Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scalia on Gay Marriage: ‘No Scientific Answer’ About Effects on Children (Audio)
CNSNews.com ^ | March26, 2013 | Perry Starr

Posted on 03/26/2013 10:41:46 PM PDT by lbryce

During oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday over the constitutionality of a California law that reserves marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the effects on children who are raised by same-sex couples is not confirmed by experts or science.

“There's considerable disagreement among – among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a – in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not,” Scalia said during the exchange between the justices and Charles Cooper, the attorney representing the petitioner in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

“I don't think we know the answer to that,” Scalia said. “Do you know the answer to that, whether it – whether it harms or helps the child?”

“No, your honor,” Cooper said.

It wouldn't be in California Mr Coooper Because that is not an issue in it that you can have the same sex couple adopting a child in California


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: children; effectsonchilren; gaymarriage; gaysopposediversity; homosexualagenda; inthebedroom; psychology; romneyagenda; romneymarriage; scalia; scotus; ssm
The answer to whether or not gay marriage is deleterious to the children a gay couple decide to adopt as presented by Supreme Justice Scalia to the lawyer representing the petitioner in Hollingsworth vs. Perry is that the gay couple don't don't give a sh*t if their civil union is deleterious to the children or not or not.

Gay people happen to be the most selfish, self-centered, dysfunctional people there are, and if their civil union ends up being deleterious or not really doesn't really concern them. It's about *them* not anyone else.

If anyone else ends up being hurt , socially, psychologically, mentally, sexually, so be it.

Don't forget, this gay couple will do anything to have their adopted kids follow the same lifestyle patterns the single gay couples do. Don't you dare tell me that they wouldn't do whatever they could to have their adopted kids choose their won sexuality even if it meant going against their own sexual preferences.

Justice Ginsburg:I'd Prefer the Egyptian or South African Constitution to the US

Judge Ginsburg:Please let me know if the Egyptian Constitution allows for gay couples to adopt.
Usually, I'd advise women traveling in Egypt to have bodyguards accompany them to prevent crime of a sexual nature but that's not any poblem you would ever have to worry about it.

1 posted on 03/26/2013 10:41:47 PM PDT by lbryce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Judge Ginsburg Prefers Epytian Constitution Over Our Own
2 posted on 03/26/2013 10:47:00 PM PDT by lbryce (BHO:"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds by way Oppenheiner at Trinity NM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

I don’t trust science anymore anyway.

Or mankind, pretty much.


3 posted on 03/26/2013 10:49:46 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Could any behavior(homosexuality) be more inherently wrong for a society than a behavior, that if practiced by the entire society, would result in the elimination of said society?
4 posted on 03/26/2013 11:00:40 PM PDT by bramps (Sarah Palin got more votes in 2008 than Mitt Romney got in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
No where in the constitution does it say or protects homosexuality as a right. This group wants a court to change the definition of marriage which has been decided years ago before you and I were even around. It's only a group of people who want validation to a choice they have a right to make. And don't try to convince me that this is all about love; not buying it. Once society leaves God, morality, we are done. Look at the corruption in our government, which is crumbling and you don't think leaving morality will not crumble us as people; human beings. It's that simple.
5 posted on 03/26/2013 11:11:36 PM PDT by Christie at the beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

You’re right, and for the record, we do have scientific answers. They’re just hidden by the homopsychiatric cabal.


6 posted on 03/26/2013 11:13:48 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

The problem is that an adopted child has NO SAY in the matter when two butt plumbers decide to adopt him/her to be the “child” of ADAM & STEVE.

I know for myself, I would want both a mom & a dad, not Adam & Steve.


7 posted on 03/26/2013 11:23:11 PM PDT by AlanGreenSpam (Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Now that recreation is a civil right, I enjoy shooting AR15’s.


8 posted on 03/26/2013 11:29:14 PM PDT by NoLibZone (I predict the exact same Freepers will hate the GOP Candidate for: 2016,2020,2024,2028, 2032.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

If the test is what effect it has on children , then we need to allow prayer in the classroom.


9 posted on 03/26/2013 11:32:07 PM PDT by NoLibZone (I predict the exact same Freepers will hate the GOP Candidate for: 2016,2020,2024,2028, 2032.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce; All

I don’t mean this the way that its sounds, but Scalia’s point that science has not determined that gay parents have adverse effect on children is beside the point imo. The wide, PC interpretation of 14A’s Equal Protections Clause by liberal media, including Obama guard dog Fx News, in support of gay marriage is wrong. This is evidenced by Section 2 of 14A which discriminates on basis of sex, age and citizenship.

So 14A allows states to make laws that discriminate on bases not protected by enumerated rights, sex not protected where 10th Amendment protected power to regulate marriage is concerned, as long as the states discriminate equally against non-traditional marriage.


10 posted on 03/26/2013 11:42:20 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
There is such a book:

Out from Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting

11 posted on 03/26/2013 11:46:22 PM PDT by Lauren BaRecall (When Mark Levin rips Boehner a new one, it's a great day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Here’s the answer as to whether or not it hurts children:

“58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay.”

snip http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/17/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids


12 posted on 03/27/2013 12:01:34 AM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

I wonder if Scalia is not signalling that he’ll vote for gay marriage. He’s saying there’s no proof children are hurt or helped.


13 posted on 03/27/2013 12:16:37 AM PDT by Terry Mross (This country will fail to exist in my lifetime. And I'm gettin' up there in age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Who is she kidding and why is she a Justice on the Court of the worlds’ greatest country?


14 posted on 03/27/2013 12:18:12 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
“There's considerable disagreement among – among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a – in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not,” Scalia said during the exchange between the justices and Charles Cooper, the attorney representing the petitioner in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

You’re right, and for the record, we do have scientific answers. They’re just hidden by the homopsychiatric cabal.

Since when do the architects of the 'perfect' society ever disagree?

Usually the Sociologists and psych types are in lockstep agreement about how to manage the population.

If there is disagreement, that means enough people find the behaviour harmful enough to break ranks from the program and step up to disagree. When there are so many apparent conflicts of interest on the politically correct side of an issue, and so little to gain by not going along to get along, that should indicate that the gulf between the opposite ends of the issue is wide indeed.

Given that the group who say there is harm has little to gain from the grant writing machine because they are flying in the politically correct face of attempts to establish 'consensus' in favor of the homosexuals, I would give their testimony and research more weight.

15 posted on 03/27/2013 12:21:32 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Isn’t it odd the gays usually have lawsuit and court somewhere when you mention them.?


16 posted on 03/27/2013 12:24:29 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Gay people happen to be the most selfish, self-centered, dysfunctional people there are, and if their civil union ends up being deleterious or not really doesn't really concern them. It's about *them* not anyone else.

After a number of years observing the changes in our population, it is my opinion that you can say the very same thing about a large sector of the traditionally married couples as well, throughout the Western civilization. People born after about 1963 seem to trend this mindset of self-love above others is prevailing more and more. Those preferring same-sex gratification are merely a slice of the general attitude. Those preferring historical man/woman gratification are just another slice of the same selfishness. The segment preferring godly standards and behavior is nosediving.

17 posted on 03/27/2013 1:49:15 AM PDT by imardmd1 ("... because iniquity shall abound, the (agape) love of the many shall wax cold." Mt. 24:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
"I'm not gay, I'm nothing yet!"


18 posted on 03/27/2013 2:34:53 AM PDT by RedBallJet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
I wonder if the court is going to do an Obama care with this. This is a legal issue that can be resolved by legislation. Not a fundamental rights issue.
19 posted on 03/27/2013 2:43:42 AM PDT by carcraft (Pray for our Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: carcraft

That’s how I think it will go. Prop 8 sent back to the states and DOMA upheld because Roberts clearly believes congress can do anything they want and the people are responsible for any law out of their representatives. Thats how Roberts will go if he is intellectually honest and consistent with Obamacare.


20 posted on 03/27/2013 3:53:39 AM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Just in case anyone forgets what the real thing looks like.

21 posted on 03/27/2013 4:29:57 AM PDT by relictele
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
“I don't think we know the answer to that,” Scalia said. “Do you know the answer to that, whether it – whether it harms or helps the child?”

Studies have shown that divorce has a deleterious affect on children as well. Does that raise divorce to a Constitutional issue?

This case should be decided on Constitutional grounds. Marriage is a state issue, not a federal one. The people of California decided that they don't want same sex marriage. Therefore same-sex marriage is and should continue to be illegal in the state.

22 posted on 03/27/2013 4:38:01 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Geez looks like Lee Harvey Oswald is back.


23 posted on 03/27/2013 4:46:08 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

And in every state, whether or not there is a vote on it, gay “marriage” is not legal. All the votes do is confirm the already existing law. Gay “marriage” has never been legal, anywhere.

I get so frustrated that the left constantly glosses over facts like these, and manages to thus instate laws that never existed, in the guise of “turning back” laws.

A true repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” would have been to go back to when recruiters *would* ask, and affirmative answers kept people out of the military.

It goes like this: the left wants to change existing culture and laws. So they start making a big noise about it.

People get worried, and decide to hold a vote to maintain the existing culture and laws. The vote overwhelmingly passes.

The leftists then start howling about discrimination and take the confirmative law to court. Leftist judges on the court agree; they invalidate the voter referendum—and the pre-existing law in one fell swoop.

The leftists get what they want, against the will of the majority of people who desire to maintain a civil society.

I wish the lawyers involved would stop falling for these leftist games.


24 posted on 03/27/2013 4:48:00 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bramps

What we’ve become inured to is anal sex. It’s pushed constantly upon the public and through porn. The medical effects of it are terrible. It’s called Gay Bowel Syndrome, despite the best efforts of liars to pretend it is a universal problem.

If the anus is a sex organ then anything can be and is. That’s not its biological or evolutionary function. So which is it - nature or God? Either way homosexuality is abnormal, unhealthy and, thankfully, controllable, that is a choice is involved.


25 posted on 03/27/2013 4:53:25 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chris37

You are in agreement with the Bible and the US Constitution in your understanding of mankind.


26 posted on 03/27/2013 4:55:22 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (Buck Off, Bronco Bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Isn’t it interesting we know many gay men are incredibly promiscuous, sometimes having thousands of sex partners from compulsive, daily hook ups.

Yet we get the image of all these wonderful sedate couples who are pillars of the community.

It’s all a pretend game.


27 posted on 03/27/2013 5:17:16 AM PDT by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
“What we’ve become inured to is anal sex. It’s pushed constantly upon the public and through porn. The medical effects of it are terrible. It’s called Gay Bowel Syndrome, despite the best efforts of liars to pretend it is a universal problem.

If the anus is a sex organ then anything can be and is. That’s not its biological or evolutionary function. So which is it - nature or God? Either way homosexuality is abnormal, unhealthy and, thankfully, controllable, that is a choice is involved.”

I totally agree. Anal sex is being pushed in the heterosexual community to make it acceptable. Soon, the rest of the homosexual lifestyle will be pushed as perfectly fine. Other homosexual practices will also be accepted.(don't want to get too graphic.)

28 posted on 03/27/2013 5:19:55 AM PDT by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict

If you consider it, porn is totally homosexual. It’s hedonistic, anti-woman and completely penis/orifice oriented. It’s the opposite of wholesome sex. It degrades, is violent and is sexualy immature.

I mean imagine if women took comic books seriously and demanded that everyman be a superman?

Only the naive and gullible indulge in pornography. Pornography is a lie and when people decry attempts to limit or control it as censorship that’s a lie as well.

Pornography itself is censorship. It’s been created and edited so as to censor reality and normalcy. A decent society wouldn’t accept it.

We’ve been fooled into thinking that the 1st Amendment covers indecency. It doesn’t and it shouldn’t.


29 posted on 03/27/2013 5:26:35 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sun
“58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay.”

Exactly, and proof positive since there is no data that says homosexuality is an absolutely genetic characteristic. In fact, the research shows no link at all to "perhaps there's a very, very weak link." Most continually looks at environmental issues. I know what I think that means.

So, given the reality above, and knowing that Scalia is not an unlearned or unread man, then what the heck was that less than knowledgeable statement all about?

Just this: Since "gay" cannot be called a deleterious effect due to political correctness, then one can't say that children raised by gays are experiencing a deleterious upbringing because they turn out to be gay.

The question is short-circuited by a dishonest, politically correct, prior assumption.

Here's the answer Mr Scalia: "Gay" itself is deleterious. Its practitioners die 10-20 years before their peer group.

30 posted on 03/27/2013 5:31:40 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: narses; wagglebee; P-Marlowe; jazusamo; Alamo-Girl; Jim Robinson; little jeremiah; Salvation; ...
“58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay.”

Exactly, and proof positive since there is no data that says homosexuality is an absolutely genetic characteristic. In fact, the research shows no link at all to "perhaps there's a very, very weak link." Most continually looks at environmental issues. I know what I think that means.

So, given the reality above, and knowing that Scalia is not an unlearned or unread man, then what the heck was that less than knowledgeable statement all about?

Just this: Since "gay" cannot be called a deleterious effect due to political correctness, then one can't say that children raised by gays are experiencing a deleterious upbringing because they turn out to be gay.

The question is short-circuited by a dishonest, politically correct, prior assumption.

Here's the answer Mr Scalia: "Gay" itself is deleterious. Its practitioners die 10-20 years before their peer group.

31 posted on 03/27/2013 5:32:35 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich

That is a picture of Sergei Kostin he is the professional activist (as described by DC police) who sucker punched a pro marriage marcher. Not very tolerant is he


32 posted on 03/27/2013 5:38:46 AM PDT by shoff (Vote Democratic it beats thinking!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

I won’t argue with you because as you might say, you can stop dispensing with the facts because my mind is already made up.

These people have literally turned the natural world upside down by taking wholly unnatural acts of nature and have campaigned. lobbied on a political platform trying to turn one of the most reviled, deviant acts of nature into an argument that makes brainwashing seem a benign conversation of nature,purely for selfish reasons.

They have prevented authorities in any way from preventing them from attempting to getting teens from being open to what is the natural order of things and are prevented from any attempt int trying to listen to what is the normal way of the world.

There are 32,000 cancer deaths a year, yet only 17,000 deaths from AIDS, a totally preventable disease.

Guess which disease gets the lion’s share of the funding to find a cure?

They have fought tool and nail for the right to have children but won’t do it through what is perhaps the ultimate act of nature, procreation, because it is an absolute physical, mental anathema to them.

Gay people want a cure for AIDS so that they can exchange body fluids without the need for a condom. That about sums up their concern.

Who’s kidding whom? Do you believe for one moment that ids exposed to a gay lifestyle won’t have some of them who would eventually adopt these deviant way of life and condemn them to a life of deviancy and immorality?

I could go on, but my point is made as far as I’m concerned.

If none of these points are not considered by you to be the ultimate act of selfishness, I don’t know what is.


33 posted on 03/27/2013 5:46:13 AM PDT by lbryce (BHO:"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds by way Oppenheiner at Trinity NM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

But the evidence was so overwhelming for global warming that he mandated the EPA be given power to fix it. This guy wouldn’t recognize “science” if he saw it.


34 posted on 03/27/2013 6:29:47 AM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag ( EVERY DIME Obama Spends is given to him by the Republicans in the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

There’s nothing wrong with science, it’s some scientists you shouldn’t trust. Having a desired outcome so you can get more grant money isn’t science.

As for the soft sciences, I agree. There is no way to control all variables except one. Their conclusions are mere speculations. Correlation does not equal causation.


35 posted on 03/27/2013 6:54:13 AM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: wolfman23601
That’s how I think it will go. Prop 8 sent back to the states and DOMA upheld....

What do you mean "Prop 8 sent back to the states"? The state where Prop 8 originated was California, and it has already been passed by a majority of CA voters, and then it was ruled unconstitutional by a faggot judge, who now is retired. So what does it mean to send it back to the state of CA? That it needs to be reinstituted on a ballot & voted on once again? If this is the ruling by SCOTUS (and you very well could be right), then in essence this is the same as ruling against Prop 8 and overturning the voice of CA voters. Our laws & citizen votes & federal or state constitutions are basically null & void & meaningless, and we live in a society ruled by anarchy. Which is what the demoRATs & 0dumb0 are agitating for.

37 posted on 03/27/2013 7:16:40 AM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

I’m sorry, but using the term “oral arguments’ when discussing faggots is not exactly kosher IMO.


38 posted on 03/27/2013 7:40:27 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Correction: Sixth Paragaph
It should be they have fought tooth and nail.
39 posted on 03/27/2013 7:49:51 AM PDT by lbryce (BHO:"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds by way Oppenheiner at Trinity NM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
That was the gist of the article verbatim. I hadn't notice the very subtle pun on the subject but it was very observant of you to notice.

On the other hand, considering the issues at stake,we are on the very very verge of a new "neologistic legal term" differentiating prcotological RAM-ifications of homosexual rights versus oral arguments of the same, that may be a lot closer to coming to fruition (the same way a fruit arrives at that pointt) than you might think.

Gay rights are definitely expanding the legal ramifications of human rights to the stretching point. Any coincidence in the use of the language regarding this subject is absolutely intentional.

40 posted on 03/27/2013 8:33:37 AM PDT by lbryce (BHO:"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds by way Oppenheiner at Trinity NM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
That is an asinine argument for a SCOTUS judge to make. Either a right exists or it does not. “But what about the children? Won't anyone think of the CHILDREN!” (a la the Ms. Rev. Lovejoy) is not an argument to base where to put the line between government's limited and enumerated powers and the rights of the people.

How about a “scientific answer” (so called, although no actual science applies in either case - social ‘science’ polling is not science) on if guns in the home is harmful to children? How about the effects on the children from a advocate of unpopular opinions exercising his right to free speech?

41 posted on 03/27/2013 8:39:15 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

Well, EEGator, it’s just that, generally speaking, I have lost my ability to trust mankind’s honesty.

Instead what I have come to trust about mankind is that it lies constantly.

As I get older, I have sadly come to discover that almost everything mankind advances or is engaged in or speaks of is a lie.

Not only do I not trust his science, I am having a hard time thinking of anything that man does that I trust.

I’ve made many mistakes in my life. but I learned long ago that dishonesty is not a virtue, and it is a trap easily avoided simply by telling the truth, even when it hurts to do so.

All I see all around me now is dishonesty.


42 posted on 03/27/2013 9:23:52 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Good find.


43 posted on 03/27/2013 9:39:16 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
What about God's answer?

 
Marriage = One Man and One Woman
Til' Death Do Us Part

44 posted on 03/27/2013 9:40:41 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Yeah, I’m quite the cynic too. It’s hard not to be.


45 posted on 03/27/2013 11:49:13 AM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
I don’t mean this the way that its sounds, but Scalia’s point that science has not determined that gay parents have adverse effect on children is beside the point imo.

I agree that the effect on children is beside the point as far as the federal courts are concerned. There is no state which, either by law or by constitution, bars a person from marriage based on that person's sexual preference. There is also no state that does not impose some restrictions on who a person can marry. Along with prohibiting marriage to underage individuals, marriage between close relatives, and marriage to multiple partners, some states prohibit marriage to someone of the same sex. The court should simply rule that this is a state issue.

46 posted on 03/27/2013 1:35:25 PM PDT by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RedBallJet

That photo isn’t an argument. Refute it if you can.


47 posted on 03/27/2013 1:51:00 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
I won’t argue with you because as you might say, you can stop dispensing with the facts because my mind is already made up.

OK, don't argue. But tell me -- who is it that refuses to take such perverts bearing HIV out to the dump and shoot them like a bunch of rats bearing bubonic plague? Their own kind? No, it is the continually increasing segment of the population who have been schooled into tolerating, accepting, and approving such behavior, rather than firmly rejecting such disgusting conduct with prejudice.

We know how God dealt with it.

48 posted on 03/27/2013 2:35:32 PM PDT by imardmd1 ("... because iniquity shall abound, the (agape) love of the many shall wax cold." Mt. 24:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“..In fact, the research shows no link at all to “perhaps there’s a very, very weak link.” ..”

Even IF there is a genetic link, the fact that there are a significantly amount of more children who become gay, if their parents are same-sex couples, is horrible.

Homosexuals claim that it’s difficult being gay, but yet some will adopt which causes their children to have a higher risk of becoming gay themselves.

Same-sex couples who adopt are very selfish in this regard.


49 posted on 03/31/2013 8:58:35 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson