"'I'm gay. Get over it,' Pennsylvania senator casually comes out"

He's working on the false premise that people can't get over the fact he's gay. A bit on the delusional side.

 

Yes, but two mothers can also contribute to a child's growth, and perhaps even better: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/lesbian-moms-high-self-esteem_n_4854450.html (and in case you think huffpost is not a reliable source, here is the original study: https://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/adolescent-parent-relationship-quality.pdf).

I haven't found any studies yet with gay dads but I'll keep you guys updated when I find them.

 

Well that would not reflect the time frame you are harking back for

But again this would not be the 'norm" for the period of time you are talking about, and it is not so much as "asking" for sex, it is more of understanding that when she says no she means no.

I find neither embarrassing.

While on some aspects I may be inclined to agree with you certainly not as far as a woman's right to say no, or in a relationship .. personally I have found that by treating a woman as an equal gains far more respect and mutual satisfaction than one being dominant.

I think you woefully under estimate women.

Given that a woman tends to be more of the nurture kind of person I respectfully say BS to the above statement.

given that I gave you three things that were of the 'norm' for your preferred time and you didn't really agree with any of them, are you sure that your preferred time to live in is correct.

 

It seems like it was more of a casual yet defiant "So what?" to me, rather than a literal remark.

 

Okay, I watched. It probably doesn't require a great deal of courage in his district in Pennsylvania, to 'come out' especially since rumors have probably been gusting about for some time without much impact, all the important people in his life already knew, and he is not seeking re-election. He picked a bill directly related to the topic, rather than an agriculture budget, so it wasn't completely irrelevant to why he was standing there sponsoring so there was not offensive in his comments. Matter of fact the real question is why did he wait so long? I do wonder what his future political aspirations may be .

In general everyone is looking at this the wrong way. What does it say about a politician when he does not come out to his constituents, Whatever your political stripe, you have to realize that if your politician perceives that a secret regarding his personal life is a political liability, whether it actually is or not, or whether it is actually any of your business or not, he is subject to political pressure and more to the point, fear of political pressure , which will impact his effectiveness directly or indirectly. I can't imagine any legislator, judge or executive who will not be more effective in office, absent the worry of being 'found out' or labeled, than he will be without that worry.

i agree with those who think it is none of our business, and that we do not have a 'right' to know if our politician is boinking his secretary, his gay lover, or a prostitute, I feel better knowing that our politician has come clean, and has an empty closet of secrets, because I know he will not be blackmailed, sandbagged or paranoid of either while in office. How grand the announcement is , really doesn't matter, but you really do want him out rather than in.

 

Courage is dressing up in military garb and then sitting in a room piloting a drone that shoots hellfire missiles into civilian populated areas 1000 miles away.

 

I doubt someone came up to him, pointed the finger at him and said "Your Gay!" He's defiant against himself. Looking for glory type of thing. A bit delusional.

 

Where is that right enumerated? Care to explain that?

What about the children of single mothers?

What of those children given up for adoption?

Again these arguments your making are knee jerk emotional reactions based on nothing more than your own dislike of homosexuals.

 

Other than the fact that your argument is in fact...nothing more than you saying "My religion gives me the right to take away your rights."

No sorry your religion can sit and spin it has no place in my life or anyone else's but your own.

Don't like it? To bad.

 

First of all, no, marriage does not belong to the church. Try again.

Marriage is a civil contract making it every bit of the state and federal governments business, also meaning they can not arbitrarily discriminate. As there is no logical state I teresr in preventing gay marriages, you are correct they will be legal in all fifty states before to long.

And he's, actually, if you look into Supreme Court rulings over the years marriage has again and again been established as a basic and fundamental human right.

Again keep trying.

 

So you basically feel that the majority of people will certainly and unequivocally get over his sexual orientation? Given the current climate with Republicans I would say that's quite far fetched therefore, unfortunately I cannot believe what you are saying.

 

I don't know why you think people care so much. People care when gay or straight people change laws to harm society and our future. They don't care if someone is gay. Be gay. Your choice. Change marriage to revolve around gay people....then I'm not over that.

He should have said to be more honest---I'm going to do all I can to change the foundation of marriage in this country. Get over it.

 

Enumerated? WTF? It is enumerated by the NATURE itself. Every living being has 2 parents of an opposite sex, and gays who adopt, rob children of this natural right. Single mother can remary, orphaned kids can be adopted by a normal family.

GimmI a break

 

Ah yes, just like the civil rights act changed life to revolve around black people, and changed the very foundation of society in this country.

Is this really how people justify discriminating against a group that covers roughly 2% of the world population? By thinking like a schoolyard bully?

Why should I give a damn about the way things naturally go? We're humanity. We've spent the past ~100,000 years advancing and succeeding more than any other species. Nature told us that most of us ought to die in our childhood and we decided that wasn't good enough, so we changed it. So why should I care if nature says that a child can only have a mother and a father?

See, having two fathers really doesn't change anything. It just means that you have two fathers. I really can't see a single reason why this can be regarded as detrimental, except using a fallacious appeal to nature or an equally fallacious appeal to religion.

Having two loving parents is having two loving parents. What's going on with their gender is pretty irrelevant.

 

Ha ha ha, did you know you too had a mother and a father? It's the natural order of things. Two fathers can work on it overtime and still manufacture (*)(*)(*)(*). They do not contribute to societal evolution.

 

You didn't seem to read my post very carefully, because I stated that I don't really care about the natural order as long as nobody's getting hurt. If nature and making more humans was all that mattered people would kill themselves immediately after raising their offspring as they would have no reason to live anymore.

Seriously, that's the most nihilistic thing I've ever heard. I don't really think you're actually thinking through the implications of that argument because it's a real bummer. I recommend some existentialist philosophy for you, maybe some Camus or Sartre.

 

BINGO! Children most definitely get hurt living in gay households, and no amount of pseudo studies will convince me, or a vast majority of world population otherwise.

 

I see. So you will continue to believe lies and propaganda regardless of what evidence exists to the contrary. In that case, you are beyond help.

 

Lies and propaganda my straight virgin hairy ars! WTF evidence are you talking about? There's no evidence children from gay household are better of, or at least are as well as from the normal households with mom and pop.

 

Once somebody outright states that no evidence will convince them, they have revealed that they have no intention of having an actual open discussion, but rather some other motivation for speaking, and I find that the most common other motive for people like you is to put others down and make them feel less human for being different, which brings your motives into question.

When somebody reveals that they do not want to partake in an open discussion, they stop being worth your time. You cannot open an unwilling mind, and this is why I will no longer bother discussing this with you. If you decide to approach this differently in the future, I invite you to let me know so we can resume this exchange.

May you grow more tolerant by the day.

 

I agree that children typically do better in biological two parent homes however we do not live in a perfect world.

We have underfunded and overworked foster centers, foster homes that take kids for the check and could care less about the wellbeing of the child, parents that abuse their children, parents that "rent" their children to score drugs, rampant sexual abuse, neglect, hunger, ect...
Not all heterosexuals deserve the children they have and not all homosexuals are as evil as you attempt to portray them.

Are you really saying you would rather a child be in one of the above situations rather than being placed with a loving homosexual couple that actually wants the child and wished to give him or her the best life possible?

Biological homes should be prioritized always, followed by stable and loving households.

 

I don't think that the biological family is always inherently better. I think that's a completely arbitrary measure of how fit parents are.

 

He needs to be fired from his job.

He just lost any kind of credibility.

There is no such thing as honor and decency among homosexuals.

Being a judge requires fairness and impartiality, and homosexuals, especially the gay mafia, can not accept anything that is not homosexual, so they will always find in favor of the homosexual, regardless of the crimes they committed, they will always declare the homosexual innocent, because of their hypocrisy and immorality.


So he needs to go for a real judge.

 

Can you get more homophobic than this? This is a baseless conspiracy theory, on par with suggesting that jews did 9/11.

 

There are a few posters that are not interested in discussions, they are just here to troll. Best to just let them be.
Emotional and illogical differences in opinions are one thing but endless ranting and stupidity (especially in broken English) are a good place to draw the line.

Cheers