Wow: Daughter of two moms boldly speaks out AGAINST gay marriage

[Correll]

From the article,

"In her essay, she explains that when she was 2 or 3, her mother, who already knew that she was gay, left Barwick’s father to have a relationship with a woman."


The lesbian mommy married some poor guy, got the child she wanted, then booted him to the curb.

THe mother "sacrificed" the child's family so that she could have what she wanted, not what anyone else wanted.

It's still her father's fault for not being around

We have no information to that effect.

YOu are just reflexively assuming the man is the bad guy.

He chose not to be part of his daughter's life

For all we know the mother did not let the father come around.

I don't care for agenda driven speculation.

A 2 or 3 year old in not in a position to know what is going on between her parents. She knows nothing about what happened other than what her mother told her.

I'm onlyworking with the information provided. Making up some story about the mother not letting dad see her is really rather pointless.

I do not consider ex-spouses to be reliable sources.

I don't consider posters on the internet desperate to blame the gays because they are icky and evil to be reliable either.

No, you libs are the ones assuming, for ideological purposes that the father "chose not to be part of his daughters life".

I'm conservative. Unless the man died, I don't see how it's not his fault.

I'm the one who is pointing out that we have no information to that effect, other than the word, twice removed, of the ex-wife.

All we really have is the word of the subject of the article.

Which I find dubious. It sounds more like political agenda than a real complaint.

Actually we don't know if the father is alive.

We don't know if the father tried to see the child and the mother prevented it.

All we have is the word of the subject? And you don't find it credible? Then were are you getting your information about the father?

 

[Inevitable]

It's still her father's fault for not being around

No. It's her mother's fault that they divorced, and we have NO information, except what came from the mother on why the dad isn't around.

Or do you think a 3 year old is in a position to judge what is going on in the divorce?

It normallyis both parents fault they divorced. But that isn't really relevant her father still could have been part of her life. It's still her father's fault.

Nope. And not in this case.

Whether the mom married under false pretenses or decided to change after marriage, it was her choice that lead to the divorce.

It was her dad's choice not to be part of her life.

The divorce falls on both.

You seem unaware that often a woman will deny court ordered visitation rights. Do you have information on whether that occurred in this case?

Or are you just assuming that the guy is the bad guy?

That info isn't available.

And no. The mother left the father. The divorce in on her.

It takes two to tango. It's on both.

There is no indication that we have that the father did anything wrong, other than be male.

There is no indication that the mother did anything wrong other than being gay.

 

[Inevitable]

It's still her father's fault for not being around

We have no information to that effect.

YOu are just reflexively assuming the man is the bad guy.

He chose not to be part of his daughter's life

For all we know the mother did not let the father come around.

I don't care for agenda driven speculation.

A 2 or 3 year old in not in a position to know what is going on between her parents. She knows nothing about what happened other than what her mother told her.

I'm onlyworking with the information provided. Making up some story about the mother not letting dad see her is really rather pointless.

I do not consider ex-spouses to be reliable sources.

I don't consider posters on the internet desperate to blame the gays because they are icky and evil to be reliable either.

No, you libs are the ones assuming, for ideological purposes that the father "chose not to be part of his daughters life".

I'm conservative. Unless the man died, I don't see how it's not his fault.

I'm the one who is pointing out that we have no information to that effect, other than the word, twice removed, of the ex-wife.

All we really have is the word of the subject of the article.

Which I find dubious. It sounds more like political agenda than a real complaint.

Actually we don't know if the father is alive.

If he is, his daughter is 31 she has been an adult for 12 years, gotten married and given birth to the man's grand kids. He couldn't be bothered to at least meet her if he was forbidden from contract in her childhood?

We don't know if the father tried to see the child and the mother prevented it.

No we don't.

All we have is the word of the subject? And you don't find it credible? Then were are you getting your information about the father?

It's based on her words. " My father abandoned us." Based on that info alone we know she blames her father regardless if any imagined contingencies.

The nonsense about the gay parents is just political fodder.

 

[Correll]

No. It's her mother's fault that they divorced, and we have NO information, except what came from the mother on why the dad isn't around.

Or do you think a 3 year old is in a position to judge what is going on in the divorce?

It normallyis both parents fault they divorced. But that isn't really relevant her father still could have been part of her life. It's still her father's fault.

Nope. And not in this case.

Whether the mom married under false pretenses or decided to change after marriage, it was her choice that lead to the divorce.

It was her dad's choice not to be part of her life.

The divorce falls on both.

You seem unaware that often a woman will deny court ordered visitation rights. Do you have information on whether that occurred in this case?

Or are you just assuming that the guy is the bad guy?

That info isn't available.

And no. The mother left the father. The divorce in on her.

It takes two to tango. It's on both.

There is no indication that we have that the father did anything wrong, other than be male.

There is no indication that the mother did anything wrong other than being gay.

1. You admit that you don't have that information, but you are repeatedly stating that it is the fathers choice to NOT be in his daughter's life.

2. No, it does not take two to tango. It is completely possible that the father did nothing to bring this on. If, as has been suggested, that the woman simply and completely innocently discovered she was gay only after marriage and breeding, then the father did nothing to bring that on. If the gay mother was misleading the man as to her sexuality and/or intent, than again his actions had nothing to do with the divorce.

3. She either married under false pretenses, or if she really did love him at some point, then simply choose to leave him for some one else instead of making the marriage work. Either way, she did do something wrong other than just being gay.

 

[Correll]

We have no information to that effect.

YOu are just reflexively assuming the man is the bad guy.

He chose not to be part of his daughter's life

For all we know the mother did not let the father come around.

I don't care for agenda driven speculation.

A 2 or 3 year old in not in a position to know what is going on between her parents. She knows nothing about what happened other than what her mother told her.

I'm onlyworking with the information provided. Making up some story about the mother not letting dad see her is really rather pointless.

I do not consider ex-spouses to be reliable sources.

I don't consider posters on the internet desperate to blame the gays because they are icky and evil to be reliable either.

No, you libs are the ones assuming, for ideological purposes that the father "chose not to be part of his daughters life".

I'm conservative. Unless the man died, I don't see how it's not his fault.

I'm the one who is pointing out that we have no information to that effect, other than the word, twice removed, of the ex-wife.

All we really have is the word of the subject of the article.

Which I find dubious. It sounds more like political agenda than a real complaint.

Actually we don't know if the father is alive.

If he is, his daughter is 31 she has been an adult for 12 years, gotten married and given birth to the man's grand kids. He couldn't be bothered to at least meet her if he was forbidden from contract in her childhood?

We don't know if the father tried to see the child and the mother prevented it.

No we don't.

All we have is the word of the subject? And you don't find it credible? Then were are you getting your information about the father?

It's based on her words. " My father abandoned us." Based on that info alone we know she blames her father regardless if any imagined contingencies.

The nonsense about the gay parents is just political fodder.

1. From what I have seen, after a long forced absence like that the father goes though a grieving process. They are both very different people now. This woman might miss the idea of her father, but their relationship is dead.

2. If we don't know that, then why do you, and others keep insisting that it is all the father's fault he was not in her life?

3.Her words "my father abandoned us", which, considering that she was 2 or 3, are based on what her mother had to say about her ex-spouse. That is the exact opposite of credible.

 

[Inevitable]

He chose not to be part of his daughter's life

I don't care for agenda driven speculation.

I'm onlyworking with the information provided. Making up some story about the mother not letting dad see her is really rather pointless.

I don't consider posters on the internet desperate to blame the gays because they are icky and evil to be reliable either.

No, you libs are the ones assuming, for ideological purposes that the father "chose not to be part of his daughters life".

I'm conservative. Unless the man died, I don't see how it's not his fault.

I'm the one who is pointing out that we have no information to that effect, other than the word, twice removed, of the ex-wife.

All we really have is the word of the subject of the article.

Which I find dubious. It sounds more like political agenda than a real complaint.

Actually we don't know if the father is alive.

If he is, his daughter is 31 she has been an adult for 12 years, gotten married and given birth to the man's grand kids. He couldn't be bothered to at least meet her if he was forbidden from contract in her childhood?

We don't know if the father tried to see the child and the mother prevented it.

No we don't.

All we have is the word of the subject? And you don't find it credible? Then were are you getting your information about the father?

It's based on her words. " My father abandoned us." Based on that info alone we know she blames her father regardless if any imagined contingencies.

The nonsense about the gay parents is just political fodder.

1. From what I have seen, after a long forced absence like that the father goes though a grieving process. They are both very different people now. This woman might miss the idea of her father, but their relationship is dead.

That is a shitty father. I'd make every effort to know my kid.

2. If we don't know that, then why do you, and others keep insisting that it is all the father's fault he was not in her life?

Her words.

3.Her words "my father abandoned us", which, considering that she was 2 or 3, are based on what her mother had to say about her ex-spouse. That is the exact opposite of credible.

You can only work with the information provided.

 

[Inevitable]

It normallyis both parents fault they divorced. But that isn't really relevant her father still could have been part of her life. It's still her father's fault.

Nope. And not in this case.

Whether the mom married under false pretenses or decided to change after marriage, it was her choice that lead to the divorce.

It was her dad's choice not to be part of her life.

The divorce falls on both.

You seem unaware that often a woman will deny court ordered visitation rights. Do you have information on whether that occurred in this case?

Or are you just assuming that the guy is the bad guy?

That info isn't available.

And no. The mother left the father. The divorce in on her.

It takes two to tango. It's on both.

There is no indication that we have that the father did anything wrong, other than be male.

There is no indication that the mother did anything wrong other than being gay.

1. You admit that you don't have that information, but you are repeatedly stating that it is the fathers choice to NOT be in his daughter's life.

Based on her words.

2. No, it does not take two to tango. It is completely possible that the father did nothing to bring this on. If, as has been suggested, that the woman simply and completely innocently discovered she was gay only after marriage and breeding, then the father did nothing to bring that on. If the gay mother was misleading the man as to her sexuality and/or intent, than again his actions had nothing to do with the divorce.

I don't really value the "what if" propositions for argumentative value.

3. She either married under false pretenses, or if she really did love him at some point, then simply choose to leave him for some one else instead of making the marriage work. Either way, she did do something wrong other than just being gay.

Or he could have been abusive to her, he could have been abusive to the daughter. She could have just used him. She could have been bisexual and hemay have just died.

What if opens a lot of possibilities. We simply don't know. Speculation is pointless.

Based on her thoughts and feelings she blames her dad whether that is right or not, isn't really part of this discussion.

She isn't blaming her mom for being a man hater she is blaming her sexuality. It's kind of stupid.

 

[Correll]

Nope. And not in this case.

Whether the mom married under false pretenses or decided to change after marriage, it was her choice that lead to the divorce.

It was her dad's choice not to be part of her life.

The divorce falls on both.

You seem unaware that often a woman will deny court ordered visitation rights. Do you have information on whether that occurred in this case?

Or are you just assuming that the guy is the bad guy?

That info isn't available.

And no. The mother left the father. The divorce in on her.

It takes two to tango. It's on both.

There is no indication that we have that the father did anything wrong, other than be male.

There is no indication that the mother did anything wrong other than being gay.

1. You admit that you don't have that information, but you are repeatedly stating that it is the fathers choice to NOT be in his daughter's life.

Based on her words.

2. No, it does not take two to tango. It is completely possible that the father did nothing to bring this on. If, as has been suggested, that the woman simply and completely innocently discovered she was gay only after marriage and breeding, then the father did nothing to bring that on. If the gay mother was misleading the man as to her sexuality and/or intent, than again his actions had nothing to do with the divorce.

I don't really value the "what if" propositions for argumentative value.

3. She either married under false pretenses, or if she really did love him at some point, then simply choose to leave him for some one else instead of making the marriage work. Either way, she did do something wrong other than just being gay.

Or he could have been abusive to her, he could have been abusive to the daughter. She could have just used him. She could have been bisexual and hemay have just died.

What if opens a lot of possibilities. We simply don't know. Speculation is pointless.

Based on her thoughts and feelings she blames her dad whether that is right or not, isn't really part of this discussion.

She isn't blaming her mom for being a man hater she is blaming her sexuality. It's kind of stupid.

You seem happy enough to form negative opinions of the Father based on incomplete and/or unverified information, from biased sources.

But not the mother.


The woman who is blaming her mother? We are seeing only one side of a very old discussion. I think the answer to why she is blaming her mother's sexuality, is probably to be found in the reasons/excuses that that mother gave her for her father's absence.

 

[Seawytch]

You just called yourself out for bullshit. Marriage equality is already Constitutional you silly Chickenfish. It's YOU that needs the Constitutional Amendment to prevent gays from marrying or to have your national referendum. Good luck. With a national referendum system, maybe we can get single payer healthcare...or at least a Public Option. You get the campaign going, I'll donate to it.

The little game where gays and libs have argued, successfully that marriage means something that no one thought it did just a few years ago,

It is literally Orwellian.

The "Debate" as it was, was not waged in the legislative branch. Nor was it really waged even in the courts.

It consisted of sophist word games that were shoved down the throat of the American public over and over again as propaganda.


The double think is incredible.

"Only bigots are against gay marriage."

Bill Clinton and Obama were both against gay marriage less then 5 year ago.

And yet they got the gay vote overwhelmingly.

THis is not how democracy is supposed to work.

Neither Clinton or Obama ever tried to take rights away from gays and both sought to expand them. There have been more advances in gay equality under President Obama than all other presidents combined.

Pathetic fail.

Bill Clinton had gays kicked out of the military under Don't ask/Don't tell.

Funny how you just forgot about that.

Obama ran on a platform of being against gay marriage in 2008.


Timeline of Obama s Evolving on Same-Sex Marriage - ABC News


"FEBRUARY 1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” reads a typed, signed statement from then-Illinois state senate candidate Obama in response to a questionnaire by the Chicago LGBT newspaper “Outlines.” "


"OCTOBER 2004: “What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama said in an interview with WTTW Chicago public television."

“I don’t think marriage is a civil right,” Obama said when asked whether there’s an inherent right to marry."


"DECEMBER 2010: “My feelings about this are constantly evolving.I struggle with this. At this point, what I’ve said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have,” Obama said in response to a question from ABC’s Jake Tapper at a White House press conference."

Bill Clinton did not personally support DADT. DADT was still better than what was in place before it.

Nothing you just wasted your time cutting and pasting changes what I said.

There have been more advances in gay rights under President Obama than all his predecessors combined.

Right. He campaigned on allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and then, when faced with opposition, instead of going to the mat, reached a "compromise" that resulted in gays being kicked out of the military and no loss of political capital for him.

You sure you don't like being f**ked by men, Seawytch? Cause you seem to be ok with it, just saying.

While I do appreciate your outrage on behalf of the gay community, it's childish and misplaced. DOMA and DADT were the least of Clinton's compromises. I'm much more upset with Clinton over NAFTA and Glass Steagall than two policies that are now gone, thanks to President Obama.

 

[Seawytch]

gay marriage is not in the constitution----------where do you get this shit?

They are pretending that the word marriage always meant, between any two PEOPLE, not between a man and a woman.

No, we KNOW what equal protection and application mean.

Until 1965 marriage meant between two people...of the same race.

No, until 1965 marriage meant between a man and a woman of the same race.

You just lied.

What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?

Think it though slowly...

I lied? Men and women aren't people?

Silly bigots.

REduced to playing word games. Funny you have to do that to avoid admitting your lied.

What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?

Think it though slowly.

Oh, but the truth does support my position. So does the law. Marriage used to only be between members of the same race...until it wasn't just as marriage used to only be between men and women...until it wasn't. Marriage is a fundamental right, so declared by the SCOTUS on numerous occasions. In order to deny this fundamental right to a group of people, you must demonstrate a harm in allowing it. Go!

 

[Correll]

The little game where gays and libs have argued, successfully that marriage means something that no one thought it did just a few years ago,

It is literally Orwellian.

The "Debate" as it was, was not waged in the legislative branch. Nor was it really waged even in the courts.

It consisted of sophist word games that were shoved down the throat of the American public over and over again as propaganda.


The double think is incredible.

"Only bigots are against gay marriage."

Bill Clinton and Obama were both against gay marriage less then 5 year ago.

And yet they got the gay vote overwhelmingly.

THis is not how democracy is supposed to work.

Neither Clinton or Obama ever tried to take rights away from gays and both sought to expand them. There have been more advances in gay equality under President Obama than all other presidents combined.

Pathetic fail.

Bill Clinton had gays kicked out of the military under Don't ask/Don't tell.

Funny how you just forgot about that.

Obama ran on a platform of being against gay marriage in 2008.


Timeline of Obama s Evolving on Same-Sex Marriage - ABC News


"FEBRUARY 1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” reads a typed, signed statement from then-Illinois state senate candidate Obama in response to a questionnaire by the Chicago LGBT newspaper “Outlines.” "


"OCTOBER 2004: “What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama said in an interview with WTTW Chicago public television."

“I don’t think marriage is a civil right,” Obama said when asked whether there’s an inherent right to marry."


"DECEMBER 2010: “My feelings about this are constantly evolving.I struggle with this. At this point, what I’ve said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have,” Obama said in response to a question from ABC’s Jake Tapper at a White House press conference."

Bill Clinton did not personally support DADT. DADT was still better than what was in place before it.

Nothing you just wasted your time cutting and pasting changes what I said.

There have been more advances in gay rights under President Obama than all his predecessors combined.

Right. He campaigned on allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and then, when faced with opposition, instead of going to the mat, reached a "compromise" that resulted in gays being kicked out of the military and no loss of political capital for him.

You sure you don't like being f**ked by men, Seawytch? Cause you seem to be ok with it, just saying.

While I do appreciate your outrage on behalf of the gay community, it's childish and misplaced. DOMA and DADT were the least of Clinton's compromises. I'm much more upset with Clinton over NAFTA and Glass Steagall than two policies that are now gone, thanks to President Obama.

Do you think Obama meant the anti-gay things he said back in the day?

 

[Seawytch]

Neither Clinton or Obama ever tried to take rights away from gays and both sought to expand them. There have been more advances in gay equality under President Obama than all other presidents combined.

Pathetic fail.

Bill Clinton had gays kicked out of the military under Don't ask/Don't tell.

Funny how you just forgot about that.

Obama ran on a platform of being against gay marriage in 2008.


Timeline of Obama s Evolving on Same-Sex Marriage - ABC News


"FEBRUARY 1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” reads a typed, signed statement from then-Illinois state senate candidate Obama in response to a questionnaire by the Chicago LGBT newspaper “Outlines.” "


"OCTOBER 2004: “What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama said in an interview with WTTW Chicago public television."

“I don’t think marriage is a civil right,” Obama said when asked whether there’s an inherent right to marry."


"DECEMBER 2010: “My feelings about this are constantly evolving.I struggle with this. At this point, what I’ve said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have,” Obama said in response to a question from ABC’s Jake Tapper at a White House press conference."

Bill Clinton did not personally support DADT. DADT was still better than what was in place before it.

Nothing you just wasted your time cutting and pasting changes what I said.

There have been more advances in gay rights under President Obama than all his predecessors combined.

Right. He campaigned on allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and then, when faced with opposition, instead of going to the mat, reached a "compromise" that resulted in gays being kicked out of the military and no loss of political capital for him.

You sure you don't like being f**ked by men, Seawytch? Cause you seem to be ok with it, just saying.

While I do appreciate your outrage on behalf of the gay community, it's childish and misplaced. DOMA and DADT were the least of Clinton's compromises. I'm much more upset with Clinton over NAFTA and Glass Steagall than two policies that are now gone, thanks to President Obama.

Do you think Obama meant the anti-gay things he said back in the day?

I don't know what anti gay things he said "back in the day", I only know the actions he's taken since becoming President, like repealing DADT and not defending DOMA in court. His actions spoke loud enough for me...and those actions have brought about more advances in gay civil rights than anytime in history.

 

[Seawytch]

Who should I be voting for Correll? The Republican candidate who wants to take away my rights or the Democratic candidate that fights for them? Hmmm, such a dilemma!

 

[Correll]

They are pretending that the word marriage always meant, between any two PEOPLE, not between a man and a woman.

No, we KNOW what equal protection and application mean.

Until 1965 marriage meant between two people...of the same race.

No, until 1965 marriage meant between a man and a woman of the same race.

You just lied.

What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?

Think it though slowly...

I lied? Men and women aren't people?

Silly bigots.

REduced to playing word games. Funny you have to do that to avoid admitting your lied.

What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?

Think it though slowly.

Oh, but the truth does support my position. So does the law. Marriage used to only be between members of the same race...until it wasn't just as marriage used to only be between men and women...until it wasn't. Marriage is a fundamental right, so declared by the SCOTUS on numerous occasions. In order to deny this fundamental right to a group of people, you must demonstrate a harm in allowing it. Go!

Until 1965 marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race.

You lied about that.

Marriage is a fundamental right? Perhaps. But regardless it has many restrictions that are not being challenged.

Do you accept the limitation of the right to just TWO "people"?

 

[Correll]

Bill Clinton had gays kicked out of the military under Don't ask/Don't tell.

Funny how you just forgot about that.

Obama ran on a platform of being against gay marriage in 2008.


Timeline of Obama s Evolving on Same-Sex Marriage - ABC News


"FEBRUARY 1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” reads a typed, signed statement from then-Illinois state senate candidate Obama in response to a questionnaire by the Chicago LGBT newspaper “Outlines.” "


"OCTOBER 2004: “What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama said in an interview with WTTW Chicago public television."

“I don’t think marriage is a civil right,” Obama said when asked whether there’s an inherent right to marry."


"DECEMBER 2010: “My feelings about this are constantly evolving.I struggle with this. At this point, what I’ve said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have,” Obama said in response to a question from ABC’s Jake Tapper at a White House press conference."

Bill Clinton did not personally support DADT. DADT was still better than what was in place before it.

Nothing you just wasted your time cutting and pasting changes what I said.

There have been more advances in gay rights under President Obama than all his predecessors combined.

Right. He campaigned on allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and then, when faced with opposition, instead of going to the mat, reached a "compromise" that resulted in gays being kicked out of the military and no loss of political capital for him.

You sure you don't like being f**ked by men, Seawytch? Cause you seem to be ok with it, just saying.

While I do appreciate your outrage on behalf of the gay community, it's childish and misplaced. DOMA and DADT were the least of Clinton's compromises. I'm much more upset with Clinton over NAFTA and Glass Steagall than two policies that are now gone, thanks to President Obama.

Do you think Obama meant the anti-gay things he said back in the day?

I don't know what anti gay things he said "back in the day", I only know the actions he's taken since becoming President, like repealing DADT and not defending DOMA in court. His actions spoke loud enough for me...and those actions have brought about more advances in gay civil rights than anytime in history.

Bull. His position was well stated, and documented. I have cut and pasted his some of his stated positions.

I asked a simple question.

Do you believe he meant those anti-gay things he said?

 

[Correll]

Who should I be voting for Correll? The Republican candidate who wants to take away my rights or the Democratic candidate that fights for them? Hmmm, such a dilemma!

Did I ask you to change your vote?

 

[Seawytch]

Bill Clinton did not personally support DADT. DADT was still better than what was in place before it.

Nothing you just wasted your time cutting and pasting changes what I said.

There have been more advances in gay rights under President Obama than all his predecessors combined.

Right. He campaigned on allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and then, when faced with opposition, instead of going to the mat, reached a "compromise" that resulted in gays being kicked out of the military and no loss of political capital for him.

You sure you don't like being f**ked by men, Seawytch? Cause you seem to be ok with it, just saying.

While I do appreciate your outrage on behalf of the gay community, it's childish and misplaced. DOMA and DADT were the least of Clinton's compromises. I'm much more upset with Clinton over NAFTA and Glass Steagall than two policies that are now gone, thanks to President Obama.

Do you think Obama meant the anti-gay things he said back in the day?

I don't know what anti gay things he said "back in the day", I only know the actions he's taken since becoming President, like repealing DADT and not defending DOMA in court. His actions spoke loud enough for me...and those actions have brought about more advances in gay civil rights than anytime in history.

Bull. His position was well stated, and documented. I have cut and pasted his some of his stated positions.

I asked a simple question.

Do you believe he meant those anti-gay things he said?

And I will say again, I know what he's done so what he has said is irrelevant. President Obama never once tried to take rights away from gay people regardless of what his previous statements had been.

Do you have a point with your Obama bad meme?

 

[Seawytch]

No, we KNOW what equal protection and application mean.

Until 1965 marriage meant between two people...of the same race.

No, until 1965 marriage meant between a man and a woman of the same race.

You just lied.

What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?

Think it though slowly...

I lied? Men and women aren't people?

Silly bigots.

REduced to playing word games. Funny you have to do that to avoid admitting your lied.

What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?

Think it though slowly.

Oh, but the truth does support my position. So does the law. Marriage used to only be between members of the same race...until it wasn't just as marriage used to only be between men and women...until it wasn't. Marriage is a fundamental right, so declared by the SCOTUS on numerous occasions. In order to deny this fundamental right to a group of people, you must demonstrate a harm in allowing it. Go!

Until 1965 marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race.

You lied about that.

Marriage is a fundamental right? Perhaps. But regardless it has many restrictions that are not being challenged.

Do you accept the limitation of the right to just TWO "people"?

It was. You've heard of Loving v Virginia haven't you?

Marriage is currently a contract between two adults, yes. Would you like to change that? Good luck...and do hurry. Julie Andrews is still single.

 

[Seawytch]

Who should I be voting for Correll? The Republican candidate who wants to take away my rights or the Democratic candidate that fights for them? Hmmm, such a dilemma!

Did I ask you to change your vote?

Then do you have a point? You keep pointing out the "terrible" things Clinton did and the "anti gay" things Obama has said, but you don't seem to have a point in bringing them up.

 

[Redfish]

No, until 1965 marriage meant between a man and a woman of the same race.

You just lied.

What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?

Think it though slowly...

I lied? Men and women aren't people?

Silly bigots.

REduced to playing word games. Funny you have to do that to avoid admitting your lied.

What does it mean when the truth does not help support your position?

Think it though slowly.

Oh, but the truth does support my position. So does the law. Marriage used to only be between members of the same race...until it wasn't just as marriage used to only be between men and women...until it wasn't. Marriage is a fundamental right, so declared by the SCOTUS on numerous occasions. In order to deny this fundamental right to a group of people, you must demonstrate a harm in allowing it. Go!

Until 1965 marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race.

You lied about that.

Marriage is a fundamental right? Perhaps. But regardless it has many restrictions that are not being challenged.

Do you accept the limitation of the right to just TWO "people"?

It was. You've heard of Loving v Virginia haven't you?

Marriage is currently a contract between two adults, yes. Would you like to change that? Good luck...and do hurry. Julie Andrews is still single.

a lease is a contract between two adults, a marriage is a contract between one man and one woman. You can call your hook up whatever you wish, but it is not, and will never be, a marriage.