Wow: Daughter of two moms boldly speaks out AGAINST gay marriage

[Redfish]

Who should I be voting for Correll? The Republican candidate who wants to take away my rights or the Democratic candidate that fights for them? Hmmm, such a dilemma!

Did I ask you to change your vote?

Then do you have a point? You keep pointing out the "terrible" things Clinton did and the "anti gay" things Obama has said, but you don't seem to have a point in bringing them up.

he/she was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, I guess it was too complex for your simple mind.

 

[Gadawg73]

So not all gay parents are good parents. Who said they were? My son played on a state ranked football team here in Georgia for 4 seasons with a boy raised by 2 gay men. Weird? In my opinion yes but the boy's heterosexual parents abandoned him to the hell of foster care, aka parenting for cash. The gay men adopted him at age 6 when the boy had failed 1st grade. Kid graduated Vanderbilt and is an IT consultant now. Engaged to be married. I prefer to see man and wife raising kids but have seen numerous cases here in deep south where kids raised by gay folk turn out just fine and in most cases as good or better than heterosexual parents where more than 50% are divorced anyway.

 

[Seawytch]

Who should I be voting for Correll? The Republican candidate who wants to take away my rights or the Democratic candidate that fights for them? Hmmm, such a dilemma!

Did I ask you to change your vote?

Then do you have a point? You keep pointing out the "terrible" things Clinton did and the "anti gay" things Obama has said, but you don't seem to have a point in bringing them up.

he/she was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, I guess it was too complex for your simple mind.

There is no hypocrisy. President Obama has fought FOR gay rights his whole Presidency.

 

[Redfish]

Who should I be voting for Correll? The Republican candidate who wants to take away my rights or the Democratic candidate that fights for them? Hmmm, such a dilemma!

Did I ask you to change your vote?

Then do you have a point? You keep pointing out the "terrible" things Clinton did and the "anti gay" things Obama has said, but you don't seem to have a point in bringing them up.

he/she was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, I guess it was too complex for your simple mind.

There is no hypocrisy. President Obama has fought FOR gay rights his whole Presidency.

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

 

[Redfish]

So not all gay parents are good parents. Who said they were? My son played on a state ranked football team here in Georgia for 4 seasons with a boy raised by 2 gay men. Weird? In my opinion yes but the boy's heterosexual parents abandoned him to the hell of foster care, aka parenting for cash. The gay men adopted him at age 6 when the boy had failed 1st grade. Kid graduated Vanderbilt and is an IT consultant now. Engaged to be married. I prefer to see man and wife raising kids but have seen numerous cases here in deep south where kids raised by gay folk turn out just fine and in most cases as good or better than heterosexual parents where more than 50% are divorced anyway.

and some kids raised by single parents turn out well. The issue is percentages, and percentages are against gay parents raising successful kids.

 

[Seawytch]

Who should I be voting for Correll? The Republican candidate who wants to take away my rights or the Democratic candidate that fights for them? Hmmm, such a dilemma!

Did I ask you to change your vote?

Then do you have a point? You keep pointing out the "terrible" things Clinton did and the "anti gay" things Obama has said, but you don't seem to have a point in bringing them up.

he/she was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, I guess it was too complex for your simple mind.

There is no hypocrisy. President Obama has fought FOR gay rights his whole Presidency.

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

So? Lots of people have evolved on this issue, just look at the polls. Again, regardless of what he said, his ACTIONS are that of a champion of gay rights since his first day in office.

 

[Seawytch]

So not all gay parents are good parents. Who said they were? My son played on a state ranked football team here in Georgia for 4 seasons with a boy raised by 2 gay men. Weird? In my opinion yes but the boy's heterosexual parents abandoned him to the hell of foster care, aka parenting for cash. The gay men adopted him at age 6 when the boy had failed 1st grade. Kid graduated Vanderbilt and is an IT consultant now. Engaged to be married. I prefer to see man and wife raising kids but have seen numerous cases here in deep south where kids raised by gay folk turn out just fine and in most cases as good or better than heterosexual parents where more than 50% are divorced anyway.

and some kids raised by single parents turn out well. The issue is percentages, and percentages are against gay parents raising successful kids.

No they aren't or you'd be able to demonstrate said "percentage".

 

[Correll]

Right. He campaigned on allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and then, when faced with opposition, instead of going to the mat, reached a "compromise" that resulted in gays being kicked out of the military and no loss of political capital for him.

You sure you don't like being f**ked by men, Seawytch? Cause you seem to be ok with it, just saying.

While I do appreciate your outrage on behalf of the gay community, it's childish and misplaced. DOMA and DADT were the least of Clinton's compromises. I'm much more upset with Clinton over NAFTA and Glass Steagall than two policies that are now gone, thanks to President Obama.

Do you think Obama meant the anti-gay things he said back in the day?

I don't know what anti gay things he said "back in the day", I only know the actions he's taken since becoming President, like repealing DADT and not defending DOMA in court. His actions spoke loud enough for me...and those actions have brought about more advances in gay civil rights than anytime in history.

Bull. His position was well stated, and documented. I have cut and pasted his some of his stated positions.

I asked a simple question.

Do you believe he meant those anti-gay things he said?

And I will say again, I know what he's done so what he has said is irrelevant. President Obama never once tried to take rights away from gay people regardless of what his previous statements had been.

Do you have a point with your Obama bad meme?

in the first quote he stated that he would fight against gay marriage. I don't know if he was ever called on to vote on the issue but he claimed if he was he would "try to take rights away" from gay people .


Do you think he was serious when he said that?

Do you know for a fact that the issue never came up during his long legislative career?

It's not like the media would have told you about it.

 

[Correll]

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.

REduced to playing word games. Funny you have to do that to avoid admitting your lied.

What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?

Think it though slowly.

Oh, but the truth does support my position. So does the law. Marriage used to only be between members of the same race...until it wasn't just as marriage used to only be between men and women...until it wasn't. Marriage is a fundamental right, so declared by the SCOTUS on numerous occasions. In order to deny this fundamental right to a group of people, you must demonstrate a harm in allowing it. Go!

Until 1965 marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race.

You lied about that.

Marriage is a fundamental right? Perhaps. But regardless it has many restrictions that are not being challenged.

Do you accept the limitation of the right to just TWO "people"?

It was. You've heard of Loving v Virginia haven't you?

Marriage is currently a contract between two adults, yes. Would you like to change that? Good luck...and do hurry. Julie Andrews is still single.

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

 

[Seawytch]

While I do appreciate your outrage on behalf of the gay community, it's childish and misplaced. DOMA and DADT were the least of Clinton's compromises. I'm much more upset with Clinton over NAFTA and Glass Steagall than two policies that are now gone, thanks to President Obama.

Do you think Obama meant the anti-gay things he said back in the day?

I don't know what anti gay things he said "back in the day", I only know the actions he's taken since becoming President, like repealing DADT and not defending DOMA in court. His actions spoke loud enough for me...and those actions have brought about more advances in gay civil rights than anytime in history.

Bull. His position was well stated, and documented. I have cut and pasted his some of his stated positions.

I asked a simple question.

Do you believe he meant those anti-gay things he said?

And I will say again, I know what he's done so what he has said is irrelevant. President Obama never once tried to take rights away from gay people regardless of what his previous statements had been.

Do you have a point with your Obama bad meme?

in the first quote he stated that he would fight against gay marriage. I don't know if he was ever called on to vote on the issue but he claimed if he was he would "try to take rights away" from gay people .

He did nothing of the sort. I'm not an asshole enough to call you a liar, I'll just say you're mistaken.

 

[Seawytch]

I lied? Men and women aren't people?

Silly bigots.

REduced to playing word games. Funny you have to do that to avoid admitting your lied.

What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?

Think it though slowly.

Oh, but the truth does support my position. So does the law. Marriage used to only be between members of the same race...until it wasn't just as marriage used to only be between men and women...until it wasn't. Marriage is a fundamental right, so declared by the SCOTUS on numerous occasions. In order to deny this fundamental right to a group of people, you must demonstrate a harm in allowing it. Go!

Until 1965 marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race.

You lied about that.

Marriage is a fundamental right? Perhaps. But regardless it has many restrictions that are not being challenged.

Do you accept the limitation of the right to just TWO "people"?

It was. You've heard of Loving v Virginia haven't you?

Marriage is currently a contract between two adults, yes. Would you like to change that? Good luck...and do hurry. Julie Andrews is still single.

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

 

[Correll]

Who should I be voting for Correll? The Republican candidate who wants to take away my rights or the Democratic candidate that fights for them? Hmmm, such a dilemma!

Did I ask you to change your vote?

Then do you have a point? You keep pointing out the "terrible" things Clinton did and the "anti gay" things Obama has said, but you don't seem to have a point in bringing them up.

he/she was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, I guess it was too complex for your simple mind.

There is no hypocrisy. President Obama has fought FOR gay rights his whole Presidency.

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

Agreed. Go back 5

Did I ask you to change your vote?

Then do you have a point? You keep pointing out the "terrible" things Clinton did and the "anti gay" things Obama has said, but you don't seem to have a point in bringing them up.

he/she was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, I guess it was too complex for your simple mind.

There is no hypocrisy. President Obama has fought FOR gay rights his whole Presidency.

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

So? Lots of people have evolved on this issue, just look at the polls. Again, regardless of what he said, his ACTIONS are that of a champion of gay rights since his first day in office.

Do you think Obama meant the anti-gay things he said back in the day?

I don't know what anti gay things he said "back in the day", I only know the actions he's taken since becoming President, like repealing DADT and not defending DOMA in court. His actions spoke loud enough for me...and those actions have brought about more advances in gay civil rights than anytime in history.

Bull. His position was well stated, and documented. I have cut and pasted his some of his stated positions.

I asked a simple question.

Do you believe he meant those anti-gay things he said?

And I will say again, I know what he's done so what he has said is irrelevant. President Obama never once tried to take rights away from gay people regardless of what his previous statements had been.

Do you have a point with your Obama bad meme?

in the first quote he stated that he would fight against gay marriage. I don't know if he was ever called on to vote on the issue but he claimed if he was he would "try to take rights away" from gay people .

He did nothing of the sort. I'm not an asshole enough to call you a liar, I'll just say you're mistaken.

He did state it. I cut and pasted it.

Are you aware of all the gay activist legislation that came up for a vote during his long legislative career?

After all you know the media wouldn't tell you about it.

 

[Correll]

REduced to playing word games. Funny you have to do that to avoid admitting your lied.

What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?

Think it though slowly.

Oh, but the truth does support my position. So does the law. Marriage used to only be between members of the same race...until it wasn't just as marriage used to only be between men and women...until it wasn't. Marriage is a fundamental right, so declared by the SCOTUS on numerous occasions. In order to deny this fundamental right to a group of people, you must demonstrate a harm in allowing it. Go!

Until 1965 marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race.

You lied about that.

Marriage is a fundamental right? Perhaps. But regardless it has many restrictions that are not being challenged.

Do you accept the limitation of the right to just TWO "people"?

It was. You've heard of Loving v Virginia haven't you?

Marriage is currently a contract between two adults, yes. Would you like to change that? Good luck...and do hurry. Julie Andrews is still single.

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

 

[bendog]

Oh, but the truth does support my position. So does the law. Marriage used to only be between members of the same race...until it wasn't just as marriage used to only be between men and women...until it wasn't. Marriage is a fundamental right, so declared by the SCOTUS on numerous occasions. In order to deny this fundamental right to a group of people, you must demonstrate a harm in allowing it. Go!

Until 1965 marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race.

You lied about that.

Marriage is a fundamental right? Perhaps. But regardless it has many restrictions that are not being challenged.

Do you accept the limitation of the right to just TWO "people"?

It was. You've heard of Loving v Virginia haven't you?

Marriage is currently a contract between two adults, yes. Would you like to change that? Good luck...and do hurry. Julie Andrews is still single.

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

What fundamental right are you speaking of? The right to marry a person who cannot legally consent, or to marry more than one consenting adult at a time?

Obama, and Hillary, all have views that have evolved over time. Mine have not been entirely consistent, but that's more because the GLBT folks in my religious denomination have not been entirely consistent in what they ask of me.

 

[Correll]

Until 1965 marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race.

You lied about that.

Marriage is a fundamental right? Perhaps. But regardless it has many restrictions that are not being challenged.

Do you accept the limitation of the right to just TWO "people"?

It was. You've heard of Loving v Virginia haven't you?

Marriage is currently a contract between two adults, yes. Would you like to change that? Good luck...and do hurry. Julie Andrews is still single.

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

What fundamental right are you speaking of? The right to marry a person who cannot legally consent, or to marry more than one consenting adult at a time?

Obama, and Hillary, all have views that have evolved over time. Mine have not been entirely consistent, but that's more because the GLBT folks in my religious denomination have not been entirely consistent in what they ask of me.

The latter.

Though traditionally there is more support for the former than there is for definition of "marriage" than the gays claim.

 

[bendog]

It was. You've heard of Loving v Virginia haven't you?

Marriage is currently a contract between two adults, yes. Would you like to change that? Good luck...and do hurry. Julie Andrews is still single.

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

What fundamental right are you speaking of? The right to marry a person who cannot legally consent, or to marry more than one consenting adult at a time?

Obama, and Hillary, all have views that have evolved over time. Mine have not been entirely consistent, but that's more because the GLBT folks in my religious denomination have not been entirely consistent in what they ask of me.

The latter.

Though traditionally there is more support for the former than there is for definition of "marriage" than the gays claim.

Legally, I think the polygamists have an argument provided on one thing. Can they show no demonstrable negative effect on children raised in such unions? My experience in Utah, is that opponents certainly can show a negative effect on the kids .... with boys being cast out and female child "brides' being abused. However, the authorities in Utah do not want to address polygamy.

 

[Redfish]

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

What fundamental right are you speaking of? The right to marry a person who cannot legally consent, or to marry more than one consenting adult at a time?

Obama, and Hillary, all have views that have evolved over time. Mine have not been entirely consistent, but that's more because the GLBT folks in my religious denomination have not been entirely consistent in what they ask of me.

The latter.

Though traditionally there is more support for the former than there is for definition of "marriage" than the gays claim.

Legally, I think the polygamists have an argument provided on one thing. Can they show no demonstrable negative effect on children raised in such unions? My experience in Utah, is that opponents certainly can show a negative effect on the kids .... with boys being cast out and female child "brides' being abused. However, the authorities in Utah do not want to address polygamy.

the polygamists will use exactly the same arguments being used by the gays today, and they will win because they will have gay marriage as a valid legal precedent.

Thats where this is going, do not be deceived by the liars on the left.

 

[Redfish]

So not all gay parents are good parents. Who said they were? My son played on a state ranked football team here in Georgia for 4 seasons with a boy raised by 2 gay men. Weird? In my opinion yes but the boy's heterosexual parents abandoned him to the hell of foster care, aka parenting for cash. The gay men adopted him at age 6 when the boy had failed 1st grade. Kid graduated Vanderbilt and is an IT consultant now. Engaged to be married. I prefer to see man and wife raising kids but have seen numerous cases here in deep south where kids raised by gay folk turn out just fine and in most cases as good or better than heterosexual parents where more than 50% are divorced anyway.

and some kids raised by single parents turn out well. The issue is percentages, and percentages are against gay parents raising successful kids.

No they aren't or you'd be able to demonstrate said "percentage".

already been provided several times by several posters, if you choose to ignore it, thats up to you.

 

[bendog]

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

What fundamental right are you speaking of? The right to marry a person who cannot legally consent, or to marry more than one consenting adult at a time?

Obama, and Hillary, all have views that have evolved over time. Mine have not been entirely consistent, but that's more because the GLBT folks in my religious denomination have not been entirely consistent in what they ask of me.

The latter.

Though traditionally there is more support for the former than there is for definition of "marriage" than the gays claim.

Legally, I think the polygamists have an argument provided on one thing. Can they show no demonstrable negative effect on children raised in such unions? My experience in Utah, is that opponents certainly can show a negative effect on the kids .... with boys being cast out and female child "brides' being abused. However, the authorities in Utah do not want to address polygamy.

the polygamists will use exactly the same arguments being used by the gays today, and they will win because they will have gay marriage as a valid legal precedent.

Thats where this is going, do not be deceived by the liars on the left.

I think it's about those who believe in keeping the govt out of our personal lives. Ted Olsen and the libertarians are ok with that. Imo, a state should be able to show demonstrable negative effects on children who are in polygamist households. If the state cannot, the people should be able to do what they want to do. If the Mormons want to keep their church non-polygamist, they should be able to do that too.

 

[Redfish]

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

What fundamental right are you speaking of? The right to marry a person who cannot legally consent, or to marry more than one consenting adult at a time?

Obama, and Hillary, all have views that have evolved over time. Mine have not been entirely consistent, but that's more because the GLBT folks in my religious denomination have not been entirely consistent in what they ask of me.

The latter.

Though traditionally there is more support for the former than there is for definition of "marriage" than the gays claim.

Legally, I think the polygamists have an argument provided on one thing. Can they show no demonstrable negative effect on children raised in such unions? My experience in Utah, is that opponents certainly can show a negative effect on the kids .... with boys being cast out and female child "brides' being abused. However, the authorities in Utah do not want to address polygamy.

its not just polygamy, its all sorts of multiple marriage, 4 men/6 women for example, plus mother/daughter, father/son, siblings, etc. all done to avoid inheritance taxes or income taxes.

and there arguments will be equality, discrimination, fairness, marrying who they love, civil rights, etc. the exact same arguments being made by the gay marriage mafia today.