Most Americans support gay marriage

There is more than the legal question, there's the moral and "equality" aspect. Gays want equality for themselves, they want to "just live their lives life everyone else", they want an impartial workplace, but they don't want that for other people. That's why gays got themselves special legal status, that way they can claim discrimination whether real or perceived and use the legal system to go after whoever they want. That's why gays harass and threaten people like Eich, his family, friends, coworkers, employer, employers customers.

Gays don't really want equality, they don't even know the meaning of the word.

 

That is absolutely wrong Robert. Flat out wrong. There are many children who we can't find homes for, especially older and special needs kids. And what are you talking about with this role model thing? There are a hell of a lot of straight parents who are poor role models. Why is being gay a bad role model anyway? Do you think that having gay parents will make the kids gay? What it is more likely to do is make them more tolerant of people who are different and yes, more open about, and in touch with their own sexuality and that is a good thing. Common Robert, think about it

 

And you know the reason for that. I think you can predict the result of such a poll (very negative) and liberal academics (the people who usually do that research) really don't want to create a problem for the gay agenda.

I suspect there was a lot of "don't ask, don't tell" going on in those circumstances, and it was only AFTER the adoption was completed, that the homosexual parent made a point of it. The exceptions would be some celebrities who seem to get what they want when they want it.

You mean they don't prohibit adoption by gays.

I tried the link, and didn't get the timeline. What was the date New Jersey did that?

So it is your position (????) that a male adult who molest a male juvenile/child is NOT a homosexual? I know that's a notion advanced by many liberals, but can't comprehend the logic for it.

That is a very strange statement. It's got nothing to do with what they self identify as. If you engage in sexual acts with a person of the same sex, that is homosexual. If you routinely do it, you are a homosexual, regardless of what you think you are.

My, how convenient for the pro-homosexual agenda.

They are that also.

Yes, and if they are fixated on children of the same sex, they are homosexuals.

Yes, and those are pedophiles.

Once again, a convenient re-definition of what a homosexual is. That's like saying that some people who commit adultery are not adulterers.

MOD EDIT - Off Topic

 

There are more children waiting to be adopted than there are traditional, opposite sex couples willing and qualified to adopt. http://www.fostercareadoption.us/custom1.php
Including same sex couples in adoption-there are an estimated 2M-will go a long way towards correcting that imbalance. In 2008 there were 129,000 children waiting to be adopted, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported. In 2007, the Urban Institute reported that two million gay or lesbian individuals said they had considered adoption . The Urban Institute found that a national ban on gay or lesbian adoption would result in 9,000 to 14,000 children never being adopted. The national financial burden of caring for these children would range from $87 to $130 million and could cost states anywhere from $100,000 to $27 million. Additionally, these children would eventually age out of the foster care system. This means that at age 18 or 21, they are turned out of the system with no official family and no resources.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_6746455_gay-lesbian-adoption.html#ixzz2veb5tgKI


For many, LGBT adoption is still a new concept, and society’s image of a “perfect” family includes a mother and a father of opposite sexes. However, this is a just a stereotype. Today, more and more gay and lesbian couples are becoming parents, whether through artificial insemination, a surrogate or LGBT adoption. LifeLong Adoptions caters to heterosexual couples, single parents and gay & lesbian families. http://www.lifelongadoptions.com/lgbt-adoption/lgbt-adoption-facts

The push against gay, lesbian, and same-sex couple adoption is more about gay discrimination than child welfare. So, before you buy into the myths and rhetoric that gay adoption poses an unsafe environment for children or that a gay household is a "recruitment center" for young adults, the facts those against same-sex adoption aren't telling you:

• There are already thousands of children living in gay couple households. The 2000 U. S. Census reports 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households already have at least one child under the age of 18 living at home.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gayadoptionstat.htm

In 2008 there were 129,000 children waiting to be adopted, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported. In 2007, the Urban Institute reported that two million gay or lesbian individuals said they had considered adoption. A hotly debated issue in the United States is whether or not those two million interested individuals should be able to adopt the children in need. There is currently no federal law that explicitly bans or allows gays and lesbians to adopt; the decision is left up to each state.

 

Then I don't see the point of focusing on the molestation thing, as there is no doubt in my mind that there are homosexuals who would never engage in it.

 

This is a test. Read this and see if you can learn from it and formulate an intelligent and appropriate response. If you cant, I'm not wasting any more time with you:

 

Your perspective is skewed.

 

Here is a link to the Supreme Court website http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/PartyBriefs/

There, they have taken the unusual step of posting the 4 legal briefs submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs seeking to invalidate the state bans on same sex marriage.

The arguments are succinct and comprehensive. The states are due to reply later this month and oral arguments will be April 28th

Lets see who is smart enough to respond to any or all of these briefs with a convincing legal argument for preserving the bans.

Reddy , set, go!!

 

I see that you’re staying away. Nothing further to say? When you first posed the question about what I thought the polls would show on the question of the appropriateness of gay men adopting boys, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest question. This despite my nagging suspicion that there was nefarious intent. As it turned out my instincts were correct. You had an agenda from the start and had already made up your mind that gay men pose a risk to children, and nothing that I presented could shake you from that idiotic idea.

Let’s recap In response to that question, I penned an essay based on my personal, professional experience working with foster and adoptive parents and children.
In your response, you first revealed your ignorance and bigotry by brushing aside and ridiculing what I had to say.

I then provided a statistical analysis of the number of children already adopted by gays, the overall numbers of children in the care of gay people, and the numbers of children in foster care-many hard to place- who could benefit by adoption by gay people who are an invaluable resource.

In addition, I presented a lengthy and scholarly paper on the psychologyy of pedophilia and child sexual abuse which concluded that gay men who have age appropriate relationships with same sex partners pose no greater risk to children than any other group.

Again your bigotry and irrational fear was unshaken. Rather you continued with your appeals to ignorance such as with this post here. I can only conclude that you don’t give a crap about the kids and that you are all too willing to use them as pawns in your lost fight against equality. You should be very ashamed.

 

I detected the debate was becoming very personal very quickly, and your earlier reference to bigotry was duly noted as a backhanded slap to me personally. I simply stepped out of the debate before you resorted to even further ad hominem attacks.

Now you want me back, no doubt to continue to brow beat me and call me a bigot. Is that what it takes to sooth your guilty conscience?

Alright, you want a further comment. Here it is.

It was clear to me that you weren't prepared to have a rational or honest debate when you denied the simple and basic fact that the act of a male adult, having sexual relations with a male child/juvenile (molestation) was not a homosexual act.

Your argument is plainly absurd.

It demonstrates someone that is either deluded or, more likely, choosing to act maliciously to cover up the unhappy results of degenerates who engage in perverted behavior, engaging in further and even more hideous perverted behavior.

It begs the question "Why?". The answer is quite simple, in order to make it easier to advance the normalizing and spread of that same perverted behavior.

The freedom with which you steal the banner of "civil rights" from those who have fought the good fight for racial equality, is further evidence of the bankrupt morality that goes hand in hand with those who advance the gay agenda. You should try to show a little respect to people who were discriminated against for the color of their skin, and not for their immoral conduct.

These men speak for me on this subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt85NP8KWn8

You can now feel free to return to calling me a bigot. Take a number.

 

Opponents are not innocent in this - they toss around labels, too. Either way, name-calling does nothing to forward the discussion, nor does the dog-whistling you're engaging in my trying to associate advocacy with Marxism.

I'm not going to address the other two things you brought up, because they're irrelevant and clearly an attempt to derail the discussion.

Now, if you have an argument to make against same-sex couples marrying that actually has something to do with those marriages, and isn't an attempt to distract or derail by bringing up something else, have at it. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

 

Getting personal? Yes! I take the issue of children very personal. They were my life's work.. Foster care and adoption was my life's work. I know what I'm talking about and I stand by everything that I've said. I resent it when people like you wallow in your ignorance or knowingly lie in order to smear gays-to paint them as predators- and allow children to be children to be collateral damage in the process.

You have had nothing to offer but the tired old propaganda lines that I've heard too many times from countless bigots. "gay agenda" " advance the normalizing and spread of that same perverted behavior". Give me a break. There is nothing remotely original there. It's all right out of the Family Research Council playbook.

" You insist that men who molest boys are garden variety "homosexuals" and dishonestly use that to "prove" that all homosexuals are sexual predators and refuse to understand the psychological differences. You have shown no ability to think for yourself or any desire to learn anything. That! is perverted. Now, we are done.

 

many do

 

Funny about 90% of the people I know are pro-gay marriage and frankly some who oppose are aware that it will happen.

 

One more thing. Or maybe two

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!


Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.
The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”
Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Michigan Update:
Same-Sex Marriage Bans Are Unconstitutional, And This Latest Ruling Proves That


The “will of the people” argument against same-sex marriage bans falls flat, as Judge Friedman pointed out. Here’s why: Something that is a right shouldn’t be subject to a vote. We should not be able to vote on who gets what rights in a free country. Or we are not truly free. The case against marriage as a right also doesn’t hold water.

It’s time for conservatives to realize that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. It’s also time for the religious right to understand that they can’t continue to push their religious agenda for the purpose of denying equality to a certain group of people. Straight couples take their ability to marry or not for granted. Same-sex couples don’t have that. Since being gay isn’t a choice, they do fall under the Equal Protection clause. Same-sex marriage bans are illegal under the Constitution, and it’s time for the religious right to realize they’ve lost.

The attorney general's defense of Michigan's constitutional ban of same-sex marriage proved the weakness of his case: Expert after expert testified that children are most safe and secure when raised by two committed parents, regardless of gender and sexual orientation. No reputable scientific study has documented harm to children raised by same-sex parents.
http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/...n-michigan-ruling-sex-bill-schuette/21814983/

In addition the Sociology Department of the University of Texas issued this statement Monday about sociologist Mark Regnerus, who believes traditional marriage should be upheld in Michigan because, he says, kids thrive best in that setting. “Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology… Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of same-sex parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGT partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.” –


Yes, the state ban was subsequently upheld by the 6th circuit and that is now at the Supreme Court. Read the brief above. Equality will prevail at SCOTUS

 

Yes because it is not a real question.

.

Your belief is wrong

Nope that is not true.

Prove it.

Ignorant bigots would say no.......but intelligent people would see no problem.

 

It happens a lot. People side with those who has a power, without engaging their brains.

 

when most of the people you know are gay, what else could you expect?

 

This is just more of your malicious, dumbed down, bigoted bovine excrement. I never compared gays to African Americans, but you saw the need to dredge this up. apparently because you have nothing else:

I find it disheartening that whenever the gay rights struggle is referred to as a civil rights issue, there are always people who are ready to howl about how it’s not “civil rights” because being gay is not a skin color. The fact is, no one ever said that it was. This tactic is used for no other reason than to disparage the gay cause and accuse gay advocates of diminishing the suffering of African Americans when nothing can be further from the truth.

The fact is that there are those who use black civil rights to claim the moral high ground by saying that “I’m not a bigot”… “I support civil rights” and all the while continue to disparage gays using the excuse that it’s not “civil rights” and that the discrimination that gays have suffered cannot be compared. The fact is that it is pointless to try to measure the relative suffering of one group over that of another and that no group has an exclusive right to claim civil rights.

Recently, I happened to stumble upon this most interesting and balanced article on the issue of the relationship between gay rights and the struggle of African Americans.
Perhaps this will help people to see that it is a complex and difficult issue that deserves serious and unbiased attention. Anyway here it is with some selected passages quoted.….

My takeaway….it complicated of course. Black folks as a community are conflicted about both homosexuality and the comparison of gay rights to their movement. I will concede that maybe it is wrong, both in terms of how the gay movement is viewed by blacks compared to their own, and in actual pragmatic terms. However, there are similarities and overlap, especially when to comes to black LGBT people.

I will conclude that the real question is ……”Is the gay rights movement a civil rights movement? I say that it is regardless of anything else. There is no reason why gays should not be able to say that their struggle is about civil rights. Blacks fought hard for their well-deserved civil rights but civil rights is not exclusively a black issues and for gays to invoke civil rights is not to say that the two issues are exactly the same.
A final note: Those who hate need to hate something, anything above all else. I do believe that gays have become their target of convenience now that it is difficult to get away with racism. I am not easily fooled.

 

I have no problem being called a bigot or bigoted by homosexuals or their rabid supporters, as long as they have no problem with me calling them degenerate, immoral people who engage in offensive and reprehensible behavior. Tell me, do you take it as well as you dish it out?

I stand corrected. You are not one of those silly people who would argue that homosexuality is a civil right and that the homosexual cause is the same as the racial equality cause. Duly noted, I will not accuse you of that again.

I spoke to soon. It is quite clear that I guessed right the first time. You are just unhappy that there are members of the black community who are offended by the comparisons such as you are making. I suppose that makes them bigots and you a racist.

A long dissertation devoid of facts with the purpose of appearing reflective and considerate while all the while white washing a blatant effort to steal the civil rights issue from those who faced racial prejudice for the color of their skin, and not because of the conduct of their character.

Of course "conduct of character" is at the heart of the issue for those of us who oppose the attempts of pro-homosexual apologists who want heterosexuals to accept, embrace and advance the cause of creating a new moral code that says there is nothing immoral about homosexuality. And once they are over that hump, the same pro-homosexual apologists will feel the need to label homosexuals as a minority group that deserves affirmative action and special treatment.

Mom used to say, given them an inch, and they'll take a mile. The homosexuals have already taken 500 yards.

 

There is absolutely nothing immoral about homosexuality. You can think whatever you want though. You're wrong, but you can think whatever you want.

 

Who says it is immoral? Also, do you equate legal with moral?

 

I'm sure he'll claim his god and book say it's immoral, even thought that is quite debatable.

 

This just in:

BLACK PASTORS COALITION LEADER: OBAMA’S COMPARISON OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND GAY MARRIAGE STRUGGLES A ‘DISGRACE TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY’

which says:

“Ask your gay friend if it’s easier to be out and proud in America now than it was 30 years ago,” Obama said in Selma, Alabama, on Saturday, as he characterized the movement for same-sex marriage as another civil rights struggle.

“I marched with many people back in those days and I have reached out to some of my friends who marched with me, and all of them are shocked,” Rev. William Owens of the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) told Breitbart News. “They never thought they would see this day that gay rights would be equated with civil rights. Not one agreed with this comparison.”​

 

What is your argument?

That gays shouldn't have equal rights because historically they didn't suffer some minimum level of inequality compared to another group like blacks were?

What the hell kind of an argument is that?