Mark Warner: Hang on a sec, I’m pro-gay marriage now too

posted at 6:41 pm on March 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

You ready for this? Time magazine was prepared to publish a story noting that Warner’s position on SSM remains unclear because his office responded ambiguously when pressed for comment last week. At which point a panicky Warner (he’s up for reelection next year, remember) rushed out a statement on Facebook insisting that, indeed, he too has “evolved” — and yes, he did use that word. Apparently the fact that a prominent Democrat has not yet formally changed his stance on gay marriage now qualifies as breaking news worthy of a hastily composed official response.

Way to deny a guy his very own day of attaboy back-slapping from progressives, Time. Now he has to share the limelight with fellow cynical careerist Claire McCaskill.

“I support marriage equality because it is the fair and right thing to do,” he said in an emailed statement to TIME. “Like many Virginians and Americans, my views on gay marriage have evolved, and this is the inevitable extension of my efforts to promote equality and opportunity for everyone.”

“I was proud to be the first Virginia governor to extend anti-discrimination protections to LGBT state workers,” he continued. “In 2010, I supported an end to the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, and earlier this month I signed an amicus brief urging the repeal of DOMA. I believe we should continue working to expand equal rights and opportunities for all Americans.”…

Last week, a spokesman in Warner’s office told TIME that opposition to gay marriage was no longer the Senator’s position, but declined to elaborate. On Monday, TIME told Warner’s office that it was preparing a story on his public position on marriage. Hours later, Warner posted a statement announcing his reversal on Facebook and in an emailed statement to TIME.

That makes sense because he has more to fear at this point from liberals in the primary than from the general electorate. As Time notes, his Virginia colleague Tim Kaine endorsed gay marriage two months before the election last year and won anyway. Warner might also be thinking about 2016 if Hillary doesn’t run, and it’s really no longer enough for a Democrat with national ambitions to support SSM. He can’t be seen dragging his feet too much in announcing his “evolution,” as apparently there are just 11 Democrat senators left who have yet to endorse gay marriage. And of those 11, only four told Time when asked that they remain firmly opposed to legalization: Mark Pryor, who’s up next year in a very red state; Joe Manchin, who won’t be up until 2018 but who risks being punished even then by voters in his own very red state; Heidi Heitkamp, who just got elected for the first time in a very red state and probably doesn’t want to be seen as “evolving” quite so quickly; and Tim Johnson, who hails from the very red state next door to Heitkamp’s. Of the four, only Johnson’s views can be safely regarded as heartfelt. He’s reportedly set to announce his retirement tomorrow so he has nothing to lose in stating his true views now.

Exit question: The other seven Dems in the process of “evolving” are Bob Casey, Bill Nelson, Jon Tester, Tom Carper, Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, and Joe Donnelly. Who’s next? Gotta be Carper, the guy from the bluest state of those seven, right?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

It amazes me that Hotair posts story after story these days gay marriage…yet when it comes to really important things like illegal immigration, there’s little here.

celt on March 25, 2013 at 8:18 PM

You’re joking right? There’s tons of illegal immigration stuff. But it keeps getting in the way of the gay stuff which is a bit disappointing sometimes.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Celt has a point. Remember all the coverage HotGas gave to the final day of CPAC, and all the great speeches given by speaker after speaker?

Oh, wait.

It was gay story after gay story after gay story, plus a sorry lecture by Jazz about how wrong we are to not consider ‘gay conservatives.’

Yeah.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 8:28 PM

I give it five years. If that.

What follows may be nothing short of total anarchy.

And that’s what the Socialists want, because they think they can win.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 8:24 PM

If the court decrees gay marriage, I can only hope that power grab is enough to fracture the union. I really do. Any red state that checks out is my new home.

crrr6 on March 25, 2013 at 8:30 PM

If the court decrees gay marriage, I can only hope that power grab is enough to fracture the union. I really do. Any red state that checks out is my new home.

crrr6 on March 25, 2013 at 8:30 PM

That’s your breaking point? An issue that’s not likely to affect you at all? Way to keep a reasonable, rational perspective!

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM

I give it five years. If that.

What follows may be nothing short of total anarchy.

And that’s what the Socialists want, because they think they can win.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Lenin is supposed to have said, “Destroy the family; destroy the society.” Whether he did or not it’s something he could have said. It’s something statists have always known

INC on March 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM

It’s going to effect everyone in this country, because it effects children.

INC on March 25, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Destroying the family has always been a Communist goal. We are on the way to destruction.

BetseyRoss on March 25, 2013 at 8:37 PM

If the court decrees gay marriage, I can only hope that power grab is enough to fracture the union. I really do. Any red state that checks out is my new home.

crrr6 on March 25, 2013 at 8:30 PM

I’m for counties breaking off. Parts of Ohio would rather drop dead than be lumped in with Cleveland and Columbus. Kinda like how West Virginia came into deign.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Lenin is supposed to have said, “Destroy the family; destroy the society.” Whether he did or not it’s something he could have said. It’s something statists have always known

INC on March 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM

And yet Ayn Rand was quite anti-family, if I recall correctly. Went so far as to call it the ultimate in racism or some such.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 8:38 PM

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 8:38 PM

She was happy to wreck a marriage for her own pleasure.

INC on March 25, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Thanks for the try on the finish.My golden pawed the keyboard before I could end. Actually my thought was pointing out the fact that the people who will fight real wars ( not police actions), like my father and others from that generation, might not be so hot to sign up under the heading of “what the hell am I fighting for ??” I wouldn’t blame them. This what I think might happen in 20 or 30 years. As an antique dealer I spent 45 years of hell dealing with a lot of gays. The thing that got me through was my wife standing behind me saying ” taking their money is the best revenge”. I never knew retirement would be so sweet. I would have retired 10 years ago at 50 had I known.

rik on March 25, 2013 at 8:41 PM

It’s going to effect everyone in this country, because it effects children.

INC on March 25, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Which children? All children? In what way?

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:42 PM

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:42 PM

We’ve been through this before.

Children grow up to be adults.

It’s been shown time after time that children thrive and have the best chance to grow up to become productive, stable adults when they grow up in intact families, i.e., with their biological mom and dad who are married to each other.

You want to have packs of Lord of the Flies wannabees or you want to have stable adults?

INC on March 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Lenin is supposed to have said, “Destroy the family; destroy the society.” Whether he did or not it’s something he could have said. It’s something statists have always known

INC on March 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM

The corollary I prefer is ” Make a family, Make country.” Sounds a little passe now.

rik on March 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM

That’s your breaking point? An issue that’s not likely to affect you at all? Way to keep a reasonable, rational perspective!

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM

So, let’s see. You may live a resident of some state, and you go and vote against a gay marriage ballot measure. Next thing you know, the Supreme Court just decided to nullify your vote, well because, they felt like it. First abortion, now this. How many more of these kinds of decisions are we supposed to ignore?

crrr6 on March 25, 2013 at 8:48 PM

rik on March 25, 2013 at 8:41 PM

You’re lucky in some regards. I’m 31 and I know I will never see one single dime of Soc. Security when I retire. Even as I have a job with upward mobility and graduated from college with no debt to my name.

But once the military deserts us (and they have grounds to do so, quite frankly) and confidence in the dollar bill is lost (we’re fast on that track) then there will be a massive equalizer of sorts. Unfortunately, it will be more along the lines of the deadly anarchy brought about by the French Revolution.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 8:51 PM

That’s okay.. I love Jetboy. And I am growing on Thuja. Give me time. :)

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 7:45 PM

I wish every opponent of Same Sex Marriage were as cool as you are. Or maybe I don’t.

thuja on March 25, 2013 at 8:53 PM

INC on March 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Alchemist is a one-note supporter of SSM. Trying to discuss the subject rationally with him is as productive as smacking your head repeatedly against a brick wall.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM

We’ve been through this before.

Children grow up to be adults.

It’s been shown time after time that children thrive and have the best chance to grow up to become productive, stable adults when they grow up in intact families, i.e., with their biological mom and dad who are married to each other.

You want to have packs of Lord of the Flies wannabees or you want to have stable adults?

INC on March 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Your false dilemma and insult to the two million children currently being raised by gay parents aside, the American Academy of Pediatrics says it’s more about having a loving, financially stable home and that the sexual orientation of the parents doesn’t make any difference.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-pediatricians-back-gay-marriage-cite-research-155848455.html

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM

So, let’s see. You may live a resident of some state, and you go and vote against a gay marriage ballot measure. Next thing you know, the Supreme Court just decided to nullify your vote, well because, they felt like it. First abortion, now this. How many more of these kinds of decisions are we supposed to ignore?

crrr6 on March 25, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Moreover, does anyone expect that said court, which overturns the law simply because Justice Roberts wants to suck up to his lesbian cousin, is going to uphold anyone else’s First Amendment right when his sick lesbian cousin decides to force a church to marry her and her most recent sex partner, or when she decides to abuse her governmental position?

Since elections and law no longer matter, and everything is to be determined by unelected judges who decide based on what benefits them and their relatives, that’s it. There is no rule of law and no reason to stay.

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Exit question: The other seven Dems in the process of “evolving” are Bob Casey, Bill Nelson, Jon Tester, Tom Carper, Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, and Joe Donnelly. Who’s next? Gotta be Carper, the guy from the bluest state of those seven, right?
============================================

Oh Oh,I know,its HilRod!!!

Hillary Clinton announces support for gay marriage – @HRC

Mar 18, 2013, 10:47 a.m. from http://www.youtube.com by editor
============================================================

http://politics.breakingnews.com/topic/us-same-sex-marriage

canopfor on March 25, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Alchemist is a one-note supporter of SSM. Trying to discuss the subject rationally with him is as productive as smacking your head repeatedly against a brick wall.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Not my fault that one note is all it takes to knock down most of the arguments I’ve run into. ;-)

Seriously though, I do my best to always argue in good faith. I can’t say the same for others on either side but I try to present evidence, be rational and logical and refrain from name-calling. If you find my style objectionable then I’m afraid there’s not much I can do about it. Sorry.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Your false dilemma and insult to the two million children currently being raised by gay parents aside, the American Academy of Pediatrics says it’s more about having a loving, financially stable home and that the sexual orientation of the parents doesn’t make any difference.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM

I am amused at how pediatricians support dressing your children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair.

Furthermore, pediatricians are now contradicting themselves, since they screamed and pissed and cried that single parenthood and unmarried parenthood were just as good.

Looks like pediatricians are all bigots who don’t care about children, given their contradictory advice.

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Since elections and law no longer matter, and everything is to be determined by unelected judges who decide based on what benefits them and their relatives, that’s it. There is no rule of law and no reason to stay.

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 8:57 PM

I think it is a legitimate complaint that the Supreme Court is usurping decisions that should be made democratically. I have no problem with the Supreme Court saying the Federal government has to respect a state’s definition of marriage, but states should have the right to define marriage as they like. There is no human right to gay marriage. I think SSM will improve society, but it shouldn’t be imposed by the Supreme Court.

thuja on March 25, 2013 at 9:04 PM

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Yeah. The AAP also advocates female genital mutilation. So they know what’s best.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Perhaps we should also show what else the American Academy of Pediatrics endorses and supports.

NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay
Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.

But it gets better. Look what else the American Academy of Pediatrics endorses and supports as a loving home.

ILGA’s current positions on man/boy love and pedophilia are
explicit:

– In 1985, ILGA adopted a position on “Age of Consent/Paedophilia/Children’s Rights” that urged member organizations to “lobby their governments to abolish the age of consent law” so long as there is “adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without the age of consent law.”

– In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group “supports
the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination.”

– In 1988, ILGA declared “this conference recognizes that existing
same-sex age-of-consent laws often operate to oppress and not to
protect; that in many countries, existing laws on sexual coercion
and rules of evidence also often operate to oppress and not to protect; that therefore member organizations are urged to consider
how best children, adolescents, and people of all ages can be
empowered and supported against both sexual coercion and sexual oppression and to work towards that end.”

– In 1990, ILGA “calls on all members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to engage in constructive dialogue
with them. In another position adopted that year, ILGA declared
that it “supports the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality.”

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Not my fault that one note is all it takes to knock down most of the arguments I’ve run into. ;-)

Seriously though, I do my best to always argue in good faith. I can’t say the same for others on either side but I try to present evidence, be rational and logical and refrain from name-calling. If you find my style objectionable then I’m afraid there’s not much I can do about it. Sorry.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:58 PM

You never heard of moral objections or religious objections. And you remain blind to the persecution the Catholic Church will be going through. Betcha you will enjoy seeing dissenters getting arrested and charged with felonies.

But hey. I’m not the hedonist here.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 9:05 PM

The corollary I prefer is ” Make a family, Make country.” Sounds a little passe now.

rik on March 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Still true, however.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Yeah, I know. Sometimes I don’t engage. This time I do have some quotes on parenting I’ll use.

INC on March 25, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 8:51 PM

It’s a damn shame what you kids are in for. I live in very rural part of New England far away from most the crap. I grew up in Dallas until I was 35 and the I moved up here. But I tell you, the people up here in the woods are very cool and traditional. It’s like a place that time forgot. And hope it continues to do so. Again, I feel for you and yours and wish you good luck.

rik on March 25, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Ideology, Not Science, Behind Redefining Marriage

Severe flaws and limitations exist in the scientific research into the relatively new phenomenon of same-sex parenting, argue preeminent political scientists Leon R. Kass and Harvey C. Mansfield in a brief filed with the Supreme Court by Nelson Lund.

The scholars urge the Court not to redefine marriage based on the new and inconclusive research. The academic studies on same-sex parenting purporting to show “no differences” are, Kass and Mansfield argue, “subject to severe constraints arising from limited data” and a lack of “replicable experiments.”…

Kass and Mansfield highlight late Senator Daniel Moynihan’s (D–NY) statement that “social science is rarely dispassionate, and social scientists are frequently caught up in the politics” surrounding their work. The current political climate has influenced much of the existing research on issues regarding same-sex parenting.…

INC on March 25, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Anne-Claude Girard wrote this poignant appeal in her Open letter from adopted children to France. It is a moving insight into the price that children pay for the desires of adults.

Today, this same Republic is about to pass a law that would open adoption to same-sex couples. The law would eliminate the right for those who were guaranteed a mother and father before….

If we were not raised by those who conceived us, with a father and a mother who adopted us, we build our selfhood by understanding that we could have been the child of their love.

Our lineage is comparable to that of the two adoptive parents; this understanding is essential to make us who we are. I understood in becoming myself a mother, that that had been a fundamental stage of my development.

A number of professionals have explained to you how much the wound of being abandoned inspires, among adopted children, a tireless search for their origins.

How then can it even be conceived — to give an abandoned child to a same-sex couple? That is to condemn the child forever to the double doubt:

“why was I abandoned, and why do I not have a dad and a mom?”

…This fight is about those who have known the frailty of the state of abandonment, who are different, and who deserve to build themselves up within a home of father-mother-child.

INC on March 25, 2013 at 9:10 PM

I think it is a legitimate complaint that the Supreme Court is usurping decisions that should be made democratically. I have no problem with the Supreme Court saying the Federal government has to respect a state’s definition of marriage, but states should have the right to define marriage as they like. There is no human right to gay marriage. I think SSM will improve society, but it shouldn’t be imposed by the Supreme Court.

thuja on March 25, 2013 at 9:04 PM

That’s the problem. The Socialists want a Roe-like ruling manufacturing that “right” by the court that will A) be impossible to overturn, B) eliminate the concept of a “gay conservative” forever, and C) tear apart the society even further to the point that anarchy settles in and massive bloodshed occurs.

And that’s what will happen, with Roberts writing up the law while in the company of his lesbian cousin. He should be directly ordered to recuse himself on that alone.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 9:11 PM

And, if the judicial oligarchy decides to invalidate every vote against gay marriage, does this newfound definition of equal protection also mean I can now open carry in NYC, like in my home state of VA? – you know, as part of an actual constitutionally enumerated right? Somehow, I doubt it.

crrr6 on March 25, 2013 at 9:11 PM

From an article in Boulevard Voltaire, published in the form of an open letter to “adamant defenders of insemination and surrogacy.”

…parents are not simple custodians of fungible burros. They are branch and root, genesis and point of reference. From incontestable genetic parentage flows a spiritual and fleshly link….

…there are plenty families without “mom and dad”: widowhood and single-parent households are often the causes of such. Learn that between accepting the hardship life causes us and knowingly causing it by choosing to force a child to be born outside of these reference points, there lies a great difference: willfulness. The first circumstance is thrust onto a person, while the second is selfishly brought about.

INC on March 25, 2013 at 9:12 PM

I am amused at how pediatricians support dressing your children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair.

Furthermore, pediatricians are now contradicting themselves, since they screamed and pissed and cried that single parenthood and unmarried parenthood were just as good.

Looks like pediatricians are all bigots who don’t care about children, given their contradictory advice.

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Are you suggesting that taking children to something like that is a typical behavior of gay parents?

For the record, those parents are idiots. But then again so were the heterosexual parents I saw bring their kids to Zero Dark Thirty.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:14 PM

I wish every opponent of Same Sex Marriage were as cool as you are. Or maybe I don’t.

thuja on March 25, 2013 at 8:53 PM

That’s because for some of us, alot of us really it is the policy not the personal. You would have a great time with me in real life. I am a hoot.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Yeah. The AAP also advocates female genital mutilation. So they know what’s best.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Link?

And if you read the article it’s not just the AAP saying that.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 8:51 PM

It’s a damn shame what you kids are in for. I live in very rural part of New England far away from most the crap. I grew up in Dallas until I was 35 and the I moved up here. But I tell you, the people up here in the woods are very cool and traditional. It’s like a place that time forgot. And hope it continues to do so. Again, I feel for you and yours and wish you good luck.

rik on March 25, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Thank you.

It’s tough, because even though I’d like to be a father someday, I don’t want them to endure the hard-core suffering that would be coming their way. It’s not even worth it to be in a relationship.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 9:15 PM

I think it is a legitimate complaint that the Supreme Court is usurping decisions that should be made democratically. I have no problem with the Supreme Court saying the Federal government has to respect a state’s definition of marriage, but states should have the right to define marriage as they like. There is no human right to gay marriage. I think SSM will improve society, but it shouldn’t be imposed by the Supreme Court.

thuja on March 25, 2013 at 9:04 PM

I think you will actually find a backlash if SCOTUS rules in gays favor. Swaying public opinion which seems to be working was always the best bet.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 9:16 PM

You never heard of moral objections or religious objections.

I’ve heard of them, I’m just unmoved by them. We are not a theocracy.

And you remain blind to the persecution the Catholic Church will be going through.

Care to elaborate?

Betcha you will enjoy seeing dissenters getting arrested and charged with felonies.

But hey. I’m not the hedonist here.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 9:05 PM

I wouldn’t enjoy it and it’s not an issue because it’s not going to happen unless they run into anti-discrimination laws but that’s a separate issue.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:18 PM

From the article I quoted earlier on one of the amicus briefs:

As the brief states:

It is not simply the presence of two parents…but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.… Experts have long contended that both mothers and fathers make unique contributions to parenting.

The professors present a great deal of scholarship showing that mothering and fathering are different. The mother plays a critical role in a child’s neural development, communication, sense of security, problem solving, understanding and responding to feelings, and social ties to both friends and family.

The father’s involvement is linked to positive outcomes in education, physical health, and avoidance of juvenile delinquency. Children who “roughhouse with their fathers” learn that certain violent behavior is unacceptable. Fathers encourage exploration and discourage boys from “compensatory masculinity where they reject and denigrate all that is feminine and instead…engag[e] in domineering and violent behavior.”

INC on March 25, 2013 at 9:21 PM

That’s the problem. The Socialists want a Roe-like ruling manufacturing that “right” by the court that will A) be impossible to overturn, B) eliminate the concept of a “gay conservative” forever, and C) tear apart the society even further to the point that anarchy settles in and massive bloodshed occurs.

And that’s what will happen, with Roberts writing up the law while in the company of his lesbian cousin. He should be directly ordered to recuse himself on that alone.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together!

Seriously, if a couple gay people getting marriage licenses is what sinks us then we hit the iceberg decades ago.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Redefining Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty

Religious liberty doesn’t stop at the church doors. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the nonpartisan public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religions, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court making the case that legal recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages creates hazards for religious liberty, particularly when courts impose a redefinition of marriage

.

Via Ed Whelan at NRO’s Bench Memos, in Religious Liberty and the Same-Sex Marriage Cases: the Arguments The Becket Fund has posted its analysis of the briefs arguing against its position. It divides them into four basic groups, summarizes them, and concludes:

To sum up, the question of religious liberty is very much before the Court, despite the parties’ relative silence. The briefs submitted in opposition to our amicus brief contradict each other—some say nothing to see here, move along; others say there are religious liberty problems but they are justified, or that they just need watching. None of them convincingly refute our brief….

INC on March 25, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Seriously, if a couple gay people getting marriage licenses is what sinks us then we hit the iceberg decades ago.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Field of straw on fire!

Is not merely a license. Either you realize that and you’re dissimulating or you need to do some reading.

INC on March 25, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Are you suggesting that taking children to something like that is a typical behavior of gay parents?

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Of course.

Did you not read their argument?

Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.

“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.

So if you oppose taking children to a sex fair, you are a homophobic bigot with animus toward gay people.

Moreover, you’re going to love it when you find out what John Kruse is.

What a shock. Psychiatrists and doctors take their own children to sex fairs, so they think you should too.

Why are you anti-science, alchemist19? Psychiatrists and doctors know better than you do, so you should dress your children up as sexual slaves and take them to a sex fair.

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Seriously, if a couple gay people getting marriage licenses is what sinks us then we hit the iceberg decades ago.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:22 PM

In that case, yes and yes. Only thing really to debate in history classes centuries from now will be when we hit that iceberg. I say we did when William Jennings Bryan started demagoging to supporters in 1896.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Field of straw on fire!

Is not merely a license. Either you realize that and you’re dissimulating or you need to do some reading.

INC on March 25, 2013 at 9:25 PM

More an observation. Iowa’s had gay marriage for four years now all on account of a court’s ruling and the last poll I saw out of there said 92% of the population said it hadn’t affected them at all. So if we’re teetering on the brink that nudging a group that small can push us into anarchy and bloodshed then the plane has already crashed into the mountain.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:32 PM

And, if the judicial oligarchy decides to invalidate every vote against gay marriage, does this newfound definition of equal protection also mean I can now open carry in NYC, like in my home state of VA? – you know, as part of an actual constitutionally enumerated right? Somehow, I doubt it.

crrr6 on March 25, 2013 at 9:11 PM

It would be nice. I moved behind enemy lines not too long ago and my permit isn’t valid here. I would be ecstatic if that got changed.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:33 PM

You can’t even go and get a spicy chicken sandwich without it being some bigoted political statement. And we think marriage in the Catholic Church will be accepted by the mainstream in a few years? It’ll be tantamount to joining the ku klux klan.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 9:38 PM

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:32 PM

People in MA are already feeling the effect.

INC on March 25, 2013 at 9:39 PM

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 9:31 PM

The article you link quotes a man who thinks that was okay, and also states there were people who didn’t think it was okay to bring kids there and left with them. There’s no measure of how widespread the belief that that is an acceptable place for kids is amongst the gay community (you yourself are evidence the sentiment isn’t unanimous) so you’re trying to get me to argue over a few bits of anecdotal evidence. It’s meaningless. And it’s not news that some parents are stupid and bring their kids to things kids shouldn’t be at. Believe me, I wanted to ask the guy who brought his six and four year old to see someone tortured why exactly he thought that was a good idea.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:40 PM

People in MA are already feeling the effect.

INC on March 25, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Care to elaborate?

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:40 PM

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 9:04 PM

What are you even talking about here?

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:44 PM

you know, as part of an actual constitutionally enumerated right? Somehow, I doubt it.

crrr6 on March 25, 2013 at 9:11 PM

The actual rights are not absolute. Only the made-up ones are.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 9:47 PM

The article you link quotes a man who thinks that was okay, and also states there were people who didn’t think it was okay to bring kids there and left with them. There’s no measure of how widespread the belief that that is an acceptable place for kids is amongst the gay community (you yourself are evidence the sentiment isn’t unanimous) so you’re trying to get me to argue over a few bits of anecdotal evidence. It’s meaningless.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:40 PM

LOL.

These men, one of whom is a psychiatrist, dressed two two-year-old girls as sexual slaves in dog collars and took them into the street fair without a SINGLE person raising an objection or stopping them.

Here. Take a look. This is what the gay and lesbian community, plus the American Association of Pediatrics and the affiliated psychiatry and psychology groups, as well as Obama Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi, consider normal behavior suitable for showing children.

Finally, considering all the time you and your fellow bigots scream that I’m a self-loathing mentally-ill person, you don’t get to try to invoke my opinion as evidence in your favor.

Oh no. These are the people you are defending and supporting. This is the behavior you are pushing for children. Own it.

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Link?

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Look it up yourself.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Yeah. Aside from the Catholic Church, I can easily see a day coming in which when I preach in my church that homosexuality is wrong in the opinion of G-d, that I will be accused of a hate crime and arrested. For the good of the community, of course.

Nixcell on March 25, 2013 at 9:50 PM

You can’t even go and get a spicy chicken sandwich without it being some bigoted political statement. And we think marriage in the Catholic Church will be accepted by the mainstream in a few years? It’ll be tantamount to joining the ku klux klan.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Obama’s explicitly written birth control mandate was just the beginning. They don’t give a damn about religious liberty and want to outlaw every last remaining vestige.

After Roberts’ lesbian cousin helps him write his magically-found “right” for SSM, start up the countdown clock to the first Catholic Church getting sued.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 9:54 PM

LOL.

These men, one of whom is a psychiatrist, dressed two two-year-old girls as sexual slaves in dog collars and took them into the street fair without a SINGLE person raising an objection or stopping them.

Here. Take a look. This is what the gay and lesbian community, plus the American Association of Pediatrics and the affiliated psychiatry and psychology groups, as well as Obama Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi, consider normal behavior suitable for showing children.

Where did the American Associate of Pediatrics say that taking kids to that is a good idea?

Finally, considering all the time you and your fellow bigots scream that I’m a self-loathing mentally-ill person, you don’t get to try to invoke my opinion as evidence in your favor.

I find I rarely need to raise my voice at all so I almost never do. And again, it was you who called you a liberal bigot.

Oh no. These are the people you are defending and supporting. This is the behavior you are pushing for children. Own it.

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Here’s how you get in trouble when you make bad arguments. Gay marriage has nothing to do with this at all whatsoever. Gay marriage is illegal in California right now and this still happens. If you wanted to make a case that the guy who brought his two year old to that is a lousy parent then I’m right there with you. But it is totally, absolutely, 100% unrelated to the gay marriage issue. I don’t claim to know your mind because I can’t know what in your head but it’s when I see things like this that have no relation to the marriage issue presented as arguments it makes your side look intellectually vacant. You have nothing on the marriage matter so you’re trying to deflect.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Look it up yourself.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Does that mean you tried to find a link and failed or you did find a link but it turned out to not say what you thought it did?

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Yeah. Aside from the Catholic Church, I can easily see a day coming in which when I preach in my church that homosexuality is wrong in the opinion of G-d, that I will be accused of a hate crime and arrested. For the good of the community, of course.

Nixcell on March 25, 2013 at 9:50 PM

They’ll first push us into ghettos, make us wear cross-shaped lapels, then confiscate all our land, our businesses and our wealth, arrest us and then deport us into “reeducation camps” so as to eradicate us off the face of the Earth.

And yes, I am deadly serious here. These Socialists are no different from the National Socialists of Germany.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Does that mean you tried to find a link and failed or you did find a link but it turned out to not say what you thought it did?

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:57 PM

It means look it up yourself.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Not so sure about that, Myron. Why would they want to go to all that trouble when all the necessary legal structure is already in place? The last thing they would want is potential martyrs.

Nixcell on March 25, 2013 at 10:03 PM

It means look it up yourself.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM

The trouble is you’re not credible enough to just have me take your word for it.

No offense, I doubt I’m credible enough with you yet for you to just take my word for it. That’s why I provided the link.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Here’s how you get in trouble when you make bad arguments. Gay marriage has nothing to do with this at all whatsoever. Gay marriage is illegal in California right now and this still happens. If you wanted to make a case that the guy who brought his two year old to that is a lousy parent then I’m right there with you.

No, you’re not.

You’re quoting medical associations of which this person is a member as expert sources and blathering how gays and lesbians are all good parents.

What we see is that members of these medical associations dress children as sex slaves and take them to sex fairs to watch naked men masturbate, and call that good parenting.

But it is totally, absolutely, 100% unrelated to the gay marriage issue.

It’s absolutely related. You are quoting medical associations about using parenting to demand gay-sex marriage; I am pointing out that these organizations endorse, support, and push their members who dress their children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs as good parents.

What you don’t like is that I pointed out that these organizations and their members dress children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs. When we see that these organizations have members that are gay pedophiles and child exploiters, it ruins your argument.

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 10:05 PM

The essential key is to marginalize fundamental Christianity. This they are doing by calling us outdated, bigoted, homophobic hate-mongers. The more people believe that, the easier it is to simply dismiss us and what we say out of hand.

Nixcell on March 25, 2013 at 10:09 PM

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Sigh

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html?_r=0

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Not so sure about that, Myron. Why would they want to go to all that trouble when all the necessary legal structure is already in place? The last thing they would want is potential martyrs.

Nixcell on March 25, 2013 at 10:03 PM

With the way Socialists are as power-hungry as they are, I would put nothing past them. Especially when they can deem us “Enemies of the State” that must be “taken care of by any means necessary” for the good of the country.

Socialists are pure evil.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Socialists are pure evil.
Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 10:14 PM

True. But they’re shrewd enough now to merely push thoughts and ideas out of the mainstream. They won’t go whole hog because it’s unnecessary for the cause.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 10:17 PM

The Alliance Defending Freedom has sponsored 9 Weeks of Prayer For Marriage prior to the SCOTUS hearings on March 26 and 27. It’s been posting a one-page PDF list of attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants, and SCOTUS justice for whom to pray.

I’ve summarized the prayer requests and linked to the Alliance Defending Freedom’s PDF’s to download if you’d like to give them to any friends or Bible studies or go directly to ADF and get the PDF’s from the ADF left sidebar.


Praying For Marriage: Week 9

or

http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/page/why-marriage-matters

INC on March 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Academy of Pediatrics Endorses Same-Sex Marriage, but Science Not So Sure

In fact, the AAP has a long track record of using its air of scientific authority to make pronouncements on ideological issues. For example, the organization recently issued a “call to action” to ban certain types of guns and ammunition clips. It praised Obamacare’s “historic investment” in Medicaid expansion. The AAP even adopted the Obama Administration’s budgetary talking points in arguing for “a balanced approach to deficit reduction.”

These are perfectly legitimate political positions, but they are not scientific positions. We should never confuse the two, especially not when dealing with an issue as important as the definition of marriage.

INC on March 25, 2013 at 10:24 PM

True. But they’re shrewd enough now to merely push thoughts and ideas out of the mainstream. They won’t go whole hog because it’s unnecessary for the cause.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Unless, of course, they are Heil Bloomburg.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 10:29 PM

No, you’re not.

You’re quoting medical associations of which this person is a member as expert sources and blathering how gays and lesbians are all good parents.

What we see is that members of these medical associations dress children as sex slaves and take them to sex fairs to watch naked men masturbate, and call that good parenting.

I would have thought after you called yourself a liberal bigot that you would have learned that words mean things.

The AAP did NOT say that all gay and lesbian couples were going to be good parents. They said the sexual orientation of the parent makes no difference. I think the number of homosexuals in the US is around ten million or so. Within any group that large there are going to be a couple idiots, and in my book anyone who would take a small child to something like that qualifies as one of those. Though it’s not like there aren’t heterosexuals who are terrible at parenting either.

And there will be more on that “medical associations of which this person is a member” later!

It’s absolutely related. You are quoting medical associations about using parenting to demand gay-sex marriage; I am pointing out that these organizations endorse, support, and push their members who dress their children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs as good parents.

What exactly does the AAP do? Hopefully what I wrote above this about words meaning things shows you how little sense this paragraph made.

What you don’t like is that I pointed out that these organizations and their members dress children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs. When we see that these organizations have members that are gay pedophiles and child exploiters, it ruins your argument.

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 10:05 PM

The AAP dressed the kid in the outfit and took them out or this one member did?

And if you had actually read the article I originally linked you would have seen down at the bottom that this wasn’t a direct vote of their membership. The academy’s committee reviews scientific literature, which sends that to their board of directors and from there to their three person executive committee for a final vote.

And all of this is really beside the point because the guy who brought his kid to the thing is a psychiatrist and the article was about pediatricians. There’s a bit of a difference between the two! Like I’ve been trying to tell you since you first called yourself a liberal bigot, words mean things!

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 10:35 PM

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Thanks for the link.

On some level I understand the thought process in tolerating a tiny evil to try to prevent a greater one, even if I disagree with the line of thinking. The association reversed itself within a couple weeks, BTW.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 10:46 PM

The AAP did NOT say that all gay and lesbian couples were going to be good parents. They said the sexual orientation of the parent makes no difference.

But of course, the parents who dressed children as sexual slaves and took them to the sex fairs made it clear that they were doing so because of their sexual orientation and that such behavior was completely normal for their sexual orientation.

Which makes this hilarious.

Though it’s not like there aren’t heterosexuals who are terrible at parenting either.

Really? Where do you see heterosexuals dressing up children as sex slaves and taking them to a sex fair, and then insisting that you’re a “heterophobic bigot” if you object?

This is gays and lesbians dressing children as sexual slaves, taking them to a sex fair, and insisting their sexual orientation makes them do it and that you are a homophobic bigot for objecting.

Why do you think the AAP endorses that?

And all of this is really beside the point because the guy who brought his kid to the thing is a psychiatrist and the article was about pediatricians. There’s a bit of a difference between the two! Like I’ve been trying to tell you since you first called yourself a liberal bigot, words mean things!

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Perhaps you could read your own article.

The academy’s statement notes that several other national health groups have supported gay marriage. Those are the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the American College of Nursing.

So they all support their members dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair, and call that “good parenting”.

Why do you think so many medical professionals endorse and support dressing children as sexual slaves and then showing them off to people like these?

Do you think these organizations that endorse this and demand that you are a homophobe if you don’t show your children this behavior have the best interest of children in mind?

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 10:58 PM

On some level I understand the thought process in tolerating a tiny evil to try to prevent a greater one, even if I disagree with the line of thinking. The association reversed itself within a couple weeks, BTW.
alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Yeah, besides this is a gay marriage thread, women don’t matter.

happytobehere on March 25, 2013 at 10:58 PM

Warner’s principles are dependent on only two things: Money and which way he thinks the political winds are blowing.

Wisdom, honor, integrity . . . Nah!

EdmundBurke247 on March 25, 2013 at 10:58 PM

Fun reading Allah as the Democrats twist themselves into little purple pretzels as they move left toward his gay-centric social positions.

I keep waiting for the post when he surrenders his scorn for their hypocrisy and lies, and instead gushes his admiration for their newfound leftism. Guess I’ll just enjoy the skewering while it lasts.

Exit Question: What’s the over/under on the red Hot Air flame logo turning purple (or is it “rainbow”)?

Jaibones on March 25, 2013 at 11:15 PM

There is not a long enough history to serve as a data base to claim the innocuous nature of same sex marriage and the effect on children, let alone it being a positive force in society.
Like it or not, that the truth.

Mimzey on March 25, 2013 at 11:27 PM

But of course, the parents who dressed children as sexual slaves and took them to the sex fairs made it clear that they were doing so because of their sexual orientation and that such behavior was completely normal for their sexual orientation.

Which makes this hilarious.

I must confess you have me at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to what constitutes behavior that is completely normal for gays and lesbians. Are you saying that is something a majority of gay people do, and if so how do you know? (Scientific studies only, please. No need to link to any pictures.) If you’re going to say that something is completely normal I want to know how do you know it’s completely normal. Because it sounds to me like it’s a few out of the ten million or so gay people there are in the country.

And where do you see that the Kruse guy is even a member of the American Psychiatric Association? I see he’s a psychiatrist but that doesn’t mean he’s a member. Even if he is, I’m not sure what that association said or how much influence he had over it.

Really? Where do you see heterosexuals dressing up children as sex slaves and taking them to a sex fair, and then insisting that you’re a “heterophobic bigot” if you object?

This is gays and lesbians dressing children as sexual slaves, taking them to a sex fair, and insisting their sexual orientation makes them do it and that you are a homophobic bigot for objecting.

Why do you think the AAP endorses that?

The AAP did not endorse that. Since you missed it the first time, all they said that based on available scientific studies the sexual orientation of the parents didn’t make any difference in the development of a child. The question is what conclusion you want to draw from that. You seem to be suggesting to me that taking a child to a street fair like the one you’ve been citing would be a typical behavior of gay parents. If that’s what you’re asserting then it turns out taking a child to that sort of environment isn’t harmful. I would find that somewhat difficult to believe. An alternate conclusion is that taking a child to something like that is a very atypical behavior so while you can find anecdotal evidence of a few horrible parents amongst the gay community it’s not any more widespread than it is amongst the heterosexual community. Seem reasonable to you?

So they all support their members dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair, and call that “good parenting”.

No they don’t.

Why do you think so many medical professionals endorse and support dressing children as sexual slaves and then showing them off to people like these?

They don’t.

Do you think these organizations that endorse this and demand that you are a homophobe if you don’t show your children this behavior have the best interest of children in mind?

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 10:58 PM

They don’t endorse it. Your question is flawed.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 11:28 PM

alchemist19 I’m just going to C+P the Facebook post I wrote about this since I live in Massachusetts and we’re already suffering here:

Kind of sick when the American Society of Pediatrics endorses gay marriage on the basis that marriage helps gay parents of the children. A note: Every last one of the things I will mention in this post is an existing past event. Google it. I don’t engage in hypotheticals and I’ll be happy to link you.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377.full.pdf+html

Biological Reality Alert: Children don’t have gay “parents.” They have a gay parent and a non-parent partner. One of those people’s DNA and medical history has an impact on their future health prospects. The other does not – and the actual other biological parent’s DNA and medical history does.

Or are the Marriage Equality folks now going to tell me that Parent Equality means there is absolutely no reason to believe there’s a difference between the people who birthed you and others that may be your caretakers.

How much do we have to twist and pervert marriage to make it about adult relationships instead of protecting children before the “Marriage Equality” folks relent?

How many idiotic court decisions do we have that reference how important it is to protect the children of gay couples while providing no mechanism to do so (Goodridge)? – Rulings that are then used to prevent Catholic Charities from adopting children with NO parents out to couples. Rulings that are then used to mandate public schools expand the number of students with gender identity disorder by enabling and supporting the pathology’s development with subsidy.

I know there’s at least a few “Marriage Equality” folks on my friends list. Could you please tell me, once and for all: Which parent is entirely dispensable for a child – their mother or their father? Why do we have to re-orient our entire society on the basis we no longer have the testicular fortitude to say that two women or two men cannot do the same thing for a child that a mother and father can? I did not pick this fight – it is you who say traditional marriage is an anachronism. It is you who are pushing your morals down my throat, with my tax dollars.

And one more thing: Aren’t these “Marriage Equality” folks the EXACT SAME people who point to the 50% divorce rate as a reason marriage isn’t really that great and stable in the first place? How do you hold the belief that marriage is simultaneously useless for stability and the most stable relationship in existence? Easily, if what you believe is that marriage doesn’t matter so changing it doesn’t matter – but once it changes it will somehow definitely matter.

It’s a bunch of bullshit to avoid saying the obvious: We have an entire generation of selfish adults who want freebies and adulation from the government. There is no valid reason to base government benefits and de-facto societal approval around romantic love. Romantic love is as flighty and capricious as Mark Sanford, Jim McGreevy, Eliot Spitzer, and Arnold Schwartzeneggar to name just a few.

Marriage exists to protect children. Even Goodridge acknowledged that – and then it tossed children naked onto the hill for the wolves to eat. That’s what happens when you graft discrimination on the basis of gender onto society’s marital mores – you create a culture where acknowledging the differences between men and women is illegal – you create a culture where adopting children out solely to adoptive parents that can give them both a father and mother perspective is punished – you create a culture where little boys who want to be little girls isn’t a phase, it’s a gender identity that needs to be nurtured (to the exclusion of parents, if necessary per the MA DESE) no matter what the consequences.

I don’t have kids, but I recognize stupidity and gutlessness when I see it. You want to promote the well-being of children of gay and lesbian people? Make sure they know everything about both of their biological parents. Don’t hide from them the truth that Heather has a Mommy and a Daddy, even if that might make the Mommy who left her Daddy feel bad. The child has a right to know. If you don’t believe so – don’t question my character, look in the mirror and stop congratulating yourself for lying to children to make yourself feel good about an equality that doesn’t exist.

There are legal remedies to every single problem mentioned in this report that do not have the demonstrated negative fallout that redefining marriage does. I happily and eagerly support all of those. If only our supposedly pro-gay Democrat supermajority would do something about it instead of letting the court leave gay couples in a legal limbo. By calling it marriage they have made those arrangements impossible to transfer to other states and subjected them to meddling at the federal level, and the potential to get the ruling overturned by a different court in the future. That is not a kindness.

BKennedy on March 26, 2013 at 12:15 AM

Which children? All children? In what way?

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Pre-pubescent children don’t have a fully developed sexual identity. Legalizing same sex marriage means that, according to the law, a marriage between a man and another man is perfectly normal. Not just normal for gay men, normal PERIOD! Children will grow up believing that we can all go either way, that we’re all AC/DC. Down the road, this will inevitably lead to an increase in future generations engaging in bi-sexuality.

I don’t share religious people’s view that gay people choose to be gay. I think certain people are born with a genetic defect that makes them desire romantic love with members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex. On the other hand, I believe that bi-sexuality is sexually deviant behavior.

There’s no evidence whatsoever of a “bi-sexual community” of people who have gone through life going back and forth between having serious, monogamous relations with both men and women. I’m sure you know some people who, over the course of their lives, have been involved in up to 5 or 6 serious relationships. How many people do you know who, over the course of their lives, have been in involved in a half dozen serious relationships, 3 of them with men and 3 of them with women?

I’m not talking about people who are gay who were confused about their sexuality and married a member of the opposite sex before coming to terms with the fact that their gay. I’m talking about people who knew from an early age that they were bi-sexual, and gave their family and friends fair warning that one week they might be dating a guy, and the next week they might be dating a woman?

WHERE ARE ALL THE BI-SEXUAL WRITERS WHO HAVE WRITTEN SCREENPLAYS AND BOOKS ABOUT HOW BEING BI-SEXUAL IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN BEING GAY OR STRAIGHT, WITH A WHOLE ENTIRE DIFFERENT SET OF DILEMMAS? WHY ARE SO CALLED BI-SEXUALS CONTENT TO BE BIT PART PLAYERS IN THE LGBT UMBRELLA GROUP? WHY DON’T THEY HAVE THEIR OWN SEPARATE MOVEMENT? BECAUSE. THEY. DON’T. EXIST!

Heterosexuals who engage in bi-sexuality were either molested as children, or were lured into a bi-sexual experience at an impressionable age via peer pressure from other sexual deviants.

Making it legal for heterosexuals to marry members of the same sex is akin to making it legal for parents to marry their children or people to marry their pets. Yeah, no one in their right mind would do any of these things. Until you make it legal, and then a bunch of flakes will start doing it. The same way people are getting sex changes, or growing t#ts while still holding on to their d#cks.

Legalizing same sex marriage means opening up 97% of the population to deviant behavior for the benefit of 3% of the people who were born with a birth defect.

ardenenoch on March 26, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Biological Reality Alert: Children don’t have gay “parents.” They have a gay parent and a non-parent partner. One of those people’s DNA and medical history has an impact on their future health prospects. The other does not – and the actual other biological parent’s DNA and medical history does.

This is true. The children raised by a gay couple would hardly be unique in this light though. Also there’s so much involved in a married gay person becoming a parent that it almost necessitates knowing who the other biological parent is. It’s generally difficult for a lesbian to go out one night, get drunk, wake up next to someone they don’t know and find themselves pregnant.

Or are the Marriage Equality folks now going to tell me that Parent Equality means there is absolutely no reason to believe there’s a difference between the people who birthed you and others that may be your caretakers.

Adoptive parents have been making this be successful for a very long time. It’s not even that hard to find “caretakers” who do it better than biological parents. Are you suggesting they can’t?

How much do we have to twist and pervert marriage to make it about adult relationships instead of protecting children before the “Marriage Equality” folks relent?

Kids are one aspect of marriage. They’re not the whole thing, nor have they ever been a necessary part of it.

How many idiotic court decisions do we have that reference how important it is to protect the children of gay couples while providing no mechanism to do so (Goodridge)? – Rulings that are then used to prevent Catholic Charities from adopting children with NO parents out to couples. Rulings that are then used to mandate public schools expand the number of students with gender identity disorder by enabling and supporting the pathology’s development with subsidy.

The two adoption cases I’m aware of are Massachusetts and Illinois; in Massachusetts the Catholic group didn’t really fight it and in Illinois they were told they could refuse to place children with gay couples only if they also gave up state funding and rather than give up the cash they quit. Are you referring to one of those or something else? I’m totally unfamiliar with the bit about quotas of students with gender identity disorder so you’ll have to provide some specifics. I don’t want to get drawn too far into the weeds on a separate issue though.

I know there’s at least a few “Marriage Equality” folks on my friends list. Could you please tell me, once and for all: Which parent is entirely dispensable for a child – their mother or their father? Why do we have to re-orient our entire society on the basis we no longer have the testicular fortitude to say that two women or two men cannot do the same thing for a child that a mother and father can? I did not pick this fight – it is you who say traditional marriage is an anachronism. It is you who are pushing your morals down my throat, with my tax dollars.

The child’s parents are responsible for the welfare of the child. This is actually one of the reasons gay marriage ought to be legalized. I’ve come across horror stories where a man who agreed to donate sperm for a lesbian couple was pursued by the state for child support after the couple split. That shouldn’t happen.

And one more thing: Aren’t these “Marriage Equality” folks the EXACT SAME people who point to the 50% divorce rate as a reason marriage isn’t really that great and stable in the first place? How do you hold the belief that marriage is simultaneously useless for stability and the most stable relationship in existence? Easily, if what you believe is that marriage doesn’t matter so changing it doesn’t matter – but once it changes it will somehow definitely matter.

Marriage is great and stable if you do it right. I point to the 50% divorce rate and the growth of things like no fault divorce as items that really did do damage to the institution of marriage. What I don’t agree with is the notion that gay marriage will do damage to it.

It’s a bunch of b******* to avoid saying the obvious: We have an entire generation of selfish adults who want freebies and adulation from the government. There is no valid reason to base government benefits and de-facto societal approval around romantic love. Romantic love is as flighty and capricious as Mark Sanford, Jim McGreevy, Eliot Spitzer, and Arnold Schwartzeneggar to name just a few.

I won’t take a lot of issue with this, though I would be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Marriage exists to protect children. Even Goodridge acknowledged that – and then it tossed children naked onto the hill for the wolves to eat. That’s what happens when you graft discrimination on the basis of gender onto society’s marital mores – you create a culture where acknowledging the differences between men and women is illegal – you create a culture where adopting children out solely to adoptive parents that can give them both a father and mother perspective is punished – you create a culture where little boys who want to be little girls isn’t a phase, it’s a gender identity that needs to be nurtured (to the exclusion of parents, if necessary per the MA DESE) no matter what the consequences.

Now you’re starting to head off the rails. Marriage exists for many reasons. Protecting children is one. Who is saying acknowledging the differences between a man and a woman is illegal? Haven’t we already flirted with that ERA stuff and decided not to go there? As for the transsexual stuff you’re starting to get at, I don’t even know what that’s about, it’s so far from being anything I can relate to that I can’t even begin to fathom it and I have no clue whatsoever what that has to do with the gay marriage debate. If all this stuff is going to flow from a court ruling that didn’t go your way and you’re worried SCOTUS is about to follow suit then I’d try to jump in front of the court, legalize it now and prevent whatever legal precedent you’re worried about from being set.

I don’t have kids, but I recognize stupidity and gutlessness when I see it. You want to promote the well-being of children of gay and lesbian people? Make sure they know everything about both of their biological parents. Don’t hide from them the truth that Heather has a Mommy and a Daddy, even if that might make the Mommy who left her Daddy feel bad. The child has a right to know. If you don’t believe so – don’t question my character, look in the mirror and stop congratulating yourself for lying to children to make yourself feel good about an equality that doesn’t exist.

I would suspect that at some point a child being raised by a gay couple is going to figure things out. Like I said before, the extra layer of difficulty involved in bringing a child into a gay couple pretty much dictates people are going to know exactly who the other biological parent is.

There are legal remedies to every single problem mentioned in this report that do not have the demonstrated negative fallout that redefining marriage does. I happily and eagerly support all of those. If only our supposedly pro-gay Democrat supermajority would do something about it instead of letting the court leave gay couples in a legal limbo. By calling it marriage they have made those arrangements impossible to transfer to other states and subjected them to meddling at the federal level, and the potential to get the ruling overturned by a different court in the future. That is not a kindness.

BKennedy on March 26, 2013 at 12:15 AM

Here’s where we really disagree. If there is true negative fallout from redefining marriage I’ve not had anyone bring it to me. I’ve heard religious objections but as we aren’t governed by a theocracy that’s not enough. You talk about legal remedies to the problems you’ve cited and that’s going to involve writing and passing new laws about the tax code, insurance regulations and on and on from there, hoping we didn’t leave anything out along the way. Legalizing gay marriage takes care of all of those in one fell swoop. We have to absolutely protect religious liberties when we do it but that’s a lot easier solution than what you’re talking about.

alchemist19 on March 26, 2013 at 1:12 AM

ardenenoch on March 26, 2013 at 12:27 AM

.

.

Um

.

….

Ah

..

Well, in one respect I absolutely have to give you credit. I was beginning to think I had heard just about everything the good folks on the other side of the issue from me have to say. But then here comes something totally different. Thank you for being original.

It’s so original in fact that I can’t ever even remember hearing anything remotely like it. Do you have some hard evidence to support the claims you’re making there or are you just making assumptions.

alchemist19 on March 26, 2013 at 1:32 AM

.

.

Um

.

….

Ah

..

Well, in one respect I absolutely have to give you credit. I was beginning to think I had heard just about everything the good folks on the other side of the issue from me have to say. But then here comes something totally different. Thank you for being original.

It’s so original in fact that I can’t ever even remember hearing anything remotely like it. Do you have some hard evidence to support the claims you’re making there or are you just making assumptions.

alchemist19 on March 26, 2013 at 1:32 AM

Burden of proof is on your side, jack. Tell us when you find the “Bisexual” gene and what differentiates it from the “gay” gene.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 26, 2013 at 4:05 AM

Burden of proof is on your side, jack. Tell us when you find the “Bisexual” gene and what differentiates it from the “gay” gene.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 26, 2013 at 4:05 AM

Not so much. If you’re going to assert things then you need to be able to support them with evidence. So when I read something like

Down the road, this will inevitably lead to an increase in future generations engaging in bi-sexuality.

I want to know what’s causing this person to say that. “Inevitably” means something. I want to know what facts lead to this inevitable assertion.

alchemist19 on March 26, 2013 at 4:28 AM

Good ol’ anti-marriage19; just HAS to have the last word. Oh wait. :p

Myron Falwell on March 26, 2013 at 6:54 AM

Oh what joy for liberals giving us that good ole “Living Constitution” which can mean anything we want based on current prevailing opinion. Now they’ll give us a “Living Dictionary” where definitions can be changed similarly. What’s next after re-defining marriage? Pedophilia? Beastiality? Rape? Murder? Life? Death? Surely they won’t stop with just redefining marriage. And why limit the number of folks involved in a “marriage”? Why can’t five men all be married to each other? Or ten women? And why have age limitations? Why limit it to living people? Why limit it TO people? Hell, the sky’s the limit! Go for it!

olesparkie on March 26, 2013 at 7:10 AM

Alchemist19 thinks if he spins enough, he can run away from the fact that his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters like to dress up children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs — and that the medical organizations he lists support such as normal behavior for gay “parents”.

Meanwhile, it’s even funnier that he runs away from the pictures of said sex fair. I wonder if it’s because it ruins his propaganda about those gays there just wanting “stable, committed, monogamous relationships” when you show them having orgies with multiple partners on a public street?

northdallasthirty on March 26, 2013 at 10:14 AM

alchemist19 on March 26, 2013 at 1:12 AM

The background on the transgender stuff is that the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) recently mandated that all school districts accomodate children who are transgendered. This is done by punishing any students that show discomfort at the transgendered student’s dress or behavior. Their ruling stipulates that such action is to be taken solely at the word of the child – they do not require proof that the child has gender identity disorder (a whole nother can of worms, but not relevant).

It ties into gay marriage because without the notion that gender is irrelevant to marriage and that it is gender discrimation not to marry gay couples according to state law, the state must now endorse and support any gender preferences a student professes.

The problem here is that there are incredible amounts of evidence that gay marriage isn’t even neutral at best – it is harmful – but that proponents refuse to admit that evidence into their thought process to persuade their opinion.

Conservatives never even wanted this fight – it is the pro SSM folks who want to change society. Why is it conservatives have to explain why things should remain while pro-SSM folks don’t have to explain anything?

BKennedy on March 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM

The other thing is that marriage exists ONLY because children do.

Saying protecting children is just one part of civil marriage is like saying the hot dog is just one part of a Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog. It is true in a literalist sense since a Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog has multiple ingredients, but without the hot dog one has to ask: “Where’s the Beef?”

Religious marriage is extra-legal, it’s a spiritually defined institution. I’m a devout Catholic so I obvious believe in it, but all of my arguments are secular. All of my objections are based in public policy fallouts demonstrated to occur and likely to occur in the future. If it weren’t for the first amendment, I guarantee you Massachusetts would have thrown a preacher in jail by now for preaching about marriage from the pulpit in a way that wasn’t state-approved.

Societies that recognize gay marriage invariably lean more statist, as it gives The State more opportunities to prosecute those opposed to its amoral (or immoral) edicts. People rightfully get upset when laws don’t match easily discernable biological realities, and people who recognize them are punished.

BKennedy on March 26, 2013 at 12:19 PM

I wouldn’t enjoy it and it’s not an issue because it’s not going to happen unless they run into anti-discrimination laws but that’s a separate issue.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Only to the willfully blind is this a separate issue.

dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Good ol’ anti-marriage19; just HAS to have the last word. Oh wait. :p

Myron Falwell on March 26, 2013 at 6:54 AM

I don’t need the last word at all; I’m here to correct misconceptions and errors and when the last word isn’t one of those then I’ll keep my mouth shut.

And I’m far from anti-marriage. I think marriage is a great thing and I want more of it. If you want to find someone anti-marriage then look in the mirror. ;-)

alchemist19 on March 26, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Alchemist19 thinks if he spins enough, he can run away from the fact that his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters like to dress up children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs — and that the medical organizations he lists support such as normal behavior for gay “parents”.

Rather than address anything I said directly you instead say “He’s just spinning. Come on, you’re silly and you’re ignorant but I thought you were better than that! Show me a poll or a study of something that says a majority of gay marriage supports think it’s a good idea to take kids to places like the one you keep trying to get everyone to go see and I’ll shut up.

Meanwhile, it’s even funnier that he runs away from the pictures of said sex fair. I wonder if it’s because it ruins his propaganda about those gays there just wanting “stable, committed, monogamous relationships” when you show them having orgies with multiple partners on a public street?

northdallasthirty on March 26, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Does this mean you’re ready to give me an answer to the question you dodged earlier about whether taking kids to something like that is a typical behavior or gay parents (and therefore harmless because we’ve seen sexual orientation of the parent makes no difference) or a very atypical example (therefore not relevant the larger discussion).

alchemist19 on March 26, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2