The Homosexual Dilemma

[Coyote]

Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case. Loving parents accept what their children are.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University

gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.

Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?

There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem. Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased. The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist. They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.

Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.

Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.

All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.

There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.

Unless every subject can be observed 24/7, the claim is ALWAYS made that a study is poorly done. As a matter of fact, I find it funny that the left views science as a solid science, unless it disagrees with a result. Then the scientist is an idiot.

Mark

Not at all. There is a lot that goes in to a well done study vs. a poorly done study - sample size, accounting for variables, etc etc.

 

[Seawytch]

Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.

Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.

Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?

Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents. I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.

Mark

Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.

I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either.

That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

Isn't that the same as our belief that kids are "fucked up" being raised by queers? Do you have even one rational bone in your body?

Whhhhoooooossssshhhhhh, right over your fucking head.

See, here's the actual difference. I don't really want to keep you from having kids, it was a joke. You, on the other hand are not joking, you would like to have prevented me from having kids and maybe would even support taking our kids away from us. And despite the fact that I think Fundies are terrible, reprehensible people, I don't want to keep you from civilly marrying each other either. Get the distinction?

 

[Iceweasel]

That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

What standard do you use to oppose three, four or ten people getting married? Like most of you dimwits, you just want your preferences remedied and the hell with anyone else.

 

[Seawytch]

Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them.

Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?

Where in the Constitution is your right to interstate travel? Do you believe the only rights you have are expressly enumerated in the Constitution? If so, your education fell short. Google "Fundamental Rights" and then Google:

Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Wisconsin.

Then get back to us if you still have questions.

I'll get back to you right now, and I prefer a different search engine thankyouverymuch. You are the ill informed one here so you go google it.

The Constitution puts restrictions on government, there is nothing in the Constitution to restrict my travel. It's a right unless there's a reason, and there are public areas I can't go or am limited to some degree when I get there. And that has exactly what to do with two homosexuals mimicking marriage? States can define marriage how they want as long as it doesn't interfere with a Constitutional right, like a black man being treated differently than a white man.

Race, gender and religion ARE Constitutionally protected from government treating them differently. Now, go find sexual relationships or sexual preference in the Constitution and get back to us.

Deflection...use whatever search engine you like, but do get back to us after you looked up Fundamental Rights and those cases I cited. If you're still confused, we can discuss.

 

[80zephyr]

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.

They are not arbitrary restrictions. Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child. Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father. If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last. But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.

How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?

Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.

Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.

You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.

Any "study" that says kids don't suffer from having a man and a woman as parents is wrong. And I really don't care who wrote it.

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.

It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.

I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.

Used against me? Not a chance. You forget, it's my country not yours, fucked up as it is.

I'ze American. Just as much as you are.

No, actually you aren't. You have legal standing of an American, that's all.

Yes, I am. I have the same rights as someone who thinks Americans and all of humanity are a disease and should be wiped off the face of the Earth.

As I said, you have the legal standing but you aren't an American. This nation wasn't founded for the pitchforks who take their guns to the Wal-Mart so they can play John Wayne.

 

[Seawytch]

That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

What standard do you use to oppose three, four or ten people getting married? Like most of you dimwits, you just want your preferences remedied and the hell with anyone else.

Current law does not allow for more than a non familial consenting adult couple marrying. If you would like to change that, I wish you luck. Hurry before Julie Andrews remarries.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Can anyone answer how long you little faggot-haters are going to keep pissing into the wind while your society leaves you in the past?

 

[Carib Gyal]

It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.

I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.

Used against me? Not a chance. You forget, it's my country not yours, fucked up as it is.

I'ze American. Just as much as you are.

No, actually you aren't. You have legal standing of an American, that's all.

Yes, I am. I have the same rights as someone who thinks Americans and all of humanity are a disease and should be wiped off the face of the Earth.

As I said, you have the legal standing but you aren't an American. This nation wasn't founded for the pitchforks who take their guns to the Wal-Mart so they can play John Wayne.

Nor was it founded for the AIDS butts who think all of humanity should perish.

 

[Seawytch]

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.

They are not arbitrary restrictions. Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child. Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father. If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last. But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.

How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?

Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.

Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.

You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.

Any "study" that says kids don't suffer from having a man and a woman as parents is wrong. And I really don't care who wrote it.

Mark

Gotcha. You have your opinion, facts don't matter. Good to know.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?

Bullshit. Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc. But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.

Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not. Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.

And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them. The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion. It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.

Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them.


Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.

Hung up? I have a daughter. And I have 3 sons I'm teaching to protect their sister for her entire life. Let's not lightly put aside the fact that California's law allows any boy who suddenly feels like a girl to use the girl's restroom. He doesn't even have to act or dress like a girl.

And it's surprising that I have to explain this to a woman, but apparently you're not like most women. Ladies' restrooms are sanctuaries, a place where women can get away and find respite among other women. Put a man in a woman's restroom and many women will feel uncomfortable...and rightly so. Common sense says that men should use the men's restroom and women the women's restroom regardless of what gender you feel that day. And speaking of "no harm being done" what harm is there in insisting that a boy use the boys' restroom? NONE!

All of which underscores my argument that what you people are pushing for is NOT equality, but the domination of your sick, evil, depraved ideologies.

And like I said in the OP, on behalf of America, F*** you.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.

They are not arbitrary restrictions. Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child. Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father. If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last. But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.

How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?

Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.

Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.

You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.

Any "study" that says kids don't suffer from having a man and a woman as parents is wrong. And I really don't care who wrote it.

Mark

Gotcha. You have your opinion, facts don't matter. Good to know.

This coming from the "facts don't matter" Ferguson Left.

 

[Seawytch]

Happy New Year all...my kids are up and want waffles.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?

Bullshit. Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc. But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.

Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not. Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.

And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them. The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion. It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.

Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them.


Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.

Hung up? I have a daughter. And I have 3 sons I'm teaching to protect their sister for her entire life. Let's not lightly put aside the fact that California's law allows any boy who suddenly feels like a girl to use the girl's restroom. He doesn't even have to act or dress like a girl.

And it's surprising that I have to explain this to a woman, but apparently you're not like most women. Ladies' restrooms are sanctuaries, a place where women can get away and find respite among other women. Put a man in a woman's restroom and many women will feel uncomfortable...and rightly so. Common sense says that men should use the men's restroom and women the women's restroom regardless of what gender you feel that day. And speaking of "no harm being done" what harm is there in insisting that a boy use the boys' restroom? NONE!

All of which underscores my argument that what you people are pushing for is NOT equality, but the domination of your sick, evil, depraved ideologies.

And like I said in the OP, on behalf of America, F*** you.

Damn drunk Indian, and just as fucking dumb. Go play the half-breeds Father McTouchYou

 

[Skylar]

Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them.

Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?

Please read the 9th amendment.

 

[80zephyr]

And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.

Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light. Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples. All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.

What statistics?

Homosexuals represent less than 3% but are involved in nearly 1/3 of all sex abuse cases against children

MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
An essay on adult sex offenders in the book Sexual Offending Against Children reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]

Family Research Council

Family Research Council? Seriously?

First of all - Pedophilia, if that is what you are referring to - is it's own category. Offenders are neither hetero nor homo but are attracted to prebuscent children and do not typically have or are able to sustain normal relationships with adults.

Second of all - "Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases" - well...sounds like you are making an argument that adoption should be limited to single women or lesbian couples only then

Why is pedophilia in its own category? Could it be that the left needs it to be, otherwise it would shed a bad light on the gays?

It has nothing to do with "left" or "right" but what is, not what you wish is.

Pedophilia - TIME

It s Not About Homosexuality Blaming the Wrong People for the Sexual Abuse Crisis Rev. James Martin S.J.

Pedophilia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted)... ​

... Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up. ​

Why should I believe you when you say its a separate category? Why is it that many pedophiles will ONLY attacks boys and not girls?

First question - it's not me that says it's a seperate category, it's the psychiatric profession, those who specialize in child sexual abuse, and other professionals.

I reject your "category" classification. Logic and reality tell me it has no basis in fact.

Mark

That's certainly your option but it goes against scientific research.

From your link:

Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however"

And? It is apparent that they suffer from BOTH pedophilia and homosexuality. Why is an "adult" the litmus test for homosexuality? I have news for you, its not.

As to the "scientific research", I used to be a huge believer in science. Today, science is nothing more than a popularity contest.

Reality and logic have to replace it, until science reestablishes itself.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.

Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.

Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?

Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents. I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.

Mark

Nature doesn't 'devise' shit. Nature focuses on reproduction. If you're reproductively viable, nature's requirements are met. How you reproduce, nature doesn't have much to say about.

We however, do. While rape is a reproductively viable method of passing on DNA, its also quite awful and denounced by most civilizations. While sex with reproductively viable children might be a viable method of passing on DNA, its fits the same bill as rape in most civilizations.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Happy New Year all...my kids are up and want waffles.

To you too. Not only did my 11 year old make it to midnight, but my 6 year old too. It's cereal this morning because my wife and I got seriously WASTED last night after the kids went to bed.

 

[bodecea]

Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.

The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.

They are not arbitrary restrictions. Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child. Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father. If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last. But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.

How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?

Which god is that?

 

[80zephyr]

The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?

Bullshit. Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc. But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.

Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not. Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.

And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them. The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion. It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.

Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them.


Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.

Hung up? I have a daughter. And I have 3 sons I'm teaching to protect their sister for her entire life. Let's not lightly put aside the fact that California's law allows any boy who suddenly feels like a girl to use the girl's restroom. He doesn't even have to act or dress like a girl.

And it's surprising that I have to explain this to a woman, but apparently you're not like most women. Ladies' restrooms are sanctuaries, a place where women can get away and find respite among other women. Put a man in a woman's restroom and many women will feel uncomfortable...and rightly so. Common sense says that men should use the men's restroom and women the women's restroom regardless of what gender you feel that day. And speaking of "no harm being done" what harm is there in insisting that a boy use the boys' restroom? NONE!

All of which underscores my argument that what you people are pushing for is NOT equality, but the domination of your sick, evil, depraved ideologies.

And like I said in the OP, on behalf of America, F*** you.

Damn drunk Indian, and just as fucking dumb. Go play the half-breeds Father McTouchYou

You are refreshing House. A leftist that actually says what he is thinking. So, you treat blacks and Hispanics like that to, you "enlightened progressive"?

Mark