Gay Marriage is a Lie: Honest or Disagree?

[Two Thumbs]

holy matrimony isn't a possibility in most religions for gay couples or quintuples as was discussed in the video.

but legal marriage is, since it's nothing more than a contract that gets you a tax break.

but that's not what this movement is about, it's about ruining marriage, as she said in the vid, and suing churches until they are forced to close b/c they won't perform gay ceremonies, thus crippling religious influence in the nation

 

[Seawytch]

Again this si about a word and piece of paper that is now meaningless in todays society.

The word the gays want is to punish the church. If not they would be fighting to call it something else and the far left blue states would have most likely gone along with it. Then again the far left is pushing this agenda to help divide America and distract from the fact that Obama is currently the worst president ever.

They also want access to their partners Social Security and other federal/state benefits.

That is this movement in a nut shell. All other things can be achieved legally.

See this is about money and revenge.

So they want so called privileged "rights" and to be able to by pass what everyone else has do.

A marriage license is what is issued by the state. I don't care what it is called, I just want equal access to it. You care about what it is called therefore the onus is upon you to change the name...for everybody.

If you don't like married people getting survivor benefits, what have you done to change the rules that allow it? Do you only care when same sex partners get survivor benefits or do you wish to do away with them for all couples?

Are you married? I am and and I did not get married for any of the reasons you ascribed. I'm sorry that you have such a dim view of marriage that you think people only do it for money. I hope you meet the right person someday and they change your mind about it.

 

[Seawytch]

Because without one of each part you can't have sex. Haven't figured that out yet?

Really? My favorite sex act only requires what people here shoot off, their mouths, which would now be doing something useful for once.

Biologically no human sex act would include the mouth but thanks for playing.

If you're not using your mouth during sex, you're not playing, you're boring.

 

[Seawytch]

holy matrimony isn't a possibility in most religions for gay couples or quintuples as was discussed in the video.

but legal marriage is, since it's nothing more than a contract that gets you a tax break.

but that's not what this movement is about, it's about ruining marriage, as she said in the vid, and suing churches until they are forced to close b/c they won't perform gay ceremonies, thus crippling religious influence in the nation

How does my having the same legal protections that you have "ruin" marriage? Whose marriage is so insecure that someone else's marriage has that big an effect on it?

How many churches have been successfully sued and forced to perform interracial or interfaith marriages?

 

[Seawytch]

I've had friends that thought they were infertile but many years later had kids, so you never know. Also, they can adopt or foster. Yes gays can too but the male/female relationship is what makes the family what it is. I know this is hard...but females and males are different. They bring different things to the table, different strengths and weaknesses, where the two combined make a better sum that the two parts. It's interesting stuff, you should look into it sometime.

I know science is hard, but it doesn't support your statements.

I know reality is hard but a couple of shrinks that don't agree with the rest of the world isn't newsworthy. And golly, you found someone that disagrees with most people so that makes it an undisputed fact. Are you putting us on? I can't tell.

There are also all those studies that show that the children of gays are at no disadvantage to those of straight couples. Um, let's see...there's also the policy statements of organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Medical Association who have all concluded that are children are at no disadvantage to yours.

Our kids are fine, let us marry so that we can protect our families, please...although I don't know why I'm still being polite.

 

[Iceweasel]

There are also all those studies that show that the children of gays are at no disadvantage to those of straight couples. Um, let's see...there's also the policy statements of organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Medical Association who have all concluded that are children are at no disadvantage to yours.

Our kids are fine, let us marry so that we can protect our families, please...although I don't know why I'm still being polite.

You don't have to be polite. I can dish it out as good as anybody. But policy statements are political, not scienctific. No acedemic is going to convince me that a child isn't better off with a mom and dad. I'll defer to history and reality instead. Sure you can compare a bad heterosexual couple to a good gay couple and fudge numbers if that's your goal. No sale!

 

[Redfish]

holy matrimony isn't a possibility in most religions for gay couples or quintuples as was discussed in the video.

but legal marriage is, since it's nothing more than a contract that gets you a tax break.

but that's not what this movement is about, it's about ruining marriage, as she said in the vid, and suing churches until they are forced to close b/c they won't perform gay ceremonies, thus crippling religious influence in the nation

How does my having the same legal protections that you have "ruin" marriage? Whose marriage is so insecure that someone else's marriage has that big an effect on it?

How many churches have been successfully sued and forced to perform interracial or interfaith marriages?

your failed attempts to equate interacial and interfaith man/woman marriages to gay marriage is just foolish. Its not a valid analogy.

The bottom line here is that a majority of americans believe that gay marriage is an aberation and should not be sanctioned by the state or any church, a smaller percentage believe that gay marriage is just fine and should be allowed everywhere in the world.

Personally, I want gays to have equal rights and for their unions to be legally sanctioned so that they have the same rights as man/woman marriages.

BUT, no matter how much rhetoric is tossed around and how much debate is engaged in-----a gay union will never be a marriage.

If, gays are "married" then the next logical step is bigamy and polygamy. Because a case will be made that these people are being discriminated against for their beliefs and gay marriage laws will be used as precedents.

It will happen. If thats the kind of society we want, then get ready because anything and everything will be allowed.

 

[Seawytch]

There are also all those studies that show that the children of gays are at no disadvantage to those of straight couples. Um, let's see...there's also the policy statements of organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Medical Association who have all concluded that are children are at no disadvantage to yours.

Our kids are fine, let us marry so that we can protect our families, please...although I don't know why I'm still being polite.

You don't have to be polite. I can dish it out as good as anybody. But policy statements are political, not scienctific. No acedemic is going to convince me that a child isn't better off with a mom and dad. I'll defer to history and reality instead. Sure you can compare a bad heterosexual couple to a good gay couple and fudge numbers if that's your goal. No sale!

Those organizations would not make the policy statements without the scientific studies, and there have been plenty.

What children are better off with, are two parents that love them...the gender of those parents does not matter.

The studies that show that our children are at no disadvantage are not comparing "bad" parents to "good" parents, they compare parents period...that's how they end up in peer reviewed journals.

Now what do parenting skills or the ability to even have children in the first place have to do with legal, civil marriage?

 

[Redfish]

There are also all those studies that show that the children of gays are at no disadvantage to those of straight couples. Um, let's see...there's also the policy statements of organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Medical Association who have all concluded that are children are at no disadvantage to yours.

Our kids are fine, let us marry so that we can protect our families, please...although I don't know why I'm still being polite.

You don't have to be polite. I can dish it out as good as anybody. But policy statements are political, not scienctific. No acedemic is going to convince me that a child isn't better off with a mom and dad. I'll defer to history and reality instead. Sure you can compare a bad heterosexual couple to a good gay couple and fudge numbers if that's your goal. No sale!

Those organizations would not make the policy statements without the scientific studies, and there have been plenty.

What children are better off with, are two parents that love them...the gender of those parents does not matter.

The studies that show that our children are at no disadvantage are not comparing "bad" parents to "good" parents, they compare parents period...that's how they end up in peer reviewed journals.

Now what do parenting skills or the ability to even have children in the first place have to do with legal, civil marriage?

Sorry, but parental gender does matter. Boys need a male role model and girls need a female role model.

Oh, sorry, I forgot about the 'butch' 'fem' thingy that you lesbians have. Do you really think a butch lesbian is a valid male role model for a little boy?

 

[Seawytch]

holy matrimony isn't a possibility in most religions for gay couples or quintuples as was discussed in the video.

but legal marriage is, since it's nothing more than a contract that gets you a tax break.

but that's not what this movement is about, it's about ruining marriage, as she said in the vid, and suing churches until they are forced to close b/c they won't perform gay ceremonies, thus crippling religious influence in the nation

How does my having the same legal protections that you have "ruin" marriage? Whose marriage is so insecure that someone else's marriage has that big an effect on it?

How many churches have been successfully sued and forced to perform interracial or interfaith marriages?

your failed attempts to equate interacial and interfaith man/woman marriages to gay marriage is just foolish. Its not a valid analogy.

Your failure to explain exactly how gays will be more successful at suing a church to perform a religious ceremony than interracial or interfaith couples have been is noted.

The bottom line here is that a majority of americans believe that gay marriage is an aberation and should not be sanctioned by the state or any church, a smaller percentage believe that gay marriage is just fine and should be allowed everywhere in the world.

Apparently you haven't looked at the polls since 2008.

Personally, I want gays to have equal rights and for their unions to be legally sanctioned so that they have the same rights as man/woman marriages.

BUT, no matter how much rhetoric is tossed around and how much debate is engaged in-----a gay union will never be a marriage.

If, gays are "married" then the next logical step is bigamy and polygamy. Because a case will be made that these people are being discriminated against for their beliefs and gay marriage laws will be used as precedents.

It will happen. If thats the kind of society we want, then get ready because anything and everything will be allowed.

This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

"If any single thing should remain untouched by the hand of the reformer, it was the sacred institution of marriage [which] was about to be destroyed in one thoughtless blow that might produce change in all phases of domestic life."

 

[Seawytch]

You don't have to be polite. I can dish it out as good as anybody. But policy statements are political, not scienctific. No acedemic is going to convince me that a child isn't better off with a mom and dad. I'll defer to history and reality instead. Sure you can compare a bad heterosexual couple to a good gay couple and fudge numbers if that's your goal. No sale!

Those organizations would not make the policy statements without the scientific studies, and there have been plenty.

What children are better off with, are two parents that love them...the gender of those parents does not matter.

The studies that show that our children are at no disadvantage are not comparing "bad" parents to "good" parents, they compare parents period...that's how they end up in peer reviewed journals.

Now what do parenting skills or the ability to even have children in the first place have to do with legal, civil marriage?

Sorry, but parental gender does matter. Boys need a male role model and girls need a female role model.

Oh, sorry, I forgot about the 'butch' 'fem' thingy that you lesbians have. Do you really think a butch lesbian is a valid male role model for a little boy?

What you forget is that parents are not the only role models. We don't raise our children in bubbles. My son can pee standing up, shoot a gun and play video games until his eyes fall out. My daughter played with dolls, wears pink, plays video games until her eyes fall out and can shoot a gun and a bow. They both do all the exact same things that all their friends do...except have to split their time between two houses.

And no, we don't have the "butch/fem" thing going on. Your fantasy is not my reality, sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Redfish]

It can't be because it takes heterosexuals to create them. They can't reproduce. Accepting it is one thing, I think most people do. But the problem is that we are told it is an alternative that's equally valid. It may be to the individuals but not to society as a whole. Opposite genders is how mankind exists. Homosexuality may be an interesting side note but it adds nothing to man's existence.

So, straight people who can't have children, for whatever reason, or maybe even just don't have children, should be treated like gays? I mean, they aren't adding anything to man's existence now are they?

One could even say that they were worse, at least the ones that could have children but don't, since they are letting the species die right?

I had enough babies for TWO couples...can I get into the marriage pool?

Were you impregnated by a turkey baster or did you run off and find a guy to screw you? Sorry, but your lifestyle is sick. I hope your kids turn out to be normal, but they are starting out with two strikes against them.

 

[Redfish]

How does my having the same legal protections that you have "ruin" marriage? Whose marriage is so insecure that someone else's marriage has that big an effect on it?

How many churches have been successfully sued and forced to perform interracial or interfaith marriages?

your failed attempts to equate interacial and interfaith man/woman marriages to gay marriage is just foolish. Its not a valid analogy.

Your failure to explain exactly how gays will be more successful at suing a church to perform a religious ceremony than interracial or interfaith couples have been is noted.

The bottom line here is that a majority of americans believe that gay marriage is an aberation and should not be sanctioned by the state or any church, a smaller percentage believe that gay marriage is just fine and should be allowed everywhere in the world.

Apparently you haven't looked at the polls since 2008.

Personally, I want gays to have equal rights and for their unions to be legally sanctioned so that they have the same rights as man/woman marriages.

BUT, no matter how much rhetoric is tossed around and how much debate is engaged in-----a gay union will never be a marriage.

If, gays are "married" then the next logical step is bigamy and polygamy. Because a case will be made that these people are being discriminated against for their beliefs and gay marriage laws will be used as precedents.

It will happen. If thats the kind of society we want, then get ready because anything and everything will be allowed.

This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

"If any single thing should remain untouched by the hand of the reformer, it was the sacred institution of marriage [which] was about to be destroyed in one thoughtless blow that might produce change in all phases of domestic life."

the polls that matter are those taken at the ballot box. The left wing state of California voted it down twice, then the will of the people was overruled by an activist judge.

 

[Redfish]

Those organizations would not make the policy statements without the scientific studies, and there have been plenty.

What children are better off with, are two parents that love them...the gender of those parents does not matter.

The studies that show that our children are at no disadvantage are not comparing "bad" parents to "good" parents, they compare parents period...that's how they end up in peer reviewed journals.

Now what do parenting skills or the ability to even have children in the first place have to do with legal, civil marriage?

Sorry, but parental gender does matter. Boys need a male role model and girls need a female role model.

Oh, sorry, I forgot about the 'butch' 'fem' thingy that you lesbians have. Do you really think a butch lesbian is a valid male role model for a little boy?

What you forget is that parents are not the only role models. We don't raise our children in bubbles. My son can pee standing up, shoot a gun and play video games until his eyes fall out. My daughter played with dolls, wears pink, plays video games until her eyes fall out and can shoot a gun and a bow. They both do all the exact same things that all their friends do...except have to split their time between two houses.

And no, we don't have the "butch/fem" thing going on. Your fantasy is not my reality, sorry to disappoint you.

Parents are the primary role models, the most influential ones.

If you are not butch/fem then you are the only lesbian couple that is not. Every gay couple has a male and female acting/looking member---you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

its an attempt to make a gay hook up look normal with one playing the male role and one the female role. Its obvious, you need to admit that reality and stop deluding yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You couldn't be more wrong. Why do you think human lips and human labia are made of the same stuff? The lining of the mouth, roughly the same as the lining of the vagina. Sex for humans isn't about making babies. Reproduction hitched a ride during evolution.

I can't say I heard that argument before. The gays are a creative lot, I'll give you that. But I think you missed his point. Not that other acts aren't possible, the purpose of the genders in a species is what? Once you figure that out you can then understand what people mean by natural unions.

The purpose of genders is to enable reproduction. That in no way establishes that sexual relations between humans are only for reproduction, in fact,

in terms of how common something is, the most natural human sex acts are those that are done for reasons other than reproduction.

By your reasoning, 99% of human sexual activity is abnormal.

lol.

 

[Redfish]

You couldn't be more wrong. Why do you think human lips and human labia are made of the same stuff? The lining of the mouth, roughly the same as the lining of the vagina. Sex for humans isn't about making babies. Reproduction hitched a ride during evolution.

I can't say I heard that argument before. The gays are a creative lot, I'll give you that. But I think you missed his point. Not that other acts aren't possible, the purpose of the genders in a species is what? Once you figure that out you can then understand what people mean by natural unions.

The purpose of genders is to enable reproduction. That in no way establishes that sexual relations between humans are only for reproduction, in fact,

in terms of how common something is, the most natural human sex acts are those that are done for reasons other than reproduction.

By your reasoning, 99% of human sexual activity is abnormal.

lol.

much of sex is for pleasure. reproduction occurs because sex is pleasurable.

Humans, chimps, and dolphins are the only animals shown to have sex for fun. But chimps and dolphins only do it with the opposite sex.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't have to be polite. I can dish it out as good as anybody. But policy statements are political, not scienctific. No acedemic is going to convince me that a child isn't better off with a mom and dad. I'll defer to history and reality instead. Sure you can compare a bad heterosexual couple to a good gay couple and fudge numbers if that's your goal. No sale!

Those organizations would not make the policy statements without the scientific studies, and there have been plenty.

What children are better off with, are two parents that love them...the gender of those parents does not matter.

The studies that show that our children are at no disadvantage are not comparing "bad" parents to "good" parents, they compare parents period...that's how they end up in peer reviewed journals.

Now what do parenting skills or the ability to even have children in the first place have to do with legal, civil marriage?

Sorry, but parental gender does matter. Boys need a male role model and girls need a female role model.

If that were true, then the State would have a justifiable case for removing children from single parent homes and placing them with adoptive one man/one woman couples. Involuntarily.

Do you support that?

 

[Redfish]

Those organizations would not make the policy statements without the scientific studies, and there have been plenty.

What children are better off with, are two parents that love them...the gender of those parents does not matter.

The studies that show that our children are at no disadvantage are not comparing "bad" parents to "good" parents, they compare parents period...that's how they end up in peer reviewed journals.

Now what do parenting skills or the ability to even have children in the first place have to do with legal, civil marriage?

Sorry, but parental gender does matter. Boys need a male role model and girls need a female role model.

If that were true, then the State would have a justifiable case for removing children from single parent homes and placing them with adoptive one man/one woman couples. Involuntarily.

Do you support that?

of course not, but it has been shown that children of single parents have a much harder time in life.

the real answer is that we need policies that encourage marriage and encourage fathers to take responsibility for their children.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can't say I heard that argument before. The gays are a creative lot, I'll give you that. But I think you missed his point. Not that other acts aren't possible, the purpose of the genders in a species is what? Once you figure that out you can then understand what people mean by natural unions.

The purpose of genders is to enable reproduction. That in no way establishes that sexual relations between humans are only for reproduction, in fact,

in terms of how common something is, the most natural human sex acts are those that are done for reasons other than reproduction.

By your reasoning, 99% of human sexual activity is abnormal.

lol.

much of sex is for pleasure. reproduction occurs because sex is pleasurable.

Humans, chimps, and dolphins are the only animals shown to have sex for fun. But chimps and dolphins only do it with the opposite sex.

Then you concede that the reproduction argument is bullshit. That was my point.

BTW, priests and nuns vow to be celibate. That's abnormal according to the nonsense being tossed around here;

why don't deny religious rights and protections to churches that revere an abnormal sexual lifestyle?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I can't say I heard that argument before. The gays are a creative lot, I'll give you that. But I think you missed his point. Not that other acts aren't possible, the purpose of the genders in a species is what? Once you figure that out you can then understand what people mean by natural unions.

The purpose of genders is to enable reproduction. That in no way establishes that sexual relations between humans are only for reproduction, in fact,

in terms of how common something is, the most natural human sex acts are those that are done for reasons other than reproduction.

By your reasoning, 99% of human sexual activity is abnormal.

lol.

much of sex is for pleasure. reproduction occurs because sex is pleasurable.

Humans, chimps, and dolphins are the only animals shown to have sex for fun. But chimps and dolphins only do it with the opposite sex.

Meet the:Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you're incorrect.