However court rules, gay marriage deb...

However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

There are 2348 comments on the NewsCenter 25 story from Mar 28, 2013, titled However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end. In it, NewsCenter 25 reports that:

However the Supreme Court rules after its landmark hearings on same-sex marriage, the issue seems certain to divide Americans and states for many years to come.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NewsCenter 25.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1417 Apr 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>it is relevant in that many single parents raise perfectly well adjusted kids.
That's why 70% of our prison population come from single-family homes...cause they are soooooo well adjusted...thanks for playing....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1418 Apr 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
no, its not, until you can PROVE beyond reason it is not, it is RATIONAL to believe so...
Nope, there is no rational reason to believe so.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1419 Apr 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
AGAIN and AGAIN, yes, i acknowledge flaws in ALL the studies, renergus, and the same exact flaws and WAY more in all the studies you want to say prove conclusive on the issue!
In short, if renergus is flawed, so are the smaller hand picked self reporting non married samples....
see how CONSISTENCY works?
Nope, still not the same, but feel to believe it is.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1420 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Denying you need psychiatric treatment for your religious affliction doesn't mean you don't need it either.....
How about you worry about what's best for your kids, and I'll worry about what's best for my kid.
Ah, the personal attack when one can no longer defend one's position....not surprised at all....

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1421 Apr 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
It keeps marriage connected to responsible procreation which is a benefit to society.
how does it keep marriage connected to responsible procreation? it really has absolutely nothing to do with that. finding it hard to find ways to support your prejudice? have you tried rethinking your basic premise? that is what a logical person not clouded by prejudice would do...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1422 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not until you can show conclusive proof a person has to be raised by their married biological mother and biological father to become a well adjusted successful adult.
You are changing the standard (I love it when you all do this)...no one said a child 'has' to be...the research shows that children develop much better psycologically, emotionally and financially in nuclear homes....THAT is the standard...
Of course if you COULD show such proof, then all adoptions would have to be banned, divorce would have to be banned, single women would have to be banned from getting pregnant, etc, etc, etc.
Strawman alert!!!!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1423 Apr 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why 70% of our prison population come from single-family homes...cause they are soooooo well adjusted...thanks for playing....
Way more factors go into it than that. most of them are also black. want to tackle that one?(yes, you probably would...)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1424 Apr 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
It keeps marriage connected to responsible procreation which is a benefit to society.
Nope, because right now millions of people marry with no ability or intent to procreate.

So if those millions of marriages don't affect the connection with "responsible procreation", then a few thousand same-sex couples getting married won't either.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1425 Apr 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why 70% of our prison population come from single-family homes...cause they are soooooo well adjusted...thanks for playing....
So then work on banning single parents.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1426 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
How does banning same-sex couples from marrying further your goal?
By focusing on responsible procreation and our government working towards fixing our broken families instead of finding new ways to destroy them...
Does banning same-sex couples from marrying prevent them from having kids?
Don't know...I'm not in a ss relationship....
Does banning same-sex couples from marrying force opposite-sex couples to marry & raise their biological kids together in a low conflict relationship?
Oooooooo what a thought..... Of course, if we banded together as a nation that is actually interested in the growth and development of its children, this action would not be necessary to regulate...
Nope, the only thing banning same-sex couples from marrying accomplishes is denying their kids the same legal protections kids of married hetero couples have.
You only hurt the kids.
Unfortunately...you don't seem to see how 'you' are hurting your kids, by denying them the benefit of their biological parents being married and living peacefully in the home together, which we know is what makes children thrive throughout their entire lives.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1428 Apr 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Way more factors go into it than that. most of them are also black. want to tackle that one?(yes, you probably would...)
...and coincidently, 70% of children in black families are born in single parent homes....coincidence???? I think not!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1429 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So then work on banning single parents.
Not that simple...but we 'could' step up our game on strengthening our nuclear/bioligical families...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1430 Apr 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You are changing the standard (I love it when you all do this)...no one said a child 'has' to be...the research shows that children develop much better psycologically, emotionally and financially in nuclear homes....THAT is the standard...
<quoted text>Strawman alert!!!!
Correct, and those "nuclear homes" include married same-sex couples raising kids.

Which is exaclty why we should be encouraging everyone to get married before having kids.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1431 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, because right now millions of people marry with no ability or intent to procreate.
Doesn't mean they aren't designed to together, or that our government should be backing up these families....
So if those millions of marriages don't affect the connection with "responsible procreation", then a few thousand same-sex couples getting married won't either.
Actually, one can by design, the other can not...apples/oranges...not the same argument...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#1432 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, there is no rational reason to believe so.
when the issue is not resolved beyond all reasonable doubt, IT IS!
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#1433 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, because right now millions of people marry with no ability or intent to procreate.
So if those millions of marriages don't affect the connection with "responsible procreation", then a few thousand same-sex couples getting married won't either.
this is called the exceptions swallowing the rule...

since murder in war is legal, all murder should be legal...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1434 Apr 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
...and coincidently, 70% of children in black families are born in single parent homes....coincidence???? I think not!
again lots more gong on there tahn just race. try looking at teh economic and educational backround of the parents. if you match those up, i bet race wouldn't make any difference in those stats. more prejudicial bigotry from GTF...go figure.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1435 Apr 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
'I' didn't pick and choose anyone....they made their own determinations and went public with them....
But you've ignored all studies that don't support your conclusion.
You 'do' realize hundreds of experts disagree with 'your' studies as well right????
Of course there is disagreement...that's why 'research' is on-going...
And yet, EVERY major psychological and child welfare institution has rejected your conclusions. Millions of people believe the world is 7000 years old. That doesn't give nonsense any additional credence.

Now, if a majority of researchers--or even some significant minority--agreed with your crazy claims, you'd have a leg to stand on. But the fact is that researchers agreeing with you conclusions are associated with hate groups--such as NOM--not respected research institution.
What facts did I twist??? That the study was peer reviewed? That it was published in a scientific journal?? That there are at least 18 individual sociologists that back up Regnerus' methods and results???? What facts did I twist???
We have posted the criticisms and even the statemnts of Regnerus himself multiple times, purely for YOUR benefit. You have chosen to LIE that you haven't seen the folly of using his study as you are using it.

We have stated thousands of times that our claim is children raised in stable same-sex households fare no better or worse than children in similar opposite-sex households. The Regnerus study does not purport to compare these two things. In fact, Regnerus stated that only TWO of subjects questioned had stable same-sex parents. What conclusions can you draw from two subjects?

Everything you say twists the truth. I doubt we can find a truthful statement of yours among all your posts.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1436 Apr 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Best the 'optimum' situation is in the home with their biological parents, married and in a low conflict relationship.....FACT! Shouldn't we move towards the 'best' situation for our children???
Whether that is "best" or not [and you have not established that it is], it is not a possibility.

Can you produce an example of a single child who will be deprived of his biological family due to same-sex marriage?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1437 Apr 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>again lots more gong on there tahn just race. try looking at teh economic and educational backround of the parents. if you match those up, i bet race wouldn't make any difference in those stats. more prejudicial bigotry from GTF...go figure.
Well let's look at that...

--which segment of the popluation is more likely to be impoverished???? Answer--single parent families

--which segment of the population is more prone to drop out of school??? Answer--single parent families

You were the one that brought up race....not me...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr Frindly 6,876
News Thanks to Trumpa s vague order, LGBT activists ... 2 hr L Craig s Hush Pu... 11
News Microphone cut after Mormon girl reveals shea s... 3 hr nomo 5
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 16 hr ilovecars 31,999
News Microphone cut after Mormon girl reveals she's ... Fri Latter Day Taints 2
News Intimidation allegations mar Ontario PC candida... Jun 23 nasty bunch 1
News MIA gay marriage heroes Jun 22 The Troll Stopper 4
More from around the web