Young Opponents of Gay Marriage Undaunted by Battle Ahead

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of
marriage. It rejects the anthropological truth that marriage is based
on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that
reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that
children need a mother and a father.

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/young-opponents-of-gay-marriage-remain-undaunted.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of
marriage. It rejects the anthropological truth that marriage is based
on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that
reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that
children need a mother and a father.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading my post.

nightlight88 wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/young-opponents-of-gay-marriage-remain-undaunted.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of
marriage. It rejects the anthropological truth that marriage is based
on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that
reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that
children need a mother and a father.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading my post.

My thoughts are that the queers will circle the wagons and rage about this post.

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/young-opponents-of-gay-marriage-remain-undaunted.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of
marriage. It rejects the anthropological truth that marriage is based
on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that
reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that
children need a mother and a father.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading my post.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/young-opponents-of-gay-marriage-remain-undaunted.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of
marriage. It rejects the anthropological truth that marriage is based
on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that
reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that
children need a mother and a father.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading my post.

Gays should have to suffer the same headaches and legal problems as every other married couple. They've been getting a free ride long enough. It's really discrimination against the rest of us. Alimony and insurance and marriage tax penalty. Half of couples get divorced. Gays should have to pay those fees at the courthouse too. They should be held accountable for each others debt too, like everybody is. Lots of them live together anyway and save a lot of money sharing expenses. They should have to take the bad with the good. Then too, if they were married, they could take in some of the babies of those unwed mothers and get them off welfare.

Freedom Forever wrote:In order to have a strong culture / country, you have to have strong families. This "gay rights" B.S. weakens families and therefor our culture. How does it weaken families? By redefining what a family is. Don't over think it.


I see by the article that republicans are caving as usual. We need a new party badly.

nightlight88 wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/young-opponents-of-gay-marriage-remain-undaunted.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of
marriage. It rejects the anthropological truth that marriage is based
on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that
reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that
children need a mother and a father.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading my post.

Gays should have to suffer the same headaches and legal problems as every other married couple. They've been getting a free ride long enough. It's really discrimination against the rest of us. Alimony and insurance and marriage tax penalty. Half of couples get divorced. Gays should have to pay those fees at the courthouse too. They should be held accountable for each others debt too, like everybody is. Lots of them live together anyway and save a lot of money sharing expenses. They should have to take the bad with the good. Then too, if they were married, they could take in some of the babies of those unwed mothers and get them off welfare.

Your statement that half of couples get divorced is so idiotic your credibility is lower than whale shitte in the ocean.

RedWhiteBlue wrote: Gays should have to suffer the same headaches and legal problems as every other married couple. They've been getting a free ride long enough. It's really discrimination against the rest of us. Alimony and insurance and marriage tax penalty. Half of couples get divorced. Gays should have to pay those fees at the courthouse too. They should be held accountable for each others debt too, like everybody is. Lots of them live together anyway and save a lot of money sharing expenses. They should have to take the bad with the good. Then too, if they were married, they could take in some of the babies of those unwed mothers and get them off welfare.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/young-opponents-of-gay-marriage-remain-undaunted.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of
marriage. It rejects the anthropological truth that marriage is based
on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that
reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that
children need a mother and a father.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading my post.

Gays should have to suffer the same headaches and legal problems as every other married couple. They've been getting a free ride long enough. It's really discrimination against the rest of us. Alimony and insurance and marriage tax penalty. Half of couples get divorced. Gays should have to pay those fees at the courthouse too. They should be held accountable for each others debt too, like everybody is. Lots of them live together anyway and save a lot of money sharing expenses. They should have to take the bad with the good. Then too, if they were married, they could take in some of the babies of those unwed mothers and get them off welfare.

Your statement that half of couples get divorced is so idiotic your credibility is lower than whale shitte in the ocean.

"Information on Divorce Rate and Statistics
www.divorcerate.org/
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional ..."

I found that stuff for you on the internet. It really doesn't matter if it's exactly true or not or what the numbers are. There's lots of divorces. It doesn't have much to do with what I was saying anyway. Sort of a side thingy. I just don't like the gays getting a free ride all the time. On the divorce, I'm just saying they should pay the costs of divorce like everybody else. Instead of just walking away scot free. They should be responsible for joint debt and have all the property fights and lawyer costs, too. Only fair.

Jeeez man. The dude asked for my thoughts and I gave them. You got a problem with whale shit or you just being a nit picker.

sodaknomad wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote: Gays should have to suffer the same headaches and legal problems as every other married couple. They've been getting a free ride long enough. It's really discrimination against the rest of us. Alimony and insurance and marriage tax penalty. Half of couples get divorced. Gays should have to pay those fees at the courthouse too. They should be held accountable for each others debt too, like everybody is. Lots of them live together anyway and save a lot of money sharing expenses. They should have to take the bad with the good. Then too, if they were married, they could take in some of the babies of those unwed mothers and get them off welfare.

But, but the girly men don't have to put up with the monthly case of PMS. When someone can figure out how they can get that monthly crap then they can get married.

nightlight88 wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/young-opponents-of-gay-marriage-remain-undaunted.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of
marriage. It rejects the anthropological truth that marriage is based
on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that
reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that
children need a mother and a father.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading my post.

Gays should have to suffer the same headaches and legal problems as every other married couple. They've been getting a free ride long enough. It's really discrimination against the rest of us. Alimony and insurance and marriage tax penalty. Half of couples get divorced. Gays should have to pay those fees at the courthouse too. They should be held accountable for each others debt too, like everybody is. Lots of them live together anyway and save a lot of money sharing expenses. They should have to take the bad with the good. Then too, if they were married, they could take in some of the babies of those unwed mothers and get them off welfare.

Your statement that half of couples get divorced is so idiotic your credibility is lower than whale shitte in the ocean.

"Information on Divorce Rate and Statistics
www.divorcerate.org/
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional ..."

I found that stuff for you on the internet. It really doesn't matter if it's exactly true or not or what the numbers are. There's lots of divorces. It doesn't have much to do with what I was saying anyway. Sort of a side thingy. I just don't like the gays getting a free ride all the time. On the divorce, I'm just saying they should pay the costs of divorce like everybody else. Instead of just walking away scot free. They should be responsible for joint debt and have all the property fights and lawyer costs, too. Only fair.

Jeeez man. The dude asked for my thoughts and I gave them. You got a problem with whale shit or you just being a nit picker.

According to the US Census Bureau, 2,286,750 males got married in 2011, and 1,098,959 men got divorced.

Is that where you come up with the 50% +/- divorce rate?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/young-opponents-of-gay-marriage-remain-undaunted.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of
marriage. It rejects the anthropological truth that marriage is based
on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that
reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that
children need a mother and a father.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading my post.

Gays should have to suffer the same headaches and legal problems as every other married couple. They've been getting a free ride long enough. It's really discrimination against the rest of us. Alimony and insurance and marriage tax penalty. Half of couples get divorced. Gays should have to pay those fees at the courthouse too. They should be held accountable for each others debt too, like everybody is. Lots of them live together anyway and save a lot of money sharing expenses. They should have to take the bad with the good. Then too, if they were married, they could take in some of the babies of those unwed mothers and get them off welfare.

Your statement that half of couples get divorced is so idiotic your credibility is lower than whale shitte in the ocean.

"Information on Divorce Rate and Statistics
www.divorcerate.org/
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional ..."

I found that stuff for you on the internet. It really doesn't matter if it's exactly true or not or what the numbers are. There's lots of divorces. It doesn't have much to do with what I was saying anyway. Sort of a side thingy. I just don't like the gays getting a free ride all the time. On the divorce, I'm just saying they should pay the costs of divorce like everybody else. Instead of just walking away scot free. They should be responsible for joint debt and have all the property fights and lawyer costs, too. Only fair.

Jeeez man. The dude asked for my thoughts and I gave them. You got a problem with whale shit or you just being a nit picker.

According to the US Census Bureau, 2,286,750 males got married in 2011, and 1,098,959 men got divorced.

Is that where you come up with the 50% +/- divorce rate?

Hadn't seen that one. Hadn't ever looked. I gave you a link, if this is such a big deal to you, read that one. Or find your own. Just a side thingy on my point anyway.

Alleycat wrote: Just think about this. If the Conservative Republicans would stop the opposition and discussion of gay marriage, gay rights, abortion rights and contraception the Liberals are left with their asses hanging in the wind. They have Nothing They cannot run on their economics and financial record which is dismal at it's best. If they raise taxes they piss everyone off. With out the social issues they are what they are jackasses braying to the wind. Let them have abortions, contraception and gay marriages, there will be less of them The object is to win. There are no ethics or morality in the game of politics. Leave them bloody in the street.

nightlight88 wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/young-opponents-of-gay-marriage-remain-undaunted.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of
marriage. It rejects the anthropological truth that marriage is based
on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that
reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that
children need a mother and a father.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading my post.

Gays should have to suffer the same headaches and legal problems as every other married couple. They've been getting a free ride long enough. It's really discrimination against the rest of us. Alimony and insurance and marriage tax penalty. Half of couples get divorced. Gays should have to pay those fees at the courthouse too. They should be held accountable for each others debt too, like everybody is. Lots of them live together anyway and save a lot of money sharing expenses. They should have to take the bad with the good. Then too, if they were married, they could take in some of the babies of those unwed mothers and get them off welfare.

Your statement that half of couples get divorced is so idiotic your credibility is lower than whale shitte in the ocean.

"Information on Divorce Rate and Statistics
www.divorcerate.org/
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional ..."

I found that stuff for you on the internet. It really doesn't matter if it's exactly true or not or what the numbers are. There's lots of divorces. It doesn't have much to do with what I was saying anyway. Sort of a side thingy. I just don't like the gays getting a free ride all the time. On the divorce, I'm just saying they should pay the costs of divorce like everybody else. Instead of just walking away scot free. They should be responsible for joint debt and have all the property fights and lawyer costs, too. Only fair.

Jeeez man. The dude asked for my thoughts and I gave them. You got a problem with whale shit or you just being a nit picker.

According to the US Census Bureau, 2,286,750 males got married in 2011, and 1,098,959 men got divorced.

Is that where you come up with the 50% +/- divorce rate?

Hadn't seen that one. Hadn't ever looked. I gave you a link, if this is such a big deal to you, read that one. Or find your own. Just a side thingy on my point anyway.

This whole thread is about the battle waged about gay marriage. And yes it is a big deal when the left lies about the divorce rate.

But then

jackasses bray
dogs eat their own puke
snakes hiss
liberals lie

Its in their nature.

Darth Cheney wrote:I believe 34 states have voted and ALL have determined marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The people have spoken and the majority believes marriage belongs to traditional values.

Darth Cheney wrote:I believe 34 states have voted and ALL have determined marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The people have spoken and the majority believes marriage belongs to traditional values.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:I believe 34 states have voted and ALL have determined marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The people have spoken and the majority believes marriage belongs to traditional values.

That must be changing now. The title of this calls it a battle ahead. Same sex marriage is legal in some states already. You said 34 states voted against it. That should be up to those states then. So what if other states allow it.

How can something belong to traditional values anyway? What the hell does that mean? Is burning witches at the stake a traditional value?

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:I believe 34 states have voted and ALL have determined marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The people have spoken and the majority believes marriage belongs to traditional values.

That must be changing now. The title of this calls it a battle ahead. Same sex marriage is legal in some states already. You said 34 states voted against it. That should be up to those states then. So what if other states allow it.

How can something belong to traditional values anyway? What the hell does that mean? Is burning witches at the stake a traditional value?

It means shoving your pecker up some man's anus is not going to result in children and only result in prostate problems...why do you think the adult diaper market has taken off?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:I believe 34 states have voted and ALL have determined marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The people have spoken and the majority believes marriage belongs to traditional values.

That must be changing now. The title of this calls it a battle ahead. Same sex marriage is legal in some states already. You said 34 states voted against it. That should be up to those states then. So what if other states allow it.

How can something belong to traditional values anyway? What the hell does that mean? Is burning witches at the stake a traditional value?

It means shoving your pecker up some man's anus is not going to result in children and only result in prostate problems...why do you think the adult diaper market has taken off?

I meant what does "belonging to traditional values" mean. Doesn't really matter. You said those 34 states voted against it. Some states voted for it. Majority ruled. Way it should be.

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:I believe 34 states have voted and ALL have determined marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The people have spoken and the majority believes marriage belongs to traditional values.

That must be changing now. The title of this calls it a battle ahead. Same sex marriage is legal in some states already. You said 34 states voted against it. That should be up to those states then. So what if other states allow it.

How can something belong to traditional values anyway? What the hell does that mean? Is burning witches at the stake a traditional value?

It means shoving your pecker up some man's anus is not going to result in children and only result in prostate problems...why do you think the adult diaper market has taken off?

I meant what does "belonging to traditional values" mean. Doesn't really matter. You said those 34 states voted against it. Some states voted for it. Majority ruled. Way it should be.

Majority ruling is a democracy which always leads to tyranny. We live in a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep getting together to decide what to eat for lunch. SSM and whether to acknowledge it lies within state rights based on a public vote not federal mandate. If you and your queer partner want to play house and act like everything is cool move to a state that allows that perverted lifestyle.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:I believe 34 states have voted and ALL have determined marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The people have spoken and the majority believes marriage belongs to traditional values.

That must be changing now. The title of this calls it a battle ahead. Same sex marriage is legal in some states already. You said 34 states voted against it. That should be up to those states then. So what if other states allow it.

How can something belong to traditional values anyway? What the hell does that mean? Is burning witches at the stake a traditional value?

It means shoving your pecker up some man's anus is not going to result in children and only result in prostate problems...why do you think the adult diaper market has taken off?

I meant what does "belonging to traditional values" mean. Doesn't really matter. You said those 34 states voted against it. Some states voted for it. Majority ruled. Way it should be.

Majority ruling is a democracy which always leads to tyranny. We live in a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep getting together to decide what to eat for lunch. SSM and whether to acknowledge it lies within state rights based on a public vote not federal mandate. If you and your queer partner want to play house and act like everything is cool move to a state that allows that perverted lifestyle.

Make up your mind. You said "The people have spoken and the majority believes marriage belongs to traditional values." & "state rights based on a public vote". It's legal for gays to get married in some states. Yup. They can move to one of them or you can move out if you want.

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:I believe 34 states have voted and ALL have determined marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The people have spoken and the majority believes marriage belongs to traditional values.

That must be changing now. The title of this calls it a battle ahead. Same sex marriage is legal in some states already. You said 34 states voted against it. That should be up to those states then. So what if other states allow it.

How can something belong to traditional values anyway? What the hell does that mean? Is burning witches at the stake a traditional value?

It means shoving your pecker up some man's anus is not going to result in children and only result in prostate problems...why do you think the adult diaper market has taken off?

I meant what does "belonging to traditional values" mean. Doesn't really matter. You said those 34 states voted against it. Some states voted for it. Majority ruled. Way it should be.

Majority ruling is a democracy which always leads to tyranny. We live in a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep getting together to decide what to eat for lunch. SSM and whether to acknowledge it lies within state rights based on a public vote not federal mandate. If you and your queer partner want to play house and act like everything is cool move to a state that allows that perverted lifestyle.

Make up your mind. You said "The people have spoken and the majority believes marriage belongs to traditional values." & "state rights based on a public vote". It's legal for gays to get married in some states. Yup. They can move to one of them or you can move out if you want.

Do you understand the concept of federalism?