However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

Mar 28, 2013 Full story: NewsCenter 25 2,351

However the Supreme Court rules after its landmark hearings on same-sex marriage, the issue seems certain to divide Americans and states for many years to come.

Read more
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2309 May 9, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The ability to procreate together is the issue, not whether or not they do so....man/woman procreate together...man/man...NOT!
<quoted text>
What 'unnatural' sex are they having??? Sexual contact between husband and wife is also a benefit of marriage, whether a child is produced or not...
<quoted text>
Ummmmm...I'm not seeing the corrolation between o/s coupling (natural) and the unnatural coupling of homosexuals.....they are two separate things...
<quoted text>
Sorry, your 'loaded' question doesn't pertain to me....
Procreation is the issue, eh?

ahhahahaha
hahahahahahaha

Maybe on YOUR planet. On earth, we permit people who cannot procreate to marry, or didn't you know that? Are you new to our galaxy?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2310 May 9, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
What statistic are 'you' quoting?? Do you realize that EVERY ss family is a 'step--parent' family???
<quoted text>
Sorry,'all' the evidence doesn't point to that at all..
<quoted text>
That may be true...but nothing is better than mom/dad in the home..all other things considered....
There are MANY homes that are better than mom/dad. Especially homes where the mother is a retard and the father is abusive... or the father is an alcoholic and the mother is a jesus freak.

Sex organs have NO bearing on parenting ability.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2311 May 9, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I have...and so have 70% of our jail population...
single parents don't have to stay single parents, now do they????
Of course not. They can always get a mail-order bride and BINGO!,,,, automatic perfect home. Because only their sex organs matter, ain't that right?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2312 May 9, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there is nothing mutually exclusive about that. The fact is that children adopted into same-sex households would not be raised by both biological parents anyway. Nobody can deny that.
I didn't say 'biological' parents...I said a mom and a dad...
The argument you made is that the children are somehow worse off because they aren't with a mother and father. While I disagree with your premise, it doesn't matter since the children would not be with their biological parents anyway.
A mother and a father didn't mean strictly biological...especially since 'you' were the one that brought up hiring surrogates, etc to make the babies in the first place.
It's like saying that I would have been better off if my parents were rich. One could reasonably argue that I wouldn't actually be better off if my parents were rich, since they more than adequately provided for me in every material, spiritual, and nurturing way. But it doesn't matter. I didn't have the opportunity to grow up rich. So whether I would have been better off or not is irrelevant.
Actually, there's no proof that rich people are any happier than poor people....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2313 May 9, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Actually, there's no proof that rich people are any happier than poor people....
Nor is there any evidence that opposite-sex parents are any better for children than same-sex parents.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2315 May 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The ability to procreate together is the issue, not whether or not they do so....man/woman procreate together...man/man...NOT!
<quoted text>
What 'unnatural' sex are they having??? Sexual contact between husband and wife is also a benefit of marriage, whether a child is produced or not...
<quoted text>
Ummmmm...I'm not seeing the corrolation between o/s coupling (natural) and the unnatural coupling of homosexuals.....they are two separate things...
<quoted text>
Sorry, your 'loaded' question doesn't pertain to me....
Dance, boy!! DANCE!! RUN from those posts of yours!! RUUUNN!!!!

I'm simply asking you to substantiate YOUR OWN definition of "unnatural sex". Based on YOUR OWN definition, "unnatural sex" is any sex act that doesn't have the possibility of producing a baby.

I'm pointing out that straight people having "unnatural sex" exponentially out-number gay couples, right? Between using birth control to specifically and purposely prevent producing a baby, and the millions of couples with infertility issues, I'm really comfortable with suggesting that straight couples having "unnatural sex" outnumbers gay couples doing the same by at least 20 to 1.

Yet, here you are. Crying your eyes out about the mean ol' scary gay people and their "unnatural sex" while having absolutely zero issue with 20 times as many straight couples doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Hypocritical much?

Since you clearly don't have the integrity to honestly answer my other question, let's try a new one. Name ONE sex act that gay couples do together that straight couples do not ALSO do together. Just one. That's all I'm asking. Just one. Can you manage that?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2317 May 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You are posting out of both sides of your mouth..to say that the children of ss couple wouldn't have a mother and a father anyway...then to say they are missing nothing are mutually exclusive.....
If they don't have a mother AND a father in the home...(just like in single-parent homes), they are in fact missing something...
First off, not necessarily. Sometimes by having a missing bio parent, the children as also missing out on being beaten and abused by the missing parent. In many cases, that's the reason why the missing parent is missing. You can't simply suggest that having two bio-parents in the house is the be-all, end-all of perfection and bliss.

Second, if you really believe that the bio-parents ARE the be-all, end-all of utter perfection, why are you wasting your time on the gays?? Wouldn't your efforts be far better spent trying to pass laws to forbid divorce under any circumstances and punish people that don't raise their own children?? Shouldn't it be somehow punishable to have a kid and then dump it on the system for other people to raise?

Maybe we should forcibly sterilize straight people when they produce a baby out-of-wedlock. That would be a fitting punishment, wouldn't it?? I mean, if they're that irresponsible as to have a baby that won't have both bio-parents raising it in the world of utter and complete perfection that you fantasize about, shouldn't they be forced to pay a big price for it??

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2318 May 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't say 'biological' parents...I said a mom and a dad...
<quoted text>
A mother and a father didn't mean strictly biological...especially since 'you' were the one that brought up hiring surrogates, etc to make the babies in the first place.
<quoted text>
Actually, there's no proof that rich people are any happier than poor people....
LOL!!! There you go with more of your favorite hypocritical double-standards again.

In one post, you declare that EVERY same-sex couple with children is a "step-parent" situation and imply that those parents aren't as good as the famed and always perfect in every way bio-parents.

Then you declare that a mom and a dad aren't necessarily bio-parents.

So, once again, straight people get one set of rules, and gay people get a different set. And that makes sense to you.

Just admit you're an ignorant bigot and let's move on, okay?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2319 May 10, 2013
Josh wrote:
<quoted text>
Unnatural sex is sex between a man & a man or a woman & a woman. Easy one.
How do you know?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2321 May 10, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor is there any evidence that opposite-sex parents are any better for children than same-sex parents.
Ummmm...yeah, there is... plenty of it..but you all don't like to acknowledge it....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2322 May 10, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!! There you go with more of your favorite hypocritical double-standards again.
In one post, you declare that EVERY same-sex couple with children is a "step-parent" situation and imply that those parents aren't as good as the famed and always perfect in every way bio-parents.
Actually, I was responding to 'your' post (remember???) on how step-families weren't the best for children....
Then you declare that a mom and a dad aren't necessarily bio-parents.
Right...that was in response to your 'surrogate' comment. You don't know what you post about anymore do you???
So, once again, straight people get one set of rules, and gay people get a different set. And that makes sense to you.
Just admit you're an ignorant bigot and let's move on, okay?
No...I said mother/father...not straight...I don't care what sexuality the mother and father are....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2323 May 10, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Of course not. They can always get a mail-order bride and BINGO!,,,, automatic perfect home. Because only their sex organs matter, ain't that right?
Nowhere near what I said...but I see why you have to go way out to left field when you respond....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2325 May 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummmm...yeah, there is... plenty of it..but you all don't like to acknowledge it....
Cite an accepted source for your imaginings.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2326 May 10, 2013
Lilith wrote:
<quoted text>yet you would contend that foster care is better then a gay couple....right
Hello Lilith...how are you...

Foster care is a necessary thing...but not what we are talking about here...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2327 May 10, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Cite an accepted source for your imaginings.
Accepted by "whom"????

http://www.familystructurestudies.com/article...

Put your money where your mouth is....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2328 May 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Accepted by "whom"????
http://www.familystructurestudies.com/article...
Put your money where your mouth is....
Based on the abstracts that were provided, I would guess that you didn't spend the thirty odd dollars to open each of the studies. Of course, your demonstrated lack of comprehension abilities would probably make such an exercise totally useless, anyway.

However, several of the studies referred to the utterly discredited Regnerus study. Several other abstracts refuted claims that they said the APA had made, but the APA had made no such claims. Furthermore, the conclusions were merely to call for more studies.

Not one even claims that children brougt up in similarly-situated same-sex and opposite-sex households experience disparate outcomes. And that is the claim that you are tasked with proving.

And you asked who should accept? Respected child and psychological welfare organizations like APA and the AMA. Your favorite group of hate-mongers producing pseudo-scientific papers doesn't count.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2329 May 10, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on the abstracts that were provided, I would guess that you didn't spend the thirty odd dollars to open each of the studies.
Of course not...I already know what they say..."YOU" are the one that asked for them...
Of course, your demonstrated lack of comprehension abilities would probably make such an exercise totally useless, anyway.
You wanted a site...you got one...do you not even understand what you put in posts anymore???
However, several of the studies referred to the utterly discredited Regnerus study. Several other abstracts refuted claims that they said the APA had made, but the APA had made no such claims. Furthermore, the conclusions were merely to call for more studies.
Well, there are studies that discredit 'your' studies too. So what???

Then if you think it calls for more studies...how can you say 'your' studies are correct???
Not one even claims that children brougt up in similarly-situated same-sex and opposite-sex households experience disparate outcomes. And that is the claim that you are tasked with proving.
And you asked who should accept? Respected child and psychological welfare organizations like APA and the AMA. Your favorite group of hate-mongers producing pseudo-scientific papers doesn't count.
Define 'disparate'. You think because they didn't die in their sleep that they weren't negatively effected by their parents choices??? Of course they were!

I don't consider the APA 'respectable' on this issue at all...in fact, they are currently working on removing 'pedophilia' as a disorder (just like they did homosexuality)....if 'you' think they are working for the kids...you need to take a closer look...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2330 May 10, 2013
APA Says Pedophilia is Not a Mental Disorder
Posted on August 20, 2011 by Giacomo

Yesterday, I posted a blog where I talked about moral absolutes and used an argument about pedophilia being defended today by a number of psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers.

I also stated if anyone didn’t believe the argument I used, then they needed to do some research over the past 10 years and they would find a number of articles where professional psychiatrists have even defended pedophilia.

As if it were meant to be or just perfect coincidental timing, I found a newly posted article claiming that some members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) want to remove pedophilia from the list of mental disorders.

Matt Barber with the Liberty Counsel Action group attended the meetings where the announcement was made and reported that the discussions were concerned more with the public perception of pedophilia than with the victims, focusing on:

“Destigmatizing pedophilia … removing the stigma, and [getting] the public to stop demonizing pedophiles,” and that,“The entire focus of the event was on the victimhood of the pedophile,” Barber accounts. There was “very little concern for the children who are the victims of these individuals when they are raped, who these individuals lust after.”

Just saying.....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2331 May 10, 2013
[QUOTE who="Get That FoolYou wanted a site...you got one...do you not even understand what you put in posts anymore???
[/QUOTE]
I said ACCEPTED and reputable.
Well, there are studies that discredit 'your' studies too. So what???
Actually, no. They make criticisms--some valid, some perhaps not. But the results of the studies are not refuted.
Then if you think it calls for more studies...how can you say 'your' studies are correct???
You seem to misunderstand the words "correct" and "conclusive." The fact is that no studies show disparate outcomes.
Define 'disparate'.
What? They won't let you use on-line dictionaries? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dispar...
You think because they didn't die in their sleep that they weren't negatively effected by their parents choices??? Of course they were!
How so? Prove your claim!
I don't consider the APA 'respectable' on this issue at all...in fact, they are currently working on removing 'pedophilia' as a disorder (just like they did homosexuality)....if 'you' think they are working for the kids...you need to take a closer look...
Just as I don't consider your hate-group sponsored "research" respectable. So since we can't agree on independent researchers, how about you come up with your own real-life evidence of your claims?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2332 May 10, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I said ACCEPTED and reputable.
....and that's what 'you' got...what you 'really meant' was a site that agrees with you exclusively,....
Actually, no. They make criticisms--some valid, some perhaps not. But the results of the studies are not refuted.
Are you smoking weed today??? How can you NOT question the results when you question everything else about the studies???
You seem to misunderstand the words "correct" and "conclusive." The fact is that no studies show disparate outcomes.
That's not true...but as we all knew...you will never accept that....
How so? Prove your claim!
Already did...go ahead and deny it even exists on the thread like you always do....
Just as I don't consider your hate-group sponsored "research" respectable. So since we can't agree on independent researchers, how about you come up with your own real-life evidence of your claims?
I have no hate groups, and am not part of any hate groups...your 'personal' claims mean nothing to me...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Autos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Chevy Volt leapfrogs Toyota's Prius (Nov '10) 3 hr Spam Detective 9,994
News Volvo Cars plans to open its first US plant 14 hr Go Blue Forever 1
News Ohio mom pleads not guilty to decapitating her ... 17 hr GrantL 2
News Photo of kids on Vietnam memorial angers many 17 hr GrantL 4
toyota recalls 850,000 trucks due to frame rot! (Apr '08) 20 hr todd 203
News Red Bull threatens to leave Formula One 21 hr stewart scott 6
How much is the price bus ticket from Rome to V... Mon romeairportshuttle 1
More from around the web