NOM MN Radio Ad: "Who Should Decide?"

No description available.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Minnesota Family Council
• Nation For Marriage
• Pro-Marriage
• Marriage
• Traditional Marriage

[froggythewaiter]

Get out of MN! We don't need your ignorance here! Since this is a sponsored video I will click on it everytime I see it just so that you have to pay for it.

[SchmitzBoyd]

Do I get to vote on "traditional marriage"?

[RCSVirginia]

Just to know what you are protecting when you stand up for biblical marriage, be sure to watch and listen carefully to the YouTube video:

"Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else" by MrsBettyBowers

You will see why she is a marriage expert and is known by many as America's Best Christian.

[idaman12345]

@newjerseyequality heterophobia is not real

[Nick153452]

@tenfishsticks I heavily suggest that before you start talking about subjects, you learn a little about them.... Your ignorant bigotry is nothing less than pathetic....

[Nick153452]

@tenfishsticks Lol, to answer your last question, absolutely. There has never been a study conducted that has proved any of the things that you're claiming. And that means never in the 300 million years that you states. Children aren't as dumb as you're making them out to be.

And following your logic, we must not allow single mothers to raise children, because there is no man in her life. Or vise versa, we cannot allow single fathers to raise children, because there is no mother.

[tenfishsticks]

@Nick153452 What research? 300 million years of human child-rearing, and your citing the outliers??? Who's the mother to the child of a gay couple, or the father in the lesbian couple? These children love their parents, yes, and their feelings are valid and genuine. That shouldn't trump the fact that there are a LOT of issues (modeling normal gender roles, for instance) that we the public don't see.

Do we ignore the issues that SSM brings b/c the advocates don't discuss them publicly?

[tenfishsticks]

@SnaCake I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. Lifting the ban on interracial marriage was not a redefinition of marriage. An interracial marriage, compared to a uni-racial marriage of the time, could produce and rear children as well, given the same environment.

This cannot be true of SSM, for the reasons I stated above. This makes it a child-welfare issue as well as a LGBT issue. Being the foundation of our future society, the rights of children should be protected by the people.

[SnaCake]

@tenfishsticks This video says "Regardless of how you feel about the definition of marriage, shouldn't it be left up to voters?". I responded that "Interracial marriage wasn't left up to voters, and it was for the better". Nothing you mention has any bearing on this line of reasoning. Do you want to actually respond to this argument?

Please read the words I typed, think like a grownup for a minute, and then see if you can respond in a way that is at all relevant to the conversation.

[Nick153452]

@tenfishsticks Lol.. Umm.. I think research has showed multiple times that it actually doesn't....... You have just been lied to by your clergymen and conservative morons..... Sorry, but it's the truth. Listen to some of the kids who grew up with same sex parents, they never come out and say anything negative........ Plus, it's not imposing on their rights to get married; it's not like anybodoy is forcing them to marry anybody they don't want to... And if they just don't like it, than bOO WHO

[tenfishsticks]

@SnaCake SSM, unlike interracial, can never produce children, can never raise children with a mother and a father, can never model gender roles to their children. The rights of children are at stake. Civil unions are for civil rights. Families are for children.

[tenfishsticks]

@Nick153452 SSM affects children, and they have rights too. Since when do your rights trump those of the innocent?