Dr. James Dobson: "Shame On Schools" ...

Dr. James Dobson: "Shame On Schools" For Teaching Homosexuality Is OK

There are 3011 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Aug 31, 2013, titled Dr. James Dobson: "Shame On Schools" For Teaching Homosexuality Is OK. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

James Dobson is upset- schools and churches are not teaching that homosexuality is wrong, so please send him a donation so that he can continue to say that

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

Toys R Us kid

Sacramento, CA

#1735 Nov 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't addressing ss 'marriage'. I was answering your challenge.
You asked me to verify that marriage would not exist were it not for children. I did.
The only problem with your article? It blames everything on an economic situation that is far more recent than the decline of marriage. Moreover, it totally ignores a host of social issues, such as I addressed, that most social scientists hold accountable. In fact, if you look to the Hispanics, one of the poorest people groups in our society, you find some of the strongest marriages and families. In fact, they were why DOMA failed in CA. Twice.
Smile.
Hello crazy one.

You don't have to have kids to have a marriage.

Pretty simple stuff here.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1736 Nov 13, 2013
Toys R Us kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello crazy one.
You don't have to have kids to have a marriage.
Pretty simple stuff here.
Hello Pedo.

Stay away from the kids.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.

You have to use protection NOT to have kids in marriage.

Gays need to use protection just to have a harmful, unhealthy and demeaning abusive imitation of normal, natural sex.

An incredible and embarrassing distinction.
Toys R Us kid

Sacramento, CA

#1737 Nov 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Pedo.
Stay away from the kids.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
You have to use protection NOT to have kids in marriage.
Gays need to use protection just to have a harmful, unhealthy and demeaning abusive imitation of normal, natural sex.
An incredible and embarrassing distinction.
WTF???

Calling marriage a "cross cultural constraint on evolutionary behavior" is pretty lame shitass.

We evolved to become homosapiens...humans from our monkey ancestors who no doubt looked a lot like most of those at your family reunions. And as it is many marriages happen within specific cultures. As far as your vague descriptions and claims of that and whatever the hell you mean by "Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron" those too are just lame ass, non-specific, baseless claims which must reflect your apparent opinion(s).

Thanks for your opinions. You can get lost now.

LOL!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1739 Nov 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't addressing ss 'marriage'. I was answering your challenge.
You asked me to verify that marriage would not exist were it not for children. I did.
The only problem with your article? It blames everything on an economic situation that is far more recent than the decline of marriage. Moreover, it totally ignores a host of social issues, such as I addressed, that most social scientists hold accountable. In fact, if you look to the Hispanics, one of the poorest people groups in our society, you find some of the strongest marriages and families. In fact, they were why DOMA failed in CA. Twice.
Smile.
Not really...you gave an article that more or less was discussing mating rituals or behaviors....but then as a man of the supposed cloth who has been defrocked and embarrassed for doing the things you do would consider that article good enough!!!

No, my article actually gives a plausible reason for why marriage is on the decline.....now, you are free to ignore it as you have obviously chosen to do.....but it doesn't mean it's not a reason!!!

There was NO DOMA in California......there was Prop 22 which state what marriages would be recognized from other states......that was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and then Prop 8, which was basically designed to ELIMINATE the right to marry for Gay and Lesbian couples.....it to was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and both are now gone!!!

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#1740 Nov 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, DEEP, with a capital DUMB.
Snicker.
Uh,how is DUMB in the word DEEP? That makes less sense than your usual farts of posts.

The point of a "gotcha" is to wow us with your great wit and sarcasm, usually a fine pun or skillful turning of the original quotation. Yours did neither, I'm afraid.

Yore high falutin' shoolin' din't take too good, did it, Cletus?

“Down To Earth”

Since: Apr 07

Indianapolis

#1741 Nov 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist were it not for children.
Why are you bringing religion into the discussion? Do you want to discuss fact or faith?
I make no 'arbitrary' assumption. The sole purpose of mating behavior is procreation. It is one of the strongest drives animals possess if not the strongest.
Perhaps you should look up mating behavior and evolution, and then respond?
Smile.
Social scientists do not make any such assertion.

Look at all the millions of childless-by-choice couples in the world and tell me again that the sole purpose of mating behavior is procreation.

You have precisely zero knowledge of the evolutionary role of same-gendered mating.

Perhaps you should be the one doing the research, because so far you seem clueless.

“Down To Earth”

Since: Apr 07

Indianapolis

#1742 Nov 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Spin baby spin... I never said children were a requirement. That's your schtick.
Your reading comprehension is severely impeded, yes?

"The only relevance between marriage and children is that it's a good idea to be married if you're planning on having them or already do have them. Sounds like a really good argument in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry."

It doesn't get any more truthful than that. There is no other relevance between marriage and children. They are not a requirement for marriage and you are not required to marry to have them.

There is no spin or deception. It's a simple statement of the facts.

You're the one 'spinning' because children constitute a very good reason to allow same-sex couples to marry - and you don't like that at all. I mean, if you really want to make it all about 'the children' that's fine. Gay couples are raising children, too. Denying them the right to marry denies those children the benefits and protection afforded other families.

We both know that marriage is about children for people who make it about children. The law makes no requirement or restrictions. However, the law DOES say, and has always said, a contract is a contract, and marriage is about money and property, whether you have children or not.

“Down To Earth”

Since: Apr 07

Indianapolis

#1743 Nov 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't addressing ss 'marriage'. I was answering your challenge.
You asked me to verify that marriage would not exist were it not for children. I did...
I read it. It comes no where close to saying that.

It's also worth pointing out that the title is "... An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating." The authors specifically caution that human mating behavior is not strictly or solely or always emergent from the evolutionary process... and that their research ought not be TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT to make such assertions.

I would be happy to pick apart any more 'evidence' you would care to post.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1744 Nov 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Pedo.
Stay away from the kids.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
You have to use protection NOT to have kids in marriage.
Gays need to use protection just to have a harmful, unhealthy and demeaning abusive imitation of normal, natural sex.
An incredible and embarrassing distinction.
Toys R Us kid wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF???
Calling marriage a "cross cultural constraint on evolutionary behavior" is pretty lame shitass.
We evolved to become homosapiens...humans from our monkey ancestors who no doubt looked a lot like most of those at your family reunions. And as it is many marriages happen within specific cultures. As far as your vague descriptions and claims of that and whatever the hell you mean by "Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron" those too are just lame ass, non-specific, baseless claims which must reflect your apparent opinion(s).
Thanks for your opinions. You can get lost now.
LOL!!!
LOL, yeah, I figured that would go over your head. The funny thing is you try to insult my family with a description of your mental capacity.

It's science punk. All you know is how to be an crude, dumb ass.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1745 Nov 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't addressing ss 'marriage'. I was answering your challenge.
You asked me to verify that marriage would not exist were it not for children. I did.
The only problem with your article? It blames everything on an economic situation that is far more recent than the decline of marriage. Moreover, it totally ignores a host of social issues, such as I addressed, that most social scientists hold accountable. In fact, if you look to the Hispanics, one of the poorest people groups in our society, you find some of the strongest marriages and families. In fact, they were why DOMA failed in CA. Twice.
Smile.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really...you gave an article that more or less was discussing mating rituals or behaviors....but then as a man of the supposed cloth who has been defrocked and embarrassed for doing the things you do would consider that article good enough!!!
Denial.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No, my article actually gives a plausible reason for why marriage is on the decline.....now, you are free to ignore it as you have obviously chosen to do.....but it doesn't mean it's not a reason!!!
Denial again.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
There was NO DOMA in California......there was Prop 22 which state what marriages would be recognized from other states......that was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and then Prop 8, which was basically designed to ELIMINATE the right to marry for Gay and Lesbian couples.....it to was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and both are now gone!!!
Aaannd more denial.

You are a natural blonde, aren't you.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1746 Nov 14, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Uh,how is DUMB in the word DEEP? That makes less sense than your usual farts of posts.
...
Whenever it is connected with the name 'Curteese'.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1747 Nov 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist were it not for children.
Why are you bringing religion into the discussion? Do you want to discuss fact or faith?
I make no 'arbitrary' assumption. The sole purpose of mating behavior is procreation. It is one of the strongest drives animals possess if not the strongest.
Perhaps you should look up mating behavior and evolution, and then respond?
Smile.
IndyStevie wrote:
<quoted text>
Social scientists do not make any such assertion.
Look at all the millions of childless-by-choice couples in the world and tell me again that the sole purpose of mating behavior is procreation.
You have precisely zero knowledge of the evolutionary role of same-gendered mating.
Perhaps you should be the one doing the research, because so far you seem clueless.
Digging deep into dumb, huh?

If you were paying attention, I already addressed your baseless denial about marriage. Try reading something besides gay twirl sites;

http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/bussandschmit...

As to childless by choice, notice the word 'choice'. Heterosexual couples MUST use protection to prevent procreation. On the other hand, gay couples MUST use protection to have an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning abusive imitation of normal natural sex!

You 'know' what I know about evolutionary purpose of 'ss couple mating'? Oh please, educate me with a valid site. I love learning!

Just a guess, but are Curteese and you identical twins?

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1748 Nov 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't addressing ss 'marriage'. I was answering your challenge.
You asked me to verify that marriage would not exist were it not for children. I did...
IndyStevie wrote:
<quoted text>
I read it. It comes no where close to saying that.
It's also worth pointing out that the title is "... An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating." The authors specifically caution that human mating behavior is not strictly or solely or always emergent from the evolutionary process... and that their research ought not be TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT to make such assertions.
I would be happy to pick apart any more 'evidence' you would care to post.
Read the first paragraph again.

Do you notice the connect between long-term mating, or 'marriage alliances' and children?

Moreover, the primary premise of the article is that long term alliances are solely based on children.

Like I said, perhaps you should sit down and learn before you make silly stupid claims...

Smile.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1749 Nov 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
You are a natural blonde, aren't you.
No, I'm not......and NOT in denial either......as was stated by another poster......your article DID NOT state what you claimed it did!!!

You really don't get it, and your condescending posts day in and day out proves that!!!

Smile, your an idiot!!!

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#1751 Nov 14, 2013
As we see in Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is the gateway to the homosexualization of society. Indeed, for all the sound and fury demanding same-sex marriage in Massachusetts 10 years ago, less than 5% of gay males got married.

Clearly, what they wanted was not to get married, but the dramatic cultural changes passage of same-sex marriage would have across the board.

This explains why Obama and others in positions of power and influence are near-criminally negligible for promoting gay marriage -- they're promoting the homosexualization of society and don't realize it.

That's the crux, boys.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#1752 Nov 14, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
As we see in Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is the gateway to the homosexualization of society. Indeed, for all the sound and fury demanding same-sex marriage in Massachusetts 10 years ago, less than 5% of gay males got married.
Clearly, what they wanted was not to get married, but the dramatic cultural changes passage of same-sex marriage would have across the board.
This explains why Obama and others in positions of power and influence are near-criminally negligible for promoting gay marriage -- they're promoting the homosexualization of society and don't realize it.
That's the crux, boys.
Drama queen much, Gaylord?

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#1753 Nov 14, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Drama queen much, Gaylord?
Sure, everyone who disagrees with you must be closet, right?
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#1754 Nov 14, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, everyone who disagrees with you must be closet, right?
God I hope not, I hate to turn you loose on the gay community princess.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1755 Nov 14, 2013
IndyStevie wrote:
<quoted text>
Your reading comprehension is severely impeded, yes?
"The only relevance between marriage and children is that it's a good idea to be married if you're planning on having them or already do have them. Sounds like a really good argument in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry."
It doesn't get any more truthful than that. There is no other relevance between marriage and children. They are not a requirement for marriage and you are not required to marry to have them.
There is no spin or deception. It's a simple statement of the facts.
You're the one 'spinning' because children constitute a very good reason to allow same-sex couples to marry - and you don't like that at all. I mean, if you really want to make it all about 'the children' that's fine. Gay couples are raising children, too. Denying them the right to marry denies those children the benefits and protection afforded other families.
We both know that marriage is about children for people who make it about children. The law makes no requirement or restrictions. However, the law DOES say, and has always said, a contract is a contract, and marriage is about money and property, whether you have children or not.
You made my point well, Thanks! Now relax fruitloops. No need to get all angry and silly about it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1756 Nov 14, 2013
Toys R Us kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello crazy one.
You don't have to have kids to have a marriage.
Pretty simple stuff here.
Yes, very simple even for a moron like you Dan. But what's your point?

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 min Hudson 60,541
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 36 min Frankie Rizzo 27,950
jadene on the prowl 50 min Frankie Rizzo 2
News Michelle Malkin: Return of the Feckless Chick-F... 11 hr Anita Bryant s Jihad 1
News Trump's HHS removes all mention of lesbian and ... 13 hr savelittlealfieevans 23
News A sign hangs outside of a Dick's Sporting Goods... 16 hr Globalism is Crime 216
News Greg Hunt must condemn gay conversion therapy, ... 17 hr Anita Bryant s Jihad 1