Defeat In Maine A Harsh Blow To Gay-marriage Drive

[RnL_4EVR_MARRIED]

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
So we've gone from "there's NO proof that same-sex marriage will lead to these other things" to "ok you can prove it leads to other things, but so what?

Actually.....I have seen the article on the polygamy in Sweden.....but that isn't here in America......and I have talked with a couple of folks who are in a polygamous relationship and they have heard nothing in regards to a movement waiting in the wings to see how this Same-Sex Couple married thing turns out......and though I am a one on one type of person and I am not into judging others......I made a decision about a month ago to support these folks if and when they got the laws changed.

Now.....my point about the article is that is has as much of a chance of happening as your slippery slope argument on incest, bestiality and yes polygamy.......but you insisted that what I post was outrageous and ain't never going to happen, but then neither is what you keep biotching about.

[RnL_4EVR_MARRIED]

Genie wrote:

There IS NO MENTION OF LESBIANISM MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE......and if what you say is the true meaning of Leviticus 18:22......then why not follow Leviticus 18:20 or maybe Leviticus 18:6 or maybe Leviticus 18:17 or Leviticus 18:19 or Leviticus 18:23.....why don't you go examine them and then tell me if everyone is following the Leviticus laws.

Maybe you should read this:
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

613 Mitzvot Commandments and 1 that has to do with sodomy......somehow I think G-D was more concern with what heterosexuals where doing than what Gays and Lesbians might of been doing.

[RnL_4EVR_MARRIED]

SoPas wrote:

<quoted text> Rose - Nicely said, and I agree. Every pro-choice person I've ever met simply wanted ... a choice. Any thinking person is troubled by the process of abortion; but more troubling (to me) is the loss choices re one's own body.

Thank you......I appreciate the nice response.

Hope you have a good day.......oh and yes, I'm Rose T-H.......just a different nic to incorporate our 1st year of marriage:)

[WeTheSheeple]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Of coarse they CAN be raised by wolves... but what is in the best interest of childrten & society is that they be raised by their own natural mother & father. This is a social scientific consensus arrived at over 40 years of family breakdown and the research it has compiled.

If that were the case then wouldn't it be in the best interest of the child & society to ban all except the nuclear family? Of course you'd have to ban adoption altogether, because the kids wouldn't be raised by their natural mother & father. You'd have to ban single women from getting pregnant. You'd have to ban divorce if there are children under age 18 in the household.

But what will you do with the children when one parent dies? I guess they'll just have to be killed, because otherwise they'd wouldn't be raised by both their natural mother & father.

Yeah, that should go over great. Why don't you talk to Bart Stupak about adding that to the healthcare bill too!

[WeTheSheeple]

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
This has to be one of the most intelligent posts on this thread. I am a 'creationist' and I do believe Adam and Eve were real people, but you are correct about homosexuality. It wouldn't have survived either way! Bravo!!

You two are dumber than rocks. There are such things as recessive genes which aren't always expressed. Look it up, I'm not about to take the time to explain it to you.

Not to mention the fact that throughout history many gay people were indeed married to opposite sex partners and produced offspring, thereby passing on their genes.

Seriously, if you're going to comment on biology, you might want to put down the bible and hit the internet first.

[WeTheSheeple]

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
You HAVE equal treatment under the law. You decline to abide by the law in this matter. The law is NOT required to change for you.

But we do have the right & ability to change the law.

[WeTheSheeple]

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
No one said it was 'required' to have the natural parents raise their natural children. We stated it is the BEST and HEALTHIEST environment for natural parents to raise their children. You know, you can drive your car with your feet too, but that doesn't make it a 'great' idea to do so.

Unless you plan on banning all other instances of children being raised by someone other than both their biological parents, it doesn't matter what you think is ideal. You have no proof, only opinion.

[WeTheSheeple]

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed. We are not talking about children in need of a home, we are talking about creating children for your own needs, not the child's.

Every opposite sex couple creates children for THEIR own needs, THEIR own selfish reasons, not the child's. Most of the time the child is created by accident with absolutely no thought about how they're going to raise it or pay for it or even if they want it.

People who live in glass houses should pee on the walls......

[WeTheSheeple]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
This has been proven again and again- even good faith gay marriage advocates dont contest the wealth of social science that proves that obvious fact.
Marriage and the Family by the American College of Pediatricians available at http://www.acpeds.org .
Marriage and the Family by Child Trends available at http://www.childtrends.org .
Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes by the Alabama Policy Institute available at http://www.alabamapolicy.org .
Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., & Bremberg, S.(2008). Fathers’ involvement and children’s developmental outcomes: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Acta Paediatrica, 97, 153-158.
Biller, H.B.(1993). Fathers and families: Paternal factors in child development. Westport, Connecticut: Auburn House.
This is just the tip of the iceberg...
It dosent take much to deny the truth

And how many of the studies involved MARRIED GAY COUPLES raising children? I'm guessing NONE. If they weren't involved in the study, then you can't draw the conclusion that mom & dad raising their biological children is superior married gay couples raising their children.

[WeTheSheeple]

fed up wrote:

<quoted text>
NO that wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying there are some inconsistencies in the argument. You are either discriminated against more than others or you are not.I have no problem with any loving adult single or couples adopting children who need homes. Your side however in one breath is stating you are all teased wished deathupon and discriminated against and then turn around and say "hey all kids are teased, Ours aren't any worse off than other kids." I asked a question. which is it? Are you and your families teased more or not?

I can't speak for everybody else on here, but I would say my daughter is teased about the same as any other kid, just about different things. That said, there are national statistics available from the FBI which show same-sex families are targeted more often for discrimination & crimes than opposite-sex families.

[WeTheSheeple]

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
That is true. The difference being that if they choose to adopt, they still provide the BEST circumstance for a child with BOTH sexes in the home.

But wait, before you said the "best" was the natural mom & dad, now it's just having both sexes in the house? So if 2 lesbians rent a room to gay guy, then you have BOTH sexes in the home- problem solved!

That's why nobody believes your "proof"; you keep changing the results to fit the situation.

[Yah]

Just me wrote:

Virginia also gave their Obama Pal the boot. People, democrats and republicans are just tired of the not hardly one year in office the the great one has made.

Like YOUR pals were before?????????? Ed Schrock?????????? Mark.A.Grethen??????????Well the ALSO-RANS that covertly supported them in the GAYOP..........

[fed up]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't speak for everybody else on here, but I would say my daughter is teased about the same as any other kid, just about different things. That said, there are national statistics available from the FBI which show same-sex families are targeted more often for discrimination & crimes than opposite-sex families.

don't you think instead of being constantly sarcastic and hateful toward those who don't like you or underrstand you, you might better serve your family by educating and showing the positive side of your family?really just asking cause on this forum I haven't seen your nice side.It would stand to reason people in general would be nicer to you if you were nicer to thm.(Not everyone I know but a lot)

[Married in the Bay]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
But we do have the right & ability to change the law.

Well you have the right and ability to propose changing the law. The electorate and courts determine if your want is realized.

[Genie]

Tokkar,
Leave it at what? The King James version is very clear. It is accepted as the most accurate translation known to man.
It does not matter what language you try to derive it from, man to lay with a man is wrong. You don't need a Bible to tell you that, human nature dictates it.
The gay movement is failing at this time and supporters are overwhelmingly rejecting gay marriage.
Most of Americans do not want the word mariage available to gays. It has nothing to do with the chosen lifestyle, it has to do with the integrity of the traditional word marriage.
The majority of voters want to leave it as is, one man one woman.
To continue to push for pretend marriage will certainly backfire and create even more problems for those that need it least.

[Get That Fool]

Tokkar wrote:

<quoted text>
People who are against homosexuality and want to ensure that same-sex marriage stays off of the books are the ones that need to prove WHY they want this.
They want this because they believe homosexuality is a "choice".
They have yet to prove that it is, yet they're going ahead with their campaign to strip civil rights from a select group of people.
No proof, but they run with it anyway.
Doesn't it then sound odd to you that they then say that homosexuals should prove that it isn't a choice so that they won't strip away their civil rights?

Well, to say that you want a 'right' based on something you can control (choice) is not why we have the civil rights struggles that we do. You are not only attempted to redefine marriage, but also redefine 'civil rights' as well.

[Get That Fool]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Unless you plan on banning all other instances of children being raised by someone other than both their biological parents, it doesn't matter what you think is ideal. You have no proof, only opinion.

You miss the point completely, but that is not unusual.

[Get That Fool]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
But wait, before you said the "best" was the natural mom & dad, now it's just having both sexes in the house? So if 2 lesbians rent a room to gay guy, then you have BOTH sexes in the home- problem solved!
That's why nobody believes your "proof"; you keep changing the results to fit the situation.

Sorry, you are mistaken. A 'border' is not a substitute for a parental figure, and plays no part in the emotional development of that child. There are plenty of reports that prove this point, but you refuse to acknowledge them. I don't blame you really. If there was absolute proof against me, I wouldn't acknowledge it either until I absolutely had to.

[Get That Fool]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Every opposite sex couple creates children for THEIR own needs, THEIR own selfish reasons, not the child's. Most of the time the child is created by accident with absolutely no thought about how they're going to raise it or pay for it or even if they want it.
People who live in glass houses should pee on the walls......

That's not true. Pro-creation is a 'naturally' occurring event in the case of homosexuality, whether or not the couple is ready. The fact that birth control makes it seem like we can choose our times doesn't change that fact.

[Get That Fool]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
And how many of the studies involved MARRIED GAY COUPLES raising children? I'm guessing NONE. If they weren't involved in the study, then you can't draw the conclusion that mom & dad raising their biological children is superior married gay couples raising their children.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.