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

[bendog]

So not all gay parents are good parents. Who said they were? My son played on a state ranked football team here in Georgia for 4 seasons with a boy raised by 2 gay men. Weird? In my opinion yes but the boy's heterosexual parents abandoned him to the hell of foster care, aka parenting for cash. The gay men adopted him at age 6 when the boy had failed 1st grade. Kid graduated Vanderbilt and is an IT consultant now. Engaged to be married. I prefer to see man and wife raising kids but have seen numerous cases here in deep south where kids raised by gay folk turn out just fine and in most cases as good or better than heterosexual parents where more than 50% are divorced anyway.

and some kids raised by single parents turn out well. The issue is percentages, and percentages are against gay parents raising successful kids.

No they aren't or you'd be able to demonstrate said "percentage".

already been provided several times by several posters, if you choose to ignore it, thats up to you.

Not by peer reviewed science, it hasn't.

 

[bendog]

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

What fundamental right are you speaking of? The right to marry a person who cannot legally consent, or to marry more than one consenting adult at a time?

Obama, and Hillary, all have views that have evolved over time. Mine have not been entirely consistent, but that's more because the GLBT folks in my religious denomination have not been entirely consistent in what they ask of me.

The latter.

Though traditionally there is more support for the former than there is for definition of "marriage" than the gays claim.

Legally, I think the polygamists have an argument provided on one thing. Can they show no demonstrable negative effect on children raised in such unions? My experience in Utah, is that opponents certainly can show a negative effect on the kids .... with boys being cast out and female child "brides' being abused. However, the authorities in Utah do not want to address polygamy.

its not just polygamy, its all sorts of multiple marriage, 4 men/6 women for example, plus mother/daughter, father/son, siblings, etc. all done to avoid inheritance taxes or income taxes.

and there arguments will be equality, discrimination, fairness, marrying who they love, civil rights, etc. the exact same arguments being made by the gay marriage mafia today.

JFC, a marriage to avoid a tax law is not passing judicial review. roflmao.

 

[Redfish]

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

What fundamental right are you speaking of? The right to marry a person who cannot legally consent, or to marry more than one consenting adult at a time?

Obama, and Hillary, all have views that have evolved over time. Mine have not been entirely consistent, but that's more because the GLBT folks in my religious denomination have not been entirely consistent in what they ask of me.

The latter.

Though traditionally there is more support for the former than there is for definition of "marriage" than the gays claim.

Legally, I think the polygamists have an argument provided on one thing. Can they show no demonstrable negative effect on children raised in such unions? My experience in Utah, is that opponents certainly can show a negative effect on the kids .... with boys being cast out and female child "brides' being abused. However, the authorities in Utah do not want to address polygamy.

the polygamists will use exactly the same arguments being used by the gays today, and they will win because they will have gay marriage as a valid legal precedent.

Thats where this is going, do not be deceived by the liars on the left.

I think it's about those who believe in keeping the govt out of our personal lives. Ted Olsen and the libertarians are ok with that. Imo, a state should be able to show demonstrable negative effects on children who are in polygamist households. If the state cannot, the people should be able to do what they want to do. If the Mormons want to keep their church non-polygamist, they should be able to do that too.

so you would be ok with a "marriage" of 4 men and 6 women, with kids from every combination of male and female?

when you say people should be able to do what they want, this is what some people will want. How do you justify banning this when you allow two women or two men to "marry"?

 

[Redfish]

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

What fundamental right are you speaking of? The right to marry a person who cannot legally consent, or to marry more than one consenting adult at a time?

Obama, and Hillary, all have views that have evolved over time. Mine have not been entirely consistent, but that's more because the GLBT folks in my religious denomination have not been entirely consistent in what they ask of me.

The latter.

Though traditionally there is more support for the former than there is for definition of "marriage" than the gays claim.

Legally, I think the polygamists have an argument provided on one thing. Can they show no demonstrable negative effect on children raised in such unions? My experience in Utah, is that opponents certainly can show a negative effect on the kids .... with boys being cast out and female child "brides' being abused. However, the authorities in Utah do not want to address polygamy.

its not just polygamy, its all sorts of multiple marriage, 4 men/6 women for example, plus mother/daughter, father/son, siblings, etc. all done to avoid inheritance taxes or income taxes.

and there arguments will be equality, discrimination, fairness, marrying who they love, civil rights, etc. the exact same arguments being made by the gay marriage mafia today.

JFC, a marriage to avoid a tax law is not passing judicial review. roflmao.

many marriages are entered into to avoid taxes.

 

[Redfish]

So not all gay parents are good parents. Who said they were? My son played on a state ranked football team here in Georgia for 4 seasons with a boy raised by 2 gay men. Weird? In my opinion yes but the boy's heterosexual parents abandoned him to the hell of foster care, aka parenting for cash. The gay men adopted him at age 6 when the boy had failed 1st grade. Kid graduated Vanderbilt and is an IT consultant now. Engaged to be married. I prefer to see man and wife raising kids but have seen numerous cases here in deep south where kids raised by gay folk turn out just fine and in most cases as good or better than heterosexual parents where more than 50% are divorced anyway.

and some kids raised by single parents turn out well. The issue is percentages, and percentages are against gay parents raising successful kids.

No they aren't or you'd be able to demonstrate said "percentage".

already been provided several times by several posters, if you choose to ignore it, thats up to you.

Not by peer reviewed science, it hasn't.

we are not talking about man made global warming scams.

 

[bendog]

What fundamental right are you speaking of? The right to marry a person who cannot legally consent, or to marry more than one consenting adult at a time?

Obama, and Hillary, all have views that have evolved over time. Mine have not been entirely consistent, but that's more because the GLBT folks in my religious denomination have not been entirely consistent in what they ask of me.

The latter.

Though traditionally there is more support for the former than there is for definition of "marriage" than the gays claim.

Legally, I think the polygamists have an argument provided on one thing. Can they show no demonstrable negative effect on children raised in such unions? My experience in Utah, is that opponents certainly can show a negative effect on the kids .... with boys being cast out and female child "brides' being abused. However, the authorities in Utah do not want to address polygamy.

the polygamists will use exactly the same arguments being used by the gays today, and they will win because they will have gay marriage as a valid legal precedent.

Thats where this is going, do not be deceived by the liars on the left.

I think it's about those who believe in keeping the govt out of our personal lives. Ted Olsen and the libertarians are ok with that. Imo, a state should be able to show demonstrable negative effects on children who are in polygamist households. If the state cannot, the people should be able to do what they want to do. If the Mormons want to keep their church non-polygamist, they should be able to do that too.

so you would be ok with a "marriage" of 4 men and 6 women, with kids from every combination of male and female?

when you say people should be able to do what they want, this is what some people will want. How do you justify banning this when you allow two women or two men to "marry"?

It's back to what marriage, civil marriage, is. It's a union, sometimes with, and sometimes without, kids. It's mutual and has bonds of love and affection. It affects only the people within the individual marriage, and does not seek to compel others to do anything. (non-discrimination laws are another issue)

I don't think there's much danger of goats. LOL. I don't really see how your hypothetical of 4 and 6 with kids is gonna fit. The polygamists may have an argument, but there is a situation where the ban on polygamy was more about Mormonism that protecting females and children. Personally I find one wife more than sufficient. I'd have to kill myself if Mrs. Dog had an accomplice.

 

[bendog]

So not all gay parents are good parents. Who said they were? My son played on a state ranked football team here in Georgia for 4 seasons with a boy raised by 2 gay men. Weird? In my opinion yes but the boy's heterosexual parents abandoned him to the hell of foster care, aka parenting for cash. The gay men adopted him at age 6 when the boy had failed 1st grade. Kid graduated Vanderbilt and is an IT consultant now. Engaged to be married. I prefer to see man and wife raising kids but have seen numerous cases here in deep south where kids raised by gay folk turn out just fine and in most cases as good or better than heterosexual parents where more than 50% are divorced anyway.

and some kids raised by single parents turn out well. The issue is percentages, and percentages are against gay parents raising successful kids.

No they aren't or you'd be able to demonstrate said "percentage".

already been provided several times by several posters, if you choose to ignore it, thats up to you.

Not by peer reviewed science, it hasn't.

we are not talking about man made global warming scams.

We are not talking about your irrational prejudices ... at least I'm not. Good day.

 

[Seawytch]

Did I ask you to change your vote?

Then do you have a point? You keep pointing out the "terrible" things Clinton did and the "anti gay" things Obama has said, but you don't seem to have a point in bringing them up.

he/she was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, I guess it was too complex for your simple mind.

There is no hypocrisy. President Obama has fought FOR gay rights his whole Presidency.

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

Agreed. Go back 5

Then do you have a point? You keep pointing out the "terrible" things Clinton did and the "anti gay" things Obama has said, but you don't seem to have a point in bringing them up.

he/she was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, I guess it was too complex for your simple mind.

There is no hypocrisy. President Obama has fought FOR gay rights his whole Presidency.

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

So? Lots of people have evolved on this issue, just look at the polls. Again, regardless of what he said, his ACTIONS are that of a champion of gay rights since his first day in office.

I don't know what anti gay things he said "back in the day", I only know the actions he's taken since becoming President, like repealing DADT and not defending DOMA in court. His actions spoke loud enough for me...and those actions have brought about more advances in gay civil rights than anytime in history.

Bull. His position was well stated, and documented. I have cut and pasted his some of his stated positions.

I asked a simple question.

Do you believe he meant those anti-gay things he said?

And I will say again, I know what he's done so what he has said is irrelevant. President Obama never once tried to take rights away from gay people regardless of what his previous statements had been.

Do you have a point with your Obama bad meme?

in the first quote he stated that he would fight against gay marriage. I don't know if he was ever called on to vote on the issue but he claimed if he was he would "try to take rights away" from gay people .

He did nothing of the sort. I'm not an asshole enough to call you a liar, I'll just say you're mistaken.

He did state it. I cut and pasted it.

Are you aware of all the gay activist legislation that came up for a vote during his long legislative career?

After all you know the media wouldn't tell you about it.

He never said he would "fight against gay marriage." You are mistaken.

Why don't you link to this legislation and how he voted on it?

 

[Seawytch]

So not all gay parents are good parents. Who said they were? My son played on a state ranked football team here in Georgia for 4 seasons with a boy raised by 2 gay men. Weird? In my opinion yes but the boy's heterosexual parents abandoned him to the hell of foster care, aka parenting for cash. The gay men adopted him at age 6 when the boy had failed 1st grade. Kid graduated Vanderbilt and is an IT consultant now. Engaged to be married. I prefer to see man and wife raising kids but have seen numerous cases here in deep south where kids raised by gay folk turn out just fine and in most cases as good or better than heterosexual parents where more than 50% are divorced anyway.

and some kids raised by single parents turn out well. The issue is percentages, and percentages are against gay parents raising successful kids.

No they aren't or you'd be able to demonstrate said "percentage".

already been provided several times by several posters, if you choose to ignore it, thats up to you.

No, actually there have been no valid studies provided. Debunked and actually laughed out of a court of law studies...but no actual studies.

The actual studies show our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, but the truth does support my position. So does the law. Marriage used to only be between members of the same race...until it wasn't just as marriage used to only be between men and women...until it wasn't. Marriage is a fundamental right, so declared by the SCOTUS on numerous occasions. In order to deny this fundamental right to a group of people, you must demonstrate a harm in allowing it. Go!

Until 1965 marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race.

You lied about that.

Marriage is a fundamental right? Perhaps. But regardless it has many restrictions that are not being challenged.

Do you accept the limitation of the right to just TWO "people"?

It was. You've heard of Loving v Virginia haven't you?

Marriage is currently a contract between two adults, yes. Would you like to change that? Good luck...and do hurry. Julie Andrews is still single.

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

It's called a reasonable person standard and a demonstratable harm. If you don't believe there is a demonstratable harm in polygamy or incest or whatever you are advocating, you can do as gays and interracial couples have done and redress your grievances. Best of luck!

 

[Correll]

Then do you have a point? You keep pointing out the "terrible" things Clinton did and the "anti gay" things Obama has said, but you don't seem to have a point in bringing them up.

he/she was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, I guess it was too complex for your simple mind.

There is no hypocrisy. President Obama has fought FOR gay rights his whole Presidency.

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

Agreed. Go back 5

he/she was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, I guess it was too complex for your simple mind.

There is no hypocrisy. President Obama has fought FOR gay rights his whole Presidency.

he was against gay marriage before he was for it, that is hypocrisy---------or lying for political gain. He has not been for gay rights his whole presidency, that is a lie. He changed his mind when it looked like he could gain some political capital by changing his mind--------------THAT is hypocrisy.

So? Lots of people have evolved on this issue, just look at the polls. Again, regardless of what he said, his ACTIONS are that of a champion of gay rights since his first day in office.

Bull. His position was well stated, and documented. I have cut and pasted his some of his stated positions.

I asked a simple question.

Do you believe he meant those anti-gay things he said?

And I will say again, I know what he's done so what he has said is irrelevant. President Obama never once tried to take rights away from gay people regardless of what his previous statements had been.

Do you have a point with your Obama bad meme?

in the first quote he stated that he would fight against gay marriage. I don't know if he was ever called on to vote on the issue but he claimed if he was he would "try to take rights away" from gay people .

He did nothing of the sort. I'm not an asshole enough to call you a liar, I'll just say you're mistaken.

He did state it. I cut and pasted it.

Are you aware of all the gay activist legislation that came up for a vote during his long legislative career?

After all you know the media wouldn't tell you about it.

He never said he would "fight against gay marriage." You are mistaken.

Why don't you link to this legislation and how he voted on it?

Actually you're right, I did misread that one quote.

Here is more on his past opposition to gay marriage.

"Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage when he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996,[39] was undecided about legalizing same-sex marriage when he ran for re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1998,[40] and supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and for U.S. President in 2008.[39]Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but stated in a 2008 interview that he personally believed that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."[41] He supported civil unions that would establish legal standing equal to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believed that decisions about the definition of marriage should be left to the states"


So, as late as 2008 he was a bigot, by your standards.

And I did not claim any specific legislation. I merely pointed out that he was against gay marriage while in the legislature, and that if he did vote against any gay friendly initiatives during that time, that the media would not tell you about it.

 

[Correll]

Until 1965 marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race.

You lied about that.

Marriage is a fundamental right? Perhaps. But regardless it has many restrictions that are not being challenged.

Do you accept the limitation of the right to just TWO "people"?

It was. You've heard of Loving v Virginia haven't you?

Marriage is currently a contract between two adults, yes. Would you like to change that? Good luck...and do hurry. Julie Andrews is still single.

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

It's called a reasonable person standard and a demonstratable harm. If you don't believe there is a demonstratable harm in polygamy or incest or whatever you are advocating, you can do as gays and interracial couples have done and redress your grievances. Best of luck!

"Reasonable person standard"? "Demonstratable harm"?

You support the limitation of a supposedly Fundamental Right.

IF it is ok for you to support a limitation on the Fundamental Rights for a smaller minority than you, than where do you get off being so self righteous about the traditional limitation to a man and a woman?

 

[bendog]

I don't see why the media would. It's really a non-issue. Hillary had a rather testy exchange on NPR when questioned about her evolution. Her attitude was just about everyone who is for it, either was against it or never thought about it for some time. I thought Hillary's attitude was a bit odd, to be honest. Twenty odd years ago I was seeing the problem same sex folks were having in dealing with the legal aspects of health care, kids in school and retirement, and stuff like that. I admit the thought of "marriage" never crossed my mind, but I thought these folks should have civil marriages in the same form of people who don't get "solemnized" in churches. I suspect Hillary was "playing politics." I wouldn't be surprised if Obama just didn't figure he had a dog in the fight.

 

[bendog]

Correll, respectfully, I don't see where you're going. There are restrictions on ALL fundamental rights. The point is that the states said their reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian couples was the sanctity of marriage and the protection of children, yet they were unable to provide any peer reviewed/scientifically reliable support that the discrimination furthered either of those reasons. If polygamists can do the same, fine. Personally, it wasn't my experience that they could, but I won't prejudge

 

[Correll]

Correll, respectfully, I don't see where you're going. There are restrictions on ALL fundamental rights. The point is that the states said their reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian couples was the sanctity of marriage and the protection of children, yet they were unable to provide any peer reviewed/scientifically reliable support that the discrimination furthered either of those reasons. If polygamists can do the same, fine. Personally, it wasn't my experience that they could, but I won't prejudge

My point is the way the gay rights activists pretend that stating that something is a "fundamental right" is the end of the conversation and if you don't agree with their agenda at that point, you are a bigot.

 

[bendog]

Correll, respectfully, I don't see where you're going. There are restrictions on ALL fundamental rights. The point is that the states said their reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian couples was the sanctity of marriage and the protection of children, yet they were unable to provide any peer reviewed/scientifically reliable support that the discrimination furthered either of those reasons. If polygamists can do the same, fine. Personally, it wasn't my experience that they could, but I won't prejudge

My point is the way the gay rights activists pretend that stating that something is a "fundamental right" is the end of the conversation and if you don't agree with their agenda at that point, you are a bigot.

Well, my own experience in my church with the GLBT "movement" (for lack of a better word) was not one to my liking, and I'm about as far libertarian on personal behavior as I think possible. But, I think it's pretty much a proven point that if a person cannot find a way to allow gays and lesbians the same civil rights in domestic issues that we have, and can't find a way to accommodate their choices with respect and civility in society, and frankly in church too, then one is a bigot. But the State takes a hands off approach to churches, so if they wish to discriminated, I think that's up to the churches, and we have to live with it. For years, the Mormons didn't let blacks be priests because they carried the stain of Cain.

 

[bodecea]

Correll, respectfully, I don't see where you're going. There are restrictions on ALL fundamental rights. The point is that the states said their reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian couples was the sanctity of marriage and the protection of children, yet they were unable to provide any peer reviewed/scientifically reliable support that the discrimination furthered either of those reasons. If polygamists can do the same, fine. Personally, it wasn't my experience that they could, but I won't prejudge

My point is the way the gay rights activists pretend that stating that something is a "fundamental right" is the end of the conversation and if you don't agree with their agenda at that point, you are a bigot.

No...we say it's a fundamental right unless the government can come up with a prevailing reason why providing such a right would cause harm. Got something?

 

[squeeze berry]

Correll, respectfully, I don't see where you're going. There are restrictions on ALL fundamental rights. The point is that the states said their reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian couples was the sanctity of marriage and the protection of children, yet they were unable to provide any peer reviewed/scientifically reliable support that the discrimination furthered either of those reasons. If polygamists can do the same, fine. Personally, it wasn't my experience that they could, but I won't prejudge

My point is the way the gay rights activists pretend that stating that something is a "fundamental right" is the end of the conversation and if you don't agree with their agenda at that point, you are a bigot.

No...we say it's a fundamental right unless the government can come up with a prevailing reason why providing such a right would cause harm. Got something?

has anyone prevented you from munching any carpets?

not that there is anything wrong with that

 

[Correll]

Correll, respectfully, I don't see where you're going. There are restrictions on ALL fundamental rights. The point is that the states said their reason to discriminate against gay/lesbian couples was the sanctity of marriage and the protection of children, yet they were unable to provide any peer reviewed/scientifically reliable support that the discrimination furthered either of those reasons. If polygamists can do the same, fine. Personally, it wasn't my experience that they could, but I won't prejudge

My point is the way the gay rights activists pretend that stating that something is a "fundamental right" is the end of the conversation and if you don't agree with their agenda at that point, you are a bigot.

No...we say it's a fundamental right unless the government can come up with a prevailing reason why providing such a right would cause harm. Got something?

"Marriage" has ALWAYS meant between a man and multiple women.

The original banning of this Fundamental Right was nothing but anti-Mormon bigotry.

It is not on polygamist to prove that they are not bad, it is on the government and the bigots, like Seawytch, to prove that their bigotry is based on anything but fear and ignorance.

First Nations, blah, blah blah,

What gives you the right to force your religion down the throats of other citizens? What about the Separation of Church and State blah, blah, blah?

Is this starting to sound familiar?

 

[Seawytch]

It was. You've heard of Loving v Virginia haven't you?

Marriage is currently a contract between two adults, yes. Would you like to change that? Good luck...and do hurry. Julie Andrews is still single.

So stop lying about it already.

Do you accept the limitation of "two adults" as it stands now?

Lying about what?

Of course I accept that marriage is a contract between two non familial consenting adults. Again, if you don't...best of luck.

You claimed that prior to 65 marriage meant between two people, when it actually meant between one man and one woman.

If you accept marriage as a contract between "two non familial consenting adults" than you are accepting limitations on people's fundamental rights.


So, why are some restrictions, that you support, ok, when others aren't? (that just happen to be the ones you don't support)

It's called a reasonable person standard and a demonstratable harm. If you don't believe there is a demonstratable harm in polygamy or incest or whatever you are advocating, you can do as gays and interracial couples have done and redress your grievances. Best of luck!

"Reasonable person standard"? "Demonstratable harm"?

You support the limitation of a supposedly Fundamental Right.

IF it is ok for you to support a limitation on the Fundamental Rights for a smaller minority than you, than where do you get off being so self righteous about the traditional limitation to a man and a woman?

All of our rights have limitations. Not a one is unlimited or unrestricted. In order to limit a fundamental right, you must be able to show where allowing it would cause societal harm. If you don't believe that whatever you're advocating for causes societal harm, challenge the restriction in court.