Bitcoin Forum
November 23, 2017, 05:32:45 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Gay marriage will destabilise family life  (Read 10174 times)
Swordsoffreedom
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


Trumpin it up for a bit


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 10:11:00 AM
 #181

Vote for Trump?
Something Something Rage Against Something Today then Tomorrow.
Trump: I'm doing a Samson here I ain't got time for this.

Independent View
Keep your wang out of my closet, do what you want in your own bedroom.
But for petes sake stop with all the rainbow parades and forcing it down society's throat at every opportunity with TV Ads, Late Night TV, Print Articles we got it shuddup.

Democrat View
Let it be let it be down smooth as a gin drink it up our liberal media encourages it, let it be its the law of the land this is the new family life and its not going away.

Outsider Looking In: Calls it the Mexican Viewpoint

Wow look at all the refugees coming into Europe Raping all those Boys in that Refugee Camp, this is what we need a new LGBT demographic leaving the Barbaric Middle East for friendlier lands and new marriage opportunities.
(By definition they fit into that category even if its because they treat women more like cattle uh oh identity crisis incoming.)

Hurray For Equality everyone needs to be arrested equally.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/france-multiple-young-boys-brutally-raped-by-muslim-migrants-in-refugee-camp
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/austria/12144039/Iraqi-migrant-admits-raping-boy-in-Austrian-pool-after-having-too-much-sexual-energy.html

Sums its up for me.
1511458365
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511458365

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511458365
Reply with quote  #2

1511458365
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511458365
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511458365

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511458365
Reply with quote  #2

1511458365
Report to moderator
yugo23
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 10:38:23 AM
 #182

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.

False. Never said that. You just keep ignoring our arguments.

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

Activity: 938


Trumpin it up for a bit


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 11:03:13 AM
 #183


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

Intruding in

Marriage is a union between a man and a women is the traditional definition.
(Last decade or two definition changes make it a government intervention in the legal definition so both are accurate statements.)
Marriage means intrusion by (the Judiciary) to standardize a definition. (Per say not Government but I'm being nitpicky) Although the government does Impose that all of society by definition needs to accept it raucous opposition or not. Like banning booze in prohibition etc.

Either way I'm having a bit of fun in here Trumping it up a bit he-he

One of the main remaining debates are the rationale for economic benefit to legalizing it as a marriage by definition.

A state bestows numerous benefits on marriage that by its very nature and design promotes children and increasing the population, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, and is an evident interest of any State population = labor = growth.

That said the Supreme Court did just rule on an adoption case so that avenue is available but it still seems like an interesting footnote should you get tax discounts if you don't adopt but are by definition married, answer seems to be yes because traditional marriages do but recieve more with kids but I feel like its murky legally.

Especially if we start a priority system of adoption on who gets a kid first using minorities first logic.
Minorities as recognized based on a labor code could apply to an adoption process which seems unfair by standard definition to a traditional family who want to adopt.

In a sense it also depends on how people believe in a child being raised a traditional Yin Yang Approach aka balanced raising between a Male and Female, Yang Yang or Yin Yin and their definition of balance at this point aka the moral order and were not going to even get into polygamy combinations but I have a feeling that will come up in the future following this progressive logic line of what is the next cutting edge in the sexual revolution.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-us-supreme-court-refuses-to-adopt-an-alabama-ruling/472722/

--
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.
yugo23
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 11:16:10 AM
 #184

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?
Swordsoffreedom
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


Trumpin it up for a bit


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 11:24:25 AM
 #185

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
Huh 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 and see if your double standardizing or share the same rationale and reasoning.
yugo23
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 11:27:47 AM
 #186

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
Huh 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 Wink

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

Activity: 938


Trumpin it up for a bit


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 11:55:05 AM
 #187


Destabilize by the gay marriage Wink

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 Smiley

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 Smiley
popcorn1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 10:23:38 PM
 #188


Destabilize by the gay marriage Wink

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 Smiley

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 Smiley
All that writing only to be told your full off shit..
popcorn1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 10:30:03 PM
 #189

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
Huh 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 Wink

Gays destabilize family life that's for sure. But their right to get married? I don't see how this part could destabilize anything ^^
Gays destabilize family life that's for sure..Only if your family are homophobes.
aardvark15
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 10:40:26 PM
 #190

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.

popcorn1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 10:58:32 PM
 #191

Gay parents have 'healthier and less argumentative children'
Five to 17-year-olds with gay parents have 'significantly better' general health and greater family cohesion
May be because they communicate to address problems of discrimination and bullying


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2336889/Gay-parents-healthier-children-better-self-esteem.html#ixzz42RpMoh3Q

Study Finds Same Sex Couples Make Better Parents: Is It ...
www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-paren...
7 Jul 2014 - Gay parents might be better at raising children because they're more often ... due to the many channels they must go through compared to their ... "That's really a measure that looks at how well families get along, and it seems  .

I COULD GO ON AND ON WHERE IS YOUR STUDIES TO PROVE I AM WRONG

So who ever is saying Gay marriage will destabilise family life is a total IDIOT ..
More destabilised families come from straight sex couples than from gay couples..FACT
Go and do your research.





Swordsoffreedom
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


Trumpin it up for a bit


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2016, 02:44:22 AM
 #192

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

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.
Swordsoffreedom
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


Trumpin it up for a bit


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2016, 03:27:28 AM
 #193


Go and do your research.


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/
popcorn1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


View Profile
March 10, 2016, 03:54:22 AM
 #194

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

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.

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 Cheesy
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 Grin
popcorn1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


View Profile
March 10, 2016, 03:58:35 AM
 #195


Go and do your research.


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/
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
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
March 10, 2016, 04:01:21 AM
 #196

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.

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
popcorn1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


View Profile
March 10, 2016, 04:20:26 AM
 #197

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.
Your trying to have NO RULES WITH RULES.Wont work sorry
Slow death
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


Need a Campaign Manager? https://goo.gl/qpZyp7


View Profile
March 10, 2016, 04:31:05 AM
 #198

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.

popcorn1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


View Profile
March 10, 2016, 04:40:01 AM
 #199

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.
Go back in your mud hut Dumb ass
romero121
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952


Betcoin.ag - Trusted Platform for Gambling


View Profile
March 10, 2016, 05:40:37 AM
 #200

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.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!