Gay rights icon Jim Obergefell running for state House in Sandusky, Ohio

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yet the discussion is homosexuality? Yet the only way you can justify homosexual marriage is to denigrate what marriage is and was, between man and woman. Why is it that you must find the worst in society to justify homosexual lifestyles?

More bullshit! Pointing out that marriage has historically been in flux is not to denigrate it, it is to learn from our mistakes. The success of gay marriage, its widespread acceptance and the seamless integration of gay families into our communities-while everyone else goes on with their lives in all the justification that is needed

All that you have to justify banning same sex marriage is you theocratic bigotry, fear and ignorance

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Homosexuality can not stand on its own merits, you must attempt to prove something is worst to put a little lipstick on that pig.

Got news for ya Bud. It is standing tall on it's own merits. How has society been harmed by it? How have you been harmed by it? Try to answer without invoking god.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Tell that to the children that homosexuals adopt.
Tell that to children who are forced to life in a homosexual lifestyle against their rights.

The children that GAY PEOPLE adopt, and birth are doing just fine. The bigots trying to stop gay marriage used children in this way and repeatedly failed to prove that children of gay folks were harmed in any way. Lets see what you come up with and I don't mean some vague shit about "homosexual lifestyles"

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sorry, I ain't got the problems that your bigoted ass apply to me. It is you who is bigoted and uncaring about the basic rights of humans

I'm a bigot?? That is really stupid!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Children have a right to a mother and father. You deny children of that basic right.

More stupidity. The children who gay couples adopt have neither a mother nor a father. There are more children in need of adoption than there are heterosexual couples who are qualified and willing to adopt. Lastly, numerous studies have shown that children do NOT need a mother and a father

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I am denying homosexuals basic rights, you certainly lost track of what I stated?

Marriage is word with a meaning, based on history. That is all I said. I never said men or woman can't love the same sex or have sex with the same sex. The fact is it is not marriage no matter what you and the government dictates.

No? You just did it again! Marriage is considered a fundamental right as per constitutional law

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Again, you must make ot look like there is something wrong with me instead of showing us that the word marriage applies to everything in your imagination.

I do not have to make it look like there is something wrong with you. You are doing a fine job of that all by yourself.

And no one is applying "marriage" everything...just two consenting adults without regard for their respective genders

 

[elektra]

Holy shit! Are you ******* serious??! I did not say that they should be the property of men. That was a pretty pathetic swing and a miss!

I never said that you said that either. You can not comprehend the simple, you can not quote? It is no wonder you are so confused and wrong

By your rules, this makes you pathetic.

 

[elektra]

I do not have to make it look like there is something wrong with you. You are doing a fine job of that all by yourself.

And no one is applying "marriage" everything...just two consenting adults without regard for their respective genders

Like I said, you are attempting to make a point but can not without insulting and denigrating me. I did not introduce the insults to our banter. You did. I am also not the one misquoted, that is you as well.

And, nor did I say that you implied marriage was between anything. But by your reasoning, the word no longer has meaning and can mean 3, 4, 5, people. Your side even advocates that marriage need not only be between adults.

 

[elektra]

I do not have to make it look like there is something wrong with you. You are doing a fine job of that all by yourself.

And no one is applying "marriage" everything...just two consenting adults without regard for their respective genders

Like I said, you are attempting to make a point but can not without insulting and denigrating me. I did not introduce the insults to our banter. You did. I am also not the one misquoted, that is you as well.

And, nor did I say that you implied marriage was between anything. But by your reasoning, the word no longer has meaning and can mean 3, 4, 5, people. Your side even advocates that marriage need not only be between adults.

 

[elektra]

Wake up already, one simple word would tell you a whole lot " Dowry ". Modern day romantic love did not evolve until the 1800s. Before that time most marriages were arranged and properties exchanged. Poorer people bought into richer people's families. A dowry was a payment for the right to marry.

Wrong, that did happen but not everywhere.

 

[elektra]

No? You just did it again! Marriage is considered a fundamental right as per constitutional law

But not between the same sex. Just because this generation changes the meaning of a word, that does not change the meaning of the Constitution.

 

[elektra]

More stupidity. The children who gay couples adopt have neither a mother nor a father. There are more children in need of adoption than there are heterosexual couples who are qualified and willing to adopt. Lastly, numerous studies have shown that children do NOT need a mother and a father

Studies, produce one, go ahead.

Denying children their right to a mother and a father. Forcing them into a homosexual lifestyle. Against the child's choice.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I never said that you said that either. You can not comprehend the simple, you can not quote? It is no wonder you are so confused and wrong

By your rules, this makes you pathetic.

OK You are sort of right. You did not claim that I said "should be" But this is what you said

And while you throw around the word bigot, you should think of how you said all women were property of men. Nothing said in this thread is more bigoted then that.

Implying that I think that women are the property of men. If your trying to gaslight me it's not working

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But by your reasoning, the word no longer has meaning and can mean 3, 4, 5, people. Your side even advocates that marriage need not only be between adults.

Horseshit! I clearly said that marriage is between TWO consenting adults, regardless of gender, as does the Obergefell decision. Marriage still has meaning to be sure even if you don't think so and want to make up shit that is false

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But not between the same sex. Just because this generation changes the meaning of a word, that does not change the meaning of the Constitution.

Oh, now we are referencing the Constitution!!?? What exactly does the Constitution say about marriage.? Hint: NOTHING. But once Obergefell was decided, same sex marriage became part of Constitutional law. It does not change the constitution, it interprets it and builds on it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Exactly what ‘rights’ do homos need activism for?

 

[GMCGeneral]

Horseshit! I clearly said that marriage is between TWO consenting adults, regardless of gender, as does the Obergefell decision. Marriage still has meaning to be sure even if you don't think so and want to make up shit that is false

Not in G-d's eyes. The ONLY PROPER definition is still exclusive to one man-one woman. All else is phony, counterfeit, and outright sin.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Studies, produce one, go ahead.

Denying children their right to a mother and a father. Forcing them into a homosexual lifestyle. Against the child's choice.

Post one? Sure Boss . Here you go. I have plenty more were this came from. Your turn now. Let's see what you've got. My guess is nothing

You're still blathering about "forcing kids into a homosexual lifestyle" but you cant seem to explain exactly what that means. Anyway, chew on this for a while. Be sure to follow the links and note the references.
___________________________________________________________________

A team at Columbia Law School has collected on one website the abstracts of all peer-reviewed studies that have addressed this question since 1980 so that anyone can examine the research directly, and not rely on talking heads or potential groupthink. Even when we might not agree with a study’s conclusions—with how a researcher interpreted the data—we still included it if it went through peer review and was relevant to the topic at hand. Peer review, of course, isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best ways the world has to ensure that research conclusions are at least the product of good-faith efforts to get at the truth.

The Columbia project is the largest collection of peer-reviewed scholarship on gay parenting to date. What does it show? We found 71 studies concluding that kids with gay parents fare no worse than others and only four concluding that they had problems. But those four studies all suffered from the same gross limitation: The children with gay parents were lumped in with children of family breakup, a cohort known to face higher risks linked to the trauma of family dissolution.


Even the notion that some try to put forth that there are no good studies is wrong...the studies, while not perfect do give us a very good idea on the conclusions and that is that gay homes are not better nor worse.

Here is a link to all the studies

What does the scholarly research say about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents? | What We Know

I should add, the consensus that kids in gay homes do just as well as kids in straight homes is recognized

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia

Consensus

The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.[5][6][87][92] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[93] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[94]

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not in G-d's eyes. The ONLY PROPER definition is still exclusive to one man-one woman. All else is phony, counterfeit, and outright sin.

If that is what you believe, then DO NOT GET GAY MARRIED! But DO butt out of the business of those who do not believe as you do. Unless you can explain clearly and concisely how same sex marriage has had a detrimental effect on society, or you personally, it is none of your business what others do.