CDC.gov/mmwr wrote on Sep 23, 2006 9:49 PM:
" To the person posting old AIDS stats:
78%of women in the US diagnosed with HIV contracted it through hetro sex. 21% through IV drug use.
AIDS is not only a homo issue. And it has nothing to do with the amendment. "
REAL Threats to Families wrote on Sep 22, 2006 9:28 PM:
" Maybe the so-called Family Research Institute should study the devasting effect on American Families when mommy or daddy loses their jobs to outsourcing, which our current President SUPPORTS. No THAT would really be HELPING families ! "
To: Flipside wrote on Sep 22, 2006 7:12 PM:
" You made the following statement: "Using kids as pawns in the marriage debate is exactly what the gay population uses to promote thier agenda. Kids need a mother and a father. You subtract one and the kid has much more probability of having future problems. Add to a single parent a 2nd gay parental-"partner" and the kid is really confused."
Please cite scientific evidence that backs your claim. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 22, 2006 5:45 PM:
" to: flip side: Those opposed to this amendment are not necessarily and not even likely to be homosexual. Most of us are heterosexuals who are concerned about the meanness of the Amendment. You flippantly dismiss children who are already in families headed by same-sex households. This amendment will do nothing to improve the quality of life of those in traditional households nor will it harm them. But it will hurt children who are in homes headed by same-sex parents or parents joined by civil unions who are opposite sex. Vote NO to prevent injury to children! "
flip side wrote on Sep 22, 2006 4:35 PM:
" Using kids as pawns in the marriage debate
is exactly what the gay population uses to promote thier agenda. Kids need a mother and a father. You subtract one and the kid has much more probability of having future problems. Add to a single parent a 2nd gay parental-"partner" and the kid is really confused. Quit the anti-traditional-marriage propaganda to forward a ill-advised agenda! It is an attempt to sway people to the gay agenda. DO not let them win this political debate! "
Eater of the Dead wrote on Sep 22, 2006 12:42 PM:
" Re posting at 11:19 AM. So, you must be very bitter about your parents lying to you? You are a sad, sad person. Yes, everyone is a liar except you. How do you know what your god needs or doesn't need? "
To:11:19am wrote on Sep 22, 2006 12:10 PM:
" You are silly-you are just saying that because your parents told you to. "
TO: 2 2 love can be a sin wrote on Sep 22, 2006 11:19 AM:
" You are mistaken, I was raised with religion, but I realized how silly organized religion was. My god doen't need a church or money. "
To:9:08am wrote on Sep 22, 2006 9:44 AM:
" Religion comes into it because a large segment of the population is religious and they vote. "
2 2 love can be a sin wrote on Sep 22, 2006 9:41 AM:
" you are silly. The only reason you don't believe the Bible is because your parents told you not to. "
Love is not a sin wrote on Sep 22, 2006 9:08 AM:
" The love of money is avarice or greed. I was referring to love between two people which is not a sin (as if religious arguments have any place in this debate about living in a secular society). "
Yes, Nestor wrote on Sep 22, 2006 9:07 AM:
" It IS about money--the money that gay people pay in taxes and have a RIGHT to expect something for in return. I pay taxes that support schools for straight people's kids and I don't gripe about it because I see the social value in education. I also pay social security and expect the right for my partner to be able to collect it. YOU should see the social value that SS benefits will provide and the value of all the other rights we should be afforded on an equal basis with straight people. This is about the right to be treated equally. "
TO: Love can be a sin! wrote on Sep 22, 2006 7:58 AM:
" You are silly. The only reason you believe the bible is because your parents told you to. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 22, 2006 5:39 AM:
" Children. This letter is about children. And most likely, they are heterosexual children who will be hurt by this amendment. Children that are in families led by civil union joined heterosexual parents or children in homes led by same sex parents. These are not theoretical families. They are families in La Crosse, in Wisconsin, and across the United States. Vote to protect the rights of children from denial of benefits of insurance, inheritance, custody, child support, and just the respect of the rest of the community. Vote NO against mean, hurtful legislation that singles out children who will pay the cost of "sanctity protection". "
Love can be a sin! wrote on Sep 21, 2006 10:10 PM:
" The love of money is the root of all evil. The Bible also says to not love the world or the material things in this world. If you love what God calls evil, that is a sin. "
Solomon wrote on Sep 21, 2006 9:22 PM:
" To T; Why would they be confused and embarrassed? Because the people pushing this amendment insist on insulting their parents and attempting to publicly humiliate all gay people with mean-spirited, unnecessary legislation? Because people fail to teach their kids not to harass other kids just because their parents are gay? You blame these kids' parents for that? I don't get it. "
Love is not a sin wrote on Sep 21, 2006 6:14 PM:
" So there is nothing to be forgiven. "
To Solomon; From T wrote on Sep 21, 2006 5:41 PM:
" It's not the "other kids" I was talking about. It's about the children raised in gay families getting more harrassment..that's who I was talking about. My friend is gay and has 2 daughters..they are BOTH in counseling and are very confused and embarrassed. By the way, I don't have a "warped sense of reality"..I'm very realistic. "
Nestor wrote on Sep 21, 2006 5:09 PM:
" Keeping an open mind and heart to others that might desire any alternative lifestyle is good and right. Adding more burden to taxpayers regarding retirements, health premiums, etc is not acceptable by me. Enough is enough! This is about money. "
WOW wrote on Sep 21, 2006 3:32 PM:
" Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are sleeping with everyone. The only reason we pay more attention them is because of the fact that they are gay. Haven't you ever been to the mall on Saturday afternoon watching your teenage daughters or gone to a bar or seen anything about Spring Break? Being 'loose' has nothing to do with being gay. It has to do with what you teach your child about love and sex growing up. "
Straights rights issue wrote on Sep 21, 2006 3:17 PM:
" To "to: Disgusted" who posted at 1:51--Have YOU been following the happenings in Michigan and elsewhere? Unmarried STRAIGHT couples are being denied rights that they previously took for granted because activist judges are interpreting their new constitutional amendments to prohibit all kinds of things. And the world has NOT come to an end because of gay marriage in Massachusets or elsewhere. As a matter of fact, gay people are doing what they've always done, which is to live, work and pay taxes and continue being good neighbors. Get over it! "
To: STDS as an argument wrote on Sep 21, 2006 3:00 PM:
" Yeah, right! Homosexuals will stop being promiscuous when they have a "right" to marry? As to the 1997 statistics...it was what I found with very little searching. I'm sure that there are more up to date stats, if you wish to refute the '97 stats, then just post the more up to date stats with references. The fact is that the homosexual lifestyle is far more hazardous then the heterosexual lifestyle, and people desire to raise kids around a more hazardous lifestyle. Sad. "
to: Married and bi wrote on Sep 21, 2006 1:54 PM:
" You can be forgiven your past sins if you repent of them. If you're trying to claim they weren't sins then you're not sorry and of course can't be forgiven. It has nothing to do with your present family. You know this. "
to: Disgusted wrote on Sep 21, 2006 1:51 PM:
" Homosexuals are trying to change the very definition of marriage, so OF COURSE it affect every marriage couple. They are trying to change the definition of right and wrong. OF COURSE that affects everyone. If you don't understand that you're living with your head in the sand. The same goes for those who say homosexual marriage is already against the law. Have you not followed the goings on in Massachusetts? "
STDS as an argument? wrote on Sep 21, 2006 1:26 PM:
" Wouldn't gay marriage PREVENT STDs? It would force the same-sex couple to not stray from each other and therefore stay healthy. Plus don't quote death rate statistics that are from '97, the antivirals that are out now are much better. P.S. Not all gay men have HIV, in fact some don't even have sex. "
To:Married and Bi wrote on Sep 21, 2006 12:53 PM:
" Of course you can be forgiven. "
to married and bi wrote on Sep 21, 2006 12:26 PM:
" 1John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." and Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." It's not the "ideal family" that saves you, but confessing your sins to God, and confessing your belief in Jesus. After all..."As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10. We are all sinners. We all need Jesus. "
Married and bi wrote on Sep 21, 2006 12:03 PM:
" I am a married woman to an amazing, caring, wonderful man who has made my life worth living for 3 years, and we have 2 amazing children and 1 on the way, but (gasp) I have been in a relationship with a woman before. Does this mean I can be forgiven for my 'sin' of being bisexual because I have an 'ideal' family? "
Disgusted wrote on Sep 21, 2006 11:59 AM:
" I have never been so disgusted by the people I live around. The are so many of you here that are close-minded and bigoted. It is not only gays that spread AIDS, herpes, or any other STD. Don't blame gays for everything. Get over it....Do 2 men/woman being married really, honestly, personally affect your life? If you are sitting up at night wondering how you can ruin someone's life that you don't know, you are the person who is wrong. What gives any of you the right to take away someone else's happiness? If they are going to hell in your eyes for being gay, isn't that their punishment? You say God is the only true judge, so quit judging for Him and move on with your own life.
"
Health numbers vs. percentage wrote on Sep 21, 2006 11:14 AM:
" Since homosexuals only make up about 2-5% of the population, their total number of aids cases will be lower than aids cases of heterosexuals if the cases are equally distributed. However when 2-5% of the population has a higher percentage of cases then it is a concern. Imagine if only 4% of the cars on the road were KIA's, but they accounted for 30% of all fatalities, would you drive a KIA? Now the KIA dealerships would say that a much larger number of the fatalities are not caused by KIA's, but that ignores the HUGE danger posed by such a small percent of the overall number of cars. (BTW, KIA is just used as an example. I'm sure they are safe vehicles). "
some homosexual health facts: wrote on Sep 21, 2006 11:04 AM:
" -New HIV and AIDS diagnoses in 32 states rose 11% between 2000 and 2003 among homosexual and bisexual males, while they remained the same among other population cohorts. Reuters Dec. 1, 2004- Journal of Clinical Pathology, homosexuals are 3.7 TIMES more likely to be infected with gonorrhea then heterosexuals. Plus, 15.2% of homosexuals suffer from throat gonorrhea. 1995 p. 658-from Dr. Grulich at the N.I.H, 90% of HIV positive gay men are infected with the Human Papillomavirus, and 65% of HIV negative gay men are infected with HPV. Cancer News 8/17/2000-life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men... nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.(International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, 657-661, 1997.)
"
to: hey Emily wrote on Sep 21, 2006 8:26 AM:
" You should know by now that AIDS can affect many people. What an archaic, stereotypical and ignornant statement. Do you talk this way around your children? I've never witnessed what Emily did, but maybe Emily is right. Some of you heteros against the idea of gay marriage and homosexuality in general are more likely to spout judgment/hatred than acceptance. Those of you who use religion to support your claims sometimes have the most venomous tongues. "
aids wrote on Sep 21, 2006 5:59 AM:
" humm the highest number of people with aids are hetrosexuals. but wait, we are not suppose to judge them. who has your God killed today. "
phobic? wrote on Sep 21, 2006 5:57 AM:
" false reasoning and fear make a lot of decisions. ask yourself, would you want to be treated like this? "
Who's Morality? wrote on Sep 21, 2006 5:53 AM:
" Who's Morality issues, and what Bible interpitation? Humm, sounds to be like we have a lot of God wana be's. If you justify marriage based on sex for procreation, then lets pass an amendment against any sex for pleasure. The last time I checked being married afforded couples more rights under the law than not. Passing this amendment would stop any legal protection that has been arranged in a lawyers office, because the courts would not have to recongnize it. "
SLIDER wrote on Sep 21, 2006 5:34 AM:
" Everyone thinks man and woman, but how is it that the Catholic Preists, are coming out of the stone that has covered them for years. They are being charged with child molestation both hetro and homo. Isn't this how they want it man and woman, not man and man and/or boy, or woman and woman and/or girl. They are not straight with the people just like our president with immigration. He has mexicans working for him and I'll bet the farm that he knew and does know that somehow they are illeagal at least some of them. "
neutral standpoint wrote on Sep 21, 2006 1:38 AM:
" My personal opinion, in case anyone cares to read it, is that our society is ever changing. Children who are exposed to homosexuality may become more willing to accept what they may not have accepted coming from heterosexual parents. That does not say, however, that will always be the case. There will always be extremists and activists for both sides. I think that teaching children good morals, manners, ettiquette health and common sense no matter what the sexuality of their parents is the most important thing to look at. Homosexuality is just a different walk of life that has the potential to open the eyes of our children to acceptance over hatred. "
health concerned wrote on Sep 20, 2006 10:18 PM:
" Would one of those who posted that there are more health risks involved in being gay pleaase explain to me what they are? And you will have to leave AIDS out of this because we are currently discussing marriage (ie monogamy) so STDS contraction is out of the picture (although, side note, the fastest growing HIV positive population is hetero women last time I checked) "
Solomon wrote on Sep 20, 2006 9:56 PM:
" To T: who is talking about adding "homosexuality" to any picture? The debate the christian right insists on having here is about whether the constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage - which is already banned under Wisconsin law. If you're concerned about kids hearing that gay people exist, try to get the christian right to suppress their urge to insult them through unnecessary legislation. Kids have to deal with pressure to use drugs, alcohol, premarital sex, and you're concerned that they can't handle hearing that their classmate has two moms or two dads? I'm shocked at your warped sense of morality. "
Solomon wrote on Sep 20, 2006 9:46 PM:
" to 4:33 PM poster. All of the gay people I know are (1) gainfully employed taxpayers, (2) in long-term committed relationships, (3) have children, (4) are devoted to their children and excellent parents. I assume this is what you mean by the gay lifestyle. Is it healthy? Well, working full time while parenting full time is hard on the body and the mind - it takes a lot of discipline. So, I wouldn't say the gay lifestyle is healthy or unhealthy for the parents, but it sure is healthy for the kids to have two devoted, loving parents. The heterosexual lifestyle? What is that? "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 9:11 PM:
" Emily, Thank you for your comments. There are a lot of right-wingers on this blog who are filled with hate and homophobia. They are not ready to accept people for whom they are. They are prepared to hurt homosexuals to advance their own agenda. They aren't really concerned about children, except children in the family units they approve of. You are on the mark. The level of hatred and intolerance has no place in La Crosse, Wisconsin or the United States for that matter. Whatever happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 9:08 PM:
" Do you think calling Emily a "feminazi" is name-calling. She expresses tolerance and respect to children. You dismiss these children as irrelevant. Those who use gay-bashing to advance their right-wing agenda are indeed echoing the Nazi movement that used homosexuals, Jews, Gypsies, and others as being inferior and not worthy of equal rights to the proper Aryans. This "sanctity of Marriage" argument sounds a lot like the "racial purity" of the Nazis. So be careful when you bring up outrageous comments like that! "
To Emily, wrote on Sep 20, 2006 9:07 PM:
" I'm sure when you ask the children questions, and they answer with the politically correct, liberal PC BS, it automatically ranks them as "highly intelligent." I say, even if their test scores are through the roof, that doesn't mean that they are emotionally stable. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 9:04 PM:
" For what it is worth, I am not and have never been BGS. I haven't even ever met him. Insofar as you thinking I am superior to you, I haven't made that conclusion at all. I really believe that we are equals. I do think there are some people who have thought out these issues a bit more than others. I apologize if I have offended anyone and made anyone feel that I believe they are in any way inferior. I do believe that reason can rise above prejudice and that we all can learn to respect each other without conflict or discrimination. "
tired wrote on Sep 20, 2006 8:47 PM:
" I’m sick and tired of gay people being heterosexualphobic "
Hey Emily! wrote on Sep 20, 2006 8:46 PM:
" If they die of Aids at the age of 20, are they still smarter than the average 20 year old? "
Emily, What a revelation! wrote on Sep 20, 2006 8:45 PM:
" WOW! Emily has found something that has seemingly been missed by everyone else in society. This Feminazi has learned that homosexually raised children are "smarter" than heterosexually raised children. I can't wait to have them take my order at McDonalds when they are 45. Well, at least they will have the democratic party to support them; right Emily. "
Ironic that Queens wrote on Sep 20, 2006 7:08 PM:
" and bishops both wish to use children as pawns. "
Emily wrote on Sep 20, 2006 7:04 PM:
" Maybe you believe that having a mother and father in the picture is "ideal," but anyone who works with children will tell you that that is simply not a reality. I have personally worked with numerous children with homosexual parents and (gasp!)they are typically smarter, more social and well-bevhaved. Homosexual parents have children because they choose to, not because they accidently got pregnant and had to marry the baby's father. Which situation is better for the child? "
T wrote on Sep 20, 2006 6:10 PM:
" We HAVE to think of the children. Kids nowadays are faced with so much disfunction, peer pressure anyway. Add another (homosexuality) into the picture and then what? I know a lot of gay and straight people...giving stability to the children by allowing gay marriage?? How is that offering stability in todays world?? "
RE: Religion + Homosexuality = Hypocrites wrote on Sep 20, 2006 5:28 PM:
" "The church's teaching on homosexuality is honest and loving, yet unbending when it comes to the sin." exactly states the hypocriticism I am speaking of" - There's nothing hypocritical about it. Pedophiles have a tendancy to their thing. Being one is not sinful, acting on it is. Adulterers have a desire to cheat. That's not a sin, but acting on it is. Same with homosexuality. Having that disorder is not sinful, acting on it is. - Dan M. "
hey patriot2 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 4:53 PM:
" I've pointed out your errors. Once I see that you are completely blind to what I show you, it is a waste of time to continue to beat a dead horse. As for name calling, your "pay attention" comments denote that you think that you are superior to me, and that you are calling me an idiot. Frankly, I don't care what you think of me, but you do sound just like Brian G. Smith. I don't see why you would see that as "name calling" because you and he (if you're different people) sound the same. Since you don't deny the connection, I'm going with the idea that patriot(league)2 is just another blog name for BGS. P.S. It is also BGS's style to declare victory when the other people fail to submit to his rhetoric. "
hey, solomon, you didn't answer the question.... wrote on Sep 20, 2006 4:33 PM:
" Do you deny that the homosexual lifestyle has more health risks than the heterosexual lifestyle? It is a simple question requiring a simple answer. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 3:49 PM:
" I guess you all are done around here. When you run out of reason and are out reasoned you hide under the cloke of name-calling. I am in favor of public policy advancing the welfare of children. Children are in heterosexual, homosexual, and single-parent households. Public policy and laws must work to protect children and advance their welfare. Passing Constitutional Amendments to deny children in same-sex households the protection of marriage of their parents, is MEAN-SPIRITED, UNAMERICAN, and BIGOTED. I will not vote to hurt anyone. I will be voting NO on the gay marriage amendment. I urge other thinking people to do the same. "
RE: RE: Religion + Homosexuality = Hypocrites wrote on Sep 20, 2006 3:15 PM:
" So, what you are saying is that the church says its ok to be gay as long as you don't act upon it? Your final sentence of "The church's teaching on homosexuality is honest and loving, yet unbending when it comes to the sin." exactly states the hypocriticism I am speaking of. I truly do not mean this rudely, but I guess my open mind and acceptance is what's keeping me from understanding other's closeminded-ness and refusal of acceptance of those who do not fit into their ideal society. I strongly believe 'To each their own.' If someone is happy, why beat them down? Where is it our place to tell someone we don't even know how to behave? Live and let live.
"
patriot2 is BGS wrote on Sep 20, 2006 3:14 PM:
" Hahaha If you two aren't the same person, I'd be surprised. Your arrogance and fear mongering Nazi comparisons are the same. If you're not the same person, it is a good illustration of the "lock step" adherence to liberal "logic." "
to: eater of the dead post 9-19-06 9:53 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 3:05 PM:
" i don't think that you know what you are talking about. i myself have 2 mothers, and 2 fathers, thats right, both my parents are gay and i turned out just fine. oh and, my brother-in-law lives with his mom, and his mom. and not one person gives him any grief at school about it. so, like i said before, i don't think you know what you are talking about. this may not be the case in every situation, but in most, it isn't. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 2:26 PM:
" Re: my comparison to NAZIS. This is ON THE MARK. Whenever one group (Christian Conservatives in this case) choose to castigate a minority group (Homosexuals in this case) to deny them rights while claiming to do this to PROTECT SANCTITY and for which they are claiming for themselves, especially in an attempt to exploit a "wedge issue" to advance their agenda, this smacks of FASCISM. Take it or leave it. Nazis did it during WWII. They were also of the Christian faith. They were Christian-Fascists and not Islamo-Fascists. Both breeds are equally dangerous. "
pat2 you arrogance is showing again wrote on Sep 20, 2006 2:25 PM:
" You put on the air of all knowing (are you BGS?), and fail to see your own failings. If you see racism in my sarcasm, then it's because of your superiority complex. BTW, slave owners had the same complex, so deal with that. Your attitude is obvious to any casual observer, so keep it up, so that those fence sitters will see the true arrogance of the liberal left (Democrats). "
re: patriot2 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 2:20 PM:
" Your Nazi comparison of blaming Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals for all their problems and then putting them into camps to the defense of Marriage amendment is pathetic. You are just using the liberal fear card...."Conservatives are just like Nazi's." "
re: solomon wrote on Sep 20, 2006 2:12 PM:
" So, by my opposition to homosexual partners raising children, this causes the said children in the care of these homosexuals to be harmed??? If you really analyzed that ridiculous idea, then my children are harmed everytime you post that both Mom's and Dad's are not necessary. Get real. Besides, our system of debate will become nothing, if we start adhereing to PC idea of "not hurting other people's feelings." As to crack addicts, child abusers, etc. being parents, I am against that also. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 2:06 PM:
" Re:149 post. There is no comment to answer the bigoted, racist, and offensive comments there.
When no answers are available, the bigot reverts to his true nature, displaying an abundance of ignorance and hatred. I understand what America is about more than some around here. It is about the 'sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.' It is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is about equal protection of the law, it is not about hurting others to protect so-called SANCTITY of concepts. You have been fed lies for too long. So wake up and smell the coffee. "
Re: pat2 your arrogance is showing wrote on Sep 20, 2006 1:49 PM:
" Yes'um massa. Me so sorry, me no pay attention to you'en. Me forget me place. You'en has all de right antsaws. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 1:37 PM:
" "America didn't help the Jews by hurting the Nazi's." Now you lost me. Just when I thought we were getting somewhere. The point is that the NAZIS used the argument of PROTECTING THE ARYAN RACE when attacking Jews and employing genocidal techniques against them. It was never about the JEWS. It was about what the JEWS and the HOMOSEXUALS and the GYPSIES were doing to Germany. Today's despots use gays in the same fashion. Please pay attention. "
Solomon wrote on Sep 20, 2006 1:36 PM:
" To 11:53 AM poster: So, you'll continue to insult the parents of these children, regardless of the harmful effect it has on the children. We allow crack addicts to parent. We allow criminals to parent. We even allow child abusers to parent. And you want to prevent all gays from parenting, regardless of their commitment to each other and to their kids? This is the immoral mindset that leads to this proposed amendment - which is intended as nothing more than a slap in the face to gays and lesbians. "
re: patriot2 ....really, you can't help some by hurting others? wrote on Sep 20, 2006 12:10 PM:
" America didn't help the Jews by hurting the Nazi's. Your absolutes miss the mark. First, not all discrimination is wrong or bad. Airlines discriminate against blind people from being pilots, because it is hazardous. If society says that homo-households are hazardous to children, than society can discriminate against homo-households. Second, you state that this amendment will ONLY hurt children. Wrong. Some children may be hurt by it, but more children will be helped, and that is the overall goal of all laws. Third, I say that to leave children in homo-households or to increase the number of children placed into homo-households is INSANE. Fourth, I'm glad that we agree that children are part of the discussion on homo-marriage, and that talking about them doesn't make them pawns (my original point). "
re: solomon wrote on Sep 20, 2006 11:53 AM:
" Your question makes no sense. My concern for children has nothing to do with how homosexual people feel about my opinions. If you (or they) feel insulted, maybe it's because they (or you) either know that I have spoken the truth, or they (or you) have inferiority problems and should seek counseling. As to the report, look at the references in the endnotes section....plenty of studies supporting heterosexual households as beneficial to children. NO STUDIES proving that homo-households are beneficial. Here's a question for you, Do you deny that the homosexual lifestyle has more health risks than the heterosexual lifestyle? "
Solomon wrote on Sep 20, 2006 10:53 AM:
" to 10:07 AM poster: "There is plenty of evidence that children are better off in heterosexual households." Did you read the articles you cited? They do not support this conclusion. All they say is that there's not enough evidence to say that gay marriage helps or hurts children. Again, you fail to cite a study that shows that kids are better off in heterosexual households. Answer this question for me: If you care so much about kids, why do you spend so much time and energy insulting their gay parents? "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 10:31 AM:
" I think we are starting to communicate! The issue is NOT that we should or shouldn't PLACE children into homes with homosexual parents. They are THERE NOW. We cannot prevent homosexuals from having children without further discrimination. And it would be INHUMANE to pull children our of those homes. So the only effect of the Amendment will be to HURT CHILDREN. Do you hear me? It will not affect the "sanctity of marriage" as much as hurting Jews and Gypsies and Homosexuals by Hitler did not really help any Aryan purity at all either. We don't help anyone by HURTING OTHERS. "
Re: solomon, wrote on Sep 20, 2006 10:07 AM:
" First, I don't know who this "we" is you refer to. This is what I say...1) homosexuals can marry, as long it is to someone of the opposite sex. 2)Homosexual couples (two men or two women) should not be allowed to raise children. (my opinion) 3)Pro homo-marriage studies compared children from single parents to those of homosexual households, therefore there is no solid evidence that homo-households benefits children. 4) There is plenty of evidence that children are better off in heterosexual households. Hope that clears it up for you on what I am saying. "
Solomon wrote on Sep 20, 2006 8:53 AM:
" to 8:44 PM post. Thanks for the citations. The articles you cite basically say two things: (1) marriage benefits children, and (2) the research on gay marriage effect on children is incomplete. The fact that the stability offered by marriage benefits children is an argument FOR allowing gays to marry. The research DOES NOT support the conclusion that gay marriage hurts children. We allow lots of marginal people to be parents: criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts, Brittany Spears. Do we really want to say that gays should be prevented from parenting? "
to patriot2 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 8:35 AM:
" If I understand your argument correctly, then that is different then using children as pawns. If your arguement is that current homosexual households with children will be negatively affected by this current amendment, then that is something that needs to be addressed. Personally, I believe that children should not be placed into homes that don't have a heterosexual parental household. Your attempt to stop a good amendment because of bad decisions of the past is a weak arguement. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 20, 2006 7:31 AM:
" I think you don't get it. You write 'children are a primary reason for marriage'. I will grant you that. But legislation will never stop homosexuals from setting up households and having children. One can have a child today through means besides heterosexual activity between two parents. This includes adoption, surrogate motherhood, and artificial insemination. So if marriage is an arrangement for children, as I would mostly agree, why wouldn't it make sense to ENCOURAGE marriage in all households that have children and not PASS AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION to PROHIBIT marriage among some whose orientation you do not condone? "
Response from Hmmm wrote on Sep 20, 2006 6:08 AM:
" No, you are reading something else into what I wrote. The opinion writer wishes to take the welfare of children out of the homo-marriage debate by attempting to label mentioning them as using them as pawns. My response is that children are most definately part of the debate on homo-marriage. I never said that marriages are REQUIRED to have children. If you fail to recognize, though, that children are a primary reason for marriage, then you are failing to see the big picture. "
Give Plural Matrimony a chance wrote on Sep 20, 2006 12:07 AM:
" Don't knock it if you haven't tried it! Plural Matrimony must be given due consideration! When I can marry both my friends, just think how much better 3 parents and incomes could raise our children!
"
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 19, 2006 11:49 PM:
" O.K. you all don't get it. Couple of facts. Whether it is best to have one mother and one father in a household, there are many households with two same sex parents in Wisconsin. So here's the deal: keep the same sex parents from getting married and the children in that house have less protection than parents in households that parents are married. Things like insurance, inheritance, custody and child support. Pass the Amendment and HURT THE CHILDREN. Real simple. "
To: "Hmm" and "lies over and over and ever again..." wrote on Sep 19, 2006 10:22 PM:
" How dare I? I don't, God does. God is the only moral authority, not me and certainly not you. We are ALL subject to God's moral authority. You have to have God as the supreme morality. If not then anyone's morality is just as good as anyone else's. If you truely belive THAT, then logically you must be for the removal of all law. After all, who is anyone to say that anything is a crime. The criminals surely don't have a problem with murder, theft, abuse, or anything else. -Dan M. "
To solomon, wrote on Sep 19, 2006 8:44 PM:
" Here's one paper with endnotes crediting multiple sources for why children need one mother and one father....(http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/MothersFathersMatter.pdf).....Plus, here is a place that shows that the pro-homo-marriage groups are using flawed studies (http://www.narth.com/docs/flawed.html). Since you nor I will read all of the studies, and analyze all of their results, it boils down to whom do you place your faith in? Scientists and studies that support God, the Bible, and over 4000 years of tradition, or Scientists and studies which contradict God, the Bible and over 4000 years of tradition? "
To: "Hmm" and "lies over and over and ever again..." wrote on Sep 19, 2006 8:19 PM:
" Based on your logic, married couples who choose not to have children should no longer be allowed to marry. Older couples who have raised their children, or have remarried after a spouse dies, should not be married. Infertile couples should also be kept from marriage. None of these folks produce children.
To: lies over and over and ever again...
"Those of us who know how morally wrong homosexual acts are want to protect those very children from this homosexual redefining of marriage. It's all about morality."
How dare you assume moral authority over me or anyone else on this board! I can make up my own mind, thank you! "
Rocket wrote on Sep 19, 2006 8:08 PM:
" To Dan M- You say it WILL hurt children and it's ALL about morality, not politics. Is that fact? According to who, you? What makes you the expert? How do you know this WILL hurt children? You have no proof. "
rick harsch wrote on Sep 19, 2006 4:45 PM:
" We should treat our children as bishops. "
RE: Religion + Homosexuality = Hypocrites wrote on Sep 19, 2006 3:25 PM:
" The old wise saying is to love the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus did indeed judge sinners, while still loving them. He told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. He didn't say to go and continue in your sin if it feels right to you. The church's teaching on homosexuality is honest and loving, yet unbending when it comes to the sin. "
Solomon wrote on Sep 19, 2006 3:23 PM:
" To Hmmm: How about a specific reference to these "studies" you claim support your conclusion? Who commissioned it? Where is it published? when was it done? Are we supposed to take your word that these studies exist, and that they support the conclusion you say they do? In this particular case, the most reliable evidence of the effect gay parenting has on children is that it has no harmful effect. The only arguable harm done comes from the ignorant, bigotted public comments made about their parents. Gay parents deal with alot. They prepare their kids for the kind of cruelty they will encounter. Here's a balanced view: http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26666.html "
Hmmm wrote on Sep 19, 2006 2:48 PM:
" What is the primary purpose of a marriage between one man and one woman? It is to produce children. Homosexuals cannot produce children, therefore they need to obtain them through other means. Many studies have proven that children need the guidance of an adult male and female. Having two females or two males as the primary adult figures in a child's life, hinders their developement. To ignore the impact on children in this homosexual marriage idea is to bury your head in the sand. This information isn't "using" children as pawns, but simply stating fact. "
Religion + Homosexuality = Hypocrites wrote on Sep 19, 2006 2:28 PM:
" The argument that God says its wrong is hypocritical. Isn't God supposed to love you as long as you love Him and let Him into your life? Isn't it all about FORGIVENESS and being accepting of others? I worked at the Tomah WalMart and in the breakroom found a petition to keep gay marraige from being legalized not quite a year ago. The names already signed on that sheet where the ones who would preach about loving others, yourself, and accepting everyone. I very proudly take responsibility for turning that garbage into the management and any repurcussions that followed on those people. - Kristan "
What about... wrote on Sep 19, 2006 2:21 PM:
" Whether or not gay marraige is legal, there will always be homes that have 2 dads or 2 moms. Letting it be legal will change nothing but the divorce rate. Grow up, all of you. By the way, look up being gay scientifically, and you will find research that is proving it is not a choice, it is the way your brain develops and the amount of certain chemicals is produces. There is a study right now that shows male/female brains are attracted to the same sex because these chemicals sense same-sex pheremones instead of the 'moral' choice of opposite. Do some research and grow a little, people. "
Open your minds wrote on Sep 19, 2006 2:16 PM:
" Don't you realize that the reason there are children out there who are homophobic is because they have parents that teach them that gay is wrong. You are the ones who put it into their head to critize and hate, you are the ones who show them how to treat others. Don't say it's for the children, its for your own personal views and feelings. I have never known a child to care what color their playmate at daycare is, or why that man is kissing another man. Parents are the ones who make them believe that it is wrong. "
Thommy Sandvick wrote on Sep 19, 2006 1:57 PM:
" On a side note - kids are cruel when they're young. It doesn't matter if the kid's parents are gay or not and I know several gay parents with perfectly normal, healthy children. All the studies that have been done on the psychological effects of gay parenting on children have only proven that not only does it not hurt the children, but sometimes brings the opposite of what the stereotypes are. Using the "kids will pick on them" is a lame argument not only because kids pick on kids for any and every reason, but because those kids wouldn't pick on others if the parents taught respect for differences. "
Michael Welch: "I Said It Before; I'll --" wrote on Sep 19, 2006 1:56 PM:
" Yes, I'll say it again: It is repellent that the USA, whose president implies is supposed to be considered a 'civilized' country, has ANY 'laws' whatsoever discriminating against and criminalizing homosexuals. It is shameful to have such 'laws' in the first place and to use the electoral system as a 'bait' for certain anti-gay and lesbian so-called 'religious' factions to support the presently 'uncivilized' Republican party is even unconscionable... "
Thommy Sandvick wrote on Sep 19, 2006 1:54 PM:
" Unfortunately, despite my personal feelings towards how Viroqua handles diversity, I went there to support the Vernon County Fair. When I came out, I had a horrible brochure on my car explaining why homosexual marriage is wrong and nearly every reason given had children mentioned. I can't imagine how someone could get satisfaction from being so close minded. "
Lies, over and over and over again... wrote on Sep 19, 2006 1:45 PM:
" Patriot2, Mary, et al....It just amazes me how you keep spouting the same old lies over and over and over. I guess you think if you say it often enough, everyone will believe it. Children aren't being used as pawns at all. Those of us who know how morally wrong homosexual acts are want to protect those very children from this homosexual redefining of marriage. It's all about morality. Treating homosexuality as good and normal WILL hurt children, marriage, and society as a whole. It's ALL about the morality, not politics. - Dan M. "
mary wrote on Sep 19, 2006 10:16 AM:
" Great letter, Fran. This amendment against civil unions and marriage is just one more example of how little our American society actually values its children. The amendment makes it nearly impossible for thousands of Wisconsin citizens to protect their children legally and monetarily. If we as a society really valued children, all children would have health insurance, affordable and safe day care would be readily available, people would support public schools and education, and no child would ever be hungry. Sadly none of the preceding is true. Voting NO on the amendment isn’t going to provide Wisconsin children with everything they should have, but at least voting NO would keep the option open for parents to work within the law to protect their kids. "
Eater of the Dead wrote on Sep 19, 2006 9:53 AM:
" Oh boy, I'd sure love to be that kid with 2 dads. Might as well name him Betsy and send him to school wearing a dress, thats just how the other kids will treat him. Let the daily ridicule and beatings begin "
DH wrote on Sep 19, 2006 8:54 AM:
" It is not about fear or paranoia.
It is about the harms it will bring to our society, including the children.And it is about others loosing there freedoms over a small minority where there is no scientifil proof of the gay choice being genetic. "
RW wrote on Sep 19, 2006 7:39 AM:
" Here again is the fear factor get real. "
Pawn Schmawn wrote on Sep 19, 2006 7:04 AM:
" Fran is absolutely right! I am sick of hearing about children being used as prawns. Prawns are for eating and can best be served with cocktail sauce, but children are precious. Wait, you said pawns...never mind. "
Patriot2 wrote on Sep 19, 2006 6:50 AM:
" Fran, great letter. But it won't reach everyone. Lots of people simply don't get it. They have bought into "protect the sanctity of marriage" propaganda. We all know that if gays are allowed to be married, if children ALREADY in these households are allowed to have parents that are married, that heterosexual marriages won't be affected. They won't be better, they won't be worse. Nothing will happen to the "sanctity" of anything. But rather than realize that, they are wrapped up in some sort of bizarre homophobia, believing that God will send down his wrath in lightning bolts, pillars of salt, fire or some other thing. Too bad. Children are going to be left behind. "
Advertisement
