CPAC: Mike Huckabee Defends the Social Conservatives [RightWingWatch.org]

[BarthBunzel]

Huckabee is the ultimate liar, He is just a bible thumping loser, though at least he has a brain unlike palin

[teemu21]

Well it was Huckabee, Republican John Edwards, who attacked fiscal conservatives with his class warfare rhetoric first.

[calimar28]

Oh and Huckaphoney, one more thing: We lost because of the war that we should of never gotten into, and we lost because the GOP spent like drunken sailors. Idiots like you kept supporting our war in Iraq, and even supported more of it! That is why we lost.

Reagan...that was a different time Huckaphoney. Conservative does not mean religious anymore. It means personal responability and freedom. So go jump in a lake you Huckaphoney.

[calimar28]

LOL by the way, Huckaphoney calls other republicans "conservatives". Who is he talking about exactly? He isnt talking about himself, he spent more in Arkansas than a New York liberal! He pardoned criminals and allowed illegal aliens to run rampant. He doesnt know the meaninig of conservatism. He should stick with being a preacher and stay out of the GOP...he doesnt do it any good.

[calimar28]

LOL Huckaphoney, social conservatism ruins the party. It will be the party of fiscal conservatism, or the GOP will sieze to exist.

[Mitchapalooza23]

Social conservatism is what people DON'T like about the GOP

Most people are starting to agree with republicans on being fiscally conservative

The government does not belong in our personal lives, the sooner the gop realizes this the better it will be for the party as a whole

[kangarookornkid]

Let's fix marriage by keeping government involved in it?

Maybe we can make sodomy illegal again, and have our friend Mike here enforce it?

Ask yourself this: was the Bush Presidency closer to Huckabee's beliefs and values, or Ron Paul's beliefs and values? That's why Ron Paul won this year's CPAC.

Mike's a great guy, but the religious right is like a bad coke addiction for a band: sure it can produce magnificent short term results (2004), but it'll make the band a mockery of itself in the end

[rescuemay]

The state shouldn't have any part in any of these issues. If the government wasn't allowed to apply force to either side (pro-life/pro-choice, gay marriage/no gay marriage) then Huckabee wouldn't even be making this speech to a crowd of people interested in POLITICAL ACTION. He would be making it in his community, to people who share his values and will VOLUNTARILY implement them. My advice to conservatives is to think more deeply about how more freedom means less institutionalized violence.

[JMMoosey]

Governor Huckabee has much more of a clue on why conservatives were losing in 2006 and 2008 than most others in the conservative movement. Conservatives like Ronald Reagan and the Bushes didn't lose elections for throwing social conservatives under the bus, but embraced them. Rudy Giuliani doesn't win presidential primaries because he is too liberal on social issues, he is strong conservative when it comes to fiscal issues.

[mizilus]

sorry, social "conservatives" are a joke. This really is an intangiable, unmeasurable, and at least half the time no concern to any other person because of the common sense factor. Let alone in many instances is a personal preference kind of thing.

[HerrSchenkel]

The only position of social conservatives that can be (but isn't always) pro individualism is the anti-abortion message.

But (just like some democrats) they want to tell us who we can or cannot sleep with or marry (instead of getting government out of marriage altogether), keep prostitution and all drugs illegal, and sometimes even ban certain media...all for "the good of society." If you use legislation to promote ANY social agenda, then you're a liberal.

[dmlauffer]

Good Speech

[TruthSeeker1988]

"If families don't do their job, government will try to pick up the slack"

Like you Mike Fuckabee? Like you wanting to use the government to push your religious values on every family in America?

[thegoochieguy]

i tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

not in terms of programs, though.

for someone like hickabee to want smaller government seems to want more religion controlling what people think.

i am the product of nonmarried parents and i do quite well for myself monetarily.

[Leetist]

Unless the Republicans go back to their Jeffersonian-libertarianism roots, there is going to a string of defeats in the future.

Or they can continue with nativism, protectionism, nationalism, militarism, theocracy and continue to spiral into oblivion.

Check out just about any online political forum, it is overwhelmingly libertarian vs. progressive democrat with conservatives, socialists and communists as the token minority opinions.

[12oink12]

It is a typical 'talking point' from the left when they are on the defense..To through out words like 'Racism' 'Bigot' 'Warmonger' 'white supremecy' when in a debate against conservatives.. And it is pathetic.

Huckabee 2012 all the way...and if it is not the Huck, then I pray it is a real conservative who can beat Obama.

[chukmaty]

Huckabee certainly seems to be both a fiscal and social conservative. 2012 will be all about fiscal matters, however it will be good to know that while we are fighting for fiscal conservatism we have a President who will not forget that a nation that is wealthy but has no respect for the sanctity of life is doomed anyways.

[SpeedyBruin]

Huckabee makes a strong argument for marriage and yet at the same time advocates that gay and lesbian american be denied these rights. It's political wedge issues like this that are destroying the republican party. It is the arrogance that comes with putting politics before science and one's personal religion into the state.

[chukmaty]

Redefining a family is the same as destroying it and gives rights to no one.

[SpeedyBruin]

Extending equal marriage benefits is the same thing as destroying your family? Really?

[chukmaty]

The definition, I am not expecting anyone to drop a nuke in my family room.

"Extending equal marriage benefits" is a misleading statement. To say that marriage can mean more than one man, one woman is redefining marriage. We altered the "for life" part of marriage and it has had slow ramifications over the years on society. Given that weakening the definition of marriage in the past has been so destructive to the concept of family, I am against re-defining it further.

[SpeedyBruin]

Was I misunderstanding you? It seemed as though your claim that extending marriage benefits to same sex couples in some was impacts your family. Could you elaborate specifically on the changes you would expect to see within your family?

Furthermore, marriage has been redefined so many times already that the 'traditional marriage' is a term that has a great deal of flexibility. Marriage rights have been altered in this country 1,100+ times. Marriage used to be between people of the same race...

[SpeedyBruin]

it has been primarily a contract between a man and another woman's father, and looking back into the old testament marriage has been considered to be legitimate in it's polygamous form. Which definition is the true 'traditional' form and why is your definition not arbitrary?

[chukmaty]

Polygamous marriage being outlawed is the opposite sort of re definition that you seem to be supporting. Polygamy was very obviously morally inferior to monogamous marital situations. I am sure you would have no problem saying so yourself without fear of being thought of as intolerant.

If we are using the Hebrew Scriptures as a basis for this argument as you have, polygamy is consistently depicted in a negative context and is not referenced once in a positive light.

[chukmaty]

Finally, still using the biblical basis you cited, Genesis only endorses monogamous marriage and cleaving to one other person of the opposite sex after having left your parents household.

[chukmaty]

Ethnic arguments hold no water, because scientifically an African person is no different than a Czech person racially, one reason I do not use the term race whenever possible as it is scientifically inaccurate.

The homosexual relationship is however quite different than a heterosexual relationship and is therefore not immediately worthy of the same legal status. Te mot obvious difference is one can under no circumstances produce children, there are other differences that are important as well.

[SpeedyBruin]

You have yet to explain how this would have any impact upon your family.

[chukmaty]

MY FAMILY id defined. Much like lax dovorce laws do not directly impact MY FAMILY because no one in my family has had a divorce. But divorce laws have certainly affected the family in a dramatic way.

In so far as the civic family is concerned, redefining marriage to mean two individuals of the same sex would essentially nullify its definition.

[SpeedyBruin]

Now that we've both acknowledged that it is extremely unlikely that this will have any impact upon your family whatsoever let's move on to your argument regarding definitions.

Society changes. The terms that we use to describe society change. Change or redefinition in itself is not necessarily good, bad, nor uncommon - merely a reality of the world we live in. Thus objecting to equal access to marriage benefits for same sex couples merely on the basis that this is a change is not compelling.

[SpeedyBruin]

Furthermore, I disagree with your choice of comparison to divorce. Divorce has been demonstrated, with general consensus, to be a potentially damaging force with respect to children and relationships whereas same sex marriage benefits have been linked to no such negative consequences.

[chukmaty]

You think that removing the father figure in a lesbian relationship or a mother figure in a gay relationship may be harmful even if both individuals are fantastic people?

A family being defined at the top as being a marital relationship between a man and a woman exists because it uniquely meets the needs of raising a family as well as being capable of producing offspring unless one or both parents is infertile.

[SpeedyBruin]

This has been studied. Thus far in a series of research the orientation of one's parents has not been shown to place a child at any sort of deficit. I agree with the positions of our major psych and health institutions.

[chukmaty]

It will have the same effect on society as other badly thought out redefinitions of marriage have been in our society.

Society changing is not an argument, it is a neutral observation, there are negative societal changes and positive ones. Undefining marriage would most definitely be a negative change in society.

[SpeedyBruin]

Again you've alluded to negative consequences without actually stating what they are.

[SpeedyBruin]

This comes to my next point. When you make a claim such as same sex parents being a risk factor for children you need to be able to back it up with evidence.

[SpeedyBruin]

"A family being defined...because it uniquely meets the needs of raising a family as well as being capable of producing offspring unless one or both parents is infertile."

As far as our government is concerned children are not a requirement of marriage and many of the benefits that come with marriage do not relate to children. Marriage is not solely for those who are parents, however, same sex parents certainly can (and do) raise children.

[chukmaty]

Of coarse it is not a requirment, but being that it is often a natural consequence it is thus necessary to place it in certain esteem as it is the most efficient way for the next generation to be built.

[chukmaty]

Are you saying that there is no evidence that an absence of a Father or Mother is harmful, particularly a father?

[chukmaty]

You would acknowledge that demographics that have 70% out of wedlock births is not preferable compared to demographics with only 30%?

Other countries, like Sweden, which have taken a very negative stance on defined marriage have seen dramatic drop offs in marriage.

Heterosexual cohabitation has been shown to be inferior to a committed relationship sealed by marriage.

So doing anything which makes marriage less meaningful would have consequences for society.

[SpeedyBruin]

"Are you saying that there is no evidence that an absence of a Father or Mother is harmful, particularly a father? "

You're misrepresenting the statistics. In Sweden you do not need to be married to receive all of the state benefits of marriage (unlike the US). The non-religious form of marriage there is identical and thus there is less incentive to get married. For this reason you simply can not compare marriage rates between the two countries.

[SpeedyBruin]

As for the quote I took above I'll link you the research in a pm if you'd like. Research has shown on several occasions that when you compare two same sex parents to two opposite sex parents there are no differences that can be detected in the children.

"Heterosexual cohabitation has been shown to be inferior to a committed relationship sealed by marriage."

By whom? What research are you talking about?

[chukmaty]

Yes, that is EXACTLY what makes the statistic pertinent. Re definition of marriage through civic and government forces does impact the number of marriages.

This is really the exact point all along, there is never just one attack on marriage, in Sweden a general attitude of disdain for marriage has led to undefined of the institution as well as fewer people getting married.

[SpeedyBruin]

I must be completely missing your point. What is the problem that comes from having civil benefits for committed couples in Sweden?

[chukmaty]

Now the evidence of family breakdown manifests itself very differently here in the United States, were children are born out of wedlock more we see a rise in crime, lowering of education standards, and other very apparent metrics.

Also, there are metrics that you will not find in a research study, like how well a father teaches a son to be a leader and how to be masculine. How well a person can define themselves as being male or female. Sadly, egalitarianism has made us look down on manhood.

[chukmaty]

Because that is on a subjective scale, what constitutes better or worse. Some would say it is crime or grades. I would say it is largely measured by how well parents teach their children to raise children of their own in a moral way and be self sufficient...

Judging from Sweden's drop off in the birth rate I would say the family is imploding and with it the country. Its population is not going to sustain itself if the trend continues.

[SpeedyBruin]

The problem is that you can't just look at birthrates, which have actually been fairly stable in Sweden. The population of Sweden has has not decreased since domestic partnerships were granted and actually the country has grown in size over the last few decades. Claims that their population are completely baseless.

[SpeedyBruin]

"w[h]ere children are born out of wedlock more we see a rise in crime, lowering of education standards, and other very apparent metrics."

Cite me a single piece of evidence that children of same sex parents are more likely to commit crimes or do less well in school. There are several studies that show us that these children do equally well in the classroom.

[chukmaty]

I actually said children out of wedlock are more likely to commit crime. Hard to have a discussion if you are going to twist what I say.

[SpeedyBruin]

Meant to say 'Claims that their population is unsustainable are completely baseless'. Left out some of that thought

[chukmaty]

I said it will be unsustainable if the trend continues that birth rates decrease compared to mortality rates, not if it holds as a flatline or if it reverses itself.

[chukmaty]

I double checked the birthrates before posting, they have flat lined since 1995 and if the trend continues will fall below mortality rates.

Also, generations need to grow as supporting the earlier generation is costly.

[chukmaty]

If you want to redefine marriage, it would be more honest to say you do not want it, or you are against the institution.

I am for the institution, I think it is a positive one that warrants civic recognition. Now people can have any sexual relationship they want, I do not them punished if they do not want to settle down with one person or if they want to be with someone of the same gender. But these other arrangements are not thought of as marriage and should not be.

[SpeedyBruin]

I think I'm done discussing population. There is not a decline in population in Sweden and the fact that it's population is stabilizing at an all time high should not be taken out of context. Globally we have a population surplus that is straining our resources so this point is not going anywhere.

[SpeedyBruin]

"it is a positive one that warrants civic recognition"

It is not civic recognition that you're asking for it's benefits. So far none of your claims ring true:

Your objections

1. Changing marriage benefits is objectionable merely because it's a change

2. Risk to children

3. Population concern

Not a single one of these is compelling and the second and third are based on lies and misrepresentation of data respectively.

[SpeedyBruin]

"If you want to redefine marriage, it would be more honest to say you do not want it, or you are against the institution."

This is kind of putting words in my mouth. I think marriage is a very important institution and that is why I think gay and lesbian couples should have equal access to it. I feel that the denial of these civil benefits serves no state interest.

[TheJoelef]

@SpeedyBruin yep we should have the government ban it ebcause they know what best for society

[Womanizer2985]

Did he just say 'we will never meet our goals of fiscal conservatism and freedom without social fascism?' Did he LITERALLY just say that in order to have freedom we need Christian Fascism?

FUCK MIKE HUCKABEE! I want a divorce for America from these Ku Klux Klan enthusiasts! Keep your bible, and your MORALS, and your Confederate flags the FUCK AWAY FROM MY BEDROOM. Don't tell me how to live my life Mr. Fascist. Stay out of my wallet too because I don't want this monster taking my tax dollars.

[chukmaty]

KKK enthusiasts?  What the heck are you talking about?

Huckabee had the support of half the African American community as a white Republican, does not sound very KKKish to me.

[Womanizer2985]

Mike Huckabee believes in Christian supremacy. His vision is to get blacks on board who share his agenda which includes imprisonment of abortion doctors, the death penalty/extermination of LGBT Americans, and the forced teaching of scripture in public schools!

I don't want this pig telling me how to live my life! I furthermore don't believe this man should ever have my tax dollars if he became President. I would move to Canada in a jumping jack flash.

[CPAsheldon]

Huckabee has great respect for others and can have civil conversations even with those diametrically opposed to him. Just watch his FoxNews show and about every time he brings someone that does not agree with him to talk about it.

Respect for other viewpoints is not the supremacy that the Womanizer speaks of. Huckabee did not govern Arkansas telling them how to live their lives and if anyone has any example of how he did this while Govenor then it is a good time to bring it up here.

[Womanizer2985]

Mike Huckabee is a supporter of marriage amendments including Prop 8. Mike Huckabee not only supports banning marriage for gays but also domestic reciprocal benefits. He doesn't even support hospital visitation rights.

Mike Huckabee supported a constitutional amendment banning ADOPTION for non-married couples.

Mike Huckabee believes homosexuality is a sin as in Leviticus 18:22 which promotes the death penalty for gays (same chapter that promotes slavery and death for polyester wearers)

[CPAsheldon]

You are doing a good job of defining a social conservative Womanizer. The traditional family is a big part so that social expirmenting with children's lives can be avoided. Social conservatives want society to think about the consequenses of a re-definition of marriage and all that would change.

Homosexuality is one of many sins and one of many sexual sins that is mentioned several times in the Bible including the New Testament. I don't think you are saying Mike supports death for this.

[Womanizer2985]

Why should I pay taxes to the government if the government tells me how to live my life?

And last time I checked, the Bible NEVER dictated how our government works. There is no mention of "Judeo-Christian" values in our constitution. However, there is the clause that states the government shall make no special concessions towards any religion or doctrine.

Obviously though, you are a fascist so you believe what Hickabee believes. You are the social experimenter.

[dankeschone]

Maybe when government upholds and defends the Constitution, then I'll care who's in office. We need to start over.

[bigtoine45]

How can you cheer for the conservatives that come up and blame the countries woes on liberal lesbian baby killers, then cheer for what Huckabee just said? Is anybody listening or just waiting for a pause in speech so they can applaud? Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, its all crap. We should have the DARE program discourage kids from joining these gangs.

[levonet33]

From the russian prospective Pitin is the best.From the american=Leninobama.

[lullobiertje]

In they end. I'am happy there just screaming. What would happen if they had total control. Control of nukes. Damn I would trust putin more.

[Gravy2468]

Neither party wants "less government". They just differ on what they want to control.

[ziglet2008]

Huckabee 2012!

Studies that support homosexuality are usually done by homosexuals. On the other hand, a number of people that supported homosexuality as normal have done studies and came to a different conclusion as a result.

Homosexuals have liberty and they do not fall into the category of civil rights. You can shout it loud and often but that still won't make true that homosexuals are born that way. They can live and work and have the right to do so in peace and free from harm.

[mjr256]

So wouldn't it be great if you SUPPORTED MORE MARRIAGE, Mikey?

[Leetist]

Wow, the call for the legislation of morality and limited government in the same sentence. Contradiction anyone?! If I am terminally ill why can't I decide to end my own life? I never got a rational or logical answer to this question from an euthanasia opponent.

[daughterrevolution]

>> If I am terminally ill why can't I decide to end my own life?

You can take it at any time, put a gun to your head and shoot yourself, goodbye another useless, immoral liberal!

You don't need a law giving you the right to shoot yourself in the head. You won't go to jail, you'll go to hell (a place that makes even prison seem nice in comparison).

[Leetist]

1st point, I was going more for doctor assisted suicide.

2nd I am not a liberal, I am a libertarian.

3rd there are verses in the bible that could be used to support taking someone off life support.

4th we live in a secular representative democracy, holy text has no place in deciding policy.

5th Prove that hell exists.

[cpenter]

"we lost because we wanted, somehow, to be the party that forgot what we stood for" priceless

[FaaarLeft]

Did Ronald Reagan abolish abortion? No. Did the Bush's? No. How can the Pro-Life community vote republican when they never do what you want? George Bush killed half a million people in Iraq, is that Pro-Life?

[CIDaily]

Reagan stopped tax funding of my money for abortion...so did Bush. Obama changed that already so that US tax money pays to advocate for and support abortions in other countries.

Also Bush was able to get a partial birth abortion ban passed. You know what partial birth abortion is? The abortion where all but the baby's head is delivered. Sick

I oppose the war in Iraq. Also the guy Bush took out killed many people too. Where did you get the number of 500k? I have seen reports that are far lower.

[adampeart1]

And who are you Huckleberry, to define what "family" or "family values" are? You totally don't get what liberty is, but you've got a good idea of what fascism is. If Republicans can't drop their holy roller shit, I'm out for good. Ironic a preacher man is gung-ho war and global empire. What a tool. Republicans lost because: A: They spent a shitload of money pissing off fiscal conservatives B: They alienated anyone and everyone who wasn't a slack jaw neo-con Christian yokel. RP2012! C4L saves!

[CIDaily]

"Ironic a preacher man is gung-ho war and global empire."

Huckabee is not a global empire guy. Actually like RP, he is one of the few strong US sovereignty guys. He was the first to speak loudly against the law of the sea treaty and other attacks of US sovereignty.

Huckabee is a Christian but not a new-con. He isn't even a CFR member.

[BookedupAY]

So what definition did he give of family or family values do you disagree with? And when has he EVER showed that he doesn't get liberty? Do you know what it means?

no you are just another exasperated ron paul puppet who is pissed because you gave him all your garage sale money and his millions couldn't buy him the republican nomination and there is more than a few reasons why please dont make me list them.

[jerrydoubleu]

you were defeated cause you're idiots.

[goldgrif]

really? prolife, probombs! families? only for whites, straight and xian,

you lost because you are outta touch, how can a man with 8, or 14 homes or...whatever understand what people are up to, ronald reagan was the worse thing to happen to the country and the world, loved big business and big oil and since him the repub increase spending

[CIDaily]

"prolife, probombs! families?"

that is a sick sterotype.

lets be fair...no pro-life organization has ever endorsed bombing clinics. you are using hate mongering. are there wackos...yeah...they are mixed in our society. lets call them out and not the innocent.

[adampeart1]

I think he meant "pro-bombs" as in the bombs we drop on innocent brown people with different beliefs and cultures worldwide... just a guess. That being said, goldgrif is a puppet of class warfare...he really despises people making more money than him, and thinks it's fair to steal it away and redistribute to the least productive members of society. You can tell in his comments he's not a reader, he just regurgitates rhetoric... like some neo-cons and liberal hippy douches I know...

[bbbbbb33]

HUCKABEE 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lydiasaintjohn]

So, he should support gay marriage so that those gays who are raising children can marry and raise children as he says, in a stable home. I wish he would understand what the fuck it is he is actually saying and then follow through, by, yes voting for Gay marriage >:P

[CIDaily]

looking at statistics from Europe...only 3-6% of gays are married at at any given time. the data shows that they have a very hard time keeping stable partner relationships. the long-term stability of homosexual relationships are significantly lower than heterosexual relationship which does bode badly for children.

[adampeart1]

That's some Pat Robertson reasoning and statistics for ya! 700Club "News"...give me a fucking break.... Why do you need to control people's personal lives so much? That's a tactic liberal fascist douches use. Stop it. Ponder this word "Liberty."

[lydiasaintjohn]

Give linkage to such studies.

[CIDaily]

Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Sweden who have registered their unions: The number of registered same-sex unions in Sweden is reported to be about 1,500 (for a total of 3,000 individuals) out of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 140,000.[26] This indicates that only about two percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into legally recognized unions.

[CIDaily]

Put another way, about 98 percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians do not officially register as same-sex couples.

Scott Shane, "Many Swedes Say 'I Don't' to Nuptials; Unions" Baltimore Sun (January 16, 2004): 1A.

[lydiasaintjohn]

But that indicates absolutely nothing about how stable those relationships are, just that they choose not to get married (which is also common amongst heterosexuals in Europe as well.

[CIDaily]

Hetro marriage rates are 10x higher...even in EU.

As for your point about stability:

"In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."

Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 04): 12.

[lydiasaintjohn]

The researchers also collected data for 12 years on the relationships

of the homosexual couples. By then eight couples (20 percent) - one gay and

seven lesbian - had broken up. This rate, if projected over a 40-year

period, would be almost 64 percent, which is similar to the 67 percent

divorce rate for first marriages among heterosexual couples of the same time

span.

[CIDaily]

What an incredibility small sample size. Can you message me links to the methodology and research behind this study?

[lydiasaintjohn]

done

[CIDaily]

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners." In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.

[lydiasaintjohn]

BBC reports: There is clear evidence of a tradition of promiscuity among some gay people, but little evidence to show that long-term and committed gay relationships are inherently less stable. There is some evidence to show that same-sex relationships can be as stable as heterosexual relationships, but none to compare the stability of relationships between same-sex couples who would marry if they could, with the stability of conventional marriages.

[lydiasaintjohn]

But it can be argued that since same-sex relationships are denied the support mechanisms of marriage, it wouldn't be surprising if they were less stable.

And if same-sex relationships are less stable, that's actually a good reason to allow same-sex marriage, since marriage will provide same-sex relationships with the support they need to form solid and long-lasting components of society.

[CIDaily]

"But it can be argued that since same-sex relationships are denied the support mechanisms of marriage, it wouldn't be surprising if they were less stable."

This argument is a big fail. Why? Because in the nations that allow homosexual marriage, we don't see increases in stability or significant marriage rates. Also, my personal experience with my gay friends is that they do not have long-term relationships.

[lydiasaintjohn]

My personal experience is the exact opposite. The relationships of the homosexual couples in my church are very strong and many of them longer term than a lot of the straight people I know. The reports I see seem to imply that there is not enough data to show that hetrosexual marriages are any longer lasting than homosexual ones.

[lydiasaintjohn]

UW reports: "Gay and lesbian couples are a lot more mature, more considerate in trying to improve a relationship and have a greater awareness of equality in a relationship than straight couples," said John Gottman...Gay and lesbian relationships seem to be marked by what Gottman calls "the triumph of positive emotions over negative emotions." "Negative emotions have more impact in heterosexual relationships," he said...Another interesting thing... was that gays and lesbians are more honest.

[CIDaily]

How did this study quantify maturity, awareness of equality, and honesty?

The data is clear that there is greatly increased reports of emotional abuse in homosexual relationships. It is also not uprisings that homosexuals have increased levels of drug use and alcoholism. (Just read the LATimes article from about 2 years ago)

[lydiasaintjohn]

All the research that says that homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse as a child has long since been debunked. If there is an increase in drug use, wouldn't it be tied to all the hatred and stress caused by how society treats those who are homosexual? How many have to fight with family when they come out. If society provided the same support, than I bet what increase in drug use would fall right in line with Joe Public.

[HebertForHuck]

Gay marriage is not good for the next generation.

And also if you believe that God exist?..thinking about the posibility of a gay marriage is abomination.