U.S. Rep. Marries Same-Sex Partner!

[Statistikhengst]

they act like these politicians are royalty

no wonder they feel they CAN walk all over us, live like royalty on our DIME until they damn die in Congress and steal our money at their leisure

gee whiz

Really who care who gets married?

they aren't Princess Diana or anyone SPECIAL

That was some lovely butthurt on your part.

Chris Maloney (D) does not earn any more than Louis Gohmert (R).

Do you feel the same way about Louis Gohmert, Stephanie?


Oh, and BTW, can you even name the last US-Rep or the last US-Senator who died while in office?

Hint: It is an extreme rarity. 33 members of congress have died while in office since 1974, or 40 years. That is an average of less than one member per year. Number of congressional sessions since 1974: 21 sessions: 21 * 435 = 8925. 33 / = 0.37%

Or: 1 / 435 = 0.23% on the average.


Tell you what: I bet people from the left will stop posting prominent gay people getting married when batshit crazy Righties like you will stop obsessing about gay marriage to begin with.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You see, you can't voice your opinion on it without being accused of hate

ok everyone, just say whoopee and end it

Chelsea Clinton didn't even get this much attention but hey we just had to know about this and so what you don't knows these people

I mean after 22 years what's the big deal of getting married now

Because for the vast majority of those 22 years, they would NOT have have been able to legally marry. So, thank you for reminding us of the historic significance of this. Your scorn actually just helped 'the other side'!

Thanks, Steph, "let's roll!!!"

 

[S.J.]

congrats.
Second priest defies Church of England to marry his same sex partner | Society | The Guardian

Not interested in a limey gay wedding either.

To busy planning your own?

No, I'm not a liberal. PS, I'll bet you squat to pee, don't you?

 

[Toro]

Why the hell are you posting a marriage in politics??? You're fucking annoying at best. They need to ban your ass for purposely spamming the forum.

Oh, Big Woman! BIG Woman!! If you don't like Gay marriage get over it already because it's here and it's here To Stay! And your crude language speaks volumes about you sister.

She didn't say a thing about gay marriage. She like the rest of us is annoyed because you assholes feel the need to shove it everyone's face. We don't care. Go join your Vegan and gluten buddies and shut the hell up.

It will stop being news when the dinosaurs - like in this thread - stop going apoplectic over it.

 

[Noomi]

22 years together, and many straight marriages don't even last two freaking years, yet somehow gay marriage is making a 'mockery' out of it?

Well you're right! And who was that Straight star that was married and lasted just 24 hours before getting a divorce?

Britney Spears, I think.

 

[Stephanie]

The only wedding I'm interested in, is when someone marries this lovely bride



nite all , good morning, I HAVE NO IDEA
bye might be better
you all have a wonderful day today

 

[Noomi]

The only wedding I'm interested in, is when someone marries this lovely bride



nite all , good morning, I HAVE NO IDEA
bye might be better
you all have a wonderful day today

Hey troll.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Not interested in a limey gay wedding either.

To busy planning your own?

No, I'm not a liberal. PS, I'll bet you squat to pee, don't you?

never have, but I will if you open wide you smooth talking nonce.

 

[I.P.Freely]

The only wedding I'm interested in, is when someone marries this lovely bride

Blimey you look hot phanie

 

[I.P.Freely]

Am I the only one seeing [MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] as a feeble old hag in her dressing gown with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth banging her cane on the kitchen table?

Why are you being so charitable Howey?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

22 years together, and many straight marriages don't even last two freaking years, yet somehow gay marriage is making a 'mockery' out of it?

Yeah, except that has nothing to do with why many of us do not support same sex marriage.

 

[blastoff]

Why the hell are you posting a marriage in politics??? You're fucking annoying at best. They need to ban your ass for purposely spamming the forum.

Like others before him and likely more to yet show up this season, will disappear shortly after November elections.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Awesome!

One less Democrat who won't be having children!!!

Lol !

This is the single greatest thing about liberals in general. They have few kids. Seattle a very liberal town, for instance, has more dogs than kids. This is a fact.

Now minorities who of course identify as Dimocrat have lots of kids, but liberals, especially white ones, have much fewer kids.

Here's an article over at the Daily Kooks about Antarctic ice sheets and how libs need kids to continue the work on climate change:

Please Have Kids, Liberals


(snip)

Therefore, the future is up to us. And up to our children. We have not irreparably damaged West Antarctica. By controlling warming, we can control changes to ice sheets. And if you want to shape that future, one of the better ways to do so is to pass your values along to your children.

It's possible that Joughin and others are too optimistic. It's possible that we don't have hundreds of years to solve these problems. But the howls of agony and pronouncements of doom are getting rather deafening. And if liberals don't have children, our vision for a better world may well die with us.

Please Have Kids, Liberals

Sure, liberalism like conservatism is taught, not born, BUT...................

But, who would you rather see raising the next generation, liberals or conservatives ?
And that's the rub, liberals, especially white ones won't be raising nearly as many kids.
White conservatives, and minority Dimocrats who are more socially conservative will be the bulk of the parents now and in the future raising the next generation.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Why Liberals Prefer Dogs Over Children

In the first of three excerpts from his book, Makers and Takers, author Peter Schweizer examines why liberal communities favour health spas and sushi bars, but view children as a burden.

Today’s liberalism is completely wrapped up with the notion of self. The legacy of the 1960s “if it feels good do it” ethos is alive and well. Modern liberals often embrace these teachings and incorporate them in the way they live their lives and maintain their relationships.

For dramatic proof, go to the streets of a liberal enclave like San Francisco, Seattle or Vermont. There will be plenty of expensive boutiques, antique dealers, health spas, sushi bars and upscale coffee shops. But you won’t see very many children. The reason is not that right-wingers have dumped buckets of birth control pills into the San Francisco municipal water supply. The simple fact is that many on the liberal left today just don’t want to have children. A 2004 U.S. survey showed that a typical sample of 100 unrelated adults who called themselves liberal will have 147 children. That contrasts with the typical conservative, who is likely to have 208 children per 100 unrelated adults. That’s 41% more.
Why is this important? Because raising children is a difficult and selfless act that is also an important civic duty. The survival of our society — not to mention our Social Security system! — rests on individuals bringing up a new generation.

The liberal Northeastern states — Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York — have the lowest fertility rates in the country. They also have the lowest percentage of population under the age of five. In progressive San Francisco, there are more dogs than children. Joel Kotkin points out that Seattle (my hometown) has roughly the same population as it did in the 1960s, but barely half as many children. Indeed, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. Dogs, of course, offer companionship without the burdens and responsibilities of children.

Some might conclude that this is a result of the high cost of living in desirable cities such as Boston, New York and San Francisco. But in these childless meccas, we also see some of the highest per capita expenditures on luxury goods, spas and personal therapies. It’s not a lack of money; it’s a lack of interest. The General Social Survey found that 69% of those who called themselves “very conservative” said it was important to them to have children. Only 38% of corresponding liberals agreed. An online survey (admittedly not scientific) taken by the left-wing Web site dailykos.com asked readers if they had children and how many. The most popular answers: “No children,” “Not going to have any,” and “Don’t want any.”

Meanwhile, the highest fertility rate in the country is found in the most conservative state, Utah, followed by Arizona, Alaska and Texas, otherwise known as “red states,” according to the latest National Center for Health Statistics survey. States with the lowest fertility rates are Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, all “blue states.” Over half of the women of childbearing age — 15 to 44 — are childless in liberal bastions such as the District of Columbia, Vermont and Massachusetts.

Many on the left proudly proclaim themselves to be “child-free.” (They angrily reject the term child-less because it implies that they are missing out on something.) Partly, this is a result of liberal pessimism about the future. Concerned about overpopulation, dwindling environmental resources, global warming, etc., some liberals don’t want to have children because they see them as an environmental hazard. Billionaire Ted Turner reflected this attitude when he thoughtfully announced his regret at having five children. “If I was doing it over again, I wouldn’t have had that many, but I can’t shoot them now and they’re here.” No doubt, this sort of sentiment makes for charming conversation around the Turner dinner table.

Far more common is the modern liberal notion that children are a burden, something that will get in the way of one’s self-fulfillment. As any parent knows, raising children is hard work. It requires emotional commitment, selfless acts, large quantities of time and scads of money. Many liberals just don’t want the inconvenience. When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the left were nearly twice as likely to say “no” (28% to 15%) when compared to conservatives.

A look at some popular Web sites offers plenty of evidence that this is a major strand in modern liberal thinking: “The trouble is, many of us bright, liberal people know that procreation is a quaint, antiquated concept.” And another: “I read somewhere a while back that it costs about $1-million to raise a child from birth to 21 years assuming they attend college. So buy a house in [San Francisco] or have a kid? I’m not actually looking for an answer but kids are expensive.” And another: “I’ll have the babies if you pay for them.”

Another offers: “I have not been asked very often why I’m childless. If I am, I just say the truth. That I am too selfish, that I want to spend my time and money on things other than children, that I am doing my part to counteract all of the overbreeders. The thought of attending a child’s athletic event, and sitting through the whole thing, is almost enough in itself.” Peter Pan could not have put it better.

This birth gap presents a quandary for politically active liberals. Not wanting to be inconvenienced with raising their own children, they still want to see their ideas perpetuated. Professor Darren Sherkat of Southern Illinois University worries that because conservatives “who have lots of children” are not being matched by those on the political left who “may well not have kids,” these demographic trends will push the country in a more conservative direction. (Data indicates that 80% of children end up adopting the political attitudes of their parents.) To counterbalance this trend, he argues for increasing immigration and expanding the black population. He also hopes that childless liberals will “be able to reproduce themselves in strangers,” by taking on jobs as teachers, writers and other people of influence. The idea is to let conservatives raise their children, while liberals influence them through the schools and universities.

Another lefty concurs: “I’d say that the author of a popular book has far more aggregate influence than do one set of parents. So if the book is very popular and captures the imaginations of kids, presto, you’ve done a lot to insure that the ideas that are important to you live long after you pass on … If it’s the ideas that matter then I suppose that there are ways that folks like you can propagate the ideas without having your own kids be your lab rats.”

Why Liberals Prefer Dogs Over Children | ChildfreeFeminist

 

[shart_attack]

Wow. So much hate in here.

not hate fear.

Incorrect, Scoob.

What you're seeing is just anger at constantly being barraged with news about every time an LGBT gets married or bakes a cake or takes a dip in a lake.

The only ones who are making this crap news—constant, virulent, annoying-as-hell news—are idiots like the monochrome troll who started this thread, and you.

You can't start threads like this just to get a reaction, and then blame the majority—not a plurality; the majority—for giving you the reaction you masochistically desired.

Or you can, but that'd just make you, well, stupid.

 

[Stephanie]

The only wedding I'm interested in, is when someone marries this lovely bride



nite all , good morning, I HAVE NO IDEA
bye might be better
you all have a wonderful day today

Hey troll.

Little girl, did you have your eyes set on that one?
is that the reason for all the anger and name calling?
go to work

 

[Peach]

Best wishes to the entire family.

 

[Kondor3]

Fruitcakes come out of the closet every day...

This one's in Congress?

MEH...

 

[Peach]

Fruitcakes come out of the closet every day...

This one's in Congress?

MEH...

Both men appear sane, their family happy. Who can find fault with that?

 

[PoliticalTorch]

Awesome!

One less Democrat who won't be having children!!!

Now that's funny! Did you not see the picture of him and his partner AND Children?!

Yeah. The children are all black.

So, you're a racist! End of conversation with you!