1 - 10 Next
So if someone has doubts about one area of science that makes them 'anti-science'? what a childish way to categorize people. I thought people who 'trust science' for everything are supposed to be smarter. NOT
The article states: "..what Republicans are up against in 2016. They will not be given a pass for their beliefs or convictions as Democrats have and they will certainly experience character assassination and defamation on a regular basis." And this is because at some point we ceased to have a fair, objective, impartial main stream media. Instead, we have a media that seems to be an arm of the Democrat party and that is beholden to leftist and socialist ideals.
It is disgusting that an American president would disregard the laws of this country simply to try and increase the Democrat voting rolls. What BO is doing is shameful, despicable, and dangerous in so many respects. What's incredible is how many people support what he is doing. I don't think ignoring the constitution and the laws of this country for strictly partisan reasons can possible end well.
In response to:

Substituted Morality

Marcos464 Wrote: Feb 13, 2015 11:59 PM
LGBT activist do not truly believe in ' live and let live.' They see this issues as a zero sum game and are more than happy to use the apparatus of government to punish anyone who will not pledge full support for SSM. Obama is to blame for bringing this once great nation to this tipping point. He lied about his position on this to get elected and once elected took the needed steps to impose this on the nation. This was never the result of a true grass roots popular national movement.
I will trust thousands of years of human history that show that gender is important in marriage. Redefining marriage will also redefine parenthood. And the underlying claim is that a child will not be affected by having one of the two human genders missing in their parents. In other words, a father doesn't matter, or a mother doesn't matter. I think this is an astounding claim that is not supported by extensive human history. I believe the APA is wrong on this, but they, like the AMA tend to be left leaning in their advocacy so I am not surprised by the position they take.
In the loving case that you cite, we were dealing with a black white couple made up of one man and one woman.
Professor bobby lopes has explained how the "studies" including the Australian one that was hyped by the media claiming that children of gay parents suffered no ill effects was flawed in its methodology and there is simply not enough conclusive data demonstrating that children of SS partners will suffer no ill effects. Lopes himself is bisexual man who was raised by two lesbians. He supports foster care being provided by gay couples but not full adoption.
You should know that there are many who oppose SSM and it's has nothing to with religion. One of the groups that wrote an amicus brief for the circuit court decision that upheld Michigan's definition of marriage as between one man and one woman was a child advocacy group that believes that the rights of children trump the rights of adults, and that where SSM has been legalized the rates of surrogacy have shot up, resulting in a commodification of children in order to fulfill the adoptive desires of homosexual couples. This group included testimony from adult children of gay couples who suffered ill effects because of the experience. It's hardly as simple as you claim.
Look, Darby does not speak for me, and I didn't say everyone who opposes SSM never gets carried away in what they say. The thing is, in places like the UK and France where SSM is the law of the land, many of the assurances that people were given about protection of their religious freedoms have turned out to be lies. This is because LGBT activist don't just see disagreement with SSM as wrong; they see it as offensive and hateful and believe that religious freedoms are not worthy of respect. Since the passage of SSM in the UK, the government has been saying that British values do not include 'extremism.' Well, guess what viewpoints are deemed to be 'extremist.' So can you see why some people would be Leary of the idea of SSM becoming the law of the land? Also I did not say that gays have not suffered persecution, and I in no way condone that, but you are being disenguous if you claim that in this year of 2015 homosexuals are subject the same hardships that experienced years ago. So do you agree with what happened end to the former CEO of Mozilla Firefox, Brendan Eich? Do you think it was morally right that a man should be made to resign from his job merely for having expressed support for prop 8 in California? Do you think that demonstrates real tolerance? Or is in its own way a form of viewpoint discrimination where a man suffered real consequences because of political correctness run amok.
1 - 10 Next