Monday, October 22, 2012

Father, mother, child. It can't be beat.

How did it come to this?  Why do some people hate those that stand for God's definition of marriage?  A child needs, wants, and deserves a mother and a father, and anyone who can't accept that fact is someone that I won't associate with.


  1. 1). If father, mother, child can't be beat, then I assume you are against divorce?

    2). If mother, father, child can't be beat, what about widows and widowers? Shouldn't it then be compulsory for them to remarry so the "father, mother, child" can continue and the child can have both a mother and a father? What I mean to say is that if you are working SO hard to prevent gay couples from marrying because a child needs a father and a mother, shouldn't you also be working to outlaw divorce and force widows to remarry? If not, why not?

    3). Donald Mendell is a public school counselor who has a responsibility to protect the welfare of ALL students. Being against gay marriage dissolves that trust that any gay or lesbian student might have held in him. How could a gay student confide in a counselor who thinks that he is "against God?"

    4). Who says that anyone "hates" you? You throw out that term far too often when describing people who disagree with you and your position. If you want others to avoid using that word when describing you, Mister "Hate-Free", you should avoid using that label as well.

    1. Of course I am against divorce, unless sexual infidelity is involved. A widow or widower hasn’t deprived a child of a parent by choice. Mr. Mendell’s refusal to support the redefinition of marriage shouldn’t cost him his job since those who wish to redefine marriage wouldn’t loose theirs in similar, if not identical circumstances. Anti-hetero counselors are much more abundant that those with sexual sanity, so no glbt student will be left out. YOU must be full of hate to come at me with your false accusations.

  2. Glad that you're against divorce in those scenarios.

    A widow or widower still deprives the child of a parent, regardless of whether or not it's by choice the effect is still the same. If you really were to care for the child, then you want the child to be raised in the BEST environment possible. And studies have shown that two parent-households are better at raising children than single parent households. In light of this, your opposition to gay marriage for that very reason is anomalous considering your opposition to compulsory remarrying of widows.

    He did more than support an amendment. He opposed LGBT-inclusive sex education in school, said that "a no [in reference to the 2009 marriage ban] vote will give those who use children’s trusting nature to turn them against the natural law"

    "Anti-hetero counselors" is a vague term that you are using to demonize people who support equality and oppose harmful ex-gay therapy. Why must they be "anti-hetero" just because they are sensitive to the needs of LGBT youth? Please, Mantronikk, be respectful of those with whom you disagree and live up to your "Hate-free" moniker.

    "Why do some people hate those that stand for God's definition of marriage?"

    You used that in your post. I did not make a false accusation, you used the word hate, not me.

    Please, Mantronikk, be more respectful of those with whom you disagree and live up to your self-proclaimed "hate-free" description

    1. How does a widow or widower deprive a child of a parent unless they actually murder their spouse? And a child needs a mother and a father, a gay couple intentionally prevents that. When you stand for the redefinition of marriage, you show your lack of concern for children.

  3. Also, in regards to Mr. Mendell

    The complaints against Mr. Mendell were dismissed by the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation in the Baldacci administration on First Amendment grounds.

    Mr. Mendell’s right to participate publicly in a political campaign were confirmed by a Democratic administration that held a view contrary to the one expressed by Mr. Mendell.

    There was no lawsuit filed in relation to this complaint or Mr. Mendell’s activities. [emphasis original]

    Legitimate questions were raised about whether his public statements about homosexuality and children might affect his ability to effectively support LGBT students. And a pro-gay government administration absolved Mendell of any wrongdoing, affirming his right to participate in political campaigns.

    The latest Marriage ADA video adds to NOM’s long list of “defamation” examples that aren’t so. If NOM selected these stories to support the myth that opponents of same-sex marriage are “facing threats to their person, property or livelihood,” it’s no wonder the group has such a terrible track record of actually proving it in court.

    1. The mere fact that a complaint was filed against him because of his refusal to support the redefinition of marriage is the adsurdity of homofascism that NOM and I are trying to illuminate.


Debate and discussion are welcome here, but attitude and ad hominem attacks will get you banned.