Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
all anyone, including Thomas has said is that it may be time to review whether SSM is a federal constitutional issue or a state issue. That's all. NO ONE has said SSM should be banned. Stop the lies about this. all you libs do is lie.I wonder how Clarence Thomas is going to feel when they bring slavery back.
bullshit, the only thing being discussed is whether these things are federal constitutional issues or state issues. No one is advocating banning anything. Do you lefties ever tell the truth about anything?It’s this sort of ignorance, bigotry, and hate that the Constitution defends against, and why conservatives want to see Obergefell reversed – so conservatives can discriminate against and disadvantage gay and transgender Americans.
but you want fed benefits for abortion, gay marriage, trans bathrooms, etc. Don't you see the hypocrisy there?
we agree on both points. Wow!!!!!I do not want Fed benefits for any of those things. But if the Feds are going to give them they need not discriminate based on sex.
It is not productive to a society, for one thing. They cannot produce children, obviously. And the children they adopt/graft in or whatever....the science and that data are ironclad: children do best when raised in a home with their biological, married parents.
That is not to say that these two women don't have a right to live together, nor even to declare each other next of kin, beneficiaries, etc. They do, and they have a right to live peacefully. But society should have no pressing obligation to advance such unions. They are at best neutral in benefit.
That's not hateful. It just is.
Why do you just make shit up?but you want fed benefits for abortion, gay marriage, trans bathrooms, etc. Don't you see the hypocrisy there?
And that is just plain sick.Throwing meat to his base
"And when you do send the State of TN the bill" 
My SIL/BIL, who have two adopted children, would love to discus with you what failings they had by not being the biological parents. And I would love to sit and watch it.
50% of "real" marriages end in divorce, the children end up not living with both biological parents. Our son was just talking about this 2 nights ago, he literally has not one friend whose parents are not divorced. If a two parent household is the optimum setting then it seems society should support that no matter the sex of the parents.
Also, should married couples with not children not be receiving any societal benefit since they have not done their duty and reproduced? I work with a lady who has Type-1 diabetes and her husband has Crohn's. They have made the choice to never had children because they would be cursing them with one or more life long disease. Since they are not being productive for society, should we take away all the benefits of marriage from them?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
My SIL/BIL, who have two adopted children, would love to discus with you what failings they had by not being the biological parents. And I would love to sit and watch it.
50% of "real" marriages end in divorce, the children end up not living with both biological parents. Our son was just talking about this 2 nights ago, he literally has not one friend whose parents are not divorced. If a two parent household is the optimum setting then it seems society should support that no matter the sex of the parents.
Also, should married couples with no children not be receiving any societal benefit since they have not done their duty and reproduced? I work with a lady who has Type-1 diabetes and her husband has Crohn's. They have made the choice to never had children because they would be cursing them with one or more life long disease. Since they are not being productive for society, should we take away all the benefits of marriage from them?
psychcentral.com
1. They would get no argument from me. It was much better to adopt those children than to have them in foster care with no family. Those children had no shot at the "ideal" and it sounds like your family has given them a good home. Overall stats don't always bear out in individual circumstances. Read that again if need be because I won't address it again.
2. The divorce rate is not 50% anymore, unless you have ALREADY been divorced, in which case the home is "broken up" in any case. And note I did not say "children do best in a two parent household". No. Children do best in the home of their MARRIED, BIOLOGICAL PARENTS.
The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce
Nearly three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. ...
When Mom and Dad Are Married, Kids Do Better
What exactly is the advantage of being raised by parents who are married rather than divorces parents? It’s complicated.www.fatherly.com
3. See #1. "Overall stats, individual circumstances", etc.
Here. Divorce rates for first marriages are around 30%. Less if the woman is college educated and over 25 at time of marriage.
Divorce Statistics: How Many Marriages End in Divorce?
More research is needed to determine divorce statistics within the first year of marriage. As of 2015, 22% of couples divorce within the first five years.
I take it you believe blow jobs are also not "normal?"
It’s this sort of ignorance, bigotry, and hate that the Constitution defends against, and why conservatives want to see Obergefell reversed – so conservatives can discriminate against and disadvantage gay and transgender Americans.
Actually Obergefell was based on equal protection under the law and due processGetting back to the point, Oberkfell was wrongly decided because it was based on a non-existent "Constitutional right," the right of privacy. Cruz' point is that the decision should be overturned on that basis.
I'm not into that.Why are you into that ? You mean sex is the reason you got married, if not married the reason you think people get married ? I pity you.
You guys sure spin a thick web.By design one many can impregnate multiple women so you must favor polygamy since that fits the design .
Only because of the 2003 Texas v Lawrence decision....the Sodomy Decision.Actually Obergefell was based on equal protection under the law and due process
This is not about sex at all. It is about the right for 2 consenting adults to enter into a union andform a family. Stop being such a coward and answer my question instead of dancingaround the issue, You stated that only people who have children should be able to marry, I asked if that rule should aply equally to same sex and opposite sex couples but you do not seem to have the courage to answer it.
Can you point to something that says it isn't?Is oral sex "normal"?
