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.

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.

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 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.

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/

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.

So why not star wars..Even luke saying why not ;DI got to stop now .I don't have to have the last say NO NO NO.NO mORE 4me

I'm not totally sure we disagree.  I've pointed to numerous gay characters "that worked" in various plots.  I'm opposed to sticking whatever is the currently politically correct,  PC mantra in movies as "adding value" in and of itself, when in fact anybody watching can immediately tell you it's degrading and ridiculous.  

Gay does work in some plots with some characters - more examples are Hunger Games (many) and Cadillac Records (the producer).  

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

Actually all I did was give an example of a gay in the movie scripts.  Not my problem if he's also a psychopath.  I note that nobody has objected to Baron's character.

You are the one that keeps spouting social propaganda.  I can bring up a dozen other movies with characters who are gay.  That's just facts. 

So just admit it.

You want pro gay propaganda in movies.

Maybe a teary eyed blurb backstory about how Baron was such a nice little boy until the family pet gorilla raped him?  Wait, you mean we can't just have a pure evil character that wants to take over the galaxy?

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.

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.

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.

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

Aw....poor Baron...he had a bad childhood.

You know what?  Fuck no he didn't.  He was just portrayed as pure evil.

Look, just admit it.  You want pro-gay propaganda in movies.  

No need to justify it.

FYI, Luke is "not gay."

Definitive answer.

http://mic.com/articles/137094/is-luke-skywalker-gay-mark-hamill-opens-up-about-star-wars-characters-sexuality#.B27Qfjhcu