Jimmy Carter: "Leave Gay Marriage To States To Decide" (Right On Jimmy!)

[Seawytch]

Strawman. I oppose government marriage. All of it.

Then why aren't you posting about ending all marriage rather than just for homosexuals?

Libertarians I know defend the rights of an individual when his actions do not harm anyone. Why would you not defend homosexuals being able to marry the person of their choice?

Because he needs the "validation".

thats funny, the validation seeker is you. always has been. now you want the federal government to mandate your validation and force the rest of society to accept it. you are a sick human being, a bigot, and a liar.

What is it you think you're forced to accept?

How does my civil marriage of six years today have ANY affect on you?

OMG, are you that fricken stupid? you want the government to force its citizens to accept homosexuality and gay marriage as normal human conditions. you want to tell pre-pubescent teens that they can go either way or both ways and its just hunky dorry. you want to deny mammalian biology and encourage male/male and female/female sexual relations.

and lets be truthful, this is all about sex and who you do it with. mammalian homosexuality is not normal, its an aberation. you say you can't help it, and I accept that. but your genes are screwed up, you have a genetic abnormality, just like someone with MS has an abnormality.

So marriage is "all about sex" for you? You sure you want to go with that? Marriage certainly means A LOT more than "just sex" to me, my spouse and our children.

Children are going to "go" the way they "go". Telling them they cannot be gay has never worked has it? It didn't work for me or any of the gay people I know, including ones who went through harmful "reparative therapy".

Nobody is "encouraging" anything by saying nothing is wrong with how they were born. Would you tell a child with MS that they are "wrong"?

You are not "forced" to "accept" anything, Fishy.

Tell me exactly how my legal, civil marriage of six years now has personally affected you. Be specific.

 

[NYcarbineer]

State rights are important, but restrictions on gay marriage opposes personal freedom for gay people.

But a federal mandate to approve gay marriage means states will be forced to incentive homes where children are where 100% of the time one of the natural parents of that child will be absent. Marriage is an incentive to the parents of children to stay together and raise them. Male and female. Both sexes are necessary for the rounded development and self-image of the child.

Otherwise the child grows up to see his or her gender as "unnecessary" or his siblings gender as "unnecessary"...

Then we should outlaw adoption.

another stupid comment. Did you miss a dose of your meds last night?

Funny that you have no rebuttal though.

The other idiot said:

"But a federal mandate to approve gay marriage means states will be forced to incentive homes where children are where 100% of the time one of the natural parents of that child will be absent."

With adoption, BOTH of the natural parents are absent. So we should outlaw adoption, according to this idiot poster's reasoning.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Back to my earlier point.

Why allow states to legalize same sex marriage if same sex marriage is so harmful to society?

Isn't it the responsibility of the federal government to protect Americans from this supposed harm, despite what states might want to do?

 

[Redfish]

State rights are important, but restrictions on gay marriage opposes personal freedom for gay people.

But a federal mandate to approve gay marriage means states will be forced to incentive homes where children are where 100% of the time one of the natural parents of that child will be absent. Marriage is an incentive to the parents of children to stay together and raise them. Male and female. Both sexes are necessary for the rounded development and self-image of the child.

Otherwise the child grows up to see his or her gender as "unnecessary" or his siblings gender as "unnecessary"...

Then we should outlaw adoption.

another stupid comment. Did you miss a dose of your meds last night?

Funny that you have no rebuttal though.

The other idiot said:

"But a federal mandate to approve gay marriage means states will be forced to incentive homes where children are where 100% of the time one of the natural parents of that child will be absent."

With adoption, BOTH of the natural parents are absent. So we should outlaw adoption, according to this idiot poster's reasoning.

its not my place to rebut someone else's comments. I think he/she explained what he/she meant in a later post.

the stupidity of your posts remains.

 

[Redfish]

Back to my earlier point.

Why allow states to legalize same sex marriage if same sex marriage is so harmful to society?

Isn't it the responsibility of the federal government to protect Americans from this supposed harm, despite what states might want to do?

the morals and ethics of any society should be established by a majority opinion of the members of that society. Not by a dictate from the federal government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

State rights are important, but restrictions on gay marriage opposes personal freedom for gay people.

But a federal mandate to approve gay marriage means states will be forced to incentive homes where children are where 100% of the time one of the natural parents of that child will be absent. Marriage is an incentive to the parents of children to stay together and raise them. Male and female. Both sexes are necessary for the rounded development and self-image of the child.

Otherwise the child grows up to see his or her gender as "unnecessary" or his siblings gender as "unnecessary"...

Then we should outlaw adoption.

another stupid comment. Did you miss a dose of your meds last night?

Funny that you have no rebuttal though.

The other idiot said:

"But a federal mandate to approve gay marriage means states will be forced to incentive homes where children are where 100% of the time one of the natural parents of that child will be absent."

With adoption, BOTH of the natural parents are absent. So we should outlaw adoption, according to this idiot poster's reasoning.

its not my place to rebut someone else's comments. I think he/she explained what he/she meant in a later post.

the stupidity of your posts remains.

What's stupid about outlawing something you believe is devastatingly harmful to children?

Wouldn't the stupidity be NOT outlawing it?

According to the poster, adoption is destroying the lives of children. Isn't it up the government to protect those children?

 

[Redfish]

Then why aren't you posting about ending all marriage rather than just for homosexuals?

Libertarians I know defend the rights of an individual when his actions do not harm anyone. Why would you not defend homosexuals being able to marry the person of their choice?

Because he needs the "validation".

thats funny, the validation seeker is you. always has been. now you want the federal government to mandate your validation and force the rest of society to accept it. you are a sick human being, a bigot, and a liar.

What is it you think you're forced to accept?

How does my civil marriage of six years today have ANY affect on you?

OMG, are you that fricken stupid? you want the government to force its citizens to accept homosexuality and gay marriage as normal human conditions. you want to tell pre-pubescent teens that they can go either way or both ways and its just hunky dorry. you want to deny mammalian biology and encourage male/male and female/female sexual relations.

and lets be truthful, this is all about sex and who you do it with. mammalian homosexuality is not normal, its an aberation. you say you can't help it, and I accept that. but your genes are screwed up, you have a genetic abnormality, just like someone with MS has an abnormality.

So marriage is "all about sex" for you? You sure you want to go with that? Marriage certainly means A LOT more than "just sex" to me, my spouse and our children.

Children are going to "go" the way they "go". Telling them they cannot be gay has never worked has it? It didn't work for me or any of the gay people I know, including ones who went through harmful "reparative therapy".

Nobody is "encouraging" anything by saying nothing is wrong with how they were born. Would you tell a child with MS that they are "wrong"?

You are not "forced" to "accept" anything, Fishy.

Tell me exactly how my legal, civil marriage of six years now has personally affected you. Be specific.

your california gay marriage has zero affect on me personally. But multiples of it will have an affect on society as a whole and will lead to all forms of "marriage". We are talking legal precedents here. once gay marriage of two women or two men is legalized, the multiple marriage people will begin a push to legalize their "marriages" using the same arguments that you use--------equality, discrimination------and they will win in court using gay marriage as a precedent. If thats the future society that we want, then so be it.

 

[Redfish]

But a federal mandate to approve gay marriage means states will be forced to incentive homes where children are where 100% of the time one of the natural parents of that child will be absent. Marriage is an incentive to the parents of children to stay together and raise them. Male and female. Both sexes are necessary for the rounded development and self-image of the child.

Otherwise the child grows up to see his or her gender as "unnecessary" or his siblings gender as "unnecessary"...

Then we should outlaw adoption.

another stupid comment. Did you miss a dose of your meds last night?

Funny that you have no rebuttal though.

The other idiot said:

"But a federal mandate to approve gay marriage means states will be forced to incentive homes where children are where 100% of the time one of the natural parents of that child will be absent."

With adoption, BOTH of the natural parents are absent. So we should outlaw adoption, according to this idiot poster's reasoning.

its not my place to rebut someone else's comments. I think he/she explained what he/she meant in a later post.

the stupidity of your posts remains.

What's stupid about outlawing something you believe is devastatingly harmful to children?

Wouldn't the stupidity be NOT outlawing it?

According to the poster, adoption is destroying the lives of children. Isn't it up the government to protect those children?

you need to address those comments to the poster who made them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then we should outlaw adoption.

another stupid comment. Did you miss a dose of your meds last night?

Funny that you have no rebuttal though.

The other idiot said:

"But a federal mandate to approve gay marriage means states will be forced to incentive homes where children are where 100% of the time one of the natural parents of that child will be absent."

With adoption, BOTH of the natural parents are absent. So we should outlaw adoption, according to this idiot poster's reasoning.

its not my place to rebut someone else's comments. I think he/she explained what he/she meant in a later post.

the stupidity of your posts remains.

What's stupid about outlawing something you believe is devastatingly harmful to children?

Wouldn't the stupidity be NOT outlawing it?

According to the poster, adoption is destroying the lives of children. Isn't it up the government to protect those children?

you need to address those comments to the poster who made them.

Then you need to stay out of the conversation.

 

[Silhouette]

Funny that you have no rebuttal though.

The other idiot said:

"But a federal mandate to approve gay marriage means states will be forced to incentive homes where children are where 100% of the time one of the natural parents of that child will be absent."

With adoption, BOTH of the natural parents are absent. So we should outlaw adoption, according to this idiot poster's reasoning.

Apparently you missed the word "incentive". Any male/female pair who are married do not ruin the male/female description/iconic-pair that can produce their own offspring in a fertile marriage. The base definition and its incentive purpose isn't ruined or altered by a non-reproductive male/female pair. The state wishes to emphasize conditions in which the need for adoption or parentless orphans is reduced. That unfortunate situation isn't part of the incentive program states engage in encouraging both natural parents to stay with their blood offspring. We know this is the best environment for children; with many other less-desireable situations that children find themselves in that we do not incentivize. One of those is a "marriage" that is guaranteed to be missing one of the blood parents 100% of the time. If you're blind, you cannot drive. If you want to be "gay married" you cannot have natural children with your partner.

Other points I raised I notice you left out. Like the right of a child to have in marriage a parent whose gender is the same as their own, so they have someone to relate to and build their self-image from...instead of the implied lesson "your gender doesn't matter"...ie "YOU don't matter"..

 

[Seawytch]

Because he needs the "validation".

thats funny, the validation seeker is you. always has been. now you want the federal government to mandate your validation and force the rest of society to accept it. you are a sick human being, a bigot, and a liar.

What is it you think you're forced to accept?

How does my civil marriage of six years today have ANY affect on you?

OMG, are you that fricken stupid? you want the government to force its citizens to accept homosexuality and gay marriage as normal human conditions. you want to tell pre-pubescent teens that they can go either way or both ways and its just hunky dorry. you want to deny mammalian biology and encourage male/male and female/female sexual relations.

and lets be truthful, this is all about sex and who you do it with. mammalian homosexuality is not normal, its an aberation. you say you can't help it, and I accept that. but your genes are screwed up, you have a genetic abnormality, just like someone with MS has an abnormality.

So marriage is "all about sex" for you? You sure you want to go with that? Marriage certainly means A LOT more than "just sex" to me, my spouse and our children.

Children are going to "go" the way they "go". Telling them they cannot be gay has never worked has it? It didn't work for me or any of the gay people I know, including ones who went through harmful "reparative therapy".

Nobody is "encouraging" anything by saying nothing is wrong with how they were born. Would you tell a child with MS that they are "wrong"?

You are not "forced" to "accept" anything, Fishy.

Tell me exactly how my legal, civil marriage of six years now has personally affected you. Be specific.

your california gay marriage has zero affect on me personally. But multiples of it will have an affect on society as a whole and will lead to all forms of "marriage". We are talking legal precedents here. once gay marriage of two women or two men is legalized, the multiple marriage people will begin a push to legalize their "marriages" using the same arguments that you use--------equality, discrimination------and they will win in court using gay marriage as a precedent. If thats the future society that we want, then so be it.

If you believe polygamy and incest must be recognized then it has nothing to do with gay couples marrying.

Their arguments either have validity or they don't absent same gender consenting adult couples civilly marrying.

Slippery slope fallacy fail.

 

[kaz]

Let's start with the FACT that there is no difference in outcomes between children with parents of the same sex and children with opposite sex parents. None...no difference in outcomes so your "ideal" simply doesn't matter. I mean if you're going to play the "ideal" card, "ideal" parents would be rich and white.

Yes, liberal arguments always go there. Opposition of gay marriage is of course racism. What a dumb bitch. You really need to repent, Jesus loves you. Find your local church and repent your evil homosexual ways. You will find a member of the opposite sex, whichever one is the opposite of you. And go to hell, bitch. I'm done with you, you're not getting any more serious replies from me. You may want to write that down since you have no long term memory.

 

[kaz]

Strawman. I oppose government marriage. All of it.

Then why aren't you posting about ending all marriage rather than just for homosexuals?

Libertarians I know defend the rights of an individual when his actions do not harm anyone. Why would you not defend homosexuals being able to marry the person of their choice?

Because he needs the "validation".

thats funny, the validation seeker is you. always has been. now you want the federal government to mandate your validation and force the rest of society to accept it. you are a sick human being, a bigot, and a liar.

What is it you think you're forced to accept?

How does my civil marriage of six years today have ANY affect on you?

OMG, are you that fricken stupid? you want the government to force its citizens to accept homosexuality and gay marriage as normal human conditions. you want to tell pre-pubescent teens that they can go either way or both ways and its just hunky dorry. you want to deny mammalian biology and encourage male/male and female/female sexual relations.

and lets be truthful, this is all about sex and who you do it with. mammalian homosexuality is not normal, its an aberation. you say you can't help it, and I accept that. but your genes are screwed up, you have a genetic abnormality, just like someone with MS has an abnormality.

You're against gay marriage? That's just racist, don't you know that? That's what seawytch says and he would know, right? A guy who pretends to be an angry lesbian on the internet? Definitely, he'd know.

 

[Seawytch]

Let's start with the FACT that there is no difference in outcomes between children with parents of the same sex and children with opposite sex parents. None...no difference in outcomes so your "ideal" simply doesn't matter. I mean if you're going to play the "ideal" card, "ideal" parents would be rich and white.

Yes, liberal arguments always go there. Opposition of gay marriage is of course racism. What a dumb bitch. You really need to repent, Jesus loves you. Find your local church and repent your evil homosexual ways. You will find a member of the opposite sex, whichever one is the opposite of you. And go to hell, bitch. I'm done with you, you're not getting any more serious replies from me. You may want to write that down since you have no long term memory.

Uh oh...analogy make Kaz mad. Too true I guess. I was getting anti gay failed replies, "serious" or not.

The children of gays are doing just fine. "Ideal" is irrelevant.

 

[Seawytch]

Then why aren't you posting about ending all marriage rather than just for homosexuals?

Libertarians I know defend the rights of an individual when his actions do not harm anyone. Why would you not defend homosexuals being able to marry the person of their choice?

Because he needs the "validation".

thats funny, the validation seeker is you. always has been. now you want the federal government to mandate your validation and force the rest of society to accept it. you are a sick human being, a bigot, and a liar.

What is it you think you're forced to accept?

How does my civil marriage of six years today have ANY affect on you?

OMG, are you that fricken stupid? you want the government to force its citizens to accept homosexuality and gay marriage as normal human conditions. you want to tell pre-pubescent teens that they can go either way or both ways and its just hunky dorry. you want to deny mammalian biology and encourage male/male and female/female sexual relations.

and lets be truthful, this is all about sex and who you do it with. mammalian homosexuality is not normal, its an aberation. you say you can't help it, and I accept that. but your genes are screwed up, you have a genetic abnormality, just like someone with MS has an abnormality.

You're against gay marriage? That's just racist, don't you know that? That's what seawytch says and he would know, right? A guy who pretends to be an angry lesbian on the internet? Definitely, he'd know.

Anti gay bigotry is just bigotry not racism.

 

[kaz]

Anti gay bigotry is just bigotry not racism.

Then why did you say it was racism? Then again, you're a guy who wants to be a lesbo in the Internet, you're not the brightest bulb. BTW, Jesus was against racism, but he hated queers. He even said hate the sin, love the sinner, well, except fucking homos, hate them. It's in fact the only time he used the word "fucking" in the Bible.

 

[Seawytch]

Anti gay bigotry is just bigotry not racism.

Then why did you say it was racism? Then again, you're a guy who wants to be a lesbo in the Internet, you're not the brightest bulb. BTW, Jesus was against racism, but he hated queers. He even said hate the sin, love the sinner, well, except fucking homos, hate them. It's in fact the only time he used the word "fucking" in the Bible.

I didn't. You misconstrued an analogy. I said that rich white parents are "ideal" is all. You're the one that first played the "ideal" card.

What is truly "ideal" for children is parents who love them and care for their needs, period.

 

[Silhouette]

Anti gay bigotry is just bigotry not racism.

People have opinions all the time about different human behaviors. Too bad LGBT don't qualify as race.

 

[Redfish]

thats funny, the validation seeker is you. always has been. now you want the federal government to mandate your validation and force the rest of society to accept it. you are a sick human being, a bigot, and a liar.

What is it you think you're forced to accept?

How does my civil marriage of six years today have ANY affect on you?

OMG, are you that fricken stupid? you want the government to force its citizens to accept homosexuality and gay marriage as normal human conditions. you want to tell pre-pubescent teens that they can go either way or both ways and its just hunky dorry. you want to deny mammalian biology and encourage male/male and female/female sexual relations.

and lets be truthful, this is all about sex and who you do it with. mammalian homosexuality is not normal, its an aberation. you say you can't help it, and I accept that. but your genes are screwed up, you have a genetic abnormality, just like someone with MS has an abnormality.

So marriage is "all about sex" for you? You sure you want to go with that? Marriage certainly means A LOT more than "just sex" to me, my spouse and our children.

Children are going to "go" the way they "go". Telling them they cannot be gay has never worked has it? It didn't work for me or any of the gay people I know, including ones who went through harmful "reparative therapy".

Nobody is "encouraging" anything by saying nothing is wrong with how they were born. Would you tell a child with MS that they are "wrong"?

You are not "forced" to "accept" anything, Fishy.

Tell me exactly how my legal, civil marriage of six years now has personally affected you. Be specific.

your california gay marriage has zero affect on me personally. But multiples of it will have an affect on society as a whole and will lead to all forms of "marriage". We are talking legal precedents here. once gay marriage of two women or two men is legalized, the multiple marriage people will begin a push to legalize their "marriages" using the same arguments that you use--------equality, discrimination------and they will win in court using gay marriage as a precedent. If thats the future society that we want, then so be it.

If you believe polygamy and incest must be recognized then it has nothing to do with gay couples marrying.

Their arguments either have validity or they don't absent same gender consenting adult couples civilly marrying.

Slippery slope fallacy fail.

Do you have any idea what the words "legal precedent" mean? If not, look it up.

 

[Redfish]

Anti gay bigotry is just bigotry not racism.

Then why did you say it was racism? Then again, you're a guy who wants to be a lesbo in the Internet, you're not the brightest bulb. BTW, Jesus was against racism, but he hated queers. He even said hate the sin, love the sinner, well, except fucking homos, hate them. It's in fact the only time he used the word "fucking" in the Bible.

I didn't. You misconstrued an analogy. I said that rich white parents are "ideal" is all. You're the one that first played the "ideal" card.

What is truly "ideal" for children is parents who love them and care for their needs, period.

and provide proper role models. two gay men cannot provide a proper female role model for a little girl and two lesbians cannot provide a proper male role model for a little boy.