No One Allowed to Oppose the Gay Agenda

Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how two men having sexual relations intrudes on your rights. Be specific.

 

If that BS were true there'd be no worries about elementary schoolers being fed the gay agenda against the wishes of parents. There's plenty more. That you couldn't think of them is testament to your personal agenda pollution.

....without any hope of fulfilling the implied contractual expectation of a future generation of little taxpayers.

 

Hear! Hear! Aptly stated , indeed....

 

if it were all marriage that was to be banned, not a constitutional issue, if one wants to only ban if for just say... inter racial or the sex of a person, then it becomes a violation of the constitution

religious marriages mean nothing under the eyes of the law, can have as many of those as one wants, but only one is allowed under the law

 

Exactly. This is why Marriages were ever given any benefits at all IMO. It is in the Governments interest to generate a continued stream of people, hence they add incentives..just like we do with everything else.

You can get 2500 bucks cash back if you buy vehicle X. You cannot expect to simply get the 2500 bucks because you want it, but dont want to buy the car...and you are not being denied or discriminated against when you do not get that incentive.

Want those incentives? Fit the criteria.

 

"This is why Marriages were ever given any benefits at all IMO."​

That's fine, if your opinion about what the criteria is ... is more than opinion. Until we make that criteria of having children explicit in our marriage laws, it's unreasonable to assume it exists or to deny marriage to folks who don't have children.
​

 

Good advice for the folks backing prop 8. Personally, I simply want the laws of our nation to treat folks equally regardless of a person's race, religion, or sex.​

 

You think that describes a normal politician? A normal doctor graduated at the bottom half of his class. A normal student has a C average. A normal salesman does mediocre work. No one talks about the normal baseball player, the normal artist makes uninspired works, and the normal business man is barely keeping the doors open.

I think the only people sadder than those striving to be only "normal" are the folks jealously and fearfully guarding their tenuous hold on that unexceptional ranking. Maybe because they realize if even one more person earns the unremarkable title "normal" their own label will likely become "below average."

​

 

It's assumed and it's explicit in the tax code.

Offer any alternative explanation for the benefits. WTF could they possibly be for? Surely you're not that blind.

 

It seems to me that most benefits offered to married folks exist to eliminate any burden on a couple living as one, sharing one life, in a system setup to deal with folks as individuals.

But neither my theory nor your assumption matters. It's unreasonable to ask folks to live up to a criteria that is not made explicit. I've yet to see any notice from the state that they expect children in return for accommodating the practice of marriage. Until such notice is provided, I see no reason to penalize those who want to marry but not have children.​

 

Studies would disagree with you.

Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents

As usual, the myth fearing catholoc mafia has nothing but propaganda. Agenda + hate is very powerful. It churns out bs propaganda.

 

How are they intruding? And how are they making it the norm? If you are gay, you are gay. Do you believe that if gays are getting married its going to cause your straight friends to start having gay orgies? Is that what you fear? Do you fear that you may somehow be brainwashed and take it in the ass? You fear a rainbow flag and men who are as emotional as women.

I fail to see how it is a perverted sexual lifestyle. Have you ever watched a lesbian porn? You can admit it, we know we all have watched and enjoyed it. Now comparing gay couples to bizarre acts, rape, ect. . . Where do you discern such views?

Gays only wish to not have people like you banishing them to the darkness. And to the guy who claimed I was sexually abused as a child. . . wow, how clueless are you. Sexual abuse has nothing to do with gays, 2 men arn't sexualy abusing each other while having sex are they? You may think so because you are an uptight clueless conservative, rocking blue balls 24/7.

Again, this is a clear cut situation here. Conservatives have always seeked to limit people by a number of factors. Any way you put it, it is racism.

Now, you are trying to play the victim card. Pathetic, there are laws being passed to prevent people rights. No laws are attacking you, so why play the part of a victim? And you say, championing to end the bigot agenda is imposing views and limiting your freedom. When your very freedom undermines their freedom.

I think I saw a quote in the bacon sandwhich post that serves us well here. The freedom to swing your fist ends at the other persons nose. Which means, do what you will but your freedom ends the second you invade someone elses.

I want all of you here to answer this.

Are you a homophobe? Are you a racist? Are your views discriminatory?

If you can answer honestly, then you will post Yes 3 times. Which you know, invalidates anything you say on this matter.

 

Ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to anger, Anger leads to hate. Alot of people never meet a gay person before, so they have no idea what a gay person is like. So its ignorance that leads to fear, which leads to anger, which leads to hate.

But beyond that, it doesn't matter one iota what the majority wants, what matters is what the constituion says. Ans the 14th would allow gay marriage.

 

Incentives? The government is trying to make us all take birth control and you speak of incentives for child birth lol. What kind of incentives does China have for marriage? Really good ones I'm sure, marriage is all about procreation.

K so if I get married I get 2500 bucks; but If I get married to a guy, I don't receive 2500 bucks. Fair and balanced like any modern developed civilization.

Why do you all have the same views I held when I was in middleschool, making fun of straights and queers as, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s, homos, fruitcakes. I thought it was gross and disgusting and these people should be ashamed. Then I grew up and realized, it has no affect on me whatsoever. And it is a righteous stance to defend people who are victims of hate.

It will always be right to stand up in defense of those who are persecuted.

 

Brilliant, the force will guide us.

Really, its fear, ignorance, and lack of understanding with these people.

And there are decades worth of research stating gays raise children fine. Find me some research that says otherwise, have some proof. You have nothing but discrimination.

 

I certainly hope that you're not basing your assertions on such a narrow sample - and uncited at that. What you have is 'decades' worth of a desperate agenda-driven sample - and that's assuming that you can offer more than the weak link that rstones offered.

Mother Nature demands that the best nuclear family involves those who procreated the offspring.

Anything else is Memorex at best, and pixelated.

 

The academic agenda pollution into a study of 'gay' anything renders them worthless. Academia is behind 'gay' everything and just like AGW they will cook the books in pursuit of their predefined ends. There exists nothing I'd call reliable. I'm left with the Prager Theorem: "There are two types of studies; those that confirm common sense and those that are wrong."

In this area it's selection bias. Only a tiny portion of gay men CHOOSE to be parents so no comparison to the general population has merit.

Also, let me know when they BEAR the children.

Also, also, I'm not against gay and single parent adoption. If the alternative is a life of foster care then it seems like as a society we should be willing to gamble on second and third tier parents. But don't do it because some agenda polluted academic fraud sez so. Do it because it follows common sense.

 

Yes, incentives..tax breaks ..whatever you wish to call them. It is in their interest to keep new taxpayers coming.

Nope, that was my example of incentive using a purchased car..not 2500 for Marriage at all. Feel free to make up whatever other analogy for incentive that you can keep up with.

Don't throw me in this camp...I don't make fun of any gay people. You are not entitled to brand anyone who simply is against Gay marriage as someone who runs around shouting derogatory insults at Gay people.

Good for you, unfortunately noone is persecuted in this topic.

 

Your anecdotal example doesn't hold water. First of all, buggery doesn't only happen in nature among primates asserting dominance. Second, in your scenario, the heterosexual male that resorts to violence over being hit on by a homosexual male is the one exerting improper behavior. Being hit on by a gay guy does not elicit a violent reaction any more than being hit on by a female that one is not interested in. In fact, it suggests that the one reacting violently does so because he is insecure in his own sexuality.

Sexual contact is as much about intimacy with one's partner as it is about potential procreation. I have five natural born children, but I have engaged in anal sex with female partners as an act of mutual pleasure and intimacy. Not all women find it enjoyable, nor do all homosexual men from my understanding.

This isn't about buggery, though. It's about affording homosexual couples the same rights of heterosexuals.

 

rstones already tried to peddle this moronic study and I took him to the woodshed because he didn't read her "evidence" was unsupervised questionnaires the children supposedly wrote back with zero supervision and the rest came from questionnaires filled out by the homosexual parents.

Any shock they write back that they and the kids are supper happy? Its an utter failure because the information obtained was not supervised by anyone and only obtained from the people who would have a direct benefit from a positive study outcome.

Its beyond a joke.

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/cou-58-1-139.pdf

 

Come back when you have something to dispute the study I posted.

 

Except, the marriage benefit does not require married couples to have children, and there are other benefits specifically aimed at having children, which do not require people to be married to qualify for them.

Also, the rights and legal protections associated with marriage are not limited to tax status.

Your argument fails to make the case for denying equal rights to homosexual couples.

 

With stats like that, I'm surprised HHS has not banned gay sex.

 

Wow, the juvenile nature of those that adhere to the partisan false choice divide represented in one word.

 

From your study:

3 Limitations? Its beyond a joke.