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

[Pop23]

The interesting thing in all this is how bisexuals are being kind of thrown under the bus!

If indeed same sex marriage is allowed within marriage, that works for them, but bisexuality is still not well served is it?

The obvious answer to insure marriage equality is to issue multiple marriage licenses.

The bisexual could get one for he and a partner for when he feels Homosexual and another for he and a female partner when he feels heterosexual.

Perfect. AND equality is served

It'd be a freaking marriage fiesta! A regular marriage buffet!

Come on, who's with me!

Piñatas on the house!

 

[KNB]

The interesting thing in all this is how bisexuals are being kind of thrown under the bus!

If indeed same sex marriage is allowed within marriage, that works for them, but bisexuality is still not well served is it?

The obvious answer to insure marriage equality is multiple marriage licenses.

The bisexual could get one for he and a partner for when he feels Homosexual and another for he and a female partner when he feels heterosexual.

Perfect. AND equality is served

It'd be a freaking marriage fiesta! A regular marriage buffet!

Come on, who's with me!

Or two people can get married and then make the adult agreement to engage in free sex with other married couples.

It's called "swinging." Type "swinger couples" into your search engine. Gay couples do this, too, but they're not just sinful, soulless gay and lesbian couples. Swinger couples are normal, everyday heterosexual married couples who engage in free sex with multiple partners. Married in the eyes of God.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Those who oppose Marriage Equality tried to use Regnerous in court in the Michigan case. They got shredded by the Reagan appointed Judge that called out the problems with his "Study". More starting on page 11 of the decision.

Even Regnerus recognized the limitations of the NFSS. In his expert report, Regnerus acknowledged that “any suboptimal outcomes may not be due to the sexual orientation of the parent” and that “[t]he exact source of group differences” are unknown. Defs.’ Ex. 28 at 5. Moreover, of the only two participants who reported living with their mother and her same-sex partner for their entire childhood, Regnerus found each of them to be “comparatively well-adjusted on most developmental and contemporary outcomes.” Id. at 11. Nonetheless, Regnerus testified that there is no conclusive evidence that “growing up in households wherein parents are in (or have been in) same-sex relationships” does not adversely affect child outcomes. Id. at 16.



The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 “study” was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it “essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society” and which “was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.” See Pls.’ Motion in limine to Exclude Testimony of Mark Regnerus, Ex. 9. In the funder’s view, “the future of the institution of marriage at this moment is very uncertain” and “proper research” was needed to counter the many studies showing no differences in child outcomes. Id. The funder also stated that “this is a project where time is of the essence.” Id. Time was of the essence at the time of the funder’s comments in April 2011, and when Dr. Regnerus published the NFSS in 2012, because decisions such as

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), and Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), were threatening the funder’s concept of “the institution of marriage.”​

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/cases/...r_Findings_of_Fact_and_Conclusions_of_Law.pdf







>>>>

first of all....this is probably the very first serious and extensive study about same-sex household effects on children....with not as much data available as one would like....so Dr. Regnerus can't be as definitive as the court would demand...however that does not mean the study is bogus...



second....Regnerus testified that there is no conclusive evidence that same-sex household do NOT have an adverse effect on children...



in fact....looking at the results it appears that same-sex households produce children with as many defects as children from broken homes...

The only thing his study showed was that intact families are superior to broken ones.

Ursine mammals evacuate in sylvan environments too.

 

[Seawytch]

The interesting thing in all this is how bisexuals are being kind of thrown under the bus!

If indeed same sex marriage is allowed within marriage, that works for them, but bisexuality is still not well served is it?

The obvious answer to insure marriage equality is to issue multiple marriage licenses.

The bisexual could get one for he and a partner for when he feels Homosexual and another for he and a female partner when he feels heterosexual.

Perfect. AND equality is served

It'd be a freaking marriage fiesta! A regular marriage buffet!

Come on, who's with me!

Piñatas on the house!

No they aren't. Monogamy is monogamy.

 

[Seawytch]

The people of california voted twice to ban gay marriage------whats your point?

They actually didn't vote to ban gay marriage. They voted to define marriage in such a way that gays, polygamists and minors did not qualify. Gays weren't singled out in "between a man and a woman". Quite a few people don't qualify to marry there besides LGBT cult members.



If put to a vote again, it would again be reiterated "between a man and a woman".



That's why they wanted to force it on the state with a gay judge. They know the majority there doesn't support it. Gay marriage is now and always has been illegal in California. County clerks there were fully within their rights and standing to plead for clarity and direction from the Supreme Court which they were summarily and arbitrarily denied without comment from the Court.



Clerks also take an oath to uphold state law. And in issuing bogus marriage licenses to gay people in that state, clerks were forced to choose between defying the will of the people of duly enacted initiative law and pressure from the AG and Governor there to disobey their oath of office.



This is going to come up again in the future. Mark my words.

thanks for the clarification, and yes, it will come up again. the people will only allow their will to be overturned a few times.

They managed when their "will" was overturned regarding slavery, segregation, anti miscegenation, etc.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Those who oppose Marriage Equality tried to use Regnerous in court in the Michigan case. They got shredded by the Reagan appointed Judge that called out the problems with his "Study". More starting on page 11 of the decision.

Even Regnerus recognized the limitations of the NFSS. In his expert report, Regnerus acknowledged that “any suboptimal outcomes may not be due to the sexual orientation of the parent” and that “[t]he exact source of group differences” are unknown. Defs.’ Ex. 28 at 5. Moreover, of the only two participants who reported living with their mother and her same-sex partner for their entire childhood, Regnerus found each of them to be “comparatively well-adjusted on most developmental and contemporary outcomes.” Id. at 11. Nonetheless, Regnerus testified that there is no conclusive evidence that “growing up in households wherein parents are in (or have been in) same-sex relationships” does not adversely affect child outcomes. Id. at 16.



The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 “study” was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it “essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society” and which “was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.” See Pls.’ Motion in limine to Exclude Testimony of Mark Regnerus, Ex. 9. In the funder’s view, “the future of the institution of marriage at this moment is very uncertain” and “proper research” was needed to counter the many studies showing no differences in child outcomes. Id. The funder also stated that “this is a project where time is of the essence.” Id. Time was of the essence at the time of the funder’s comments in April 2011, and when Dr. Regnerus published the NFSS in 2012, because decisions such as

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), and Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), were threatening the funder’s concept of “the institution of marriage.”​

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/cases/...r_Findings_of_Fact_and_Conclusions_of_Law.pdf







>>>>

first of all....this is probably the very first serious and extensive study about same-sex household effects on children....with not as much data available as one would like....so Dr. Regnerus can't be as definitive as the court would demand...however that does not mean the study is bogus...



second....Regnerus testified that there is no conclusive evidence that same-sex household do NOT have an adverse effect on children...



in fact....looking at the results it appears that same-sex households produce children with as many defects as children from broken homes...

The only thing his study showed was that intact families are superior to broken ones.

Ursine mammals evacuate in sylvan environments too.

does a bear shit in the woods......gay homes are broken homes by definition....

 

[bodecea]

The interesting thing in all this is how bisexuals are being kind of thrown under the bus!

If indeed same sex marriage is allowed within marriage, that works for them, but bisexuality is still not well served is it?

The obvious answer to insure marriage equality is to issue multiple marriage licenses.

The bisexual could get one for he and a partner for when he feels Homosexual and another for he and a female partner when he feels heterosexual.

Perfect. AND equality is served

It'd be a freaking marriage fiesta! A regular marriage buffet!

Come on, who's with me!

Piñatas on the house!

I always chuckle at posters like you who are completely clueless about what bisexuality is.

 

[bodecea]

first of all....this is probably the very first serious and extensive study about same-sex household effects on children....with not as much data available as one would like....so Dr. Regnerus can't be as definitive as the court would demand...however that does not mean the study is bogus...



second....Regnerus testified that there is no conclusive evidence that same-sex household do NOT have an adverse effect on children...



in fact....looking at the results it appears that same-sex households produce children with as many defects as children from broken homes...

The only thing his study showed was that intact families are superior to broken ones.

Ursine mammals evacuate in sylvan environments too.

does a bear shit in the woods......gay homes are broken homes by definition....

No...but maybe you know some personal experience on broken.

 

[bodecea]

They actually didn't vote to ban gay marriage. They voted to define marriage in such a way that gays, polygamists and minors did not qualify. Gays weren't singled out in "between a man and a woman". Quite a few people don't qualify to marry there besides LGBT cult members.



If put to a vote again, it would again be reiterated "between a man and a woman".



That's why they wanted to force it on the state with a gay judge. They know the majority there doesn't support it. Gay marriage is now and always has been illegal in California. County clerks there were fully within their rights and standing to plead for clarity and direction from the Supreme Court which they were summarily and arbitrarily denied without comment from the Court.



Clerks also take an oath to uphold state law. And in issuing bogus marriage licenses to gay people in that state, clerks were forced to choose between defying the will of the people of duly enacted initiative law and pressure from the AG and Governor there to disobey their oath of office.



This is going to come up again in the future. Mark my words.

thanks for the clarification, and yes, it will come up again. the people will only allow their will to be overturned a few times.

They managed when their "will" was overturned regarding slavery, segregation, anti miscegenation, etc.

Some are stilling hating that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...gay homes are broken homes by definition....

That is truly ignorant, desperate, and pathetic.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

...gay homes are broken homes by definition....

That is truly ignorant, desperate, and pathetic.

really....why...?

the only pathetic ones here are those promoting motherless or fatherless children...

 

[GISMYS]

hey!!!silly tard!! just google """michelle obama a man??"""== Michelle Obama Is A Man Goes Viral Across America (Videos) | Obama

 

[KNB]

hey!!!silly tard!! just google """michelle obama a man??"""== Michelle Obama Is A Man Goes Viral Across America (Videos) | Obama

Great link, simpleton. It explains that internet searches for "Michelle Obama is a man" have gone viral due to simpletons like you continuously promoting it to other simpletons. Congratulations. You are helping to make the world dumber.

 

[GISMYS]

hey!!!silly tard!! just google """michelle obama a man??"""== Michelle Obama Is A Man Goes Viral Across America (Videos) | Obama

Great link, simpleton. It explains that internet searches for "Michelle Obama is a man" have gone viral due to simpletons like you continuously promoting it to other simpletons. Congratulations. You are helping to make the world dumber.

and what is your opinion after watching the video????? you did watch it ! right??? lol!!

 

[Pop23]

The interesting thing in all this is how bisexuals are being kind of thrown under the bus!

If indeed same sex marriage is allowed within marriage, that works for them, but bisexuality is still not well served is it?

The obvious answer to insure marriage equality is to issue multiple marriage licenses.

The bisexual could get one for he and a partner for when he feels Homosexual and another for he and a female partner when he feels heterosexual.

Perfect. AND equality is served

It'd be a freaking marriage fiesta! A regular marriage buffet!

Come on, who's with me!

Piñatas on the house!

No they aren't. Monogamy is monogamy.

They only want to be equal

Besides, it's monogamy, just in a bi kinda way

Redefining things is fun!!!

 

[Pop23]

The interesting thing in all this is how bisexuals are being kind of thrown under the bus!

If indeed same sex marriage is allowed within marriage, that works for them, but bisexuality is still not well served is it?

The obvious answer to insure marriage equality is to issue multiple marriage licenses.

The bisexual could get one for he and a partner for when he feels Homosexual and another for he and a female partner when he feels heterosexual.

Perfect. AND equality is served

It'd be a freaking marriage fiesta! A regular marriage buffet!

Come on, who's with me!

Piñatas on the house!

I always chuckle at posters like you who are completely clueless about what bisexuality is.

Now this is exactly what a self proclaimed bisexual explained that it was.

Is he clueless too?

 

[Unkotare]

Down south where they're more bigoted you mean.

Third World Country-like.

Well, they do have roads, running water and electricity...but yeah, when we talk about attitudes and education...kinda.

You are talking about a very large part of this great nation. Watch your mouth.

 

[bodecea]

hey!!!silly tard!! just google """michelle obama a man??"""== Michelle Obama Is A Man Goes Viral Across America (Videos) | Obama

Great link, simpleton. It explains that internet searches for "Michelle Obama is a man" have gone viral due to simpletons like you continuously promoting it to other simpletons. Congratulations. You are helping to make the world dumber.

He apparently believes it is the christian thing to do to start rumors and bear false witness. After all, it isn't like the bible says anything against that kind of stuff.

 

[bodecea]

The interesting thing in all this is how bisexuals are being kind of thrown under the bus!

If indeed same sex marriage is allowed within marriage, that works for them, but bisexuality is still not well served is it?

The obvious answer to insure marriage equality is to issue multiple marriage licenses.

The bisexual could get one for he and a partner for when he feels Homosexual and another for he and a female partner when he feels heterosexual.

Perfect. AND equality is served

It'd be a freaking marriage fiesta! A regular marriage buffet!

Come on, who's with me!

Piñatas on the house!

I always chuckle at posters like you who are completely clueless about what bisexuality is.

Now this is exactly what a self proclaimed bisexual explained that it was.

Is he clueless too?

And you bought it.

 

[bodecea]

Third World Country-like.

Well, they do have roads, running water and electricity...but yeah, when we talk about attitudes and education...kinda.

You are talking about a very large part of this great nation. Watch your mouth.

Third-world countries are a very large part of the world too.