Better to have a straight parent in jail than gay parents at home

[del]

HE's right, of course. Marriage is not a right. If it were, there would be no marriage licenses.

Owning a gun is not a right...if it were, there would be no gun licenses.

The Second Amendment guarantees a right.
What amendment guarantees the ability to butt **** someone?

it's right there in the fine print.

it's a little hard to read, so you might want to bend over

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Never used it in any clinical practice; but it does make one sound erudite and scholarly.

Look, I was there in the trenches and saw exactly what was taking place first hand.

Basically, academia lost out to a political motivated agenda.

Now our society has to pay the long term price for it.

Worst of all; people who really need psychological help are now told that they are mentally healthy.

And are being enabled by the very profession who should be treating and trying to cure them.

And hence why the Framers conceived of the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment; clearly we need it as much now as any time during our Nation’s history.

Owning a gun is not a right...if it were, there would be no gun licenses.

It would be interesting to hear the right’s response to homosexuals disallowed equal access to a state’s gun licensing laws.

 

[konradv]

HE's right, of course. Marriage is not a right. If it were, there would be no marriage licenses.

Owning a gun is not a right...if it were, there would be no gun licenses.

The Second Amendment guarantees a right.
What amendment guarantees the ability to butt **** someone?

The 4th, the state has no compelling reason to intervene in someone's private life, if no one's being injured.

 

[bodecea]

HE's right, of course. Marriage is not a right. If it were, there would be no marriage licenses.

Owning a gun is not a right...if it were, there would be no gun licenses.

The Second Amendment guarantees a right.
What amendment guarantees the ability to butt **** someone?

The same amendment that guarantees the ability to front **** someone. Didn't you see it?

 

[auditor0007]

HE's right, of course. Marriage is not a right. If it were, there would be no marriage licenses.

He's completely wrong and does not understand the first thing about rights. You cannot exclude some people from a privilege just because you don't like them. Equality is a right.

Otherwise you could deny black men from marrying white women.

A lot of people support that too.

 

[Seawytch]

HE's right, of course. Marriage is not a right. If it were, there would be no marriage licenses.

He's completely wrong and does not understand the first thing about rights. You cannot exclude some people from a privilege just because you don't like them. Equality is a right.

Otherwise you could deny black men from marrying white women.

A lot of people support that too.

They do indeed. If we had waited for "majority support" for interracial marriage, it wouldn't have been until the early 1990s that it garnered that support. Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967.

Hell, a majority if Mississippi Republicans don't approve of interracial marriage.

46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned

 

[jillian]

We should just let all the liberals be gay. Within a hundred years or so their party would be extinct. Problem solved.

i suppose that's slightly better than full auto's idea of bringing back political assassinations like "fullauto" suggested. but then again, what can you expect from someone with a double digit IQ who calls himself 'fullauto'.

tells you all you need to know.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Santorom is wrong, marriage is given to MAN & WOMAN by GOD, not society.

did the Cro-Magnum man get married?....or did he just grab a Babe and drag her home?

 

[Seawytch]

Santorom is wrong, marriage is given to MAN & WOMAN by GOD, not society.

did the Cro-Magnum man get married?....or did he just grab a Babe and drag her home?

Sounds like the ultimate "traditional marriage".

 

[KissMy]

I only wish it was that straight forward and simple.

During the 70's the homosexual agenda started taking over the Psychology departments at most universities.

Any professor who published or wrote a paper that was contrary to the this prevailing view was either fired or lost tenure.

Soon all objective scientific studies were censored if they didn't pass the PC/homo agenda.

Now the only papers and studies that ever see the light of day at any major universities are those which can be used to further the radical homosexual agenda.

You speak the truth Sunni Man. I am not a psych major but I took 3 psych classes while attending college back in 1985. We were told of the damage of adoption & shown the evidence from many case studies & from the failed Nazi master race program that was dependant on adoption.

I also have a life long friend who holds a masters in Psychology & Sociology. She works as a social worker in Illinois. She & the judge make the decision to remove children from their parents in domestic cases. I have always been told by her that it is always a last resort even if it is a newborn that the mother has never laid eyes on. She has always stated studies have proven that a newborn who has never known it's biological mother will under perform & somehow knows something is different with themselves. She has said that is why she is not for right to life. She thinks adoption is not always the best decision.

Now recently there are loads of propaganda supporting gay parenting. The only way that seems possible is for lesbians of which one is the biological mother. They purposefully leave out data on gay men. They can't have it both ways. If they are pushing abortion, adoption is bad, but if it is gays adoption is good. It is hogwash. They are skewing the data.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And gay marriage spreads psychosis.

Link?

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

Let's see you backpedal, ignore, diss or otherwise try to dismiss a review that show shows that homosexuals are significantly less mentally healthy (and phsyically) than heterosexuals.

Your link says nothing whatsoever about gay marriage. It does, however, make alot of odd claims with, shall we say, new-aged math, to try to make it's homophobic claims. For example:

Secondly, it was previously noted that 43% of a bulimic sample of men were homosexual or bisexual (Carlat et al. 1997), a rate about 15 times higher than the rate in the population in general--meaning homosexual men are probably disproportionately liable to this mental condition. This may be due to the very strong preoccupation with appearance and physique frequently found among male homosexuals.

This is laughable. So, of a given sample of bulimic men, 43% are homosexual or bisexual. That means that 57% are heterosexual. Yet, the link claims that since 43% is a higher number than the the rate of bulimia in the general population, it simply must be caused by de ghey.

 

[Inthemiddle]

They have a much higher rate of sexual activity than heterosexuals as well, not coincidentally btw.

Here's your real problem, isn't it? Jealousy.

 

[Cammmpbell]

According to Rick Santorum

The gloves are coming off. And Santorum clearly is being contaminated with the Scare Crow's magic dust.

"Marriage is not a right," Santorum said. "It's a privilege that is given to society by society for a reason.... We want to encourage what is the best for children."

What I find amazing about this is that if the second sentence were true, shouldn't marriage be given to, oh you know.....society? All of society? I think that Santorum has proven he is nothing but a big government conservative wing nut.

That's directly out of the Right wing playbook. Probably written by Sarah Palin although her abstinence and teen pregnancy practices didn't hold up long.

 

[Inthemiddle]

No, my argument is that unbridled promiscuity leads to higher incidents of disease

Unbridled anything tends to lead to higher incidents of health problems. Think about it for a second. I challenge you to suggest ONE THING that will not, in excess, give rise to a greater chance for something bad happening to you. Too much milk can be bad for you. Too much water can be bad for you. Try eating too much veggies and see if you're not shitting your guts out on the can.

and is itself a symptom of illness.

That's not an argument, it's an unfounded claim.

Homosexuals enjoy exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. Last I checked there was nothing legally heterosexuals could do that homosexuals cannot do. You cannot name a single thing.

Marriage.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Letting children be raised by homosexuals is the worst form of child abuse that a kid could be subject to.

There is no way that they will ever be normal or mentally well adjusted when they become adults.

And basically will be ruined for life.

You mean like this kid?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q]Zach Wahls Speaks About Family - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Inthemiddle]

HE's right, of course. Marriage is not a right. If it were, there would be no marriage licenses.

Owning a gun is not a right...if it were, there would be no gun licenses.

The Second Amendment guarantees a right.
What amendment guarantees the ability to butt **** someone?

You big government, statist ****. Rights don't come from the constitution. They are ours innately. It's not for the constitution to grant us rights. It's for the constitution to grant government the power to infringe on those rights. Nothing in the constitution grants government the right to infringe upon homosexuals or marriage.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Owning a gun is not a right...if it were, there would be no gun licenses.

The Second Amendment guarantees a right.
What amendment guarantees the ability to butt **** someone?

You big government, statist ****. Rights don't come from the constitution. They are ours innately. It's not for the constitution to grant us rights. It's for the constitution to grant government the power to infringe on those rights. Nothing in the constitution grants government the right to infringe upon homosexuals or marriage.

Was there even anything like an out of the closet homosexual when the constitution was scribed

Since they granted slaves the right to be worth 60% of a man I have an idea if they had addressed homosexuality one would have been worth about 10%

 

[bodecea]

I only wish it was that straight forward and simple.

During the 70's the homosexual agenda started taking over the Psychology departments at most universities.

Any professor who published or wrote a paper that was contrary to the this prevailing view was either fired or lost tenure.

Soon all objective scientific studies were censored if they didn't pass the PC/homo agenda.

Now the only papers and studies that ever see the light of day at any major universities are those which can be used to further the radical homosexual agenda.

You speak the truth Sunni Man. I am not a psych major but I took 3 psych classes while attending college back in 1985. We were told of the damage of adoption & shown the evidence from many case studies & from the failed Nazi master race program that was dependant on adoption.

I also have a life long friend who holds a masters in Psychology & Sociology. She works as a social worker in Illinois. She & the judge make the decision to remove children from their parents in domestic cases. I have always been told by her that it is always a last resort even if it is a newborn that the mother has never laid eyes on. She has always stated studies have proven that a newborn who has never known it's biological mother will under perform & somehow knows something is different with themselves. She has said that is why she is not for right to life. She thinks adoption is not always the best decision.

Now recently there are loads of propaganda supporting gay parenting. The only way that seems possible is for lesbians of which one is the biological mother. They purposefully leave out data on gay men. They can't have it both ways. If they are pushing abortion, adoption is bad, but if it is gays adoption is good. It is hogwash. They are skewing the data.

So much better to abandon them or put them in group homes, eh?

 

[Photonic]

I only wish it was that straight forward and simple.

During the 70's the homosexual agenda started taking over the Psychology departments at most universities.

Any professor who published or wrote a paper that was contrary to the this prevailing view was either fired or lost tenure.

Soon all objective scientific studies were censored if they didn't pass the PC/homo agenda.

Now the only papers and studies that ever see the light of day at any major universities are those which can be used to further the radical homosexual agenda.

You speak the truth Sunni Man. I am not a psych major but I took 3 psych classes while attending college back in 1985. We were told of the damage of adoption & shown the evidence from many case studies & from the failed Nazi master race program that was dependant on adoption.

I also have a life long friend who holds a masters in Psychology & Sociology. She works as a social worker in Illinois. She & the judge make the decision to remove children from their parents in domestic cases. I have always been told by her that it is always a last resort even if it is a newborn that the mother has never laid eyes on. She has always stated studies have proven that a newborn who has never known it's biological mother will under perform & somehow knows something is different with themselves. She has said that is why she is not for right to life. She thinks adoption is not always the best decision.

Now recently there are loads of propaganda supporting gay parenting. The only way that seems possible is for lesbians of which one is the biological mother. They purposefully leave out data on gay men. They can't have it both ways. If they are pushing abortion, adoption is bad, but if it is gays adoption is good. It is hogwash. They are skewing the data.

I see a huge case of confirmation bias here. Something you should have learned from psychology.

Do you have data to suggest that there is more problems with gay adoptions than hetero adoptions?

And do you know for sure that is causation?

Seriously give me some ******* hard facts for once. Your opinions do not constitute a reason to deny them a right given to so many unsuitable people.

 

[KissMy]

I only wish it was that straight forward and simple.

During the 70's the homosexual agenda started taking over the Psychology departments at most universities.

Any professor who published or wrote a paper that was contrary to the this prevailing view was either fired or lost tenure.

Soon all objective scientific studies were censored if they didn't pass the PC/homo agenda.

Now the only papers and studies that ever see the light of day at any major universities are those which can be used to further the radical homosexual agenda.

You speak the truth Sunni Man. I am not a psych major but I took 3 psych classes while attending college back in 1985. We were told of the damage of adoption & shown the evidence from many case studies & from the failed Nazi master race program that was dependant on adoption.

I also have a life long friend who holds a masters in Psychology & Sociology. She works as a social worker in Illinois. She & the judge make the decision to remove children from their parents in domestic cases. I have always been told by her that it is always a last resort even if it is a newborn that the mother has never laid eyes on. She has always stated studies have proven that a newborn who has never known it's biological mother will under perform & somehow knows something is different with themselves. She has said that is why she is not for right to life. She thinks adoption is not always the best decision.

Now recently there are loads of propaganda supporting gay parenting. The only way that seems possible is for lesbians of which one is the biological mother. They purposefully leave out data on gay men. They can't have it both ways. If they are pushing abortion, adoption is bad, but if it is gays adoption is good. It is hogwash. They are skewing the data.

I see a huge case of confirmation bias here. Something you should have learned from psychology.

Do you have data to suggest that there is more problems with gay adoptions than hetero adoptions?

And do you know for sure that is causation?

Seriously give me some ******* hard facts for once. Your opinions do not constitute a reason to deny them a right given to so many unsuitable people.

I am not saying that gay adoption is worse than straight adoption. I am saying that adoption is worse than a biological mother family unit. Peer reviewed studies prove that gay families increase gay offspring. Gay offspring increase adoption. This causes an increase in non-biological mother family units. Gay male family units are void of biological mothers. This multiplies itself every generation. This is negative for our society.