just lied.
What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?
Think it though slowly...
It was her dad's choice not to be part of her life.It normallyis both parents fault they divorced. But that isn't really relevant her father still could have been part of her life. It's still her father's fault.It's still her father's fault for not being aroundYou are fabricating information. You don't know that it was the mother that broke up the family.
Also if I had a child I'd do everything in my power to see that child. If I couldn't while she was a youth, I Damn sure would when she was an adult. Didn't seem like that happened.
Her mother stayed with her, her father ran away. The father is the dirt bag in this story. The mother made sacrifices for her child.
Where I think she is justified feeling that she was slighted for not having her father in her life, it's her father's fault.
I'm sorry she comes of as an angry little child blaming the parent that did by her.
From the article,
"In her essay, she explains that when she was 2 or 3, her mother, who already knew that she was gay, left Barwick’s father to have a relationship with a woman."
The lesbian mommy married some poor guy, got the child she wanted, then booted him to the curb.
THe mother "sacrificed" the child's family so that she could have what she wanted, not what anyone else wanted.
No. It's her mother's fault that they divorced, and we have NO information, except what came from the mother on why the dad isn't around.
Or do you think a 3 year old is in a position to judge what is going on in the divorce?
Nope. And not in this case.
Whether the mom married under false pretenses or decided to change after marriage, it was her choice that lead to the divorce.
I'm conservative. Unless the man died, I don't see how it's not his fault.He chose not to be part of his daughter's lifeIt's still her father's fault for not being aroundYou are fabricating information. You don't know that it was the mother that broke up the family.
Also if I had a child I'd do everything in my power to see that child. If I couldn't while she was a youth, I Damn sure would when she was an adult. Didn't seem like that happened.
Her mother stayed with her, her father ran away. The father is the dirt bag in this story. The mother made sacrifices for her child.
Where I think she is justified feeling that she was slighted for not having her father in her life, it's her father's fault.
I'm sorry she comes of as an angry little child blaming the parent that did by her.
From the article,
"In her essay, she explains that when she was 2 or 3, her mother, who already knew that she was gay, left Barwick’s father to have a relationship with a woman."
The lesbian mommy married some poor guy, got the child she wanted, then booted him to the curb.
THe mother "sacrificed" the child's family so that she could have what she wanted, not what anyone else wanted.
We have no information to that effect.
YOu are just reflexively assuming the man is the bad guy.
I don't care for agenda driven speculation.For all we know the mother did not let the father come around.
I'm onlyworking with the information provided. Making up some story about the mother not letting dad see her is really rather pointless.A 2 or 3 year old in not in a position to know what is going on between her parents. She knows nothing about what happened other than what her mother told her.
I don't consider posters on the internet desperate to blame the gays because they are icky and evil to be reliable either.I do not consider ex-spouses to be reliable sources.
No, you libs are the ones assuming, for ideological purposes that the father "chose not to be part of his daughters life".
All we really have is the word of the subject of the article.I'm the one who is pointing out that we have no information to that effect, other than the word, twice removed, of the ex-wife.
exactly, so your gun control analogy is bullshit, I already knew that.
The little game where gays and libs have argued, successfully that marriage means something that no one thought it did just a few years ago,
It is literally Orwellian.
The "Debate" as it was, was not waged in the legislative branch. Nor was it really waged even in the courts.
It consisted of sophist word games that were shoved down the throat of the American public over and over again as propaganda.
The double think is incredible.
"Only bigots are against gay marriage."
Bill Clinton and Obama were both against gay marriage less then 5 year ago.
And yet they got the gay vote overwhelmingly.
THis is not how democracy is supposed to work.
Neither Clinton or Obama ever tried to take rights away from gays and both sought to expand them. There have been more advances in gay equality under President Obama than all other presidents combined.
Pathetic fail.
Bill Clinton had gays kicked out of the military under Don't ask/Don't tell.
Funny how you just forgot about that.
Obama ran on a platform of being against gay marriage in 2008.
Timeline of Obama s Evolving on Same-Sex Marriage - ABC News
"FEBRUARY 1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” reads a typed, signed statement from then-Illinois state senate candidate Obama in response to a questionnaire by the Chicago LGBT newspaper “Outlines.” "
"OCTOBER 2004: “What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama said in an interview with WTTW Chicago public television."
“I don’t think marriage is a civil right,” Obama said when asked whether there’s an inherent right to marry."
"DECEMBER 2010: “My feelings about this are constantly evolving.I struggle with this. At this point, what I’ve said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have,” Obama said in response to a question from ABC’s Jake Tapper at a White House press conference."
Bill Clinton did not personally support DADT. DADT was still better than what was in place before it.
Nothing you just wasted your time cutting and pasting changes what I said.
There have been more advances in gay rights under President Obama than all his predecessors combined.
gay marriage is not in the constitution----------where do you get this shit?
They are pretending that the word marriage always meant, between any two PEOPLE, not between a man and a woman.
No, we KNOW what equal protection and application mean.
Until 1965 marriage meant between two people...of the same race.
No, until 1965 marriage meant between a man and a woman of the same race.
You just lied.
What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?
Think it though slowly...
I lied? Men and women aren't people?
Silly bigots.
It was her dad's choice not to be part of her life.It normallyis both parents fault they divorced. But that isn't really relevant her father still could have been part of her life. It's still her father's fault.It's still her father's fault for not being aroundFrom the article,
"In her essay, she explains that when she was 2 or 3, her mother, who already knew that she was gay, left Barwick’s father to have a relationship with a woman."
The lesbian mommy married some poor guy, got the child she wanted, then booted him to the curb.
THe mother "sacrificed" the child's family so that she could have what she wanted, not what anyone else wanted.
No. It's her mother's fault that they divorced, and we have NO information, except what came from the mother on why the dad isn't around.
Or do you think a 3 year old is in a position to judge what is going on in the divorce?
Nope. And not in this case.
Whether the mom married under false pretenses or decided to change after marriage, it was her choice that lead to the divorce.
The divorce falls on both.
