60 Percent Of Americans Soon Will Live In States With Marriage Equality

[Pop23]

"Unnaturally"? So you disapprove of our Constitution.

You asked how Children become part of a Homosexual Lifestyle, I stated, "unnaturally", tell me which part of the Constitution establishes the Right of Homosexuals over the Rights of Children.

Funny, I had them quite naturally. Sperm, egg, pregnant. 100% natural (and gay )

Do Dixie cups and turkey basters exist naturally?

Interesting

Did you bronze the Dixie cup? Video the dude "jumping the monkey"?

 

[DriftingSand]

A few steps closer to Sodom & Gomorrah.

 

[Skylar]

You seem to not read with the intent to understand.

And you have not provided citations to support your opposition to federalism and freedom. Your data on Wisconsin is highly suspect.

But why do you consider it suspect? The Wisconsin numbers are only marginally higher than the national averages on the topic. Why do you consider it so implausible that Wisconsin would have a roughly average view of gay marriage?

I'm more than happy to provide you with my sources so you can see the polls directly. But if you're going to ignore them because you don't agree with the RESULTS, then the poll itself is irrelevant to you. As any methodology that produced the same results would be 'suspect' in your estimation.

But here we go... In sum, as simply as I can make it......the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear any of the cases on same-sex marriage means, that lower court rulings that struck down state marriage laws now will go into effect, forcing the redefinition of marriage in Indiana, Wisconsin, Virginia, Oklahoma and Utah (millions of voters, voices and rights), and potentially in other states in the 4th, 7th, and 10th circuits.

That's all 100% true. And one of the most accurate summary of the event I've heard from a opponent of gay marriage. The only caveat I would offer is that I'd upgrade 'potentially' to 'almost certainly'. Beyond that, great summary.

That shouldn’t be acceptable—regardless of your position on same-sex marriage. Voters in 31 states voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. What legal recourse are they now left with? Now, nothing. Thus, this is unconstitutional. And the narrow radicals rejoice? Ignoring the larger implications to freedom?

The implications to freedom are that the rights of minorities can't be voted away by a simple 50% + 1 vote. And that's ******* awesome. The implications to freedom if the voters could do that are terrifying. As they could strip from any minority of any right.....just by voting on it. And the rights of the people aren't up for a vote. What you're describing is a text book definition of the tyranny of the majority. And it scared the founders shitless.

Remember, in the late 1700s democracy was considered an awful form of government. The form of government that had killed Socrates. A tyrannical popularity contest where the rights, freedom and property of anyone could be stripped away by a simple majority vote. The founders were deeply suspicious of it. And if you look at the actual constitution, they invested almost no trust in the majority directly. Of every branch of the federal government, only the House in the legislative branch were subject to a direct vote by the people.

There were layers and layers and layers of representatives between real power and the people. And even then, there were potent checks, with the judiciary acting as goal line defense for upholding the constitution. By design. Read Federalist paper 78 for a clear view on the role of the judiciary, its protection of the constitution and its relationship with legislation that violated the constitution. The judiciary is *supposed* to overrule legislation that violates the constitution. And the judiciary is *supposed* to be the body imbued with the authority to make such a call.

You're making the EXACT argument that southerners in 1967 did when the USSC overturned interracial marriage bans in the Loving V. Virginia decision. You're making the EXACT argument of segregationists in the 50s. You're channelling the shade of Governor Wallace insisting that the authority of the States is more important than the rights of the people.

No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

A few steps closer to Sodom & Gomorrah.

As one witty journalist pithily noted, the case 'Yahweh V. Sodom' isn't admissible in court. Which is why, in my opinion, gay marriage opponents are doing so poorly. Their actual motivation can't be argued in court. So they're left with half-assed second tier arguments that are easily refuted.

 

[bodecea]

A few steps closer to Sodom & Gomorrah.

I understand. Just like we are a few steps closer to Neverneverland.

 

[bodecea]

A few steps closer to Sodom & Gomorrah.

Ah yes...the story where god rewards the guy who offers his virgin daughters to the crowd so they would leave him alone....and turns his wife to a pillar of salt for being observant.

 

[Skylar]

"Unnaturally"? So you disapprove of our Constitution.

You asked how Children become part of a Homosexual Lifestyle, I stated, "unnaturally", tell me which part of the Constitution establishes the Right of Homosexuals over the Rights of Children.

Since children aren't a requirement of any marriage, straight or gay.....how do children validate or invalidate any marriage?

 

[DriftingSand]

A few steps closer to Sodom & Gomorrah.

I understand. Just like we are a few steps closer to Neverneverland.

I've never heard it called that but I hear is very hot.

 

[DriftingSand]

A few steps closer to Sodom & Gomorrah.

Ah yes...the story where god rewards the guy who offers his virgin daughters to the crowd so they would leave him alone....and turns his wife to a pillar of salt for being observant.

In all the above cases ... disobedience was punished.

 

[DriftingSand]

I was not inferring that the homosexuals would have sex with heterosexual children they adopt, that would be rape and I would describe it as such.

Nor was I, I mean they have sex with each other, not with children. Is that sick? What's sick about sex?

The sick part is you think its okay to put a child in a homosexual lifestyle, before they even know what sex is let alone man to man anal sex, the first day of school the kids are all going to explain to that child exactly what it means to have to fathers, that is how the child will learn what sex is, by having two homosexual fathers.

That is very sick, to think that is actually what you are arguing for.

Children learn too much too fast, they do not need to learn what homosexuality is by being adopted into homosexual lifestyle of the choosing of two gay men or two gay woman.

Marriage Equality equals child abuse. I see it no other way.

How is putting a child into a "homosexual lifestyle" any different than putting a child into a "heterosexual lifestyle"?

one happens naturally, the other unnaturally through the force of courts

"Unnaturally"? So you disapprove of our Constitution.

The Constitution was written by men who had female wives. Nobody conceived that a society of sick, depraved, misfit homosexuals would someday emerge from the slime-pits of debauchery.

 

[Skylar]

The only thing I have ever stated is it is bad for two homosexual men or two homosexual woman to adopt a heterosexual child who has lost his or her entire family.

Why? Why is it bad for gay parents to adopt? You keep making the assertion. But you can't establish any harm associated with the parents being gay or lesbian.

Losing ones mother and father is thee most tragic thing that can happen to a child. What do you think that child is thinking well waiting to be adopted? You would force that child into a homosexual lifestyle.

Again, what possible relevance does the 'homosexual life style' have with anything you're arguing? Wouldn't every argument you're making be just as valid if you forced a child into a hetorosexual lifestyle against their will?

Of course your response leaves out all reference to homosexuality, why not describe your thoughts with the descriptive of what we are speaking about, homosexuality.

Yeah, but you have yet to establish the relevance of the parents being gay to your argument. You begin with the assumption that gay adoption is bad. And never explain why. Nor offer any evidence to back your perspective.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Constitution was written by men who had female wives. Nobody conceived that a society of sick, depraved, misfit homosexuals would someday emerge from the slime-pits of debauchery.

It was also made by people with slaves, by people who committed genocide and ethnic cleansing.

What's your point?

 

[frigidweirdo]

"Why is it bad for kids to be in a family where there are two men?"

Your question is irrelevant and obfuscation.

The only thing I have ever stated is it is bad for two homosexual men or two homosexual woman to adopt a heterosexual child who has lost his or her entire family. Losing ones mother and father is thee most tragic thing that can happen to a child. What do you think that child is thinking well waiting to be adopted? You would force that child into a homosexual lifestyle.

Not at all, I don't think you're right, so I'm asking you why you think that.

Yes, of course, a child who is going through a difficult period in time needs a stable family environment. Single people can adopt. Is this a stable environment?
Why are gay people automatically not stable?

If you had a choice between a child staying in a residence, without that proper family life, or going with a gay couple in a stable environment, which would you choose?

The point being that the more choices there are for a child, the better, right? All prospective parents should go through thorough screening, anyone who isn't compatible with the child should not be considered for a child. All of that sensible stuff.
I would not rule out gay parents adopting just because they're gay. Perhaps with certain children I would rule out gay parents adopting them. Depends on the individual case.

"Is it about sex? Hell, I've known plenty of people to walk in on their parents doing it. It's something kids end up finding out about anyway. But what's that got to do with anything?"

This comment is a nice gem, you ask me if its about sex, and then explain to me sex is natural and kids walk in on parents doing it all the time. NO KIDDING. But what does not happen all the time is for those same kids to lose their parents, find themselves in an Orphanage with their entire life destroyed.

Of course your response leaves out all reference to homosexuality, why not describe your thoughts with the descriptive of what we are speaking about, homosexuality.

So as long as you brought it up, tell us all how you think the Boy who lost his Mom and his Dad, who is Orphaned, now adopted into a homosexual lifestyle not of his choosing, tell us how he will react when he walks into a bedroom and finds his new dad and dad doing something sexually unnatural? In the context of losing the ones he loves, how does he react?

No, it doesn't happen all the time, and it can be traumatic no matter where a child goes. Who is best for an individual child?

The "it can't be gay people" is just silly. It could be that a gay couple is the right couple for a troubled child. It could also be that a gay couple isn't the right couple for a troubled child. It depends on each case.

I'd suppose that any child who walks in on two men having sex might have the same reaction to a man and a woman having sex. They'd probably be in shock. Are they more likely to walk in on a gay couple or a straight couple then?

"It's something kids end up finding out about anyway."

Finding out about mom and dad making love is one thing, and yes they find out about that, but that is not what we are talking about, what we are talking about, homosexuality. So to answer your question, your comment has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You did a fair job at dodging, I suspect you want me to talk more about the sexual aspect so that we can turn the tables and make me sound like some sort of sexual prude.

There are so many dynamics in a family, which are completely lost and broken when kids lose their parents, your ideas and response to my post is irrelevant.

You see my posts, my threads, what you state here is irrelevant, you talk about normal, happy, and everything sweet and nice while that fact that the children that do not have both a mother and father, biologically, can never live normally, they can succeed, they can make money, they can be happy, and say so on questionnaire, but always there is that part that is hurt and broken for not knowing or for losing one or both parents.

Marriage Equality, will always abuse children adopted into or designed (test tube babies) into homosexual lifestyles, its simply not natural, at the least to be without ones parents, even less so if one is forced into a homosexual lifestyle that one does and would not choose.

Why is finding out about homosexuality harder than heterosexuality?

No, not dodging.
You say so many things are lost, as if there is going to be a difference with a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple. There WILL be differences in how children react, maybe not all, but some. However to generalize is nonsense.

You say it's not natural to go into a homosexual lifestyle. It's also not natural to go into a central heatinged house with a big car outside, a washing machine and so on. But kids somehow adapt to that.

Again, it seems that adults have a harder adapting than most children do. Don't put your prejudices into the minds of kids who don't care about them.

Also, the debate about adoption and marriage, two different things. Adopting agencies should screen all couples and single people who adopt (how natural is a single parent for a disturbed child????) and make sure children are put into the right place.
No one should have the right to adopt, they should be considered equally, but some just might not be the right people.

So what?

You'd deny gay marriage because adopting agencies can't do their job properly?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Drink...twice.

Drink...twice.

Well if you drink every time the far left lies on this board (including yourself) you will be drunk in under five minutes.

DRINK UP! DRINK UP!

Yes please do, as if you want to get drunk faster, drink for every far left lie posted!

The SC has ruled marriage a right on numerous occasions. Call that a lie all you wish. You have every right to be willfully obtuse and incorrect. These flailings of yours are getting more desperate by the minute. I didn't think that was possible but you continue to impress.

Gays have had the same right to marry as straights all along.

No they haven't. Straight people have been able to marry any consenting adult of their choice. Gay people haven't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And once again the far left shows that they do not understand the Constitution.

"Marriage" is not a "right".

So when your partner leaves and you want to stay "Married" were your "Civil" rights violated?

See one person can take away your "rights".

Oh, having to explain basics.

Okay, a constitution right is something that the US federal govt and state govts do not have the power to do. Got it?

So the right to free speech means the US govt and state govts cannot prevent you from saying what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others. It has nothing to do with other people. I could tap your mouth up and stop you talking. Perhaps I'd go to prison for this, perhaps not, either way, it has nothing to do with the US CONSTITUTION.

Got it?

 

[Seawytch]

A few steps closer to Sodom & Gomorrah.

Ah yes...the story where god rewards the guy who offers his virgin daughters to the crowd so they would leave him alone....and turns his wife to a pillar of salt for being observant.

You forgot the part where the "hero" later had sex with his daughters.

 

[Skylar]

A few steps closer to Sodom & Gomorrah.

Ah yes...the story where god rewards the guy who offers his virgin daughters to the crowd so they would leave him alone....and turns his wife to a pillar of salt for being observant.

You forgot the part where the "hero" later had sex with his daughters.

Didn't they roofie their dad and then jump him while he was out cold?

 

[Seawytch]

A few steps closer to Sodom & Gomorrah.

Ah yes...the story where god rewards the guy who offers his virgin daughters to the crowd so they would leave him alone....and turns his wife to a pillar of salt for being observant.

You forgot the part where the "hero" later had sex with his daughters.

Didn't they roofie their dad and then jump him while he was out cold?

Yup...hefty Christian family values there eh? And who gets scapegoated in that allegory? Gays that had nothing to do with the story in the first place.

 

[DriftingSand]

A few steps closer to Sodom & Gomorrah.

Ah yes...the story where god rewards the guy who offers his virgin daughters to the crowd so they would leave him alone....and turns his wife to a pillar of salt for being observant.

You forgot the part where the "hero" later had sex with his daughters.

Didn't they roofie their dad and then jump him while he was out cold?

Yup...hefty Christian family values there eh? And who gets scapegoated in that allegory? Gays that had nothing to do with the story in the first place.

Gays had EVERYTHING to do with the story.

 

[Pop23]

"Unnaturally"? So you disapprove of our Constitution.

You asked how Children become part of a Homosexual Lifestyle, I stated, "unnaturally", tell me which part of the Constitution establishes the Right of Homosexuals over the Rights of Children.

Since children aren't a requirement of any marriage, straight or gay.....how do children validate or invalidate any marriage?

You'll have to ask the incestuous couples denied marriage cuz they might procreate