2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Maggie is absolutely hiding behind her argument that marriage is about the importance of children being raised by their mother and father.  I find it interesting that she had a child out of wedlock and was a single mom, raising her kid without a father... and that was okay!  So who is she to say that a gay couple, whether 2 men or 2 women, is not just as loving and capable of raising a child?    

She says that heterosexual marriage regulates sexuality?  According to whom does sexuality need to be regulated?  

The idea that homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals is bigoted.  Maggie's argument is empty and simply an excuse to avoid facing the reality that she is devaluing homosexuals as people, purporting that they don't deserve the same rights that she does- and that is bigoted.  This isn't rocket science.  Why don't you just admit it Maggie?

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context