Bitcoin Forum

THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA
By Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full "appreciation" or "understanding" of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America. And any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things.

[1] TALK ABOUT GAYS AND GAYNESS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE.

The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one's fellows doing it or accepting it. One may be offended by its novelty at first--many, in times past, were momentarily scandalized by "streaking,'' eating goldfish, and premarital sex. But as long as Joe Six-pack feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on. The skeptic may still shake his head and think "people arc crazy these days," but over time his objections are likely to become more reflective, more philosophical, less emotional.

The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as "respectable" gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere!

Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message--of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films (though often this has been done to achieve comedic and ridiculous affects). On the whole the impact has been encouraging. The prime-time presentation of Consenting Adults on a major network in 1985 is but one high-water mark in favorable media exposure of gay issues. But this should be just the beginning of a major publicity blitz by gay America.

Would a desensitizing campaign of open and sustained talk about gay issues reach every rabid opponent of homosexuality? Of course not. While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed "secular humanism"). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.

[2] PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our "gay pride" publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia-"They are all around us!"--on the other.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note -- North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!"

Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, "they are not like us." To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in appearance--in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach. (To return to the terms we have used in previous articles, spokesmen for our cause must be R-type "straight gays" rather than Q-type "homosexuals on
display.") Only under such conditions will the message be read correctly: "These folks are victims of a fate that could have happened to me."

By the way, we realize that many gays will question an advertising technique, which might threaten to make homosexuality look like some dreadful disease, which strikes fated "victims". But the plain fact is that the gay community is weak and must manipulate the powers of the weak, including the play for sympathy. In any case, we compensate for the negative aspect of this gay victim appeal under Principle 4. (Below)

The second message would portray gays as victims of society. The straight majority does not recognize the suffering it brings to the lives of gays and must be shown: graphic pictures of brutalized gays; dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, and public humiliation: and the dismal list goes on.

"... In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector."

[3] GIVE PROTECTORS A JUST CAUSE.

A media campaign that casts gays as society's victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.

It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle.

[4] MAKE GAYS LOOK GOOD.

In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know--this trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announce proudly, "Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was _________?" But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as "queer" people-- shadowy, lonesome, fail, drunken, suicidal, child-snatching misfits.

The honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women is truly eye popping. From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman, from Sappho to Gertrude Stein, the list is old hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual America. In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.

Along the same lines, we shouldn't overlook the Celebrity Endorsement. The celebrities can be straight (God bless you, Ed Asner, wherever you are) or gay.

[5] MAKE THE VICTIMIZERS LOOK BAD.

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the "fags" they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.

A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching.

[6] SOLICIT FUNDS: THE BUCK STOPS HERE

Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented expenditures for months or even years--an unprecedented fundraising drive.

Effective advertising is a costly proposition: several million dollars would get the ball rolling. There are 10-15 million primarily homosexual adults in this country: if each one of them donated just two dollars to the campaign, its war chest would actually rival that of its most vocal enemies. And because those gays not supporting families usually have more discretionary income than average, they could afford to contribute much more.

"... We intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types."

But would they? Or is the gay community as feckless, selfish, uncommitted, and short-sighted as its critics claim? We will never know unless the new campaign simultaneously launches a concerted nationwide appeal for funding support from both known and anonymous donors. The appeal should be directed both at gays and at straights who care about social justice.

In the beginning, for reasons to be explained in a moment, the appeal for funds may have to be launched exclusively through the gay press--national magazines, local newspapers, flyers at bars, notices in glossy skin magazines. Funds could also come through the outreach of local gay organizations on campuses and in metropolitan areas. Eventually, donations would be solicited directly alongside advertisements in the major straight media.

There would be no parallel to such an effort in the history of the gay community in America. If it failed to generate the needed capital to get started; there would be little hope for the campaign and l little hope for major progress toward gay rights in the near future. For the moment let us suppose that gays could see how donations would greatly serve their long-term interest, and that sufficient funds could be raised. An heroic assumption.

GETTING ON THE AIR, OR, YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE.

Without access to TV, radio, and the mainstream press, there will be no campaign. This is a tricky problem, became many impresarios of the media simply refuse to accept what they call "issue-advertising" -- persuasive advertising can provoke a storm of resentment from the public and from sponsors, which is bad for business. The courts have confirmed the broadcaster's right to refuse any "issue advertising" he dislikes.

What exactly constitutes "issue advertising"? It evidently does not include platitudinous appeals to the virtues of family unity (courtesy of the Mormons) neither does it include tirades against perfidious Albion courtesy of Lyndon LaRouche); neither does it include reminders that a Mind-Is-a Terrible Thing to Waste (courtesy of the United Negro College Fund); neither does it include religious shows which condemn gay "sinners"; neither does it include condemnations of nuclear war or race discrimination--at least not in Massachusetts. Some guys get all the breaks.

What issue advertising does include these days is almost any communiqué presented openly by a homosexual organization. The words "gay" and "homosexual"' are considered controversial whenever they appear.

Because most straightforward appeals are impossible, the National Gay Task Force has had to cultivate quiet backroom liaisons with broadcast companies and newsrooms in order to make sure that issues important to the gay community receive some coverage; but such an arrangement is hardly ideal, of course, because it means that the gay community's image is controlled by the latest news event instead of by careful design--and recently most of the news about gays has been negative.

So what can be done to crash the gates of the major media? Several things, advanced in several stages.

START WITH THE FINE PRINT

Newspapers and magazines may very well be hungrier for gay advertising dollars than television and radio are. And the cost of ads in print is generally lower. But remember that the press, for the most part, is only read by better-educated Americans, many of who are already more accepting of homosexuality in any case. So to get more impact for our dollars, we should skip the New Republic and New Left Review readers and head for Time, People, and the National Enquirer. (Of course, the gay community may have to establish itself as a regular advertising presence in more sophisticated forums first before it is accepted into the mass press.)

While we're storming the battlements with salvos of ink, we should also warm the mainstream up a bit with a subtle national campaign on highway billboards. In simple bold print on dark backgrounds, a series of unobjectionable messages should be introduced:

IN RUSSIA, THEY TELL YOU
WHAT TO BE. IN AMERICA
WE HAVE THE FREEDOM
TO BE OURSELVES...
AND TO BE THE BEST.

Or

PEOPLE HELPING INSTEAD
OF HATING--THAT 'S
WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT.

And so on. Each sign will tap patriotic sentiment, each message will drill a seemingly agreeable proposition into mainstream heads - a "public service message" suited to our purposes. And, if heir owners will permit it, each billboard will be signed, in slightly smaller letters, "Courtesy of the National Gay Task Force" - to build positive associations and get the public used to seeing such sponsorship.

VISUAL STAGE 1: YOU REALLY OUGHTTA BE IN PICTURES

As for television and radio, a more elaborate plan may be needed to break the ice. For openers, naturally, we must continue to encourage the appearance of favorable gay characters in films and TV shows. Daytime talk shows also remain a useful avenue for exposure. But to speed things up we might consider a bold stratagem to gain media attention. The scheme we have in mind would require careful preparations, yet it would save expense even while it elevated the visibility and stature of the gay movement overnight.

Well before the next elections for national office, we might lay careful plans to run symbolic gay candidates for every high political office in this country. (Such plans would have to deal somehow with the tricky problem of inducing gays and straights to sign enough endorsement petitions to get us on the ballot.) Our 50-250 candidates would participate in such debates as they could, run gay-themed advertisements coordinated at our national headquarters, and demand equal time on the air. They could then graciously pull out of the races before the actual elections, while formally endorsing more viable straight contenders. (With malicious humor, perhaps, in some states we could endorse our most rabid opponents.) It is essential not to ask people actually to vote Yea or Nay on the gay issue at this early stage: such action would end up committing most to the Nay position and would only tally huge and visible defeats for our cause.

Through such a political campaign, the mainstream would get over the initial shock of seeing gay ads, and the acceptability of such ads would be fortified by the most creditable context possible; and all this would be accomplished before non-electoral advertising was attempted by the gay community. During the campaign all hell would break loose, but if we behaved courageously and respectable our drive would gain legitimacy in and case and might even become a cause celebre.
If all went as planned, the somewhat desensitized public and the major networks themselves would be 'readied for the next step of our program.

VISUAL STAGE 2: PEEKABOO ADVERTISING

At this point the gay community has its foot in the door, and it is time to ask the networks to accept gay sponsorship of certain ads and shows. Timing is critical: The request must be made immediately after our national political ads disappear. Failing that, we should request sponsorship the next time one of the networks struts its broad-mindedness by televising a film or show with gay characters or themes. If they wish to look consistent instead of hypocritical, we'll have them on the spot. But the networks would still be forced to say No unless we made their resistance look patently unreasonable, and possibly illegal. We'd do just that by proposing "gay ads" patterned exactly after those currently sponsored by the Mormons and others. As usual, viewers would be treated to squeak-clean skits on the importance of family harmony and understanding --this time the narrator would end by saying, "This message was brought to you by --the National Gay Task Force." All very quiet and subdued. Remember: exposure is everything, and the medium is the message.

"... Exposure is everything and the medium is the message."

The gay community should join forces with other civil liberties groups of respectable cast to promote bland messages about America the Melting Pot, always ending with an explicit reference to the Task Force of some other gay organization. Making the best of a bad situation, we can also propose sympathetic media appeals for gifts and donations to fund AIDS research--if Jerry Lewis and the March of Dimes can do it, so can we. Our next indirect step will be to advertise locally on behalf of support groups peripheral to the gay community: frowzy straight moms and dads announcing phone numbers and meeting times for "Parents of Gays" or similar gatherings. Can't you just see such ads now, presented between messages from the Disabled Vets and the Postal Workers Union?

VISUAL STAGE 3: ROLL OUT THE BIG GUNS

By this point, our salami tactics will have carved out, slice by slice, a large portion of access to the mainstream media. So what then? It would finally be time to bring gay ads out of the closet. The messages of such ads should directly address lingering public fears about homosexuals as loathsome and contrary aliens. For examples, the following are possible formats for TV or radio commercials designed to chip away at chronic misperceptions.

Format A for Familiarization: The Testimonial.

To make gays seem less mysterious, present a series of short spots featuring the boy-or girl-next-door, fresh and appealing, or warm and lovable grandma grandpa types. Seated in homey surroundings, they respond to an off camera interviewer with assurance, good nature, and charm. Their comments bring out three social facts:

1. There is someone special in their life, a long-term relationship (to stress gay stability, monogamy, commitment);

2. Their families are very important to them, and are supportive of them (to stress that gays are not "anti-family," and that families need not be anti-gay.)

3. As far as they can remember they have always been gay, and were probably born gay; they certainly never decided on a preference one way or the other (stressing that gays are doing what is natural for them, and are not being willfully contrary). The subjects should be interviewed alone, not with their lovers or children, for to include others in the picture would unwisely raise disturbing questions about the complexities of gay social relations, which these commercials could not explain. It is best instead to take one thing at a time.

Format B for Positive Associations: The Celebrity Spot.

While it might be useful to present celebrity endorsements by currently popular gay figures and straight sympathizers (Johnny Mathis? Marlo Thomas?), the homophobia climate of America would make such brash endorsements unlikely in the near future. So early celebrity spots will instead identify historical gay or bisexual personalities who are illustrious and dignified...and dead. The ads could be sardonic and indirect. For example, over regal music and a portrait or two, a narrator might announce simply: Michelangelo (an art class), Tchaikovsky (a music class), Tennessee Williams (a drama class), etc.

Format C for Victim Sympathy: Our Campaign to Stop Child Abuse.

As we said earlier, there are many ways to portray gays as victims of discrimination: images of brutality, tales of job loss and family separation, and so on. But we think something like the following 30-sccond commercials would get to the heart of the matter best of all.

The camera slowly moves in on a middle-class teenager, sitting alone in his semi-darkened bedroom. The boy is pleasing and unexceptional in appearance, except that he has been roughed up and is staring silently, pensively, with evident distress. As the camera gradually focuses in on his face, a narrator comments: It will happen to one in every ten sons. As he grows up he will realize that he feels differently about things than most of his friends. If he lets it show, he'll be an outsider made fun of, humiliated, attacked. If he confides in his parents, they may throw him out of the house, onto the streets. Some will say he is "anti-family." Nobody will let him be himself. So he will have to hide. From his friends, his family. And that's hard. It's tough enough to be a kid these days, but to be the one in ten... A message from the National Gay Task Force.

What is nice about such an ad is that it would economically portray gays as innocent and vulnerable, victimized and misunderstood, surprisingly numerous yet not menacing. It also renders the "anti-family" charge absurd and hypocritical.

Format D for Identification with Victims: The Old Switcheroo.

The mainstream will identify better with the plight of gays if straights can, once in a while, walk a mile in gay shoes. A humorous television or radio ad to help them do this might involve a brief animated or dramatized scenario, as follows.

The camera approaches the mighty oak door of the boss's office, which swings open, and the camera (which represents you the viewer) enters the room. Behind the oversized desk sits a fat and scowling old curmudgeon chomping on a cigar. He looks up at the camera (i.e. at the viewer) and snarls, " So it's you, Smithers. Well you're fired!" The voice of a younger man is heard to reply with astonishment, "But--but--Mr. Thomburg, I've been with your company for ten years. I thought you liked my work." The boss responds, with a tone of disgust, "Yes, yes, Smithers your work is quite adequate. But I've heard rumors that you've been seen around town with some kind of girlfriend. A girlfriend! Frankly I'm shocked. We're not about to start hiring any heterosexuals in this company. Now get out." The younger man speaks once more: "But boss, that's just not fair! What if it were you?" The boss glowers back as the camera pulls quickly out of the room and the big door slams shut. Printed on the door: "A message from the National Gay Task Force."

One can easily imagine similar episodes involving housing or other discrimination.

Format E for Vilification of Victimizers: Damn the Torpedoes.

We have already indicated some of the images which might be damaging to the homophobic vendetta: ranting and hateful religious extremists neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen made to look evil and ridiculous (hardly a difficult task).

These images should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the "bracket technique." For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about "those sick, abominable creatures." While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.

"...it would portray gays as innocent and vulnerable, victimized and misunderstood, surprisingly numerous, yet not menacing."

Format F for Funds: SOS

Alongside or during these other persuasive advertisements, we would have to solicit donations so that the campaign might continue. Direct appeals from celebrities (preferable living ones, thank you) might be useful here. All appeals must stress that money can be given anonymously (e.g. via money orders) and that all donations are confidential. "We can't help unless you help," and all that.

The Time Is Now

We have sketched out here a blueprint for transforming the social values of straight America. At the core of our program is a media campaign to change the way the average citizens view homosexuality. It is quite easy to find fault with such a campaign. We have tried to be practical and specific here, but the proposals may still have a visionary sheen.

There are one hundred reasons why the campaign could not be done or would be risky. But there are at least 20 million good reasons why some such program must be tried in the coming years: the welfare and happiness of every gay man and woman in this country demand it. As the last large, legally oppressed minority in American society, it is high time that gays took effective measures to rejoin the mainstream in pride and strength. We believe that, like it or not, such a campaign is the only way of doing so anytime soon.

And, let us repeat, time may be running out. The AIDS epidemic is sparking anger and fear in the heartland of straight America. As the virus leaks out of homosexual circles and into the rest of society, we need have no illusions about who is receiving the blame. The ten years ahead may decide for the next forty whether gays claim their liberty and equality or are driven back, once again, as America's caste of detested untouchables. It's more than a quip: speak now or forever hold your peace.

In November 1987 article entitled "The Overhauling of Straight America'' appeared in Guide Magazine. A few years later it's authors did expand it into a book:

 Marshall Kirk, Hunter Madsen: "After the Ball -- How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 1990s". (Plume, 1990), ISBN: 0452264987.

Our paper describes six studies conducted in the United States and Germany involving 784 university students...
Using this methodology we identified a subgroup of participants who, despite self-identifying as highly straight, indicated some level of same-sex attraction
Over 20 percent of self-described highly straight individuals showed this discrepancy

Get over your stupid homophobia

Studies have shown that homophobia often means you are secretly gay...

http://www.livescience.com/19563-homophobia-hidden-homosexuals.html (http://www.livescience.com/19563-homophobia-hidden-homosexuals.html)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html)

Studies by LGBT lobby are not actually studies. Read the article in the OP

We will see a major destabilization in these pro-sodomite countries.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/marriage/memo/m94.htm (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/marriage/memo/m94.htm)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9908951/Gay-marriage-will-destabilise-family-life-sociologist-warns.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9908951/Gay-marriage-will-destabilise-family-life-sociologist-warns.html)

This was the principle factor, she said, that has caused the collapse in marriage rates between heterosexuals in countries where gay marriage had been introduced - as well as a sharp rise in cohabitation and the numbers of children born out of wedlock.

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm (http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm)

Get over your stupid homophobia

Studies have shown that homophobia often means you are secretly gay...

http://www.livescience.com/19563-homophobia-hidden-homosexuals.html (http://www.livescience.com/19563-homophobia-hidden-homosexuals.html)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html)

MORE GAY HATER'S  :D Thick people..Do proper research when 2 gays have a child the child grows to do  better in life than most kids FACT.
So the question being asked is floored  ;D

So try again THICK STUPID gay haters

OP is afraid that if gay marriage is legal, he will turn gay

so how does two gay people have a child??  ::) They don't and if you look at the history and research of the studies on that topic. And the testimony of some to many of those children thrown into the situation. However, I tend to agree with the Biblical point of view and if it offends someone that's ok cause it's still my right to have a viewpoint. And I agree with the OP but back to crypto

so how does two gay people have a child?

GO AND LOOK AT HOW ELTON JOHN DONE IT..SMART ASS

Usually via a surrogate mother

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/magazine/is-it-selfish-for-a-gay-couple-to-have-kids-via-surrogacy.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/magazine/is-it-selfish-for-a-gay-couple-to-have-kids-via-surrogacy.html)

I could care less how Elton John did it. and yes I am quite a smart guy thanks

Usually via a surrogate mother

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/magazine/is-it-selfish-for-a-gay-couple-to-have-kids-via-surrogacy.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/magazine/is-it-selfish-for-a-gay-couple-to-have-kids-via-surrogacy.html)

Elton John  done the same surrogacy it's his flesh and blood

And we are not to hate people. We have a right not to like what they do. There is people in this crypto field that some of us don't like what they do cause well we don't like it. But we don't hate them. We don't like their behaviors and their destruction of society as the OP states.

I hate the crypto scammers ..SO FLOORED AGAIN :D

Flesh and blood only perhaps half of him. The other half is the mother of the child. So there was a mother and a father. There is no two fathers of that child. So that point is mute there now isn't it ;)

I don't hate people. I may hate their actions but not people

2 kids they both get to spread there genes.
Before you start well half brothers or sisters  LIKE MOST STRAIGHT FAMILIES THESE DAYS
7/10 Straight families got half brother and sisters ?

So what else GAY HATER

sounds if you have some emotional imbalance with a name calling child. Oh well your issue not mine. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me... but name calling shows intelligence levels. Doesn't seem you can post scientific facts, physiological facts, or have much else to stand on besides name calling.. typical person who has their thoughts but can't stand behind them.

You can not like what people do their actions is what you do not like of people when it comes down to it..

Yer right someone steels my money i love them  :D :D

Also it makes no sense you hate there actions but you don't hate the person :-\

See it's a bit hypocritical because it's the person doing it

Your a hypocritical person ;D

Dave Bautista will stick his foot in your ass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN6tyHbhcSA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN6tyHbhcSA)

yeeeeeehaaaaa i never known that .. is he gay  ;D answer no

His mom is gay :o

:D I know my friend .with his mom being gay ..never made him gay..so genes getting passed on is bullshit ;)

lots say don't want gays spreading there genes

I have a pair of gay Jeans, but I don't wear them anymore

And we are not to hate people. We have a right not to like what they do. There is people in this crypto field that some of us don't like what they do cause well we don't like it. But we don't hate them. We don't like their behaviors and their destruction of society as the OP states.

is it because they go straight up your ring hole :D and they hurt

I'm going to take the grumpy, contrarian view and say that family life will destabilize any marriage, whether straight or faggy.  And I'm also going to voice my opinion that sodomy is the only way we're going to control the population--so do your part and commit sodomy on your significant other (but only if it's legal in your jurisdiction).  

Gay marriage

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPnCqsNv9v4

I don't just randomly click on links, so you ought to write something.  Also you should watch your consecuposting, you might get suspended for doing that along with just including a smiley face with a huge quote pyramid.  You are precariously on the edge of shitposting.

I'm trying so hard to be a nice boy tonight but I don't think I'm going to make it.

I am so scared :'( :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Is everyone gay? :D :D
SO WHAT YOU SAY IS FULL OF SHIT

Shall we talk about how straight people fuck
Also have you ever tried to pull a crypto scam..HAVE I CAUGHT YOU :D

MORE GAY HATER'S  :D Thick people..Do proper research when 2 gays have a child the child grows to do  better in life than most kids FACT.
So the question being asked is floored  ;D

So try again THICK STUPID gay haters

If you teaching kids in school that this is normal thing, you are actually preparing your kids.
You can't teach your kids anymore this is immoral or bad. This is direct influence on normal family.

I don't understand how gay marriage can destabilise family life? They can't have kids so I don't see chat family they could destabilise...

Am I missing something here?

This is normal what they doing i must admit.
(From my standpoint this is bad and twisted but i don't care about them and their habits).
Family must be protected! Other children must be protected from this indoctrination.

This is normal what they doing i must admit.
(From my standpoint this is bad and twisted but i don't care about them and their habits).
Family must be protected! Other children must be protected from this indoctrination.

This is normal what they doing i must admit.
(From my standpoint this is bad and twisted but i don't care about them and their habits).
Family must be protected! Other children must be protected from this indoctrination.

Soo... assuming it's 'indoctrination' for being gay being an okay thing, what's so bad about that?  If you toss religion out to the side, the only negative is not being able to have kids and a higher risk of disease.  Ironically, migitating the risk of disease can be done by education so people know to wrap it up, which you'd probably call indoctrination..

Yeah, diseases and no kids are cool actually as it would reduce global population ^^

Soo... assuming it's 'indoctrination' for being gay being an okay thing, what's so bad about that?  If you toss religion out to the side, the only negative is not being able to have kids and a higher risk of disease.  Ironically, migitating the risk of disease can be done by education so people know to wrap it up, which you'd probably call indoctrination..

If these people are 'married', I am sure they will be able to adopt.
What kind of life will be giving to these adopted kids?

the child is traumatized for sure

my God
should not accept gay marriage >:(

anyone ever seen porno gay?

I still have not seen, but only to imagine the disgust me

man marries a woman and reproduce bearing children

gays do not have children which in itself is already easy to see that men should not have sex between them

We are changing the natural order of things

I agree with this statement.
Now, we even have pedophilia movement, pedophiles also wants their rights.
Isn't it crazy?
For the sake of so called democracy and individual rights our governments destroying our social structure and order, destabilize family life etc.
Honestly, real family need support and help now, not Gay marriages.
In many countries we already see more and more divorces, less children and more elderly people.
Such trend, if continue, is road to destruction.
I hope our governments understand it and will do something about it.

Oh no, a child is going to grow up in a loving home that happens to have 2 people of the same sex married instead of a foster home!  The horror, the agony!  /s

The child would be much better in a foster home or in an orphanage. If gay parents are rising the kid, then most probably he will be sexually abused, and he will end up as a pedophile when he grows up.

Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest (Vol. 17 No. 7 Nov 2002 Journal of the Family Research Institute).

Are Over A Third of Foster Parent Molestations Homosexual?

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/are-over-a-third-of-foster-parent-molestations-homosexual/

Oh it's you again. You're probably gay seeing how much energy you put in defending them...

Your claim without any kind of study means nothing. I don't see how 2 gays could raise a child better than 2 hetero. That makes no sense to me.

  Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster

I never though about the first part because im hetero, but it makes a lot of sense.
You just cant get pregant by chance - so getting a kid for a homo couple is something the have definietly though about.
Today most kids that behave bad and are starting crimes are usually from a broken home without perspective for a good future.

I don't understand how gay marriage can destabilise family life? They can't have kids so I don't see chat family they could destabilise...
Am I missing something here?

I don't have anything against LGBT population, but this is evident that someone pushing their rights as main question everywhere. Agenda exist.
They already have all major rights as we all others have.
Why all others must accept changing in definition "what is family" in order to please some sexual minorities?
What is next?

So having a family status recognized by the .gov and society is not a major right we - the "normal" population - have?
Tell me what exactly would that change in my or your family life?

Exactly > You must teach your kids something that spitting to your heritage and culture.
This is will never pass in Russia and countries that respect normal way of life.
Nothing personal. Everyone fights for what he believe.

Do you fear your kids become gay through school teachings?
Or what are you speaking of?

This is 100% correct. The moment gay marriage was legalised here I punched my (female) fiancee in the quim and found a penis inside my colon in a bus station toilet within the hour. He said he was going to marry me. He never called me back.

This is just an attack on normal ordinary family unit.
Admitting rights to LGBT population to have a kids, i will not be father any longer but "PARENT 1"!  My kids in school must learn about same sex marriages and how this is good , and at the same time we can't teach them at home different because we can be punished for preaching hate..

absolutely right ... children must be taught about gay marriages for not having bias against it..

I just can't understand why do people object to gay marriages. Why they just can't accept that people love each other? That is in the end the most important thing. Live and let live!

I just can't understand why do people object to gay marriages. Why they just can't accept that people love each other? That is in the end the most important thing. Live and let live!

I will accept gay marriage when gay couples learn to live like heterosexual couples. You can't claim that you are married, and then have sex with any stranger in the town. I have already posted links to studies conducted by well-known researchers and posted on various scientific journals, showing that most of the homosexuals have more than 100 sex partners.

What gets said about GAYS hurts me MY SON IS GAY ;D he is such a good kid its unreal and
everyone who meets him always says how good he is..HE IS AN ASSET TO MANKIND NOT A BURDEN ;D

Now for the proof that kids tend to do better if there parents are gay ;D DO your research

some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't.

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. (Of course, this isn't to say that heterosexual parents can't bring these same qualities to the parenting table

when 2 gay couples have a child they have them to love to take care of them with all there hearts ..
 a lot of straight couples have children by accident . I.E BROKEN HOMES..
Gays want that child because its not an accident they have planned for it..

Don't get me wrong straight couples who have children can bring up there children just as good..
I am just saying that gay couples tend to do better FACT with there children
BECAUSE THEY ARE WANTED

I don't have anything against LGBT population, but this is evident that someone pushing their rights as main question everywhere. Agenda exist.
They already have all major rights as we all others have.
Why all others must accept changing in definition "what is family" in order to please some sexual minorities?
What is next?

I agree this is against human nature.

You don't have to change your definition and you can teach your kid whatever you want wtf are you talking about?

Gay marriage is just a right granted to gay people without taking any of your liberty! how could it be something wrong in any way?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZIwZ2cljq4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xuUxrIhNgI

Why kids must be disturbed with such perverse teachings?
I mean those are small children, why they must learn about SEX?
Isn't this little early for them?
Children must be protected not confused and indoctrinated like this!
This is what will happen and what i'm trying to say!

Great. Cool. So why are animals doing it? Because even animals are against nature? Why are homosexuals existing since the beginning of mankind? Because we're against the nature since we've been created?

Would you care to define "nature then"?

Gay marriage isn't the cause of destabilised family life. That was destabilized long time ago. I'd say this is an at least hundred years old story, what accelerating since the 70's, partly because of re-evaluation of traditional gender roles, partly because of the ever decreasing purchasing power of salaries, and also because of marxist indoctrination in most of the schools.

Everyone can do whatever he likes to do and that is not question at all.
If they love same sex they can enjoy it.

But when all this starts influence normal families then is time for draw the line.
This is about protecting family nothing more.

What is dangerous or indoctrinating in teaching them how the body works? Oo

What is perverse about this??

It's just to explain them how they work! That's all!
You consider indoctrination and perversion explaining them how you make babies? xD

Kids are not yet mentally prepared for knowledge like this.
You can influence on kids because they are not corrupted and don't have attitude yet.
This is very dangerous and you must be retarded not to see where all this is going.

It is natural for kids to be curious about new things.
Did you watch porn at age 6?
Do you know how this is dangerous?

Ooooooooooooook...

So we should come back to the good old "woman at house, men at work" ?
If you want to go this way, I'd say the family destabilisation was caused probably a few thousands years ago, when we started to take care of our olds and weaks. A few thousands years ago we just let them die, it was much easier and much closer to nature.

Lol, so what's the correct age for such thing my dear sir? And who decides of it?

And there is an incredible difference between porn and sex education --'

Gay marriage isn't the cause of destabilised family life. That was destabilized long time ago. I'd say this is an at least hundred years old story, what accelerating since the 70's, partly because of re-evaluation of traditional gender roles, partly because of the ever decreasing purchasing power of salaries, and also because of marxist indoctrination in most of the schools.

Sexual education can start only when kids are ready and this is after age of 12.
because after that performances puberty so this is best time also for confusing adolescents.
 So must be conducted according to the nature.

If you every day talking about gay love you will influence on kids this is sure.
Same if you everyday calling some kid stupid, eventually he will develop some signs of disorder or retardation.
Now you know why is this dangerous.

So must be conducted according to the nature.

Great. Cool. So why are animals doing it?

Humans are above animals.

Sexual education can start only when kids are ready and this is after age of 12.
because after that performances puberty so this is best time also for confusing adolescents.
 So must be conducted according to the nature.

If you every day talking about gay love you will influence on kids this is sure.
Same if you everyday calling some kid stupid, eventually he will develop some signs of disorder or retardation.
Now you know why is this dangerous.

Humans are above animals.

We are apes.

LOL WHAT

The only signs they'll develop is hatred, towards you.  Possibly a lowered value of self-worth, if no one corrects your abuse.  Depression, etc.  But no one will end up retarded just because you tell them that every day  :D WOW

Sex education is fucking useless; we learn it from our peers.  The only thing people should be learning is how to stay safe - not how to put a fucking condom on a banana in middle school.  Learn from your mistakes, that's what puberty is all about  :P

Humans are above animals.

Yes you has rightfully corrected me i admit this, thanks.
 I'm writing with passion ( so i made few mistakes calling things with different names) , because i truly believe in this bad influence of gay propaganda, i have kids. And i'm Father and don't want to call me "parent 1".

You can get your kids to call you anything you want their your kids? Keep putting poison in their brains and they will call you twat

But if they call him twat enough times, will he become one? That's what is important here  :o

Don't believe every lie public school socialists tell you  ;)

You can't rely on kids "he will find his path" they are confused and that's why we have
parents to guide us and help us till we grow up. Kids must not be confused while they growing up.

And who are you to decide what confuses them or not? What is in the "it gonna confuse kids" column and what is in the "it's ok for my kids" column?
Kids must be taught how things are. From an objective perspective.
An objective perspective would be to explain them what sex is and that it can be between two persons of the same sex though it's a minority compared to two persons of different sex.

Two fathers or a father and another bloke who behaving as "mom" (or the same thing with lesbians) can be as confusing for a kid as a topless bar for a baby :). Also in most cases the promiscuity of same sex couples used to be a lot higher than in most of the cases of hetero couples.

And I suppose you're a professor in social sciences and also have a PhD in psychology and you made a study on children and the effect of same sex couples promiscuity on children?

Cause if not your assertion, though having a lots of conviction, is nothing but a mere opinion.

Yer right someone steels my money i love them  :D :D

Also it makes no sense you hate there actions but you don't hate the person :-\

See it's a bit hypocritical because it's the person doing it

Well, we are here for telling our opinion, I guess. This is mine. Take it or leave it :).

It's well known that the promiscuity of parents used to have an effect on the sexual behaviour of children. I guess that's the same in the case of same sex parents.

You obviously don't have children.  Everyone can say that they hate an action but not the person.  My kids do things all the time that I absolutely hate, but I love my children.  People are not perfect and everyone does stupid things.  For example, there were several of us playing soccer one night (all grown men) and 2 of my brothers got into a fist fight that I had to break up.  I hate the fact that they fought like children, but I don't hate them, I still love them.  Just because we disapprove of an action does not mean we hate someone.  This is how the the gay marriage thing gained traction, if anyone disagrees with you then you are a hater.  You know what the next is going to be?  Pedophilia is going the same was as gay acceptance, they are going to make you feel bad for despising what they do and gain acceptance because its "natural".  You will see.

Pedophilia is going the same was as gay acceptance, :o..
Your mentality says it all.Also I have 4 kids..
NO CHILD SHOULD BE HAVING SEX STRAIGHT OR GAY ;D EDUCATION EDUCATION.I am a great believer in not letting a child grow up to fast.

Also don't let them hang around on street corners..Once there 18 or 21 there free to do as they please .It's there life..
But at least you give them the right attitude to face the world ;D

My kids do things all the time that I absolutely hate, YOU SAY
THEN YOU GOT NO CONTROL OVER YOUR KIDS ;D    man if you let your kids do things that you absolutely hate your in for a ruff ride..
TAKE CONTROL IDIOT
Reward them for the good punish them for the bad..PUNISHMENT take there phones computers away for an amount of time..Always reward for the good..cuddle them praise them make them feel like a million dollars for being good..
say if they get a good grade you will take them on a day out or buy them something..Always praise them for the good that a child does it makes them feel special ..BECAUSE THEY ARE SPECIAL GAY OR STRAIGHT ;D   don't be an ass hole all your life one day it could be your son or daughter who turns around and tells you there gay.
Let them grow up to think there parents will love them no matter what they are as long as there not hurting anyone

Well then you must be the absolute perfect parent.  Your kids can do no wrong because you have absolute control over them.  Every day must be a fun day in your house, rule with an iron fist!!!!!  Doesn't feel good to be judged by someone you don't know, does it?  But really I have no idea how you parent do I?
You are trying to judge how I parent and you know absolutely nothing about me.  I never said anything about my child having sex, where did that come from?  So, if one of your kids becomes a drug addict living on the street, you will just say, "oh, its so lovely when you are high, drugs are fantastic."  Because you are not allowed to hate their actions.  I hate it when my children fight, I don't stand for it, they do get punished for it (no I can't take away their phone or xbox because they don't have either, nor will they for some time).  I praise them all the time when they do good, they get rewarded for good grades, they get rewarded for doing chores, they get one on one time with their parents.  You said that its hypocritical to hate an action but not the person.  Just think about how stupid that statement really is.  I hate it when i lose my temper, but I don't hate myself.  If you want to know what all the parenting books tell you about praise and punishment.  1.  Praise first, there should be 5 positives for every negative.  2.  You don't praise the person, i.e. you're such a good boy, you praise the action, jimmy you did a fantastic job on your chores today.  If you label the child then they feel labeled, whether its always having to live up to being the good boy (which often leads to depression) or your stupid (obvious where that one leads).  Don't judge how I parent, I don't judge how anyone else parents.  Every child is different, there isn't cookie cutter mold on how to raise children because they all have different challenges.  I have a very good friend who is gay, i don't hate him, but I think homosexual acts are a sin and don't like them.  I can still love my son or daughter if they are gay, just like I would still love them if they were a drug addict, but I can hate the action. 
As far as the pedophilia goes, have you seen siecus (who they are).  They are in charge of a lot of sexual education in the US, much to the dismay of many parents.  They tried to push their agenda in our school district and was shut down.  Anyway, they want to teach kindergarten age children that masturbation is good, they also want to force high school age kids to read certain books.  The premise of one of those books is to get you to feel sympathy for the pedophile.  Read over this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1295601.0  I've read many other articles that say much the same. 

You should be able to marry whoever you want, no matter what gender, no matter what. saying that it will "destabilize family life" is just a fancy way of saying you're afraid of change

You obviously don't have children.  Everyone can say that they hate an action but not the person.  My kids do things all the time that I absolutely hate, but I love my children.  People are not perfect and everyone does stupid things.  For example, there were several of us playing soccer one night (all grown men) and 2 of my brothers got into a fist fight that I had to break up.  I hate the fact that they fought like children, but I don't hate them, I still love them.  Just because we disapprove of an action does not mean we hate someone.  This is how the the gay marriage thing gained traction, if anyone disagrees with you then you are a hater.  You know what the next is going to be?  Pedophilia is going the same was as gay acceptance, they are going to make you feel bad for despising what they do and gain acceptance because its "natural".  You will see.

Well if it's stated as an opinion I don't see why what you're saying would be a problem.

But maybe it was a bit unclear that it was effectively your opinion and not a pure fact :)

To be honest I think I'll even take it on this question!

I find this disgusty!
Man how can marry with a man?  Or how a woman can with a woman?
It is against to human nature

I find this disgusty!
Man how can marry with a man?  Or how a woman can with a woman?
It is against to human nature

And who are you to decide what confuses them or not? What is in the "it gonna confuse kids" column and what is in the "it's ok for my kids" column?
Kids must be taught how things are. From an objective perspective.
An objective perspective would be to explain them what sex is and that it can be between two persons of the same sex though it's a minority compared to two persons of different sex.

So when you are teaching child about drugs, you must tell him to try for himself to
learn on his own skin that this is bad and wrong. Because never belive to no one..
Yes this can be apply to religion and politics but not on moral and life principles,
this must come from father and mother teachings!

The kids they adopt will probably be better off than an orphanage, but way worse off than in a heterosexual family.

8)

Thanks.

Only correct comment I've seen here.
Gay marriage is granting freedom to some (the gays) while not touching the freedom of the others.

It's a simple equation. As everyone is or winning or not losing, it should be what's made.

There is a strict and easy limit that can be made here. Pedophilia isn't a problem because it's youngs and olds. I don't care about the difference of age of two people for example. The problem of pedophilia is mutual consent.
A child can't give his consent for sexual intercourse.

Hence pedophilia can be nothing but a rape. Hence it can't be accepted.

Tastes are different :). I also do not understand why a man would find appealing an other man (I can understand lesbians tho'), but it's not against human nature. It's something about Xq28, 7q36, 8p12, 10q26 and also something with the lack of fucose mutarotase according to the latest researches.

I don't believe in Darwin Theory. And seriously it has not been proven. So, that meand i am still not proven by answer using Darwin Theory😊
It is still against to human nature also according to Darwin Theory because that theory  says every living wants to sustain its generation.

So is your grammar. And your limited IQ.

Please refer to the dozens of previous posts which prove that homosexuality is perfectly natural.
If god created animals, he also created homosexuals.

Only correct comment  :D :D :D I must of been talking threw my butt hole then.
Your so full of shit ;D

Considering the amount of vulgarity you're spitting it might be a possibility yeah.

You're only yelling and insulting. You give few if no logical arguments.

You just abuse the Caps Lock of your keyboard and the emojis that's all.

The problem with the logic that anyone who is against gay marriage is against homosexuals or homosexuality is that homosexuals and homosexuality don't involve the government. When you introduce government into the situation, it instantly becomes something that effects every resident of the nation, especially tax payers. Government does not solve problems, it only causes them. Homosexuals rallying for state recognized marriage is no different than begging for more wide distribution of the shackles every one else suffers from. Demanding the government regulate the people more is EVERYONE'S problem regardless of who or what you are sexually attracted to. Reducing this subject down to "you are either for us or against us" is a fallacy and has no place in honest debate. Not everyone who is against gay marriage is a right wing closet gay Jesus freak homophobic bigot.

Point 1 if your saying Gay marriage will destabilise family life..Then you are homophobic
If your saying horrible things about gay people how ever nice you put it .Your homophobic

No one slags off the good things in life?.
The government needed to step in or how else would gays been able to get married..

Then I hear people calling people worse than animals.. >:( It gets my blood boiling..
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO CALL PEOPLE WORSE THAN ANIMALS
THAT IS AN INSULT TO AN ANIMAL..

Humans are the most destructful  murdering creature on this planet.

Also I have a friend who is just as vulgar as I am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xej2hvJdxw

...
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO CALL PEOPLE WORSE THAN ANIMALS
THAT IS AN INSULT TO AN ANIMAL..

Humans are the most destructful  murdering creature on this planet.
...

Good to see your reading comprehension skills are up to snuff. Feel free to continue your intolerance of intolerance.  

P.S. "destructful" is not a word.

Sorry I used the wrong word .I am a builder not a secretary.
Where I am from we call people destructful shits. You know exactly what it means.
You can talk with all your long words means nothing when what you say is wrong.

example ..We had a symbiotic relationship she was horrible.Now most people i know would think what is he even talking about..

Now where i am from i would say.
I always done all the work she just sat around and lived like a queen she is taking the piss..
Then everybody understands.

Please, tell me. What exactly did I say that is wrong? Quote me please. With an active link.

Well thank you for your approval of my speech. Your approval means a lot to me.

Back to the point at hand, if you were not speaking to me or about me, then why the fuck did you quote me when you said those things?

Funny, when someone actually has a good point suddenly everything is a joke and none of your hateful rambling is supposed to mean anything. Smooth.

Ok what ever you won ;D AM CONFUSED.COM
How can you mean what you say if you cannot say what you mean..Class.
What point :-\

The problem with the logic that anyone who is against gay marriage is against homosexuals or homosexuality is that homosexuals and homosexuality don't involve the government. When you introduce government into the situation, it instantly becomes something that effects every resident of the nation, especially tax payers. Government does not solve problems, it only causes them. Homosexuals rallying for state recognized marriage is no different than begging for more wide distribution of the shackles every one else suffers from. Demanding the government regulate the people more is EVERYONE'S problem regardless of who or what you are sexually attracted to. Reducing this subject down to "you are either for us or against us" is a fallacy and has no place in honest debate. Not everyone who is against gay marriage is a right wing closet gay Jesus freak homophobic bigot.

Better than talking all nice .When really your being horrible little cunts OK.
People like you STAB YOU IN THE BACK..be all nice but really your rats.. ;D SO GO DIE CUNT
Also with a brain like yours waste of space ..Don't believe in Darwin  :D D :Dumb shits

And also the question being asked is a total lie and a fuckin Insult to gay people SO FUCK OFF

The problem with the logic that anyone who is against gay marriage is against homosexuals or homosexuality is that homosexuals and homosexuality don't involve the government. When you introduce government into the situation, it instantly becomes something that effects every resident of the nation, especially tax payers. Government does not solve problems, it only causes them. Homosexuals rallying for state recognized marriage is no different than begging for more wide distribution of the shackles every one else suffers from. Demanding the government regulate the people more is EVERYONE'S problem regardless of who or what you are sexually attracted to. Reducing this subject down to "you are either for us or against us" is a fallacy and has no place in honest debate. Not everyone who is against gay marriage is a right wing closet gay Jesus freak homophobic bigot.

If there is homophobia there please point it out.

I know cognitive dissonance prevents you from acknowledging this, but try reading the emboldened text again.

Thanks for insulting me. You could also simply rephrase your thoughts but I guess insults are the way Americans do shit...

Well I still don't understand. You say that gay marriage is the concern of everyone because it involves the government. And so? It doesn't explain why gay marriage is a problem.

That wasn't an insult, but attacking me based on my nationality is a personal attack however. I was pointing out the fact that you are conditioned to ignore the simple logic of this scenario. I never said gay marriage was "a problem", simply that it directly involves government, and thus directly effects every resident, therefore people have a right to oppose it based on this logic alone if they so choose. No bigotry required.

If you go this way, even the fact that gay relationships are made illegal isn't bad in itself as it's also regulated by the government.

The reason is it effects everyone, not just homosexuals.

No. That doesn't make any sense at all. You don't need permission from the government to be gay. Gayness is not taxed either. You have no logic in this position.

Which is why people refuse this argument. It doesn't. In which way does it affect anyone but the gays?

Well you needed one only a few decades ago, and they didn't give it out. Being gay was illegal only few decades ago.

So then, explain to me how enacting a law that affects all Americans and American residents, most being tax payers, and changing constitutional law DOES NOT affect everyone? I already explained how it effects everyone else, you simply just keep pretending like it is not a fact trying to bait me into some tertiary argument about gay marriage which I have no interest in. People have a right to object because government effects everyone, and people have a right to have a say in what their government does regardless of their sexuality, without being harassed and designated bigots simply for disagreeing. It is very simple. I am not arguing for or against it, just that people have legitimate reason to protest that doesn't involve prejudice.

Your argument there still has zero logic. Sodomy (not homosexuality) may have been illegal in the past in the US, but that doesn't have anything to do with your supposed argument. You are simply trying once again to recast this argument under the subject of bigotry because that is the easiest way to marginalize people whom you do not agree with.

You're... Terrifying...

Truly if people like you are usual in USA I understand why they're all talking about "politically correct" legion.

Why are you yelling like this? Why are you insulting us? They both said they were for gay marriage why the fuck are you insulting them like this?

Pay no attention to the civilized debate behind the curtain. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

I'm surprised people want to even argue against homosexual relationships.  It is not my business what people do in their bedrooms.  

Would they complain that Asians like to have more oral than Blacks (just an example, I'm not sure if it is true)?  Why people even think about what gay people do in their bedrooms?  Why they have interest in it?  Closet gays themselves? Jealous?

Never understood that logic.  

It really does not matter if kids are raised by a man and a women or two women, two men, or three men and five women.  What is the difference?  If parents love their kids, they will provide for them, show them love and teach them how to be good human beings.

Sure, "more freedom". More freedom to be regulated. More government regulation is EVERYONE'S concern. I will give you ONE EXAMPLE since you are so willfully ignorant and can't get past your own cognitive dissonance. A heterosexual couple have a child. That child is gay. The heterosexual parents are now directly effected by regulation of gay marriage via their child. Once more, this one single example is besides the point and again just a tertiary argument I will spend no more time arguing about.

I should point out by the way I am opposed to government being involved in marriage at all for anyone.


As far as your rambling about homosexuality being illegal, homosexuality wasn't illegal in the US sodomy was, for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. What you are describing is DEREGULATION of private personal activities, not creating MORE regulation, so again your argument has no logical basis as my entire argument is that increased government regulation is not desirable, and thus it is a legitimate reason for anyone residing here to protest gay marriage.

I agree with you 100%, it is nobody's business, even the government's. I never argued against homosexual relationships. I stated that people are demanding increased regulation via the government, as a result it effects everyone subject to that government regardless of your sexuality, therefore merely objecting to it does not make one a homophobe or a bigot. The idea that it doesn't effect anyone else is a myth designed to mask the fact that this makes people less free, not more free, exploiting the LGBT movement to do so. This directly involves the government and gives them more power, control, and authority over gay marriage when the government shouldn't be involved in any kind of marriage at all.

I agree with you 100%, it is nobody's business, even the government's. I never argued against homosexual relationships. I stated that people are demanding increased regulation via the government, as a result it effects everyone subject to that government regardless of your sexuality, therefore merely objecting to it does not make one a homophobe or a bigot. The idea that it doesn't effect anyone else is a myth designed to mask the fact that this makes people less free, not more free, exploiting the LGBT movement to do so. This directly involves the government and gives them more power, control, and authority over gay marriage when the government shouldn't be involved in any kind of marriage at all.

I'm surprised people want to even argue against homosexual relationships.  It is not my business what people do in their bedrooms.  

Would they complain that Asians like to have more oral than Blacks (just an example, I'm not sure if it is true)?  Why people even think about what gay people do in their bedrooms?  Why they have interest in it?  Closet gays themselves? Jealous?

Never understood that logic.  

It really does not matter if kids are raised by a man and a women or two women, two men, or three men and five women.  What is the difference?  If parents love their kids, they will provide for them, show them love and teach them how to be good human beings.

Incredible how you can't simply politely expose your point of view... You seem to have to be rude...

Anyway. Your argument is a complete nonsense because the notion of mariage itself is linked to government. Being married means to be recognized as a couple in the eye of the state: marriage (oxford dictionary)-The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:. If you don't want to be regulated by government don't marry at the city hall! Only marry at the church!

You just refuse to grant more freedom to others. Simply because you don't want to be involved in any official thing doesn't mean others don't want either. Legitimate gay marriage doesn't increase state regulation! It only gives the right to homosexuals to be regulated by the gov if they want.

See the frothing rage people get into over the mere concept that people should have any say what their government imposes upon them? Anyone who protests is clearly a (insert marginalizing phrase or word here). I simply suggested that anyone under the rule of said government has a right to protest the changing of laws which directly effect them, but in your little myopic reactionary minds any such suggestion is equivalent to being anti-gay. You claim I have no argument, but your entire argument rests upon:
against gay marriage = closet gay/bigot/homophobe/jesus freak

I say it directly effects every resident of the nation (as all laws do), you reply "NO, BECAUSE HOMOPHOBIA!"
Reactionaries such as yourself sure do seem to take issue with people having an opposing opinion to them, or having a say in how one's own government is run for reactionaries.

See the frothing rage people get into over the mere concept that people should have any say what their government imposes upon them? Anyone who protests is clearly a (insert marginalizing phrase or word here). I simply suggested that anyone under the rule of said government has a right to protest the changing of laws which directly effect them, but in your little myopic reactionary minds any such suggestion is equivalent to being anti-gay. You claim I have no argument, but your entire argument rests upon:
against gay marriage = closet gay/bigot/homophobe/jesus freak

I say it directly effects every resident of the nation (as all laws do), you reply "NO, BECAUSE HOMOPHOBIA!"
Reactionaries such as yourself sure do seem to take issue with people having an opposing opinion to them, or having a say in how one's own government is run for reactionaries.

It's a statement like this statement.....Straight marriage will turn you into a mental thief and cause your family problems

Now tell me what's wrong with the statement I just made

It's the same sort of statement as Gay marriage will destabilise family life

See the frothing rage people get into over the mere concept that people should have any say what their government imposes upon them? Anyone who protests is clearly a (insert marginalizing phrase or word here). I simply suggested that anyone under the rule of said government has a right to protest the changing of laws which directly effect them, but in your little myopic reactionary minds any such suggestion is equivalent to being anti-gay. You claim I have no argument, but your entire argument rests upon:
against gay marriage = closet gay/bigot/homophobe/jesus freak

I say it directly effects every resident of the nation (as all laws do), you reply "NO, BECAUSE HOMOPHOBIA!"
Reactionaries such as yourself sure do seem to take issue with people having an opposing opinion to them, or having a say in how one's own government is run for reactionaries.

You're wrong on the definition of marriage itself. Marriage means regulation by government. It's in the definition of the word...

To techshares point
Child says hes Gay
Parents intervene
Social Services appear take child away where before it was within the parents purview to intervene.

Yes it can destabilize a family life simply said.

Where does the gay marriage appear in your reasoning?

Hmm it doesn't yugo the OP was related to the Destabilize family Life aspect
I was referring to that part.
Semantics aside

If Gay Marriage was there it would be
Gay parents raise child
Child says he Gay
Hurray

Gay Parents Raise Child
Child says he Straight
??? or Acceptance

I guess that could still destabilize their relationship depending on if they want their adopted kid to be raised up like their parents and be gay.
(Deem that acceptable?)

In the end presume
Child says he straight
Gay parents intervene

Social Services appear (Is this discrimination if they take the kid away) Or in a parents right

Reverse the switch.

Destabilize by the gay marriage ;)

Gays destabilize family life that's for sure. But their right to get married? I don't see how this part could destabilize anything ^^

Taxation, personal rights, adoption rules, perhaps labor discrimination and societal snowball effects.

It's more of a butterfly effect it creates rifts all over the place.

In Taxation if its not set equal to marriage between traditional couples it creates issues defining benefits and taxation rules similar to or different to straight couples based on children etc and if their is any other benefits based on minority rules. If nothing is different no snowball effect, but if any subsidy for minorities as defined by legal changes is done then it starts to impact the revenue and takes away from other services.

In the case Taxation is impacted, lets say it was done indirectly, example a law is passed in adoption priorities, where services prioritize perceived minority adoption over traditional families in this case gay marriage couples are first on the ticket for adoption of a child.
This can create a perceived and actual affect on the people involved as the agency may have a bias either way based on a formula set by the law.

If so does a child have the right to decide who they will accept as their parents, it can be made that the child should makes that decision, if its not in their opinion to be adopted by gays or traditional families but is set in law that minorities are first that would raise an issue. As it is that is not defined and should not be no special privileges based on gender race or orientation in adoption should be set.

I guess here it could destabilize a potential family life that could have been in that wishy washy oh what could have been if only X didn't happen sense of the word :)

Labor discrimination comes up on occasion in gay marriage, but its in the sense that a person can identify as gay to get a competitive edge in the labor market. (So it's more less another way to try to declare as a minority and get a foot in the door over someone else equally qualified) Legal now so it's a bit of an edge that comes from its legalization, where as before it's still fair game for both while adding a criteria for minority groups might have added gay marriage after the court ruling in some companies.

Again more of it could have been me if the employer didn't have a minority quota that defined gay married couples as a group to meet a quota maybe I could get that job. Wishy Washy since an employer has other considerations.

The real backbone of this argument of how it impacts me is in Societal snowball effects:

I say I don't like Gay marriage which is within my rights, now I'm perceived as a racist, geez I rather get on board or someone will trample over my liberties.

I run a traditional school that has for years encouraged prayers in school and straight sex relationships, now the government is telling me to quash my religious liberties and traditions because Gay Marriage is legal, allow gays into my school and legalize gay sex in my dorms even though it's against my schools beliefs and their are other schools possibly even next door that a Student can take law classes in that would gladly accept them.

(Kind of like inclusive catholic schools , theirs a public school next door it's a great school if you don't want to take religious classes here their is no problem going over there.)

Yet for some reason they want to go to this law school and impose their agenda on my institution, maybe cause its close by or the entrance requirements are lower and easier to get in, maybe its their first choice for some obscure reason, or they have a hidden equality agenda and want to screw around with the rules here and prevent another Scalia in the Supreme Court who knows, but I know one thing don't mess with the status quo, in a religious institution obey the rules and follow them else apply elsewhere as its within the rights of the school to deny students for this and I have done a reasonable amount to accommodate them as students.

Either way the rule of dormitories and the impact of gay married couples in schools that prohibit that type of marriage is a testy ground. Lets say the school decides to take them in but later another issue arises.

A Politically Correct agenda would feed money towards any Public Action Committee that opposes the viewpoint of gays needing to not be gay at a religious institution and call them villains even though they are the ones intruding on the rules set by the organization and breaking the tradition.

The media now has free reign to say whatever they want to support this new legislation, and anyone who offers criticism pertaining to it is censured silenced and not allowed to express their opinion without being called a bigot boo-hoo for equality.

Those are the main issues of snowball effects that can impact life from that ruling.

And for your comfort

How would it destabilize a family, said parents are gay they adopt a kid and they want housing in that religious schools dormitory for married couples because they are students at that school.

Now is that an intrusion on personal liberties, religious liberties or did they give up the right to their viewpoint and access to the dormitory housing when they decided to apply for that religious community and school knowing all of this beforehand and the regulations they had.

The butterfly effect is far reaching one little ruling can create some quite fun scenarios :)

Destabilize by the gay marriage ;)

Gays destabilize family life that's for sure. But their right to get married? I don't see how this part could destabilize anything ^^

All that writing only to be told your full off shit..

Go and do your research.

Oh, you’re so politically correct. You’re so beautiful,I know, you’re so perfect. Aren’t you perfect. Aren’t you just a perfect young man
"Hey, give me a break. You know what? It’s stuff like that that people in this country are tired of. It’s stuff like that."

The anti-PC college professor (50, California)
‘I’m angry at forced diversity’

I’m a liberal-left college professor in the social sciences. I’m going to vote for Trump but I won’t tell hardly anybody.

My main reason is anger at the two-party system and the horrible presidencies of Obama and Bush. But I’m also furious at political correctness on campus and in the media.

I’m angry at forced diversity and constant, frequently unjustified complaints about racism/sexism/homophobia/lack of trans rights. I’m particularly angry at social justice warriors and my main reason to vote Trump is to see the looks on your faces when he wins.

It’s not that I like Trump. It’s that I hate those who can’t stand him. I want them to suffer the shock of knowing all their torrents of blog posts and Tumblr bitch-fests and “I just can’t ...” and accusations of mansplaining didn’t actually matter. That they’re still losing. And that things are not getting better for them. They’re getting worse.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/secret-donald-trump-voters-speak-out

Before he ran, the left’s stranglehold on the national conversation of what is or isn’t tolerable was getting stronger by the minute. It was the year of Caitlyn Jenner. Rachel Dolezal. Black Lives Matter. Anyone who even hinted at disapproval was exiled. Every week, someone would dare to blurt out something un-PC, and the media would absolutely crucify them. It had me thinking this was it. We’ve lost. How on earth can we hope to defeat these people, with their complete domination of the national conversation and relentless narrative of “Progress! Tolerance! Acceptance! Feels!”?

Political correctness is the birthplace of disastrous, un-American policies that will destroy the country in a death by a thousand cuts. But here comes Trump, the first person who didn’t even blink when the machine turns its sights on him.

He didn’t just fight back. He chewed it up and spit it out.

Disgraced Researcher on Gay Marriage Accused of Lying about Funding

Not only does it appear that UCLA grad student Michael LaCour lied about the results of his study on how easy it is to change minds on gay marriage, but it also appears he falsified data on his CV.

With much ballyhoo, Science journal published a paper by LaCour and his colleague, Professor Donald Green of Columbia University, which showed that opponents of gay marriage could not only have their minds changed after a 20-minute scripted conversation, but that their minds stayed changed over time.

The mainstream and advocacy media celebrated the results. After all, this fit into the narrative that Americans are eager to support “marriage equality,” and even opponents can be persuaded if they meet an earnest gay man face to face.

Turns out, it all appears to be a fraud. The grad student allegedly faked the data and later said he accidentally deleted it from his computer. His colleague hastily wrote to Science, stating the paper was a phony.

Now it comes to light that LaCour allegedly lied about funding sources for his now-disgraced study. He claimed he received funding for his paper from the Ford Foundation, the Williams Institute at UCLA, and the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund. Each institution now denies ever funding LaCour or his study.

Jesse Singal, writing in New York magazine’s Science of Us reported Tuesday that another funding claim on LaCour’s CV is also phony. LaCour said he received $160,000 from the Jay and Rose Phillips Family Foundation. The foundation reportedly told Singal they had not funded LaCour at all.

One of the odd angles of the media narrative is the comparison between Michael LaCour’s alleged fraud and the authenticated research of Mark Regnerus, who has become a punching bag for advocates of same-sex marriage.

Regnerus published the largest-ever analysis of children raised by LGBTs compared to those raised by single moms and those raised by their biological mother and father. His study showed that across a whole host of measurements, the children raised by two men or two women in a same-sex relationship fared far worse in life than those raised by the children’s biological mother and father. Despite an ongoing assault on his methods and findings, Regnerus’s study has never been retracted by the peer-reviewed publication that published it. What’s more, even though his university carried out an investigation, both his methods and findings were given a clean bill of health, even by those who support gay marriage.

Matthew Franck, writing at First Things, says any comparison between the two studies and the two researchers is entirely specious. One study was “the first ever research, using a nationally representative sample, on the young-adult outcomes for kids raised by people who have same-sex romantic relationships.” The other reportedly was a fraud. No comparison.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/gay-marriage-study-author-admits-lies-science-journal-says-n366266
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/27/disgraced-researcher-on-gay-marriage-accused-of-lying-about-funding/

To techshares point
Child says hes Gay
Parents intervene
Social Services appear take child away where before it was within the parents purview to intervene.

Yes it can destabilize a family life simply said.

I want to note that this was not my point. I don't support parents dictating someone's sexuality for them, nor do I support the state removing a child from their natural parents for doing so as long as they are not otherwise being abused. My only implication was that friends and family, some times direct dependents are homosexual, which has a direct effect on not only them, but all of the residents of the places where the law is in effect. This is why I did not want to give any examples because it leaves so much room for interpretation and slinging accusations. The point is the law applies to everyone, not just gays. The implication that it does not effect anyone else is a lie. Furthermore the constant accusations of bigotry, homophobia, etc placed upon anyone who dares raise this point is not only abusive but counterproductive to true equality.

The implications of approving gay marriage are very large.

In a house there father and mother and the child easily identifies it, at school she learns about reproduction, reproductive organs, for women and men, as they reproduce the animals.

but comes home has two men in which calls father and know it if the other will be the mother, even if parents try to explain it at school the child too suffered with colleagues in the street the child too suffered with people

Whenever the gay couple out with the child, the child had suffered discrimination

The problem is that even for me to accept a lot, do not accept gays and two man to kiss in front of me threw up and now imagine the radicals?

Have countries that gays are tortured, are dead ... how many countries this double wrath gay?

  as two men vain to explain to the child how they reproduce? even if the child until 12 years old stay with this couple as they grow come a time that will not endure and fled home.

I'm straight and married and as far as I'm concerned, if two gay people want to get married, that's their business.  It's hard to criticize when a large percentage of traditional marriages end in divorce and there are a lot of other heterosexual relationships that produce children out of wedlock.

Yes it is upon their business. Besides business it's opposite to nature as well the creations. For some sort of need someone started regulating it which eventually got acceptance over other countries. This needs to be eliminated.

I'm straight and married and as far as I'm concerned, if two gay people want to get married, that's their business.  It's hard to criticize when a large percentage of traditional marriages end in divorce and there are a lot of other heterosexual relationships that produce children out of wedlock.

I like trump so when your voting for him make sure you know what your voting for because what you say makes no difference to the gay community.
I see Donald trump like this.A bio party man.perfect president. republican liberal democrat all rolled into 1.
So could be a good thing trump. But then again could be the worse thing America have ever done
BUT can it get any worse than what's on offer now.So what ever happens still wont bother the LGBT
Community.
Plus why get rid of the LGBT movement Don't you like to PARTY Grumpy old fart :D
I am to old to party but let the young enjoy there lives and be free .BORING MAN we don't get long on this planet ;D

Your facts are lies..The guy your talking about is a TOTAL LIAR. So what he as said is all lies..So you believe liars do you.. CRAZY
The guy trying to make him self cash and fame .So all your proof now has to be thrown out of the window..Be no good in court your evidence  

Also what he was doing was not in support for the gay community

I want to note that this was not my point. I don't support parents dictating someone's sexuality for them, nor do I support the state removing a child from their natural parents for doing so as long as they are not otherwise being abused. My only implication was that friends and family, some times direct dependents are homosexual, which has a direct effect on not only them, but all of the residents of the places where the law is in effect. This is why I did not want to give any examples because it leaves so much room for interpretation and slinging accusations. The point is the law applies to everyone, not just gays. The implication that it does not effect anyone else is a lie. Furthermore the constant accusations of bigotry, homophobia, etc placed upon anyone who dares raise this point is not only abusive but counterproductive to true equality.

I want to note that this was not my point. I don't support parents dictating someone's sexuality for them, nor do I support the state removing a child from their natural parents for doing so as long as they are not otherwise being abused. My only implication was that friends and family, some times direct dependents are homosexual, which has a direct effect on not only them, but all of the residents of the places where the law is in effect. This is why I did not want to give any examples because it leaves so much room for interpretation and slinging accusations. The point is the law applies to everyone, not just gays. The implication that it does not effect anyone else is a lie. Furthermore the constant accusations of bigotry, homophobia, etc placed upon anyone who dares raise this point is not only abusive but counterproductive to true equality.

False. It affects only gays... I don't even see how you can think otherwise...

And nobody accused you of bigotery. You were just told that your argument is stupid and false. Except for Popcorn1 of course but he keeps insulting and yelling on everyone so that doesn't count.

it's opposite to nature as well the creations..So why does it repeat over and over again in most species..And it's you who needs to be eliminated.ANOTHER THICK SHIT.

WHO ELSE WANTS TO GET THE PISS TAKEN OUT OF THEM
It be nice for subject to go because it's all lies but be my guest and try and i will rip you to shreds on this subject.HOW CAN ANYONE WIN AGAINST LOVE..So come and try ;D

My Thoughts Exactly! Thank you! I was planning to say almost the same words. We would have the right to be against the gay marriage only if all the heterosexual marriages were perfect. But since they are like Hell mostly why should we oppose something different?

Saying "false", and then not explaining your reasoning at all is not an argument. That is just you standing on a street corner with a bullhorn yelling your opinion at the world. Yes, more opinions my argument is "stupid & false", of course no reasoning behind it to back that up, it just is because I said so. You are right no one accused me of "bigotery", but popcorn is a perfect example of the hostility of the true believers who are "intolerant of intolerance" and think they are "evening things out" by attacking "the other side", when in reality we are all on the same side and he is actually driving people away from accepting homosexuals with his behavior. He is not exactly the best ambassador for the gay community (or the English speaking community either). I am glad you can designate him as "doesn't count" for me, otherwise I would have to make that decision for myself.

The fact is gay marriage effects everyone regardless of your denials. The law is designed to apply to everyone equally. The law does not verify your sexual preferences, it applies to all humans in the jurisdiction, and all humans in the jurisdiction pay the price of the legislation. Saying "false" does not make this less true, and denying anyone else a say in this situation is not equality, it is the creation of a "protected class" which we can not discuss without spiteful shitheels like popcorn on "both sides" of the fence demolishing anything resembling civil debate, thinking he is "winning" by doing so.


Actually, it makes it easier to criticize. Until the government got involved in marriage, the vast majority of them were successful. Now with no fault divorce, people (mostly women) are paid to break up their marriages and then either supported by their divorced partner and or the state. The government getting involved in marriage of any kind is a failure. Government involvement in marriage should be abolished for everyone. Now days more marriages fail than succeed. State marriage is simply a system to strip the population of its wealth by eating families, gay or straight.


Yes, like opposing government involvement in any marriage, straight or gay.

popcorn is a perfect example of the hostility of the true believers who are "intolerant of intolerance"You say..
Better than no rule with rules.

See the trouble is your saying its a discussion.When it's an insult..This is the same sort of discussion would you discuss this EXAMPLE.

Black people marriage will destabilise family life
Pakistani people marriage will destabilise family life
Ginger people marriage will destabilise family life
Fat people marriage will destabilise family life
Ugly people marriage will destabilise family life
Acne spotty people marriage will destabilise family life

When people get married is it guaranteed they will stay together for ever.When people split up is it nice for there kids to see the break up.

SO WHY PICK ON GAY PEOPLE THEN
6 examples lets discuss the 6 examples..NO.. why because it's all bullshit and insulting..
So TECSHARE carry on with your fight for NO RULES WITH RULES because you make no sense.

TECSHARE you say government gives us rules and you hate the rules .
So i suppose we need to live by your rules so now we would live under the TECSHARE rules?

So after all that fighting and killing we done for you defeating the government we got to live by your rules now..So all that fighting was for nothing..Back to square 1 with RULES.

How does life work without rules?

Did you eat a lot of paint chips as a kid?

https://i.imgur.com/D9VXoIf.jpg

I think gays are sick and need treatment ... we should not accept such a thing in society

Get over your stupid homophobia

Studies have shown that homophobia often means you are secretly gay...

http://www.livescience.com/19563-homophobia-hidden-homosexuals.html (http://www.livescience.com/19563-homophobia-hidden-homosexuals.html)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html)

I changed your name to hurry up and die cunt.Sounds better than slow death unless you get cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mppJxR5wPCw

ku ku ku

Do not tell me you're gay?

You ever seen porno gay?

Has anyone seen porno 2 men having sex? because I saw an accident and was quite disgusting.

Before seeing that film I accepted gay ... not had problems with them, but after seeing that movie only 3 minutes? I started to not like gays and every time I see a gay I want to throw up

I think gays are sick and need treatment ... we should not accept such a thing in society

I am a fairly right leaning conservative however I don't think BEING gay is necessarily bad.

You should be able to date whomever you'd like. Whether female or male. You get to decide.

That's not to say that you can change the law based on your decisions, though. My opinion is that marriage is a very sacred tradition. It is something that has been respected for generations and we need to keep that respect. It should not be taken lightly and should not be seen as a joke. To me, marriage is something that should last for a lifetime, with no divorces.

Marriage is between a man and a woman for good reason. Both are the only ones that can have kids together and it's been set like this for a long time. I've seen many gay people before and they speak of marriage as a joke and make jokes about it. Some people get married and then OOPS in a year there's a divorce.

I feel like gay people have twisted their own words and made themselves look like a joke. Right now, you can marry anyone you'd like. However that shouldn't be the case until they can actually prove that marriage is not a joke to them.

Reminder: I think gay people are fine. If my son/daughter told me they were gay I'd be fine and would support them as best I can. However, I feel marriage is something completely sacred and should be taken seriously. If you're not going to take it seriously, don't participate.

YOUR A FUCKIN JOKE..Who the fuck made you chief marriage dude of all sacred marriage's FUCKIN DICK..
You thick shit all marriage should be banned then DUMB ASS because it's straight couples who get divorced the most..
SACRED :D
Insulting little cunt..BRING IT BACK UP AGAIN fuckin wanker ;D So gay people don't take there love for each other seriously FUCK YOU TWAT

Yes i know I am insulting and rude people keep telling me..  I am not an ass hole like some..I am a cunt to a cunt.and your a cunt ;D

Why do people love bringing this insulting statement back up all the time..I wonder who will be my next victim  :D

Before you decide to bring this statement back up again ask your self this..Are you guaranteed to stay together till you die if 2 straight couples get married..ANSWER NO.So if your gay or straight makes no difference because both could end in divorce.
So the whole statement is a JOKE and so are you

I feel like gay people have twisted their own words and made themselves look like a joke. Right now, you can marry anyone you'd like. However that shouldn't be the case until they can actually prove that marriage is not a joke to them.

You say some really ignorant bullshit...

But seriously... Do straight people have to prove marriage is not a joke to them also?

Do you agree that this statement is double-standard hypocritical bullshit?

Do you even know what the ignorant means? I don't mean to get hostile but seriously. Every time I have a discussion with a democrat they call me "ignorant". It simply means uninformed or uneducated. It doesn't mean anything else!

How do you know I am not gay? And what if I am? Will my previous statement on marriage still matter to you and would I still be ignorant?

But in regards to your question, I totally agree that everyone needs to start taking marriage seriously. This thread was specifically about gay marriage so that is why I am posting about it. I understand that there are all straights, gays and lesbians (and probably what ever else) who do not take marriage seriously. That being said, marriage is an institution that has existed for centuries and is a tradition. It must be respected. Of course we can make amendments to those traditions, I am not saying we can't. But those amendments must be compatible with the previous regulations/rules.

Are you a strange gay :D You like tradition so much why don't you join the Dani Tribe
And also god hates gays..
This thread was specifically about gay marriage you say.Read the statement being made.
And if your gay your a thick shit..if 2 gay couples get married will the kids they have be fucked up kids
yes or no ?..
And also you fuckin moron how many gays do you know that say i am getting married then split up then get married then split up..Most gays that get married stay married not like straight couples marry 2 to 5 times over there life time.
where do you spend your nights in here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdbt-sx5MDc

The question is not what do you think on gay marriage..It's saying if your gay and you get married your family will be a fucked up one lots of family problems is this true?
Because it's been proven to be a lie. Remember you can always join the Dani tribe if you love your tradition.
Did you get married and your lover left you because sounds like your pig sick over the split .Did he or she promise you the world and left you with nothing?A bitter gay are you..

Then if your not gay where is all these gays talking about marriage like it was a joke that you know of.
Or are you lying about the whole situation Which is it story 1 or 2..

Are you religious then it sums it all up A RELIGIOUS HATER.Everybody knows religious freaks hate gays.
You really are a plant pot it's not a debate it's an insult THICK SHIT :D
plus old testament was tradition why the new testament who decided to break that tradition..
So lets keep traditions king JavaLove likes only

So there were a lot of questions asked here, totally disordered I may add.

I will start off by answering one of the questions: yes I am religious. If it wasn't obvious I am a Christian but I totally disagree with your statement. I wouldn't call myself a religious "freak" however I do defend my religion and believe highly in it. I don't agree where you said religious freaks hate gays. I don't hate ANYONE. You can call me moron, cunt, whatever I still don't hate you. Same thing with a gay person. As I said you don't even know if I am gay or not. If I am gay thanks for calling me thick shit. I guess it's a compliment.

The numbers on straight people getting divorced is higher than gay people because there are not as many gay people who are married yet. You've got to let the numbers come out. However, look at how most gay people view marriage. It's not usually in a good way. Now, they can say whatever they'd like I don't care however you should have respect for the institution that you are entering.

Again, marriage is an age old tradition. I never said it can't be changed. But, you referenced the thread, this thread is discussing if "gay marriage will destabilize family life" which is totally true. The family tradition was a man and a woman. I don't care in which way you spin it, that's already a destabilization.

I need to repeat myself: you can be with a guy, you can be with a girl but marriage is a tradition that has existed for generations. Just because you want to date someone/something (because some people actually want to date objects) different doesn't mean you should participate in the tradition. If it's existed for years, then go along with your daily life. It's not a requirement to be married and if you want to be married, go with the opposite sex.

Finally: I like the last sentence. Going with traditions "King JavaLove" only likes sounds great to me.

I bet you it does..Religious gay hater now were getting to the real story.All this bullshit i don't hate gays or nobody :D Typical of bible basher's not all but most of you are 2 faced mother fuckers.
So enjoy your day KING JAVALOVE showed your true colours Thanks gay hater ;D
Much better to speak the truth instead of talking bullshit straight to the point saves time..

Do you even know what the ignorant means? I don't mean to get hostile but seriously. Every time I have a discussion with a democrat they call me "ignorant". It simply means uninformed or uneducated. It doesn't mean anything else!

How do you know I am not gay? And what if I am? Will my previous statement on marriage still matter to you and would I still be ignorant?

But in regards to your question, I totally agree that everyone needs to start taking marriage seriously. This thread was specifically about gay marriage so that is why I am posting about it. I understand that there are all straights, gays and lesbians (and probably what ever else) who do not take marriage seriously. That being said, marriage is an institution that has existed for centuries and is a tradition. It must be respected. Of course we can make amendments to those traditions, I am not saying we can't. But those amendments must be compatible with the previous regulations/rules.

You say some really ignorant bullshit...

But seriously... Do straight people have to prove marriage is not a joke to them also?

Do you agree that this statement is double-standard hypocritical bullshit?

I agree. I'm straight and I'm married for many years(25) but I still can't prove that marriage is not a joke. )) IMO in the free Western society adult people should have the right to do whatever they want if they don't hurt other people by doing that.

Gay marriage?   Disgusty!
Maybe should be respectful of people's choice but it doesn't prevent nausea when imagine.
Anyway the biggest problem of western civilisation is distorted family life and gay marriage impacts it even worse.

Yeah sure, it's like the worst thing ever! You imagine? People actually loving each other without being different sex? Horrible!!! So unnatural!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

They are animals, not human. We have our moral rules for keeping life better.

They are animals, not human. We have our moral rules for keeping life better.

Yes we have our moral rules for keeping life better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuYXzgBHFR8

Negative, Ghost Rider, the pattern is full

I have no interest in reading homophobic bigotry

Who funds the studies that you trust? (please don't say the bible or God or some stupid shit like that)
[/quote



If you think the bible and God are stupid, then how did you come into existence?

Please do not tell me about the theory of evolution because even scientists are starting to agree that it is false. Google it.

Oh great! So they're animals for doing natural things? I guess that's a new argument. And where does this moral come from? Cause that's important to respect moral rules. But you gotta know where this moral comes from in order to be sure to not break it :)

i think gay marriages will be banned in the world.
and this is also illigal in many religions especially in Islam.
and yes it destroy the family lines.

I think i disagree with you, in my point of view, gay marriage is just like fighting for women rights during the early 20th and late 19 century. They just want to have there own community without harm. we are just blinded with gay entertainers and we are generalizing too much.

And to sum it up, people discourage gay marriage because of mainly the bible because it was stated there that man is for woman and so on.

What happened to its saying about love and respect?

feel free to comment.

I am the only one who thinks being gay is a choice  :-\
Seriously, like, if you put anyone in a chair, and stimulate him sexually positive when looking at a male individual, after a week, he'll be attracted to males lol

So you are saying that sexuality is something you can overwrite with the right stimulation?
This kind of falls in line with those Get straight camps where they try to get men that are ashamed of being Gay to be more straight.

Read recently but it did not come from a strong enough source that I noted it but was a interesting idea on why gays do not get fazed out after one dies. The theory that sounded a bit out landish was that 50% of the population carries this gene that lays dormant till activated.
Seems like one of those ideas they threw together quickly to come up with a reason why its still relevant generations later.

i think gay marriages will be banned in the world.
and this is also illigal in many religions especially in Islam.
and yes it destroy the family lines.

dunno, I mean, like, you need to get a boner to fuck someone

but if you come up to a random guy and say, I'll give you a million dollars if you fuck him in the ass

I'm 97% certain, he'd be able to do it lol

It's not an easy choice, but it is a choice, I think, I can't be 100% sure
But it's what it seems to me

The camps fall in the category of telling them it's a sin, that can only get them to kill themselves if they think they can't change
Proper technique would be stimulans

But I don't know, it needs to be tested on volunteers  :D

Homosexuality is a disorder (Define disorder: to disturb the order), but it's benign, it's not dangerous  :)

From your argument, it seems that you are trying to give an impression that homosexual behavior is very common among the animals. That is not true at all. The incidence of homosexuality among the animals is less than that in the humans. For example, there are a total of 5,416 mammal species in the world. The median incidence of homosexuality among them is much less than the 1.5% observed among the humans. 

How gay marriage will destabilise family life if they can't create a life  ;D? Except by adopting a child.  Gay marriage is very immoral, this is written in the bible, even though we don't base in the bible. Socially gay marriage is immoral

Gay marriage is not immoral, it's useless. Two guys who think that's marriage will make theirs love stronger just want to live togather but it's so stupid from other side. I can't really understand why it's happening to mans.

With marriage they gain aspects that they would not have access to otherwise. You would be shocked how many hurdles they would have otherwise.
Says more about how we set up society.
We still are set up with all these religious aspects that are no longer relevant in our current times.

Same sex marriage is wrong period. God does not condone any type of sin & homosexual sex is an abomination. This is one of the signs of the End of Days. The world is more evil than Sodom & Gomorrah. Marriage & christian living is being mocked by our own Gov't. Christains are being persecuted as never before. Children are a gift from God & their being exploited by these gay & Lesbians to satisfy their selfish needs. God is judging America for their disobedience, Unless people in this country turn from their evil ways & repent this once great country founded on biblical principles will be destroyed

i think gay marriages will be banned in the world.
and this is also illigal in many religions especially in Islam.
and yes it destroy the family lines.

Gay marriages might be opposite to most religion but slowly it has got acceptance in most of the countries. Gay relation is also keeps on increasing which is not good for a healthy growth of the family and universe.

I think gay marriages should be allowed.
Because it somekinda solves population problems in world.

agreed,i never support gay marriage or LGBT existence,its really danger for human being,i can't imagine if this kind of marriage will legal in some country,or the worst is legal in all countries in this world,i'm sure the world in danger if this happen. yes you right,its will destabilise family life.

There are lot other ways to solve population problems. Legalizing gay marriage create unwanted issues as well creates bad intention within human mind, though they are straight.

Yeah! Unwanted issues! Like people having the freedom to do whatever they want!
So unwanted violation of your rights! Much bad intention!

YOu're afraid of becoming gay because gays will have the right to marry?

Nothing to afraid about it. Its a natural feeling that gets created within every human. The bad emotions leads to unwanted violation.

I think gay marriages should be allowed.
Because it somekinda solves population problems in world.

I don't agree that gay marriage could solve the rapid growth of population in the world. Think of it even China with their 2 child policy won't stop that problem. And definitely gay marriage is not the solution of it and it should not be allowed.

Wrong. China clearly solved its overpopulation problem, population is going to shrink as fertility rate is slightly above 1.2

Their main problem will be their aging population though.

It's true, gay marriage is bad for population and also it's forces others children live with unnormal people, i am about orientation. So i really want that no homo will win.

We will see a major destabilization in these pro-sodomite countries.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/marriage/memo/m94.htm (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/marriage/memo/m94.htm)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9908951/Gay-marriage-will-destabilise-family-life-sociologist-warns.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9908951/Gay-marriage-will-destabilise-family-life-sociologist-warns.html)

This was the principle factor, she said, that has caused the collapse in marriage rates between heterosexuals in countries where gay marriage had been introduced - as well as a sharp rise in cohabitation and the numbers of children born out of wedlock.

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm (http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm)

It's true, gay marriage is bad for population and also it's forces others children live with unnormal people, i am about orientation. So i really want that no homo will win.

It's true, gay marriage is bad for population and also it's forces others children live with unnormal people, i am about orientation. So i really want that no homo will win.

Well, this is very sensitive topic.
Someone will say that it's human right and that we can't and shouldn't stop people to love each other.
Other will say that marriage is sacred thing, connected with God's blessing and spirituality and isn't only physical thing or emotion.
I agree with second viewpoint.
People can love each other  but why they want to change definition of marriage?
All rights regular married couples have, they also have in many countries.
So, why is important to have marriage license than?
What is true agenda behind it?
Do you know that some people also want to decriminalize incest and pedophilia?
So, what is next step than?
Allow mother to marry son or father to marry daughter?
Or 70 year old man to marry girl of 7 years?
I'm afraid that this is true agenda behind all this talks about human rights for everybody.
You are first brainwashed to accept gay marriage by media, but gradually you will be pushed to accept incest and pedophilia, i have no doubt about it.
Everything in the name of ''human rights''. such sweet words but can freedom and rights exist without responsibility?


 

Gay marriage is also a source of HIV/Aids and surely it will destabilize families lives.

People tend to think that gay marriage should be allow but think again if you can attain to accept this kind of society.

gays must be cast as victims

what kind of victim? victim of their bad mind or because of gen from their parents? I think they are victim for their lack of thoughts. they just don't have motivate to love women. I mean, it's too crazy to love men while there are so many women out there.

the need to be close to Allah, to get motivation to be normal again.

If they won't stop marrying same sex lesbian marriage and Gay marriage.
The world will be in big danger just like what happened to Sodom and Gomorra

Gay sex (not gay marriage) is responsible for more than 75% of the new HIV infections in the Western nations. A large portion of the other STDs, such as Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Herpes, Chlamydia.etc are also spread as a result of gay sex. I don't care much as long as these people stay wherever they are. But I don't want my tax money to be spent for their treatment.

Gay sex (not gay marriage) is responsible for more than 75% of the new HIV infections in the Western nations. A large portion of the other STDs, such as Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Herpes, Chlamydia.etc are also spread as a result of gay sex. I don't care much as long as these people stay wherever they are. But I don't want my tax money to be spent for their treatment.

In the United States, HIV is spread mainly by:
Having anal or vaginal sex with someone who has HIV without using a condom or taking medicines to prevent or treat HIV.
Anal sex is the highest-risk sexual behavior. For the HIV-negative partner, receptive anal sex (“bottoming”) is riskier than insertive anal sex (“topping”).
Vaginal sex is the second highest-risk sexual behavior.
Sharing needles or syringes, rinse water, or other equipment (“works”) used to prepare injection drugs with someone who has HIV. HIV can live in a used needle up to 42 days depending on temperature and other factors.

Me either, much better to give it to poor people somewhere in Africa and give them something for their livelihood.
It's their fault if they have those diseases, I don't want them to suffer but they didn't think about it.

what kind of victim? victim of their bad mind or because of gen from their parents? I think they are victim for their lack of thoughts. they just don't have motivate to love women. I mean, it's too crazy to love men while there are so many women out there.

the need to be close to Allah, to get motivation to be normal again.

All you muslims are dirty Bacha bazi you dirty animal goat fuckers..
And when you muslims get bombed i smile it makes me happy..
We will keep bombing you dirty rats till your all fuckin dead..Go and fuck your Bacha bazi
DIRTY RATS..

I hope all you muslims die..LONG LIVE THE JEWS..THEY WILL WIPE YOU MUSLIMS OUT ;D good

I fuckin hate you muslims die fuckers

I LOVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ;D
And we are all free to say what we please ;D

Hirose UK I don't like what you said but i bet you never liked what i said deal with it you dirty MUSLIM

Please tell me you're serious oh god this is hilarious

This entire thread is like a group of insecure, disgruntled old white men circlejerking each other  :D

Me either, much better to give it to poor people somewhere in Africa and give them something for their livelihood.
It's their fault if they have those diseases, I don't want them to suffer but they didn't think about it.

At least with do it with men not  Bacha bazi..
ISLAM is cancer..

Funny thing is in the west we are blaming ISIS..And no body on tv as got the balls to say it's ISLAM
that's the problem..we west hate ISLAM..
And when TRUMP wins YOU WILL FEEL OUR WRATH ;D

ISLAM STARTS THE HATE ..WE WILL WIPE IT OUT ;D..

I would rather the planet blew up than live under.. SHARIA LAW..
What is the point of having NUKES if we just let them walk in our countries and let them take over..
Best place for ISLAM is the desert where it belongs..

Don't worry i speak about all religion . I hate all religion vicars PEDO..

Don't know much about jews..But one thing i know is there always getting picked on for the fact they do well in life.. OH and Palestine..But if you do your history how can it be muslim land if the muslims never existed when jews first started out no such thing as a muslim..


I am a Jedi now if i went around saying if you don't believe in my religion i will kill you or i will blow myself up to get attention .Also it's ok to marry children and marry more than one child if you wish.
Also kill jews..Would you believe in my religion?..Well we know you would because you already do

Also if you mock my religion you got JEDIPHOBIA and is a racist ;D

And being gay your all welcome to be a jedi..LUKE SKY WALKER..Our great leader was gay..FACT..
DON'T SHAG KIDS and anyone welcome to be a jedi all colour people welcome

Not bothered where your from bothered by what you believe  ;D
You start the hate and we will finish it jedi rule..

Do you have a source on that 75% statistic?

You mean you're going to blow up the world to be with your gay partner? ;D

if he saw his speech would be dazzled, like going up to fight the fanatics of ISLAM and all religious fanatics to defend gay. :D


I do not know between the fanatics of religions and gay men who are worse?

But surely they should do a movie: GAYS VS ISIS

ISIS: protect your ass, gays are coming :D

GAYS: do not let them explode you, the fanatics are coming :D