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

Aug 31, 2013 | Posted by: Sei | Full story: lezgetreal.com

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

Comments (Page 73)

Showing posts 1,441 - 1,460 of3,016
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1732
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You talk out of your ass and then demand I support my statements?
Okay.
http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/bussandschmit...
Now you support your statement about why marriage is declining.
Wow, KLASSY, with a capital K.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1733
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
So, an article written 20 years ago....LONG before Same-Sex Couples had the right to marry is what you are going to use to make this claim......sorry, NOT buying it!!!
Give this a try:
Recession, recession, recession, which means – according to a new analysis cited by the paper – that the rate will go back up as under-employed and debt-laden 18-34 year olds recover economically. But such alter-bound optimism elides over the new face of married life in the US: it is one that radiates affluence.
Indeed, the story of marriage’s decline in America is a story of American decline. But while this is duly noted –“marriage numbers,” said USA Today “are stagnant or declining among those with a high school education or less, younger Americans, and the less affluent”– Republicans and Democrats have both drawn the wrong conclusion at a policy level. While there is clear association between being an unmarried parent and being poor, this doesn’t necessarily mean that being married would lift parents out of poverty; correlation doesn’t mean causation.
In fact, if anything, it’s wealthy Americans who need to be educated about what makes marriage work.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth...
Interesting that marriage fails or succeeds on how the couple manages their finances......you can read further if you'd like!!!
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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1734
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, KLASSY, with a capital K.
Wow, DEEP, with a capital DUMB.

Snicker.
Toys R Us kid

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1735
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1736
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1737
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1740
Nov 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1743
Nov 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1745
Nov 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1746
Nov 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1749
Nov 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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!!!

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1751
Nov 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Feb 13

Is A Reality

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1752
Nov 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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?

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1753
Nov 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,441 - 1,460 of3,016
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••