That's what gay activists imply when someone disagrees with them, the point of this thread, do you remember ? What exactly are you trying to prove. I'm a social conservative and I supported Obama, and your point is ?
and never will be. They're just wasting their time trying to equate Gay Marriage with Slavery. It's outrageous !
You seem to be having a little trouble with logic. I'm not a gay activist. This was my first statement on the topic: "The important issue here is not gay marriage, but rather, 'what role should government play in our lives?'. This issue transcends 'limited interest' issues such as gay marriage. Think about it." Watch the video again.
I think government should stay OUT of the bedroom and our lives, I don't believe in a nanny state, no do I believe in handouts, bailouts, employment insurance and social security. But In this case, and again I'm returning your own question to you, Gays are trying to get the government to SANCTION their relationships. So it's not the government that trying to play a bigger role in our lives, it's gay people that want the government to play a bigger role in their lives.
What the hell are you talking about? Proposition 8, which gays opposed, was a proposed addition to the California state Constitution, a.k.a. bigger government role. C'mon man, you're making yourself look silly here. Let logic be your guide.
Take away the church for a moment. Separate religious belief from essential constitutional rights for freedom to love and marry whomever you wish. When it comes down to it, a basic human right to marry another person, animal, group of animals, a member of the same sex, have multiple wives or husbands, why not? Take away the religious implications and look to the essential practicality of what marriage is. It is silly for a nation built on progressive ideas, the very foundation of our country was a progressive move, to have to cling to old ideas simply because they are old. Does it make sense to stop using indoor plumbing because in 1789 they had no indoor plumbing? No, it is foolish to ignore anything that is progressive, as long as it doesn't damage the rights of others or harm society. I challenge anyone to produce statistical factual and scientific data to show that the best way for a child to be raised is in a household where there is a mother and father who are married. It is silly. Our president elect was not raised in such a situation. 100s of years ago it would not have even been possible for a white woman to marry a black man. We are missing the whole idea of what is best for our country, what is best for our society. If someone can truly demonstrate that gay marriage, in which the parents adopt children produces children more inclined to bring down our society, than, well, out law it. Was prohibition of alcohol a good thing? I think so. There is no doubt and no science that will show that alcohol abuse is good for a society or the general health of an individual or family structure. So did prohibition work? Did trying to deny the impulse of people to drink curb the impulse to drink? Did it eliminate the desire to drink? Did America fall apart after the repeal of prohibition? We have to face facts that what really matters for a child is the love and nurturing they get as children. If a woman was sterile, couldn't have children, would it matter if she married a man? Why is a man going to provide a better environment for the child than another woman? A widow who has a child moves in with her sister. The children now have two mothers. Are the children doomed because they have no father in the home? Nobody seems to be thinking this through or applying any kind of rational and scientific data to this situation. This whole situation is filled with bigotry, and religions infliction on the rights of human beings to love who they want to love, and raise children with the love they feel for each others. Marriage under God may be a scared thing. Is that what we are seeing in America? Are we seeing marriage under God, parents following God's laws? We see a 50% divorce rate. Now you tell me that a broken home is better off for a child than a non broken home where both parents are of the same sex? We see 75% of spouses cheating on each other, that is better than two men who don't cheat on each other as role models for the children they raise? We see rampant spousal abuse, rampant alcohol abuse, child abuse...and this would be and is better than a homosexual marriage where there is no spousal abuse, no rampant drug or alcohol abuse, and no child abuse? There comes a time when traditions have to be examined to see if they truly serve a purpose. Traditional marriage is another myth in America, it simply does not exist. Facts bear this out. Why not try gay marriage and track the data to see how the kids turn out. Imagine if we see that kids actually turn out better? What would that mean? That gay marriage is better, or that traditional marriage is not working because people stick to traditions rather than going back to the true spirit of the religions principles that were the foundation for marriage, i.e. love of God, love of family, fidelity, being a good person, and setting an example for children on how to be good Christians, or good Jews, or good Atheists, etc. Guys like Bill O'Reilly call themselves traditionalists, because they dream of a return to the way America used to be. Until we wake up and realize that is never going to happen, then we have no chance at progressing as a nation into the 21st century and beyond. We need traditions that are bound and tied into behavior because they are connected to a true spiritual life, not simply because they exist in name only. Marriage as an institution, if properly divorced from religions thinking (which is what the constitution suggests) will leave us with the reality of what is really best for the children and society for future generations. All those who hate homosexuals and are afraid of homosexual marriage, look to your own lives. Are you truly walking in Christ's shoes? Are you truly following his path, his example, or are you just an in name only Christian focusing on the lives of others so that you don't have to examine the flaws in your own life.
The addition of the language to the constitution is the LAST resort to stop activist judges from legislating from the bench. so if it takes amending the constitution to signal to these judges the will of the people , so be it. it's not making government bigger, it's stopping the government from being bigger Intellectual dishonesty and personal attacks are not going to compensate for the weakness of your argument.
I challenge anyone to produce statistical factual and scientific data to show that the best way for a child to be raised is in a household where there is a mother and father who are married. ======================================= The data probably doesn't or won't ever exist. But I'm sure there is plenty of data on how not to raise a child, begining with children growing up in a home without a father. I'm sure there is a wealth of data on male prison inmates and juvenile offenders whose life began in a fatherless home.
Having a father who is in jail is much different than having no father in jail. Do children need a positive male role model in order to have a "normal life?" An absence of a positive role model because there is no male role model would be quite different than having a negative role model as a father. Many of the problems in children are easily traced back to their home life. Latchkey children, fathers who beat their wives and children, fathers who are alcoholic, abusive mothers...all pretty much accepted as negative forces in a child's development. So it should be pretty easy to track the impact of having two fathers or two mothers and the subsequent impact on a child's life.