Attempts to Roll Back Marriage Equality since the Trump Election.

[Silhouette]

It's called social engineering or at least social tinkering. It should be illegal.

That's exactly what it is...by force. No tinkering about it when you have 5 activist Justices forcing 50 states against their will to dissolve the old main contract benefit to children of getting both a vital mother and father from marriage. And fining a young couple in Oregon, effectively demolishing their business. And several governors' careers (courtesy of the lesbian Maddow) ruined the moment they spoke out against gay marriage. And throwing a Christian in jail no less for refusing to promote gay marriage.

Scientology does the same thing...only less aggressively possibly.

 

[mdk]

Poor Kim Davis. She was only trying to protect the sanctity of her four marriages. lol

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The law can only go so far. In the case of Elaine 's photography from New Mexico, the judge said that if Elaine photographed weddings, she was legally obligated to photograph same sex weddings but may use any disclaimer she wished.

Elaine is a fine and decent Christian. She would not use the disclaimer to visit hellfire and brimstone. That's what should change.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes but the cult of LGBT doesn't believe in majority consensus.

People who believe in the constitution do NOT believe in a majority consensus . The is not a pure democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic, based on the rule of law.

But if you want to talk about the majority, consider the fact that it is only in your narrow and perverted bubble that a majority does not support LGBT rights

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's called social engineering or at least social tinkering. It should be illegal.

That's exactly what it is...by force. No tinkering about it when you have 5 activist Justices forcing 50 states against their will to dissolve the old main contract benefit to children of getting both a vital mother and father from marriage. And fining a young couple in Oregon, effectively demolishing their business. And several governors' careers (courtesy of the lesbian Maddow) ruined the moment they spoke out against gay marriage. And throwing a Christian in jail no less for refusing to promote gay marriage.

Scientology does the same thing...only less aggressively possibly.

Please give just one, EAL LIFE example of a child who does not have both a mother and a father, but would have if it were not for same sex marriage. Just one

 

[Silhouette]

Yes but the cult of LGBT doesn't believe in majority consensus.

People who believe in the constitution do NOT believe in a majority consensus . The is not a pure democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic, based on the rule of law.

There's nothing in the Constitution protecting deviant sex addicts in any way, shape or form from local regulation. Because if there was, there'd have to be protections offered for any compulsive behavior practitioner of any type. One compulsive behavior can not be legally "more special" than any other. All are either subject to local regulation or none of them are. See the 14th for details. Equality is a double-edged sword when it comes to arguing your case..

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The majority believes in the lbgtqigf leaving people alone. The majority is losing patience.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It time for you to face facts. It's no longer 1950. People are not hung up on gender rolls anymore . Men and women do what they do and fulfill rolls based on their interests and abilities. In heterosexual households , tasks are not divided according who is male and female either. It follows that children learn that they are not restricted to being certain things or doing certain things according to their gender and that is healthy. Children do get male and female roll modeling - to the extent necessary-from people who are not the parents. I have posted several peer reviewed studies that clearly shows this but you have either been to lazy to read them or too obtuse to understand them.

Ugh, another cocoon liberal who thinks the whole world is a mirror of leftist enclaves on the coasts.

And not having a "mom and a dad" or not adhering to traditional gender rolls will not result in the kids being gay, transgender, non binary gender fluid or anything else that freaks you out so much.. Just anticipating the next stupid comment.

Of course, you can't know this. No one can

It's called social research but you can't possibly know anything about that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Research done that conflicts with literally thousands of other type research about parental influence is simply.........

Delusional researchers feeding the delusional.

Put up or shut up!!

 

[Silhouette]

Put up or shut up!!

I've noticed over many decades now that whenever irrational people lose their edge on a debate, they become very testy..

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes but the cult of LGBT doesn't believe in majority consensus.

People who believe in the constitution do NOT believe in a majority consensus . The is not a pure democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic, based on the rule of law.

There's nothing in the Constitution protecting deviant sex addicts in any way, shape or form from local regulation. Because if there was, there'd have to be protections offered for any compulsive behavior practitioner of any type. One compulsive behavior can not be legally "more special" than any other. All are either subject to local regulation or none of them are. See the 14th for details. Equality is a double-edged sword when it comes to arguing your case..

The decision was about the right to marry . Not about what kind of sex people can have. And by the way, all sexual behavior, no matter how deviant you think it is- has been constitutional ever since Lawrence v. Texas, as long it is in private with consenting adults.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Put up or shut up!!

I've noticed over many decades now that whenever irrational people lose their edge on a debate, they become very testy..

Bullshit Not at all testy. Just telling it like it is. I have posted numerous studies and articles supporting my claims. The bigots cant come up with squat. "thousands" !!! You lie!!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It's called social engineering or at least social tinkering. It should be illegal.

That's exactly what it is...by force. No tinkering about it when you have 5 activist Justices forcing 50 states against their will to dissolve the old main contract benefit to children of getting both a vital mother and father from marriage. And fining a young couple in Oregon, effectively demolishing their business. And several governors' careers (courtesy of the lesbian Maddow) ruined the moment they spoke out against gay marriage. And throwing a Christian in jail no less for refusing to promote gay marriage.

Scientology does the same thing...only less aggressively possibly.

Please give just one, EAL LIFE example of a child who does not have both a mother and a father, but would have if it were not for same sex marriage. Just one

Any same sex marriage that has children.

Most caring same sex parents bring in a third party. A relative, close friend or even an opposite sex biological parent to assist with emotional development. That is only of marginal help. Men learn how to relate to women within their own nuclear family. A man raised without seeing his role model interacting with women, will never be able to do so himself. He will be part of the dysfunctional mass, er, mess.

I will point out that the dysfunctions suffered by the adult children of same sex parents are in many ways the same as those raised by single parents who never remarried or had any long term, stable, relationships. Fortunately for these troubled souls, we live in a pathological culture where dysfunction and unhappiness is the measuring stick of normalcy.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Yes but the cult of LGBT doesn't believe in majority consensus.

People who believe in the constitution do NOT believe in a majority consensus . The is not a pure democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic, based on the rule of law.

There's nothing in the Constitution protecting deviant sex addicts in any way, shape or form from local regulation. Because if there was, there'd have to be protections offered for any compulsive behavior practitioner of any type. One compulsive behavior can not be legally "more special" than any other. All are either subject to local regulation or none of them are. See the 14th for details. Equality is a double-edged sword when it comes to arguing your case..

The decision was about the right to marry . Not about what kind of sex people can have. And by the way, all sexual behavior, no matter how deviant you think it is- has been constitutional ever since Lawrence v. Texas, as long it is in private with consenting adults.

Of course that's not true. Even in Germany, deviant cannibalism with consent is illegal. Consent did not prevent Luka Mangiotta another gay cannibal from being prosecuted. Not all deviant behavior is constitutional.

Why is it that so many cannibals are gay?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Yes but the cult of LGBT doesn't believe in majority consensus.

People who believe in the constitution do NOT believe in a majority consensus . The is not a pure democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic, based on the rule of law.

There's nothing in the Constitution protecting deviant sex addicts in any way, shape or form from local regulation. Because if there was, there'd have to be protections offered for any compulsive behavior practitioner of any type. One compulsive behavior can not be legally "more special" than any other. All are either subject to local regulation or none of them are. See the 14th for details. Equality is a double-edged sword when it comes to arguing your case..

The decision was about the right to marry . Not about what kind of sex people can have. And by the way, all sexual behavior, no matter how deviant you think it is- has been constitutional ever since Lawrence v. Texas, as long it is in private with consenting adults.

The issue has moved on. Gays have the right to marry. Now it's the right to compel unwilling persons to participate in and attend the wedding.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's called social engineering or at least social tinkering. It should be illegal.

That's exactly what it is...by force. No tinkering about it when you have 5 activist Justices forcing 50 states against their will to dissolve the old main contract benefit to children of getting both a vital mother and father from marriage. And fining a young couple in Oregon, effectively demolishing their business. And several governors' careers (courtesy of the lesbian Maddow) ruined the moment they spoke out against gay marriage. And throwing a Christian in jail no less for refusing to promote gay marriage.

Scientology does the same thing...only less aggressively possibly.

Please give just one, EAL LIFE example of a child who does not have both a mother and a father, but would have if it were not for same sex marriage. Just one

Any same sex marriage that has children.

Most caring same sex parents bring in a third party. A relative, close friend or even an opposite sex biological parent to assist with emotional development. That is only of marginal help. Men learn how to relate to women within their own nuclear family. A man raised without seeing his role model interacting with women, will never be able to do so himself. He will be part of the dysfunctional mass, er, mess.

I will point out that the dysfunctions suffered by the adult children of same sex parents are in many ways the same as those raised by single parents who never remarried or had any long term, stable, relationships. Fortunately for these troubled souls, we live in a pathological culture where dysfunction and unhappiness is the measuring stick of normalcy.

That does not answer the question. I said a real life example of child who would have had a mother and a father. You don't know that children born to same sex couple by other than :natural means" would have been born at all. Secondly , most gay people who have children have them as the result of adoption or from a previous hetero relationship that failed. In both cases , the child was all ready without a mother and/or a father. Now stop blathering and answer the question,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes but the cult of LGBT doesn't believe in majority consensus.

People who believe in the constitution do NOT believe in a majority consensus . The is not a pure democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic, based on the rule of law.

There's nothing in the Constitution protecting deviant sex addicts in any way, shape or form from local regulation. Because if there was, there'd have to be protections offered for any compulsive behavior practitioner of any type. One compulsive behavior can not be legally "more special" than any other. All are either subject to local regulation or none of them are. See the 14th for details. Equality is a double-edged sword when it comes to arguing your case..

The decision was about the right to marry . Not about what kind of sex people can have. And by the way, all sexual behavior, no matter how deviant you think it is- has been constitutional ever since Lawrence v. Texas, as long it is in private with consenting adults.

Of course that's not true. Even in Germany, deviant cannibalism with consent is illegal. Consent did not prevent Luka Mangiotta another gay cannibal from being prosecuted. Not all deviant behavior is constitutional.

Why is it that so many cannibals are gay?

You have out stupided your self with that one!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Effects of same-sex parents on children's adult outcomes: Reviewing a controversial study - Journalist's Resource

In the brief the ASA researchers wrote:

We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability.

The paper’s findings include:

• After correcting for errors, adding appropriate control variables, recoding race/ethnicity to reflect multiple (instead of two) categories, and controlling for the effects of misclassified or uncertain data, the authors found only six differences between adult children of lesbian mothers and intact biological families, and three differences between adult children of gay fathers and intact biological families.
• Of the differences found among adult children raised by lesbian mothers, three were extremely questionable, and disappeared following the deletion of one or two extreme data points that were driving the differences. Of the remaining three differences, two were not considered to be objectively worse for either group (identifying as homosexual, and having had a same-sex relationship), leaving only one statistically significant difference between adult children raised by lesbian mothers compared to adult children raised in intact biological families.
• Among the 51 respondents who were identified as having lived in a two-parent same-sex household for at least a year, only four significant differences were demonstrated. Of these, two were not objectively worse (identifying as homosexual and having had a same-sex relationship), and two did not take place during adulthood (receiving public assistance in childhood, and sense of safety and security growing up), and therefore cannot be reasonably considered consequences of their childhood family situation.

 

[Pop23]

Put up or shut up!!

I've noticed over many decades now that whenever irrational people lose their edge on a debate, they become very testy..

I guess when you spent so much time fixated on anus it would tend to make a dillusional person all pissy and stuff.

 

[Pop23]

Yes but the cult of LGBT doesn't believe in majority consensus.

People who believe in the constitution do NOT believe in a majority consensus . The is not a pure democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic, based on the rule of law.

There's nothing in the Constitution protecting deviant sex addicts in any way, shape or form from local regulation. Because if there was, there'd have to be protections offered for any compulsive behavior practitioner of any type. One compulsive behavior can not be legally "more special" than any other. All are either subject to local regulation or none of them are. See the 14th for details. Equality is a double-edged sword when it comes to arguing your case..

The decision was about the right to marry . Not about what kind of sex people can have. And by the way, all sexual behavior, no matter how deviant you think it is- has been constitutional ever since Lawrence v. Texas, as long it is in private with consenting adults.

Of course that's not true. Even in Germany, deviant cannibalism with consent is illegal. Consent did not prevent Luka Mangiotta another gay cannibal from being prosecuted. Not all deviant behavior is constitutional.

Why is it that so many cannibals are gay?

If you can eat an anus, I guess anything is acceptable?

Just a guess

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes but the cult of LGBT doesn't believe in majority consensus.

People who believe in the constitution do NOT believe in a majority consensus . The is not a pure democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic, based on the rule of law.

There's nothing in the Constitution protecting deviant sex addicts in any way, shape or form from local regulation. Because if there was, there'd have to be protections offered for any compulsive behavior practitioner of any type. One compulsive behavior can not be legally "more special" than any other. All are either subject to local regulation or none of them are. See the 14th for details. Equality is a double-edged sword when it comes to arguing your case..

The decision was about the right to marry . Not about what kind of sex people can have. And by the way, all sexual behavior, no matter how deviant you think it is- has been constitutional ever since Lawrence v. Texas, as long it is in private with consenting adults.

Of course that's not true. Even in Germany, deviant cannibalism with consent is illegal. Consent did not prevent Luka Mangiotta another gay cannibal from being prosecuted. Not all deviant behavior is constitutional.

Why is it that so many cannibals are gay?

If you can eat an anus, I guess anything is acceptable?

Just a guess