This is untrue.

Why can’t you use honesty and truth to support your position?

The Piers Morgan video shows very clearly that this guys uses specious, false arguments to make his point and refuses to even think about debating or discussing.
Much like you.

Having your hate pointed out to you must be pretty awful, but I don’t think it compares.

Nor should yours.

Getting into a discussion about Creationism is pointless and off topic.

I’d like you to define bible thumpers first but if you mean all Christians then you’re severely uninformed

I wish I had that much faith. And yet Christians are mocked for believing in God…your position is way more far fetched for me to believe.

Homosexuality being illegal was wrong and this wrong was corrected. The reason it was wrong is because it harmed no one and was between two consenting adults.

All the other things you are talking about are completely different because they cause harm to others and, thus, won’t ever be changed.

Just as there is no valid reason for opposing same sex marriage, there is no valid reason to support the removal of consent laws.

The scenario you are proposing is a false one that could never be an extension of marriage equality.

It is nothing more than an easily and previously debunked bit of scaremongering, the slippery slope argument.

It is false and it is dishonest.

Your arguments are false and dishonest.

I think your bible has something to say about that. The whole “false witness” thing.

Why is it so hard to support your position honestly? Why do you have to resort to lies?

So? Got any?

Or can we dismiss your claims as baseless lies that you made up?

I’m guessing we can.

What’s your definition of “everyone”?

Oh great! If you do go, make sure and read up on the Sociological Studies Ryan T Anderson is bound to cite as proof of his argument.
Dr Cohen was cited in Court Briefs By the way.
https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/tag/regnerus/

https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/?s=Paul+Sullins

Suggest you print up and bring with whatever you find is the most important from the Family Inequality website. It is always helpful in a public setting to be able to read something as so often times we get nervous speaking extemporaneously in front of a large group.

The American Sociological Association spent not just one page or two pages but several pages pointing out the methodological flaws in the Mark Regnerus research, in a brief to our United States Supreme Court. Both Regnerus and Father Paul Sullins are Sociologists so that would be their National Professional Organization’s opinion on the Regnerus research. The Sullins study came out to late to make it into the court case if I remember right.
Here is their press release and inside the press release at the end of the first line is the full brief to the court.
http://www.asanet.org/press/amicus_brief_marriage_equality_2015.cfm

I know exactly who Ryan t Anderson is going to cite. Next is Joe Price (Mormon, Brigham Young Univ), Doug Allen (Evangelical out of Canada), Catherine Pakaluk (Catholic Ave Maria University). All 3 of these guys are not even Sociologists, they are Economists, LOLZ! Now Price and Allen testified as Expert Witnesses in the DeBore Federal Michigan Trial. They.Were.Creamed! during cross examination. On our side Dr Michael Rosenfeld from Stanford University testified as an expert. Boy did Rosenfeld ever destroy Price & Allen. In fact here is exactly what the Judge said in his ruling,
“Even Regnerus recognized the limitations of the NFSS. In his expert report, Regnerus acknowledged that “any suboptimal outcomes may not be due to the sexual orientation of the parent” and that “[t]he exact source of group differences” are unknown. Defs.’ Ex. 28 at 5. Moreover, of the only two participants who reported living with their mother and her same-sex
partner for their entire childhood, Regnerus found each of them to be “comparatively well adjusted on most developmental and contemporary outcomes.” Id. at 11
[snip]
The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 “study” was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it “essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society” and which “was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.”
…While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged. Additionally, the NFSS is flawed on its face, as it purported to study “a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18-39) who were raised in
different types of family arrangements” (emphasis added), but in fact it did not study this at all,as Regnerus equated being raised by a same-sex couple with having ever lived with a parent who had a “romantic relationship with someone of the same sex” for any length of time. Whatever Regnerus may have found in this “study,” he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a
scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples. It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars, and that Regnerus’s own sociology department at the University of Texas has distanced itself from the NFSS in particular and Dr. Regnerus’s views in general and reaffirmed the aforementioned APA position statement.
[snip]

The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks’s testimony is largely unbelievable. He characterized the overwhelming consensus among sociologists and psychologists who endorse the “no differences” viewpoint as “group think,” by which he said he meant a politically correct viewpoint that the majority has accepted without subjecting it to proper scientific scrutiny.

So remember these names, Joe Price, Doug Allen & Loren Marks and giving testimony under oath and subject to cross examination what the Judge felt about them. Federal judge, old, appointed by Regan or Bush I think.
Here is the link to the Court Ruling double click on that blury first page and it will then download to a .pdf file. All the Sociologists (and economists) commentary starts at page 4
Print it up and take it with you, highlighted.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DeBoer_v._Snyder_ED_Mi_Findings_of_Fact_and_Conclusions_of_Law.pdf

He might just throw in a new study that is simply a rehashing of the Sarantakos study, by Dr Walter Schumm. In the Michigan ruling by Judge Friedman the Judge talks about the Sarantakos study. Sarantakos wrote in his study that the children with gay parents were picked on in school and nobody would play with them at recess because their parents were gay. Here is a link to the Sarantakos study.I would probably take the Sarantakos study along with, having highlighted the section where he talks about how poorly the children were treated in schhol as well as when he talks about he would like to test the teachers to se how biased they are.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/104377190/Sarantakos-Study

In fact the day before Regnerus was to testify as an “Expert” The head of the Sociology Department sent out a press release distancing the Sociology Department from Regneru’s study.

See in court you can’t lie you are under oath. he was creamed in court and the Republican appointed Federal Judge wrote in his opinon that he gave no weight to Regnerus’ testimony and considered him fringe. If you would enjoy reading more about Regners here is an excellent link.

I am glad that Ryan T Anderson on twitter he is @RyanTAnd will instead be giving his talk in a church, that is where it belongs anyway. He is a up and coming devout Catholic who carries the churches dogma. BTW did you know that Heritage Foundation is strongly Catholic? I watched the retirement ceremony live of the outgoing original founder, invited to speak was a priest who waxed on how they had taken so many trips together around the world. Family Research Council is Evangelical Heritage Foundation is Catholic. The Head of Family research Council said at the retirement celebration that he meets, I think it is every Thursday (Wednesday?) with the head of Heritage Foundation.

On that link I gave for Regnerus additional Reading you can search for Paul Sullins also. He put out an anti gay parenting study, but it was only published in a Pay to Publish Journal. Search for Paul Sullins on FamilyInequality blog. Oh did I mention that Paul Sullins is actually Father Paul Sullins? Yeah he is a Catholic Priest at Catholic University, LOL!

Whenever Ryan T Anderson opens his mouth and says that gay parents make children worse off and the social science says that, don’t believe him. See he HAS to rely on that, because he has got literally nothing else. Don’t let him pull the wool over your eyes. I gave you two good websites for further reading.
https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/tag/regnerus/

Here in The United States, that fact will reassert itself in November of 2016 when Democrats will lose the White House simply because the rest of us, who are not LGBT, are tired of hearing all the nonsense from these activists!

It’s one thing to proclaim yourself LGBT, it’s quite another thing entirely to force everyone else who isn’t to conform to your mindset…

And if we don’t…

To take our freedom away!

Why are we wrong?
Do you have a reason that doesn’t involve other people having to obey the rules of your personal choice of religion?
Would you be ok with having to obey the rules of someone else’s religion?

Unless you can prove me wrong with actual evidence, I have to say that you are spreading lies and bearing false witness.

There’s a difference.

Such as? This is why I asked.

“The court through it’s ruling today has implemented civil unions”
No, they didn’t. That’s a misrepresentation of what happened today.

“Now the next step is marriage, but marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That is the principle meaning of a marriage.”

No. It hasn’t. Even in the bible, it describes many different meanings of the word. This is an untrue statement.

“The court would now have to re-define marriage.”

Why is this bad? Society has redefined marriage many, many times in the past.
The last time, it worked out pretty well.

“But it won’t stop there. Once made law , how dear a minister speak out against your relationship. He will surely land in court”

Hasn’t happened in the states. Westboro Baptist Church does it all the time.
This is another untrue statement.

“You have been members of your church all your life, and now you want to get married, but they are refusing to marry you. It will end up in court, and the church will be forced to marry you or shut their doors. That is the end that we are headed for.”

And here’s another. This hasn’t happened and it won’t happen.
Churches aren’t being forced to marry people. This is untrue.

Do you have anything other than fearmongering to make your point?

Why is it so hard to support your position with honesty and integrity?