"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[KevinWestern]

your disregard of children is duly noted.....like most irresponsible gays you just blow off children as it they are something that shows up under the Christmas tree to please THEM...because the kid 'wouldn't even EXIST' if it wasn't for them buying the kid in the first place...what arrogance...

Eagle, the point is if a gay couple chooses not to have a kid then that kid would not exist, and life wouldn’t have been created for that individual. Is this not correct? If the gay couple doesn’t have the kid, will he/she pop up somewhere else? What am I missing?

you're missing the fact that two gays cannot have children together.....therefore they have to go OUTSIDE THE MARRIAGE to have one...thus it is not a natural marriage...

And it's incredibly ignorant (and a$%holish) to infer that most gays "blow off children" as something that "shows up under the Christmas tree to please THEM".

not at all....when two gays have to go outside their marriage to obtain a child they pretty much have to buy one....in fact they pretty much go 'shopping' for the mother....it's all pretty sick and more about THEIR needs and wants...


What I said was it’s irrelevant if the two guardians are same or opposite sex. I didn’t say one or the other was better or worse.

i'm saying that having a mother and a father IS RELEVANT...because it is BETTER than two gay 'guardians'....and there has been recently more and more proof to back this up...

I didn’t. What I said is that the child will still have relatives, and an inherited lineage which will be "theirs".

that is NOT the same thing...ask yourself why do many adopted children go to great lengths to find their real parents...?



All I have is my experiences, and in those experiences I’ve known/interacted with 3 same sex families and the parents appear just as stable/unstable as anyone else, and the children seem as happy/same as the kids I know from opposite sex marriages. I see no difference, but this is my experience.

appearances can be fooling...it could be temporary....and there are always exceptions....however where in general have you ever seen men more willing to be monogamous than women....?

and it doesn't matter whether or not a DIMWIT (funny how gays are all Dimwits) can produce a child or not....intelligence is not a requirement for having children....one man/one woman/producing children is simply the way of NATURE...what exactly gives gays the 'right' to force us to accept unnatural practices against Nature..?

But my point was that how you raise the kid is by far more important than “how the kid was produced”, and therefore we should focus on that first and foremost. That’s a fair statement, I believe.

'how the kid was produced' is CRITICAL to the kid.....it colors his whole life and relationship to the world...

the focus is always on the gays and THEIR supposed 'rights' or wants.....the focus should be on the CHILDREN that will be negatively affected by 'gay marriage'....

marriage has always been about the children.....and gays just don't qualify in that area...

.

We disagree on some fundamentals here and I think we're going to just to have to settle it up with that. I respect your opinion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I know what you were talking about. I want to make sure that people know that the number of states that have actual legal gay marriage is 3. The rest are being seditiously oppressed by rogue judges. These judges are attempting to override the Windsor finding last Summer that Upheld constitutionally that each state's internal citizen's consensus gets to decide "yes" or "no" on gay marriage or other marriages that are odd or unusual such as first cousins or 13 year olds. They are doing so illegally and in contempt of the US Supreme Court and the rights of the states.

That fact needs to be the premise of any other discussion that follows.

Your "fact" is bogus and you know it.

In the Windsor decision the SCOTUS cited legal Civil Marriage existed for same-sex couples in 12 States and DC. Those Civil Marriages occurred judicially, legislatively, and at the ballot box.

To claim that the SCOTUS ruled that SSCM was valid in only three states if false.



>>>>

 

[MrMax]

"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

Times change. You can't go back. Learn to deal with same sex marriage. if you're against it, you're probably not gay, so it doesn't affect you anyways. Live and let live.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Eagle, the point is if a gay couple chooses not to have a kid then that kid would not exist, and life wouldn’t have been created for that individual. Is this not correct? If the gay couple doesn’t have the kid, will he/she pop up somewhere else? What am I missing?

you're missing the fact that two gays cannot have children together.....therefore they have to go OUTSIDE THE MARRIAGE to have one...thus it is not a natural marriage...

And it's incredibly ignorant (and a$%holish) to infer that most gays "blow off children" as something that "shows up under the Christmas tree to please THEM".

not at all....when two gays have to go outside their marriage to obtain a child they pretty much have to buy one....in fact they pretty much go 'shopping' for the mother....it's all pretty sick and more about THEIR needs and wants...


What I said was it’s irrelevant if the two guardians are same or opposite sex. I didn’t say one or the other was better or worse.

i'm saying that having a mother and a father IS RELEVANT...because it is BETTER than two gay 'guardians'....and there has been recently more and more proof to back this up...

I didn’t. What I said is that the child will still have relatives, and an inherited lineage which will be "theirs".

that is NOT the same thing...ask yourself why do many adopted children go to great lengths to find their real parents...?



All I have is my experiences, and in those experiences I’ve known/interacted with 3 same sex families and the parents appear just as stable/unstable as anyone else, and the children seem as happy/same as the kids I know from opposite sex marriages. I see no difference, but this is my experience.

appearances can be fooling...it could be temporary....and there are always exceptions....however where in general have you ever seen men more willing to be monogamous than women....?



But my point was that how you raise the kid is by far more important than “how the kid was produced”, and therefore we should focus on that first and foremost. That’s a fair statement, I believe.

'how the kid was produced' is CRITICAL to the kid.....it colors his whole life and relationship to the world...

the focus is always on the gays and THEIR supposed 'rights' or wants.....the focus should be on the CHILDREN that will be negatively affected by 'gay marriage'....

marriage has always been about the children.....and gays just don't qualify in that area...

.

We disagree on some fundamentals here and I think we're going to just to have to settle it up with that. I respect your opinion.

you bet we do.....those 'fundamentals' are very important....in fact critical...

but as a leftie you want to 'fundamentally change' things....obviously due to emotions since you cannot intellectually nor factually defend your position when it comes to the children....

 

[Seawytch]

yep, and if they can pass in these states, it will be even easier to sue people into destitution in states where the marriages are legally binding.

Do we have any evidence backing that claim up? Meaning, once a state legalizes gay marriage, are we seeing the number of these incidences (perhaps measured by court cases) rise?



I know there are quite a few states where gay marriage is officially recognized, legally, and some states have been this way for years now.

Considering how new all this is, and how long cases take to go through the legal system, there is no data I know of. My view is an opinion, and I have not made any claim to the contrary.

A decade is not "new". Gays have been marrying in MA for ten years. Businesses bankrupt yet as a result?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No problem, but why not?

If the civil liberties of this very tiny minority can be guaranteed, there is no need to alter a time-honored tradition recognized by the vast majority of the population just for the sake of semantics.

But isn't it the case that the consensus among US citizens is that gay marriage should be legalized? Gays are most definitely a minority group, but the opinion regarding gay marriage is held by all - gay and straight.

Say in ten years if 75% of the population is "in favor" of allowing gays to legally marry in the public sphere, wouldn't there be a need to modify the law so that it's a better representation of the views of the whole?

If the popular opinion on the subject was trending as "less favorable" I think your point would be stronger. But it appears to be to be trending in the opposite direction.

20 years ago 'gay marriage' wasn't even on the radar screen....

fanatical leftists have been pushing this imaginative 'right' into the media and the courts....they've artificially created an 'approval' with their propaganda....'Will and Grace' fans have been taught gay life is just a barrel full of laughs between the little problems of life...

if the 'approval' is really there then the states would have already voted for 'gay marriage'.....but they haven't.....and that is why the leftists are wrongly pushing it through the activist courts instead...

if the media stopped their gay spewage do you think people would be so 'approving'....?

 

[Pop23]

"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

Times change. You can't go back. Learn to deal with same sex marriage. if you're against it, you're probably not gay, so it doesn't affect you anyways. Live and let live.

Times change/facts don't.

The marketing of a very bad idea won't ever make it good

 

[MrMax]

.

We disagree on some fundamentals here and I think we're going to just to have to settle it up with that. I respect your opinion.

you bet we do.....those 'fundamentals' are very important....in fact critical...

but as a leftie you want to 'fundamentally change' things....obviously due to emotions since you cannot intellectually nor factually defend your position when it comes to the children....

Gay peeps have children all the time. Sperm donors and surrogates, do those words mean anything to you?

 

[KevinWestern]

you bet we do.....those 'fundamentals' are very important....in fact critical...

but as a leftie you want to 'fundamentally change' things....obviously due to emotions since you cannot intellectually nor factually defend your position when it comes to the children....

What is a leftie Eagle? Is it defined solely as a person who believes gay marriage should be legal, or are you referring to me as such with regards to this specific context?

And too, what exactly is the impact of this "fundamental shift"? Won't straight people still be marrying and formulating opposite sex couples? Won't over 95% of the population still remain straight? Won't the gay people who are already living together, raising children (it's not illegal for a gay person to adopt, ect) still do this regardless of gay marriage? Won't gay people still exist in the communities? Get what I'm saying?

I don't see a "major fundamental shift" in the way we operate as a society. The only shift is that now the gay people who are already living together and already raising children are now going to be able to access one another's medical records.

That is where we largely disagree on.


.

 

[Pop23]

We disagree on some fundamentals here and I think we're going to just to have to settle it up with that. I respect your opinion.

you bet we do.....those 'fundamentals' are very important....in fact critical...

but as a leftie you want to 'fundamentally change' things....obviously due to emotions since you cannot intellectually nor factually defend your position when it comes to the children....

Gay peeps have children all the time. Sperm donors and surrogates, do those words mean anything to you?

Your in favor of polygamy? Name the same sex couple that ever had a child from sex between the partners. I can assure you, that's never occurred.

And to that point, single heterosexuals have children, none of which are granted single marriage status.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

We disagree on some fundamentals here and I think we're going to just to have to settle it up with that. I respect your opinion.

you bet we do.....those 'fundamentals' are very important....in fact critical...

but as a leftie you want to 'fundamentally change' things....obviously due to emotions since you cannot intellectually nor factually defend your position when it comes to the children....

Gay peeps have children all the time. Sperm donors and surrogates, do those words mean anything to you?

tune in.....that's exactly what i've been talking about when i spoke about 'shopping' for baby mothers and 'having babies' like presents under the Christmas tree.....except gays aren't religious so it's unlikely they have Christmas trees....probably Xmas trees instead....to go with their Xmas kids who are denied their real mother from birthn....they have Xmoms instead....

 

[martybegan]

Do we have any evidence backing that claim up? Meaning, once a state legalizes gay marriage, are we seeing the number of these incidences (perhaps measured by court cases) rise?



I know there are quite a few states where gay marriage is officially recognized, legally, and some states have been this way for years now.

Considering how new all this is, and how long cases take to go through the legal system, there is no data I know of. My view is an opinion, and I have not made any claim to the contrary.

A decade is not "new". Gays have been marrying in MA for ten years. Businesses bankrupt yet as a result?

yeah, pick one of the more liberal states as an example. Down South things will be different.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

you bet we do.....those 'fundamentals' are very important....in fact critical...

but as a leftie you want to 'fundamentally change' things....obviously due to emotions since you cannot intellectually nor factually defend your position when it comes to the children....

What is a leftie Eagle? Is it defined solely as a person who believes gay marriage should be legal, or are you referring to me as such with regards to this specific context?

And too, what exactly is the impact of this "fundamental shift"? Won't straight people still be marrying and formulating opposite sex couples? Won't over 95% of the population still remain straight? Won't the gay people who are already living together, raising children (it's not illegal for a gay person to adopt, ect) still do this regardless of gay marriage? Won't gay people still exist in the communities? Get what I'm saying?

I don't see a "major fundamental shift" in the way we operate as a society. The only shift is that now the gay people who are already living together and already raising children are now going to be able to access one another's medical records.

That is where we largely disagree on.


.

like i said.....with you it is obviously simply an emotional decision because you have friends today that are gay and have kids....and they probably seem to be doing fine...however research is proving this not to be true....

speaking of emotion...have you ever wondered what it is like for a child to wonder about his real mother (or father)....? who she is.....where she is....what she is....what her parents and grandparents are or were...? having 'two dads' leaves a child out in the cold when it comes to his very own MOTHER....like being half an orphan because your mother died or worse...abandoned you...

all due to the selfish decision of two men who want to 'play house' together...

 

[Steinlight]

Except polygamy isn't the issue. Neither is the issue bestiality, pedophilia, or even sexual intercourse. Two-person same-sex marriage is the issue, and marriage can very easily come to mean "two people" instead of "man and woman".

If corporations are people now, should a corporate merger be called a marriage? If so, are gay businesses allowed to get married if they call it a corporate merger?

It is an issue to me, you ******* bigot. Since when does the government have the right to tell someone who they can and cannot love?

I want my harem codified into law through marriage licenses.

So your argument is that the people who use 'redefining marriage' as an argument AGAINST same sex monogamy are simultaneously making an argument FOR legal civil polygamy?

Because afterall, even the Bible defines marriage as both monogamy and polygamy...

If they aren't making that argument, they are hypocritical bigots.

 

[Seawytch]

Considering how new all this is, and how long cases take to go through the legal system, there is no data I know of. My view is an opinion, and I have not made any claim to the contrary.

A decade is not "new". Gays have been marrying in MA for ten years. Businesses bankrupt yet as a result?

yeah, pick one of the more liberal states as an example. Down South things will be different.

Down south where they're more bigoted you mean.

 

[Pop23]

I find it interesting that the United States of America sent troops into the Utah territory to insure that marriage would remain between one man and one women within the Union.

Talk about a demonstration as to the original intent of the law!

 

[Seawytch]

you bet we do.....those 'fundamentals' are very important....in fact critical...



but as a leftie you want to 'fundamentally change' things....obviously due to emotions since you cannot intellectually nor factually defend your position when it comes to the children....

What is a leftie Eagle? Is it defined solely as a person who believes gay marriage should be legal, or are you referring to me as such with regards to this specific context?



And too, what exactly is the impact of this "fundamental shift"? Won't straight people still be marrying and formulating opposite sex couples? Won't over 95% of the population still remain straight? Won't the gay people who are already living together, raising children (it's not illegal for a gay person to adopt, ect) still do this regardless of gay marriage? Won't gay people still exist in the communities? Get what I'm saying?



I don't see a "major fundamental shift" in the way we operate as a society. The only shift is that now the gay people who are already living together and already raising children are now going to be able to access one another's medical records.



That is where we largely disagree on.





.

like i said.....with you it is obviously simply an emotional decision because you have friends today that are gay and have kids....and they probably seem to be doing fine...however research is proving this not to be true....



speaking of emotion...have you ever wondered what it is like for a child to wonder about his real mother (or father)....? who she is.....where she is....what she is....what her parents and grandparents are or were...? having 'two dads' leaves a child out in the cold when it comes to his very own MOTHER....like being half an orphan because your mother died or worse...abandoned you...



all due to the selfish decision of two men who want to 'play house' together...

No research is not. Research actually shows are children are at no disadvantage.

 

[Silhouette]

No research is not. Research actually shows are children are at no disadvantage.

I'd say leaving kids in the custody of practitioners of the LGBT cult values is causing them harm. Just look at who their messiah is. Harvey Milk is lauded as "the first openly gay politician to serve public office". He also was "gay" consistently with orphaned teen runaway boys who were addled on drugs and thereby incapable of consent when he sodomized them.

He discarded one for another as they aged. Three of them committed suicide. He officiated as one minor boy's father at the same time he was sodomizing him. All known to those 60+ LGBT groups across the US, Mexico and Canada who lobbied tirelessly to promote Harvey Milk as their icon on a US Postage stamp. When cornered on the Harvey Milk issue, and when reminded of what he did to those boys, instead of recoiling in shock, gays line up to defend what he did. When cornered further, they plead that the age of consent is not low enough.

Those are the folks currently lining up arguing that allowing their group values to access marriage [and thereby adoption of orphans] is "in the best interest of the children entrusted to them".

I say, no. You wouldn't let a cult that knowingly venerated Jerry Sandusky to access children. So you for the same reasons should not allow a cult who venerates Harvey Milk to get near them either via marriage. Utah's argument is that married people have first-tier access to adoptable orphans. Once granted marriage, Utah will have its butt sued off the first time they try to deny Harvey-Milkers access to orphaned teen boys...or younger...

 

[bendog]

I find it interesting that the United States of America sent troops into the Utah territory to insure that marriage would remain between one man and one women within the Union.

Talk about a demonstration as to the original intent of the law!

I'd agree that there was bigotry towards Mormons in the first half of the 19th century, but the issue was also about Utah agreeing to accept federal supremacy and a fear they aimed for a theocracy and basically setting up their own country.

Utah has had an uneven record in prosecuting polygamists. And, unless there's a link to it having detrimental effects on children, I'm not sure how a ban is justified. Living near there for decades, I believe there is, but I'm not aware of any scientific evidence justifying my "belief," which might be prejudice on my part.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What is a leftie Eagle? Is it defined solely as a person who believes gay marriage should be legal, or are you referring to me as such with regards to this specific context?



And too, what exactly is the impact of this "fundamental shift"? Won't straight people still be marrying and formulating opposite sex couples? Won't over 95% of the population still remain straight? Won't the gay people who are already living together, raising children (it's not illegal for a gay person to adopt, ect) still do this regardless of gay marriage? Won't gay people still exist in the communities? Get what I'm saying?



I don't see a "major fundamental shift" in the way we operate as a society. The only shift is that now the gay people who are already living together and already raising children are now going to be able to access one another's medical records.



That is where we largely disagree on.





.

like i said.....with you it is obviously simply an emotional decision because you have friends today that are gay and have kids....and they probably seem to be doing fine...however research is proving this not to be true....



speaking of emotion...have you ever wondered what it is like for a child to wonder about his real mother (or father)....? who she is.....where she is....what she is....what her parents and grandparents are or were...? having 'two dads' leaves a child out in the cold when it comes to his very own MOTHER....like being half an orphan because your mother died or worse...abandoned you...



all due to the selfish decision of two men who want to 'play house' together...

No research is not. Research actually shows are children are at no disadvantage.

sorry to burst your gay-loving bubble but this is actual bonafide research...

Key Findings of Mark Regnerus' New Family Structure Study
Glenn T. Stanton

The New Family Structure Study (NFSS) suggests notable differences on many outcomes do, in fact, exist [between same-sex, intact-married, and biological homes]. This is inconsistent with claims of ‘no differences’ generated by studies that have commonly employed far narrower samples than this one.”

Compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to…

•Experience poor educational attainment
•Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.
•Have impulsive behavior
•Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
•Suffer from depression (by large margins)
•Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
•Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
•Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
•Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely)
•Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)
•As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit
•As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
•Have a sexually tramsmitted infection (STI)
•Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)
•Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)
•Be unemployed or part-time employed as young adults
•As adults, currently be on public assistance or sometime in their childhood
•Live in homes with lower income levels
•Drink with intention of getting drunk
•To smoke tobacco and marijuana
•Spend more time watching TV
•Have frequency of arrests
•Have pled guilty to minor legal offense

Fuller Analysis of Specific NFSS Findings

This first article from Professor Mark Regnerus’ (Professor of Sociology, University of Texas, Austin) New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is published in Social Science Research. It is accompanied by published responses from mainstream sociologists, which while critical of a few important points – as academics always are - they are generally in praise of his methodology as well as his unique and needed ground-breaking contribution to the literature on the topic of same-sex parenting. This is key and will go far to rebut the activist’s severe, but largely base-less criticisms.

cont...
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/abo...-trends/regnerus-family-structures-study.aspx