Pennsylvania gay marriage ban struck down-

If you had proof homosexuality was genetic (which you laughably do not) I would be as supportive of it as I am of race because you can't change your race. You are genetically born that way.

But you don't and since this is being done by fascist judges based on feelings not Constitutional law the point is the same.

It would be just as fascist if a judge came into Maine for example who actually voted on gay marriage and used his/her personal religious objection to block gay marriages. That's the difference between liberals and myself. I'm consistent with my demands of government.

Now what? Did I surprise you?

- - - Updated - - -

Gay marriage doesn't exist in the Constitution. The people's right to vote does. Try again.

 

but because it's separate, it's inherently unequal, which is unconstitutional. So, marriage works just fine for gays.

 

There is no indication to think that progressives are ever going to stop trying to change society and rest on their laurels. Their xenophilia will always require a new exciting thing to push onto the status quo society. And the "bigot" card will be pulled against whoever disagrees with their social agenda, including the two aforementioned goals.

 

of course not. separate but equal is unconstitutional.

 

It is not now, or will it ever be normal.

Regardless of how many courts approve of it.

However, if one group (heteros) have a right, then all groups (including homos) have that same right.

Legally, I can see no other way.

 

The women need be confronted with the Facts about the Child Abuse that comes with promiscuous sexual standards.
Until women see the Child abuse among Single Mother families and then change the way we teach teenagers to behave, the Gays are just as entitled to doing sexual behaviors we do not like.

 

Yep,...

If the feminists can get OK on bad behaviors in spite of immense Child Abuse for ids raise fatherless, then Gays have every reason to demand sexual promiscuity for themselves, too.



We see the government adhering to a Politically Correctness that comes from the women.

The Institution of Marriage is under assault in regard to Gayness and No Fault Divorce.

The Institution of Education has mothers siding with students, not teachers.

The Cultural Institution is full of abortions, Welfare, illegitimacy, 14 years of pre-marriage teenage sex, and half the kids suffering child abuse because they are fatherless.

The Military Institution is now mercenary.

The Economic Institution suffers low wages because the Unskilled Labor Force has doubled as women work and manage families at the same time.

The Political Institution is divided into Liberals VS Consevatives such that nothing gets done.

 

The question is simple. Is marriage a RIGHT?

If it is, then it is protected by the Constitution for ALL it's citizens. Like free speech, free association, free religion.

There is no sane, legal argument against it.

None.

 

But how does advertising their sexual behavior have any meaning in regard to what they do sexually together?

If they we silent about the whole thing and just behaved as if sex was not open to discussion, the kids would be growing up sexually prudent and Welfare would not really exist.

 

ZERO since Windsor. As Scalia predicted, to his chagrin.

 

i don't see anything sexual. i just see what looks to be a gay couple, smiling, holding hands in front of the liberty bell.

that all you can see is them naked, going at it, is YOUR PROBLEM.

 

Marriage is "not right."
What we called "marriage" meant No Divorce.
What about the Kids?????
What about "their rights?"

Today, feminists have changed marriage into what it now is, and changed the way kids are raised.
Child Abuse is enormous.








Some fathering advocates would say that almost every social ill faced by America's children is related to fatherlessness.

Six are noted here.
As supported by the data below, children from fatherless homes are more likely to be poor, become involved in drug and alcohol abuse, drop out of school, and suffer from health and emotional
problems.
Boys are more likely to become involved in crime, and girls are more likely to become pregnant as teens.

1. Poverty

- Children in father-absent homes are five times more likely to be poor. In
2002, 7.8% of children in married-couple families were living in poverty,
compared to 38.4% of children in female-householder families.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children's Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March
2002, P20-547, Table C8.(*)Washington, D.C.: GPO 2003.

- In 1996, young children living with unmarried mothers were five times
as likely to be poor and ten times as likely to be extremely poor.
Source: "One in Four: America's Youngest Poor." National Center for children in Poverty. 1996.
(*)
- Almost 75% of American children living in single-parent families will
experience poverty before they turn 11 years old. Only 20 percent of
children in two-parent families will do the same.
Source: National Commission on Children. Just the Facts: A Summary of Recent information
on America's Children and their Families. Washington, DC, 1993.
(*)
poverty.gif ¨(*)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.Statistical Abstract of the United States 1994. Washington, DC: GPO 1994.

2. Drug and Alcohol Abuse

- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states, "Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse."
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC, 1993.
(*)
- Children growing up in single-parent households are at a significantly increased risk for drug abuse as teenagers.
Source: Denton, Rhonda E. and Charlene M. Kampfe. "The relationship Between Family Variables and Adolescent Substance Abuse: A literature Review." Adolescence 114 (1994): 475-495.
(*)
- Children who live apart from their fathers are 4.3 times more likely to smoke cigarettes as teenagers than children growing up with their fathers in the home.
Source: Stanton, Warren R., Tian P.S. Oci and Phil A. Silva. "Sociodemographic characteristics of Adolescent Smokers." The International Journal of the Addictions 7 (1994): 913-925.(*)

3. Physical and Emotional Health

- Unmarried mothers are less likely to obtain prenatal care and more likely to have a low birthweight baby. Researchers find that these negative effects persist even when they take into account factors, such as parental education, that often distinguish single-parent from two-parent families.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing. Hyattsville, MD (Sept. 1995): 12.
(*)
- A study on nearly 6,000 children found that children from single parent homes had more physical and mental health problems than children who lived with two married parents. Additionally, boys in single parent homes were found to have more illnesses than girls in single parent homes.
Source: Hong, Gong-Soog and Shelly L. White-Means."Do Working Mothers Have Healthy Children?" Journal of Family and Economic Issues 14 (Summer 1993): 163-186.
(*)
- Children in single-parent families are two to three times as likely as children in two-parent families to have emotional and behavioral problems.
Source: Stanton, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics."National Health Interview Survey." Hyattsville, MD, 1988.
(*)
childrensbehavior.gif ¨(*)
Source: Zill, Nicholas and Carol Schoenborn. Child Developmental, Learning and Emotional Problems: Health of Our Nation's Children. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Advance Data 1990. Washington, DC: GPO, 16 Nov. 1990.
(*)
- Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent.
Source: Elshtain, Jean Bethke."Family Matters: The Plight of America's Children." The Christian Century (July 1993): 14-21.
(*)

4. Educational Achievement

- In studies involving over 25,000 children using nationally representative data sets, children who lived with only one parent had lower grade point averages, lower college aspirations, poor attendance records, and higher drop out rates than students who lived with both parents.
Source: McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. Growing up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.
(*)
- Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC; GPO, 1993.
(*)
dropoutrates.gif ¨
Source: McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. Growing up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.
(*)
- After taking into account race, socioeconomic status, sex, age, and ability, high school students from single-parent households were 1.7 times more likely to drop out than were their corresponding counterparts living with both biological parents.
Source: McNeal, Ralph B. Jr."Extracurricular Activities and High School Dropouts." Sociology of Education 68(1995): 62-81.
(*)
- School children from divorced families are absent more, and more anxious, hostile, and withdrawn, and are less popular with their peers than those from intact families.
Source: One-Parent Families and Their Children: The School's Most Significant Minority. The Consortium for the Study of School Needs of Children from One-Parent Families. National Association of elementary School Principals and the Institute for Development of Educational Activities, a division of the Charles f. Kettering Foundation. Arlington, VA 1980.
(*)

5. Crime

- Children in single parent families are more likely to be in trouble with the law than their peers who grow up with two parents.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey. Hyattsville, MD, 1988.
(*)
- In a study using a national probability sample of 1,636 young men and women, it was found that older boys and girls from female headed households are more likely to commit criminal acts than their peers who lived with two parents.
Source: Heimer, Karen. "Gender, Interaction, and Delinquency: Testing a Theory of Differential Social Control." Social Psychology Quarterly 59 (1996): 39-61.
(*)
juveniles.gif ¨
Source: Ryan, Gail et al."Trendis in a National Sample of Sexually Abusive Youths." Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry 35 (January 1996): 17-25.
(*)
- A study in the state of Washington using statewide data found an increased likelihood that children born out-of-wedlock would become a juvenile offender. Compared to their peers born to married parents, children born out-of-wedlock were:
1.7 times more likely to become an offender and 2.1 times more likely to become a chronic offender if male.

1.8 times more likely to become an offender and 2.8 times more likely to become a chronic offender if female.

10 times more likely to become a chronic juvenile offender if male and born to an unmarried teen mother.
Source: Conseur, Amy et al. "Maternal and Perinatal Risk Factors for Later Delinquency." Pediatrics 99 (1997): 785-790.


6. Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy

- Adolescent females between the ages of 15 and 19 years reared in homes without fathers are significantly more likely to engage in premarital sex than adolescent females reared in homes with both a mother and a father.
Source: Billy, John O. G., Karin L. Brewster and William R. Grady. "Contextual Effects on the Sexual Behavior of Adolescent Women." Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994): 381-404.
(*)
- A survey of 720 teenage girls found:
97% of the girls said that having parents they could talk to could help reduce teen pregnancy.

93% said having loving parents reduced the risk.

76% said that their fathers were very or somewhat influential on their decision to have sex.
Source: Clements, Mark. Parade. February 2, 1997.
(*)
- Children in single parent families are more likely to get pregnant as teenagers than their peers who grow up with two parents.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey. Hyattsville, MD 1988.
(*)
- A white teenage girl from an advantaged background is five times more likely to become a teen mother if she grows up in a single-mother household than if she grows up in a household with both biological parents.
Source: Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. "Facing the Challenges of Fragmented Families." The Philanthropy Roundtable 9.1 (1995): 21.

 

Dude, what on Earth does a admitted lack of good fathers have to do with homos getting 'married' to each other?

 

True,...

Holding hands is not a desirable thing for kids to notice.
And, of course, I am referring to the current open display of OUT people everywhere, even kissing on National TV.


There is absolutely no reason why young people need see these behaviors from Straight and Gay people.
It IS the sexual promiscuity that encourages the child Abuse to follow.

 

It is true that marriage of Gays makes sense in this culture of wild open sexual promiscuity.
Until the women change the environment back to what existed in 1950, Pre-marital Sex/Marriage/No Fault Divorce is an open door for the Gays today.

 

He's a poor man's liberalminority.

I find it amazing, however, that it took you this long.

 

Bull, but amusingly revealing bull. I and most of us grew up watching our parents being affectionate with one another. MOST of us survived the experience. I and most people not only hold hands in public, but see a great many other people doing the same. We are not scandalized. In pleasant climates, "clothing optional" organizations are common, and many children grow up spending much of their lives seeing naked people of all ages. They remain perfectly, stubbornly normal despite this experience. In much of equatorial Africa, little or no clothing is a practical norm. No ill psychological effects on anyone.

I have read that sexual promiscuity (indeed, any sexual activity at all) is less common in nudist colonies than elsewhere. And the Presidential Commissioin on Obscenity and Pornography discovered that there was an INVERSE correlation between childhood exposure to such materials, and adult sexual violations. It was LACK of exposure to sex that more commonly led to sexual abuse or hangups as adults.

Someone seems to have been sexually repressed (perhaps because Jesus demanded it?) and doesn't seem to understand that it's repression that leads to these hilarious presumptions. Not healthy exposure.

 

LOL. That's like crowing that you had 8 outs for an open ended straight draw and missed. What was missed was that all the other cards were outs for someone else.

 

Excuse me. As a married man I take offense to this. I am not normal, and I'd never want to be.

 

Incredible. This isn't revisionist history, it's imaginary history. Marriage is the enemy of promiscuity. The whole argument that if we let people marry, they will become EVEN MORE promiscuous is transparent idiocy from the start. We have some sick, sick people here.

- - - Updated - - -

But he's almost often spot on accurate. Worth reading.

- - - Updated - - -

But he's almost often spot on accurate. Worth reading.

 

Oh, so now you don't support people trying to hold on to their hard-earned money.

 

Ah, my favorite Drunken Fist attack--strawman falling down slippery slope.

 

And suddenly you do. Weird, huh?

- - - Updated - - -

Progressives will always need a new exciting way to push norms to new dangerous frontiers to tick off the old guard.

 

You have it all wrong. It's absolutely desirable for good Christians to hang on to all they've earned with their hard work. It's not desirable for disgusting perverts to hang on to anything. You have to understand the taxonomy here.

Incidentally, tax laws are always changing. Not all that long ago, I read an article about a married couple (I think they were both professional jockeys, and both very successful) who divorced every December 31, and remarried as soon as the law allowed, to dodge the "marriage penalty" written into the laws at that time. Obviously they didn't marry for the tax benefits, but then again, they weren't disgusting perverts.