Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[MK]

Hetero marriage is better for our society therefore "gay" marriage secures nothing in terms of progressing the human race.    It's been proven that a child raised in a father(man)/ mother (woman) household fairs better then one who's not.    Theres no way two males for example can accomplish this.     This my case against gay marriages.

But hetero marriage is already one foot in the grave, So why fight over a already sinking ship known as our society?   You guys will eventually get your way and it won't be pretty.   By then I hope to be dead and buried.

[MK]

  It's been proven that a child raised in a father(man)/ mother (woman) household fairs better then one who's not.

Actually, fuck it, let's assume you're 350% right.

Let's assume a husband and a wife are the best solution for a hchild.



Gay people are not stealing children from married couples.  They're stealing them from ORPHANAGES

Thats nice, but its not the same.    Actually its worse then a biological single mother and child home.

[MK]

So, you're saying two gay women would raise a kid worse than a single gay woman?

And we're comparing this to orphanages if you care what we're talking about.

LOL who ever said anything about the single mom being a lezbo?      I'm talking about the heterosexual mom with a child that's biological is better then some orphanaged child raised by two homosexual men or women.

[MK]

A single mom's sexuality cannot be determined.  Especially if she is adopting a child by herself.

OK...    But I'm comparing the mother who had a child and didn't marry the biological father.   AKA "the single parent home" as they call them.     You are saying that homosexuals can raise children just as good as the traditional mother/father home. I'm telling you NO they can't.

There is no replacement for the mother and father ran home.

[MK]

A single mom's sexuality cannot be determined.  Especially if she is adopting a child by herself.

OK...    But I'm comparing the mother who had a child and didn't marry the biological father.   AKA "the single parent home" as they call them.     You are saying that homosexuals can raise children just as good as the traditional mother/father home. I'm telling you NO they can't.

There is no replacement for the mother and father ran home.

My father was a drunk who beat me. My mother worked three jobs to make up for my lazy father and I hardly every saw her. Meanwhile, my best friend was raised by two gay men who held normal 9-5 jobs, always had time for their family, and loved my friend unconditionally.

Which household was it better for a child to be raised in?

Still the heterosexual biological mother and father home.  

[MK]

When it is said that true marriage is better for the child than gay marriage, it is because the child of gay parents will always have a skewed perspective on reality; the children of real marriages much less so.  It is not surprising that many supporters of gay marriage come from broken families themselves, hence, they see no value to the institution whatsoever. 

It would be interesting to do a study on this.  I would estimate that those who come from loving families would be more likely to oppose gay marriage.  We already know what side that children who come from broken families will drift to.  Gay marriage will be the final nail in the coffin for the ancient concept of "two becoming one flesh".  Gay marriage has destroyed real marriage in Scandinavia, where there is a 50% illegitimacy rate.  This is why liberals are not aiding marriage, they are helping to destroy it.  And they have no reason to care, where the family once prevailed, government will step in.

Liberals can discard these ancient institutions if they wish.  If they feel that marriage is outdated, that illegitimacy is a good thing, then so be it.  Just don't complain where your worldview comes crashing down as you have to confront the real and devastating consequences of your ideology for the first time.

These far left liberals hate anything that's "tradition" and the institution of marriage is # 1 on the list now.   It's unfair to the child that's being adopted by homosexual parents.

[MK]

It's unfair to the child that's being adopted by homosexual parents.

How dare orphans be raised in a loving environment!  And, if you follow Vander's tortured logic, there's a higher chance that both parents will be intelligent.  We just can't have children mature under intelligent, adoring parents.

People like you scare me when I think about 20 years from now. I hope this world ends by then.

[MK]

It's unfair to the child that's being adopted by homosexual parents.

How dare orphans be raised in a loving environment!  And, if you follow Vander's tortured logic, there's a higher chance that both parents will be intelligent.  We just can't have children mature under intelligent, adoring parents.

People like you scare me when I think about 20 years from now. I hope this world ends by then.

Sarcastic people who want children to have loving parents?  what?

No,  paper tigers who think they have the answer for our society with their libreal socioeconomic garbage.

[MK]

It's unfair to the child that's being adopted by homosexual parents.

How dare orphans be raised in a loving environment!  And, if you follow Vander's tortured logic, there's a higher chance that both parents will be intelligent.  We just can't have children mature under intelligent, adoring parents.

People like you scare me when I think about 20 years from now. I hope this world ends by then.

Sarcastic people who want children to have loving parents?  what?

No,  paper tigers who think they have the answer for our society with their libreal socioeconomic garbage.

1. I don't think you're using the phrase "paper tigers" right.
2. When you're not actually discussing a topic intellectually, and are just complaining, don't you think that essentially makes your posts valueless?

Yeah I'm using it right to describe 90% of the forum.  

Paper Tiger - meaning something that seems as threatening as a tiger, but is really harmless -wiki

The term is often used in sports to describe those with great stats, but don't deliver when it counts.

Most of you on here claim to be intellectually better then most common Americans, however if you had to really fix social or economic problems you would fold because what you may have in smarts, you lack in balls.

This topic of gay marriage is a prime example of you not grasping reality and only using imtinamdating "intellectual" essays and lofty words to make the case for homosexual marriages.  Ignoring that as i stated libreal policies have already had a devastating effect on hetero marriages in the last 50 years.

 

[MK]

Yeah I'm using it right to describe 90% of the forum.  

Paper Tiger - meaning something that seems as threatening as a tiger, but is really harmless -wiki

The term is often used in sports to describe those with great stats, but don't deliver when it counts.

Yeah, but if you just said that you hope the world ends before those "harmless" people take power--sigh, nevermind.

This topic of gay marriage is a prime example of you not grasping reality and only using imtinamdating "intellectual" essays and lofty words to make the case for homosexual marriages.  Ignoring that as i stated libreal policies have already had a devastating effect on hetero marriages in the last 50 years

Evidence.

You're complaining that we're elitist, and then demanding that we accept your claims without questioning or analyzing them?  That's super-elitist.

 1. LOL Harmless is another way of saying "soft"     When you call someone a "paper tiger" its not a complement.

2.  Ive already answered this with fezzy and gave my reason for not posting.

[MK]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

[MK]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

No, a tipping point will be reached, and eventually, even if it takes 20 years, the Federal Government will intervene based on the "full faith and credit clause" and require that all states recognize Gay marriages performed in Gay marriage states. So, Jane and Jill in Montgomery might have to fly to Vegas to get hitched, but Alabama has to recognize it.

Great ideal, the federal government force the states to recognize it.    

[MK]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

No, a tipping point will be reached, and eventually, even if it takes 20 years, the Federal Government will intervene based on the "full faith and credit clause" and require that all states recognize Gay marriages performed in Gay marriage states. So, Jane and Jill in Montgomery might have to fly to Vegas to get hitched, but Alabama has to recognize it.

Great ideal, the federal government force the states to recognize it.    

This post originally said "Hopefully I'll be dead in 20 years"

If the gays get married and are federally recognized, what's the point in living anymore!

Well thats what you want isn't it?

In 20 years I would like to be dead because honestly I'm worried about our country.   Who knows maybe my views will have changed by then, but don't count on it.   

[MK]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

No, a tipping point will be reached, and eventually, even if it takes 20 years, the Federal Government will intervene based on the "full faith and credit clause" and require that all states recognize Gay marriages performed in Gay marriage states. So, Jane and Jill in Montgomery might have to fly to Vegas to get hitched, but Alabama has to recognize it.

Great ideal, the federal government force the states to recognize it.    

Ever heard of a little document called the Constitution?

Sure.

Gay marriages have nothing to do with the constitution though.   

Great to see we have those who think the government should just take over.  Damned the states rights or the 10Th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[MK]

Liberals using The Full Faith and Credit Clause to force homosexual marriages upon other
states.    Digusting, and will make many people angry which isn't a good thing for gay rights.


Sodom & Gomorrah = The united states in 20 years.

[MK]

This is why we have to improve our education system.  Some people are still emerging out of it intensely self-unaware

Great liberal social engineering.   Teach our children that's its ok to be homosexual?

[MK]

Liberals using The Full Faith and Credit Clause to force homosexual marriages upon other
states.    Digusting, and will make many people angry which isn't a good thing for gay rights.

There's always going to be some degree of backlash when a minority opinion begins to move toward the majority.  There already is.  People don't change their opinions without stimuli; raising the issue (even if it causes backlash) is a form of stimulus.

There are better and worse balances.  But either way you're forcing a majority position on a minority, whether it be at the state or personal level.  The only difference is in the clustering, if you get what I mean.

Sodom & Gomorrah = The united states in 20 years.

I don't understand why you so strenuously objected to labels of homophobia and then say something like that

Sometimes i believe Alcon thinks he can change my mind on gay marriages. Just a feeling I have when  reading his posts.

He's the only one who doesn't attack me personally when debating the issue.  Maybe its by design because some people you can't yell at or insult to win their trust.   

[MK]

Why do people keep taking MK's trollbait though? Same question for Coburn, though he's not the issue now.

I'm not entirely convinced he's 100% to troll.  He has done some of it here, but I try to play it safe when accusing someone of being purified trollocity.  Better to be wrong that way than the other way around, I guess

That's right oppose gay marriage for whatever reasons and you are labled a troll or bigoted.  Regardless of my view I must bend to your will and accept gay marriages.   


Bill O'Reilly explains it best -

"The truth is that pro-gay marriage forces have succeeded in their bigot-branding campaign and will not stop with marriage. Because they won this public relations war, you can expect to see the racist, bigot label marketed in other controversial situations. Already, abortion zealots are branding pro-life people "anti-woman" and "anti-privacy." The left knows it has a powerful cannon with this bigot stuff.

So the gay marriage debate is just about over. Conservative states won't pass it, but liberal states will. There was a time when we were truly the united states. No longer. "

Here on Atlas its troll - branding.

[MK]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

All that really sounds like wishful thinking. In the past five or so years since gay marriage was passed in Massachusetts, support for gay rights has actually grown. In every demographic, support for gay rights is higher among youngs than among olds. Now there could be a backlash against gay marriage brewing, with things like the the gay stormclouds ad or the firestorm over Ms. California, but there's no evidence that people have been turning against gay rights in droves lately. This might have happened in 2004, but honestly I think gay marriage's days as a wedge issue are numbered due to growing tolerance among the younger generation.

Didn't you liberals learn anything from Nov 2008 in CA?

[MK]

Just chill out.

Obama is playing this smart and knows that he has to get the economy in shape by 2012.  If that time comes and the only thing he's done is gay Rights issues, then he's going to have a problem winning again. The republicans are just waiting for President Obama to place himself in a liberal box and not fix the economy.   Right now theres bigger problems then gay rights.

Obama won't do anything about this issue BIG until the last parts of his second term.  But he has to get reelected to do so.

This is a calculated political move.

In due time.

[MK]

Just chill out.

Obama is playing this smart and knows that he has to get the economy in shape by 2012.  If that time comes and the only thing he's done is gay Rights issues, then he's going to have a problem winning again. The republicans are just waiting for President Obama to place himself in a liberal box and not fix the economy.   Right now theres bigger problems then gay rights.

Obama won't do anything about this issue BIG until the last parts of his second term.  But he has to get reelected to do so.

This is a calculated political move.

In due time.

While many in the gay community understood the Administration had other extremely pressing issues on its hands, the DOMA brief was a near-fatal blow to our confidence in this Administration.  Not only did it take a legal stand against gay rights, it did so in the most offensive terms -- by comparing gay marriage to marriage between an uncle and niece and marriage involving underage kids.  That is a clear sign this Administration is completely tone-deaf on gay rights.  Furthermore, it casts Obama's outreach to the anti-gay crowd (Rick Warren, Donnie McClurkin) in a bad light. 

I have very little confidence that they will do the right thing.  Perhaps if they are heavily pressured.

Heavy pressure?   By whom?     You try that and it will blow up in your faces. The best thing is to chill the  out and let due process take its course.   The pro-gay side doesn't have the guns right now to win a 50 state mandate.  Obamas handlers know this that's why the stance your seeing.   The white house knows a  lot more about the political landscape of this issue then anybody on atlas right now.

[MK]

Just chill out.

Obama is playing this smart and knows that he has to get the economy in shape by 2012.  If that time comes and the only thing he's done is gay Rights issues, then he's going to have a problem winning again. The republicans are just waiting for President Obama to place himself in a liberal box and not fix the economy.   Right now theres bigger problems then gay rights.

Obama won't do anything about this issue BIG until the last parts of his second term.  But he has to get reelected to do so.

This is a calculated political move.

In due time.

While many in the gay community understood the Administration had other extremely pressing issues on its hands, the DOMA brief was a near-fatal blow to our confidence in this Administration.  Not only did it take a legal stand against gay rights, it did so in the most offensive terms -- by comparing gay marriage to marriage between an uncle and niece and marriage involving underage kids.  That is a clear sign this Administration is completely tone-deaf on gay rights.  Furthermore, it casts Obama's outreach to the anti-gay crowd (Rick Warren, Donnie McClurkin) in a bad light. 

I have very little confidence that they will do the right thing.  Perhaps if they are heavily pressured.

Heavy pressure?   By whom?     You try that and it will blow up in your faces. The best thing is to chill the  out and let due process take its course.   The pro-gay side doesn't have the guns right now to win a 50 state mandate.  Obamas handlers know this that's why the stance your seeing.   The white house knows a  lot more about the political landscape of this issue then anybody on atlas right now.

No one with any sense is talking about a 50 state mandate.  However, I completely disagree on the pressure issue.  Sit silent and you will be ignored -- politics has always worked that way. 

I find the notion that Obama's White House is politically astute about gay rights laughable.  They would not be in a situation where they are having to do damage control if they were.  No one with any sensitivity on the issue would have compared it to incest.  It's telling that there are no gay men or lesbians among Obama's top advisors.

Your heart wont let you think politically.

Its simple , Obama going into 2012  with a economy in bad shape and other problems abroad can't been seen as the gay rights candidate.  He has to get something done by then, and if he only manages to get gay rights.... then he has a major problem.

There goes any chance of winning a southern state and that 2008 map looks more like 2004. Assuming the GOP doesn't run somebody like Palin or Sanford.