Wow: Daughter of two moms boldly speaks out AGAINST gay marriage

[EdwardBaiamonte]

of course thats absurd. As if kids don't want to love and be loved by their real biological parents!!

My sister is their biological parent. You continue to spout off ignorance.

is your sister the biological father and mother?

 

[Seawytch]

The Regenerus study has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday...and laughed out of court.

Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.

 

[emilynghiem]

and yet those kids aren't trying to take away the right of heterosexual parents to marry.

Seawytch you and everyone ALREADY has the right to marry whoever you want in whatever way you want under the RELIGION, CHURCH or PRIVATE practice/beliefs of your own.
That's already under the First Amendment religious freedom.

What is contested is how to word the STATE marriage laws to be neutral, and neither
excluding nor imposing anyone's beliefs unequally.

if you use the word MARRIAGE in a way that is offensive or against Christian beliefs,
that is like using the word GOD in a public institution that is offensive or against an Atheist.

Atheists sue to remove the word GOD, so to be fair, either side can sue to remove the word MARRIAGE
under terms that exclude or discriminate against people of other beliefs.

The problem, Seawytch is when either side GOES TOO FAR and tries to force THEIR beliefs
through the State at the expense or exclusion of the other.

if you believe in "separation of church and state" and "freedom of or from religion"
then NEITHER side should be pushing their beliefs into state laws and institutions.

Either keep the laws neutral and inclusive and equally open to all beliefs
or keep that institution OUT of state law if it can't be worded and agreed upon by people of all beliefs.

Be fair or get it out of govt, just like any other personal choice.

Seawytch if you don't want to include all public beliefs in public policy,
if you want to keep a free choice of BELIEFS protected, then keep it under free exercise of religion
which is already protected.

if you push too far and push YOUR beliefs about same-sex marriage into the public sector and public policy,
that's why people of OTHER beliefs will fight to do the same thing to protect THEIR beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Regenerus study has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday...and laughed out of court.

Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.

Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.

The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.

Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.

Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.

 

[Redfish]

and yet those kids aren't trying to take away the right of heterosexual parents to marry.

Seawytch you and everyone ALREADY has the right to marry whoever you want in whatever way you want under the RELIGION, CHURCH or PRIVATE practice/beliefs of your own.
That's already under the First Amendment religious freedom.

What is contested is how to word the STATE marriage laws to be neutral, and neither
excluding nor imposing anyone's beliefs unequally.

if you use the word MARRIAGE in a way that is offensive or against Christian beliefs,
that is like using the word GOD in a public institution that is offensive or against an Atheist.

Atheists sue to remove the word GOD, so to be fair, either side can sue to remove the word MARRIAGE
under terms that exclude or discriminate against people of other beliefs.

The problem, Seawytch is when either side GOES TOO FAR and tries to force THEIR beliefs
through the State at the expense or exclusion of the other.

if you believe in "separation of church and state" and "freedom of or from religion"
then NEITHER side should be pushing their beliefs into state laws and institutions.

Either keep the laws neutral and inclusive and equally open to all beliefs
or keep that institution OUT of state law if it can't be worded and agreed upon by people of all beliefs.

Be fair or get it out of govt, just like any other personal choice.

Seawytch if you don't want to include all public beliefs in public policy,
if you want to keep a free choice of BELIEFS protected, then keep it under free exercise of religion
which is already protected.

if you push too far and push YOUR beliefs about same-sex marriage into the public sector and public policy,
that's why people of OTHER beliefs will fight to do the same thing to protect THEIR beliefs.

well said. the intolerance of the left is well established. If you don't believe as they say you must, then you are to be destroyed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

and yet those kids aren't trying to take away the right of heterosexual parents to marry.

Seawytch you and everyone ALREADY has the right to marry whoever you want in whatever way you want under the RELIGION, CHURCH or PRIVATE practice/beliefs of your own.
That's already under the First Amendment religious freedom.

What is contested is how to word the STATE marriage laws to be neutral, and neither
excluding nor imposing anyone's beliefs unequally.

if you use the word MARRIAGE in a way that is offensive or against Christian beliefs,
that is like using the word GOD in a public institution that is offensive or against an Atheist.

Atheists sue to remove the word GOD, so to be fair, either side can sue to remove the word MARRIAGE
under terms that exclude or discriminate against people of other beliefs.

The problem, Seawytch is when either side GOES TOO FAR and tries to force THEIR beliefs
through the State at the expense or exclusion of the other.

if you believe in "separation of church and state" and "freedom of or from religion"
then NEITHER side should be pushing their beliefs into state laws and institutions.

Either keep the laws neutral and inclusive and equally open to all beliefs
or keep that institution OUT of state law if it can't be worded and agreed upon by people of all beliefs.

Be fair or get it out of govt, just like any other personal choice.

Seawytch if you don't want to include all public beliefs in public policy,
if you want to keep a free choice of BELIEFS protected, then keep it under free exercise of religion
which is already protected.

if you push too far and push YOUR beliefs about same-sex marriage into the public sector and public policy,
that's why people of OTHER beliefs will fight to do the same thing to protect THEIR beliefs.

well said. the intolerance of the left is well established. If you don't believe as they say you must, then you are to be destroyed.

If you don't believe, you must follow the law regardless, or face the consequences. It's not complicated.

 

[Seawytch]

The Regenerus study has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday...and laughed out of court.

Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.

Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.

The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.

Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.

Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.

I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.

Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.

 

[Redfish]

The Regenerus study has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday...and laughed out of court.

Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.

Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.

The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.

Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.

Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.

I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.

Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.

consensus???? not even close. The people of California expressed their consensus, twice.

 

[bodecea]

The Regenerus study has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday...and laughed out of court.

Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.

Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.

The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.

Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.

Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.

I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.

Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.

consensus???? not even close. The people of California expressed their consensus, twice.

The people have also passed other laws thru Propositions that have been struck down as unConstitutional. But you would support those laws anyways, right? Including a Proposition passed that severly restricted gun possession?

 

[Redfish]

The Regenerus study has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday...and laughed out of court.

Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.

Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.

The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.

Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.

Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.

I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.

Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.

consensus???? not even close. The people of California expressed their consensus, twice.

The people have also passed other laws thru Propositions that have been struck down as unConstitutional. But you would support those laws anyways, right? Including a Proposition passed that severly restricted gun possession?

If a majority of the people in the USA voted to amend the constitution to restrict gun ownership, then yes, I would accept the will of the people.

But gun rights and gay marriage are not even close constitutionally. One is specifically addressed in an amendment, the other is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

But if you want gay marriage to be constitutional, call for a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it. Then it would be a done deal. How about it?

 

[bodecea]

The Regenerus study has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday...and laughed out of court.

Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.

Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.

The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.

Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.

Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.

I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.

Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.

consensus???? not even close. The people of California expressed their consensus, twice.

The people have also passed other laws thru Propositions that have been struck down as unConstitutional. But you would support those laws anyways, right? Including a Proposition passed that severly restricted gun possession?

If a majority of the people in the USA voted to amend the constitution to restrict gun ownership, then yes, I would accept the will of the people.

But gun rights and gay marriage are not even close constitutionally. One is specifically addressed in an amendment, the other is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

But if you want gay marriage to be constitutional, call for a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it. Then it would be a done deal. How about it?

A Constitutional Amendment can change or get rid of anything....good luck with it tho....it's been tried and failed over 9000 times in our nation's history...........only successful 17 individual times after the first 10.

 

[Redfish]

Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.

The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.

Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.

Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.

I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.

Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.

consensus???? not even close. The people of California expressed their consensus, twice.

The people have also passed other laws thru Propositions that have been struck down as unConstitutional. But you would support those laws anyways, right? Including a Proposition passed that severly restricted gun possession?

If a majority of the people in the USA voted to amend the constitution to restrict gun ownership, then yes, I would accept the will of the people.

But gun rights and gay marriage are not even close constitutionally. One is specifically addressed in an amendment, the other is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

But if you want gay marriage to be constitutional, call for a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it. Then it would be a done deal. How about it?

A Constitutional Amendment can change or get rid of anything....good luck with it tho....it's been tried and failed over 9000 times in our nation's history...........only successful 17 individual times after the first 10.

exactly, so your gun control analogy is bullshit, I already knew that.

 

[Seawytch]

I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.

Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.

consensus???? not even close. The people of California expressed their consensus, twice.

The people have also passed other laws thru Propositions that have been struck down as unConstitutional. But you would support those laws anyways, right? Including a Proposition passed that severly restricted gun possession?

If a majority of the people in the USA voted to amend the constitution to restrict gun ownership, then yes, I would accept the will of the people.

But gun rights and gay marriage are not even close constitutionally. One is specifically addressed in an amendment, the other is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

But if you want gay marriage to be constitutional, call for a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it. Then it would be a done deal. How about it?

A Constitutional Amendment can change or get rid of anything....good luck with it tho....it's been tried and failed over 9000 times in our nation's history...........only successful 17 individual times after the first 10.

exactly, so your gun control analogy is bullshit, I already knew that.

You just called yourself out for bullshit. Marriage equality is already Constitutional you silly Chickenfish. It's YOU that needs the Constitutional Amendment to prevent gays from marrying or to have your national referendum. Good luck. With a national referendum system, maybe we can get single payer healthcare...or at least a Public Option. You get the campaign going, I'll donate to it.

 

[Correll]

The Regenerus study has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday...and laughed out of court.

Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.

Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.

The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.

Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.

Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.

I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.

Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.

Funny how, when the consensus was against you, that was not a reason to consider the issue closed.

 

[Correll]

consensus???? not even close. The people of California expressed their consensus, twice.

The people have also passed other laws thru Propositions that have been struck down as unConstitutional. But you would support those laws anyways, right? Including a Proposition passed that severly restricted gun possession?

If a majority of the people in the USA voted to amend the constitution to restrict gun ownership, then yes, I would accept the will of the people.

But gun rights and gay marriage are not even close constitutionally. One is specifically addressed in an amendment, the other is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

But if you want gay marriage to be constitutional, call for a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it. Then it would be a done deal. How about it?

A Constitutional Amendment can change or get rid of anything....good luck with it tho....it's been tried and failed over 9000 times in our nation's history...........only successful 17 individual times after the first 10.

exactly, so your gun control analogy is bullshit, I already knew that.

You just called yourself out for bullshit. Marriage equality is already Constitutional you silly Chickenfish. It's YOU that needs the Constitutional Amendment to prevent gays from marrying or to have your national referendum. Good luck. With a national referendum system, maybe we can get single payer healthcare...or at least a Public Option. You get the campaign going, I'll donate to it.

The little game where gays and libs have argued, successfully that marriage means something that no one thought it did just a few years ago,

It is literally Orwellian.

The "Debate" as it was, was not waged in the legislative branch. Nor was it really waged even in the courts.

It consisted of sophist word games that were shoved down the throat of the American public over and over again as propaganda.


The double think is incredible.

"Only bigots are against gay marriage."

Bill Clinton and Obama were both against gay marriage less then 5 year ago.

And yet they got the gay vote overwhelmingly.

THis is not how democracy is supposed to work.

 

[Redfish]

consensus???? not even close. The people of California expressed their consensus, twice.

The people have also passed other laws thru Propositions that have been struck down as unConstitutional. But you would support those laws anyways, right? Including a Proposition passed that severly restricted gun possession?

If a majority of the people in the USA voted to amend the constitution to restrict gun ownership, then yes, I would accept the will of the people.

But gun rights and gay marriage are not even close constitutionally. One is specifically addressed in an amendment, the other is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

But if you want gay marriage to be constitutional, call for a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it. Then it would be a done deal. How about it?

A Constitutional Amendment can change or get rid of anything....good luck with it tho....it's been tried and failed over 9000 times in our nation's history...........only successful 17 individual times after the first 10.

exactly, so your gun control analogy is bullshit, I already knew that.

You just called yourself out for bullshit. Marriage equality is already Constitutional you silly Chickenfish. It's YOU that needs the Constitutional Amendment to prevent gays from marrying or to have your national referendum. Good luck. With a national referendum system, maybe we can get single payer healthcare...or at least a Public Option. You get the campaign going, I'll donate to it.

gay marriage is not in the constitution----------where do you get this shit?

 

[Redfish]

The Regenerus study has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday...and laughed out of court.

Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.

Such marriage should already be a free equal and legal practice under religious freedom.
It does not need to be justified.
So this is disparaging INHERENT religious freedom,
Seawytch if you keep requiring such beliefs to be validated by govt.

The correct way is for people to CHOOSE to be pro-gay-marriage just like CHOOSING
to be pro-life; NOT forcing a decision through govt to FORCE on people. The govt is NOT supposed to be abused to FORCE ANYONE to change their beliefs.

Since BELIEFS cannot be mandated by govt, trying to justify BELIEFS does not make it any less wrongful for the govt to take sides. Whether the Justifications or Arguments are right or wrong, there is no reason to even argue about a belief that people already have a right to practice under religious freedom. This is as unnecessary as trying to prove Christianity or Spiritual Healing is good or bad to justify forcing through govt -- regardless of any such arguments proof or justifications, these beliefs CANNOT be mandated, endorsed, imposed by govt. They MUST remain free choice because beliefs are involved.

Pushing one side or the other is still abusing govt to impose a belief that not all people believe, and for some it is AGAINST their beliefs. To be fully Constitutional, there should be a consensus on beliefs and/or how the laws are worded to be neutral and representing all people, so nobody is imposed on by govt against their beliefs.

I see you're still confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. One can be denied same sex couples, one cannot.

Sorry, the consensus has been reached. The bigots lose.

Funny how, when the consensus was against you, that was not a reason to consider the issue closed.

the consensus is still against them. not just in the USA but world wide.

 

[Correll]

The people have also passed other laws thru Propositions that have been struck down as unConstitutional. But you would support those laws anyways, right? Including a Proposition passed that severly restricted gun possession?

If a majority of the people in the USA voted to amend the constitution to restrict gun ownership, then yes, I would accept the will of the people.

But gun rights and gay marriage are not even close constitutionally. One is specifically addressed in an amendment, the other is never mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

But if you want gay marriage to be constitutional, call for a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it. Then it would be a done deal. How about it?

A Constitutional Amendment can change or get rid of anything....good luck with it tho....it's been tried and failed over 9000 times in our nation's history...........only successful 17 individual times after the first 10.

exactly, so your gun control analogy is bullshit, I already knew that.

You just called yourself out for bullshit. Marriage equality is already Constitutional you silly Chickenfish. It's YOU that needs the Constitutional Amendment to prevent gays from marrying or to have your national referendum. Good luck. With a national referendum system, maybe we can get single payer healthcare...or at least a Public Option. You get the campaign going, I'll donate to it.

gay marriage is not in the constitution----------where do you get this shit?

They are pretending that the word marriage always meant, between any two PEOPLE, not between a man and a woman.

 

[bendog]

I find the idea that people have no control over their desire offensive.

People can and do modify their carnality. But they have to choose to actually do it.

The lefty thing is they don't think anyone should ever have to fly in the face of what they WANT. It's because they have zero character.

You cannot control your attractions, only whether or not act upon them. Why do you care as long as we choose to act on our natural or God given attractions with other non familial consenting adults?

KG's post had some rather strange phrasing and word choice, so I'm not sure responding is a proper direction. But more to the general concept of whether acting upon attractions is selfish or destructive. As you note, there's nothing wrong in people acting in their own interest. Even assuming a person foresees that his/her acting on an interest will hurt another emotionally, that does not make the action "selfish," necessarily. Assuming a parent is in a relationship he/she finds oppressive, it may not be healthy for the children to have a parent feeling that way. And, it's certainly not healthy for a child to have a parent who acts in any way as a martyr. I think Correll's posts tended to either gloss over, or ignore, those greyish (-: areas.

There's nothing whatever strange about my phrasing or word choice. People can of course control their attractions.

Of course depraved hos like wytch will never admit that, because it would mean she would have to admit she can modify her behavior..but just doesn't want to, because it's not easy.

These people have never been told no in their entire lives, and they've bought the myth that if anyone tells them *no*, it's a hate crime. It's utter nonsense.

No you can't. You can choose not to act upon your attractions, you cannot make yourself stop having them. (Hence the low success rate for reparative therapy)

You see that's why I drink beer. The old saying of a stiff prick has no conscience is true. But, beer has enabled me to alter my physical appearance so that I have absolutely no possibility of acting on my attractions.

 

[Inevitable]

I feel bad for her mother. No doubt she made sacrifices being a single parent. She stood by her child and did her best. And her daughter berates good mother's that give their children the best and places her father's companionship above a step parent that took up the mantel he was too much of a dead beat to carry himself.

She seems like she is angry with the world and not the only person she should be angry with.

What a way to honor her mother.

Her mother married a man, had a child and then broke up the family.

The only information that we have on the father comes from his ex-wife, though her daughter, who was 2 and 3 at the time in question.

You are fabricating information. You don't know that it was the mother that broke up the family.

Also if I had a child I'd do everything in my power to see that child. If I couldn't while she was a youth, I Damn sure would when she was an adult. Didn't seem like that happened.

Her mother stayed with her, her father ran away. The father is the dirt bag in this story. The mother made sacrifices for her child.

Where I think she is justified feeling that she was slighted for not having her father in her life, it's her father's fault.

I'm sorry she comes of as an angry little child blaming the parent that did by her.

From the article,

"In her essay, she explains that when she was 2 or 3, her mother, who already knew that she was gay, left Barwick’s father to have a relationship with a woman."


The lesbian mommy married some poor guy, got the child she wanted, then booted him to the curb.

THe mother "sacrificed" the child's family so that she could have what she wanted, not what anyone else wanted.

It's still her father's fault for not being around

No. It's her mother's fault that they divorced, and we have NO information, except what came from the mother on why the dad isn't around.

Or do you think a 3 year old is in a position to judge what is going on in the divorce?

It normallyis both parents fault they divorced. But that isn't really relevant her father still could have been part of her life. It's still her father's fault.