prove that homosexuality is wrong.
Rosa Winkel

Australia

#25714 Feb 3, 2013
Justanotherguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, no. Its not that terrible, thats kinda the point of my post. Cause thats a good argument for homosexuality.
Right on, Malthus!
:-)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25715 Feb 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The Regnerus study was denounced by the Journal that published it, moron as well as by any number of his peers.
<quoted text>I'm sorry that you are so f*cking clueless, but it's to be expected at this point. While one partner will not be a biological parent they will unlikely be viewed as a step parent, the whole point behind the Cinderella effect, moron.
<quoted text>My point is that you said something that proved, unsurprisingly, to be completely devoid of fact.
<quoted text>Unless your point is to prove how clueless you really are, then no, I don't see your point. The Cinderella effect applies to step-parents dear, not second parents as would be the case with same sex couples utilizing surrogates, you know, just like opposite sex couples using them.
<quoted text>Hey dumbf*ck, even Regnerus admits that he can't say how many actual lesbians mothers and gay fathers might have actually been among his lesbian mothers and gay fathers in his so called study. For you to continue to pimp that garbage only shows what a complete f*ck of a waste of time it is to tell you just how much of a f*cking moron you really are.
1. The study was denounced by a gay member of the board (surprise, surprise). A member who hypocritically had previously touted knowingly blatant unscientific studies that had the audacity to claim lesbian parents were 'better' than natural parents.

2. "Unlikely to be viewed"? Like the hypocrisy of how you selectively view parenting studies? Right.

3. The point is, you have an unrelated person parenting a child. The fact is, that is dangerous for the child, but inconvenient for you.

4. First, there are no gay step parent situations??? Second, see point 3.

5. The point is, it is far more likely that if Regnerus had stacked his study with more lesbian couples, their parenting skills would produce the same result or WORSE!

Quit whining tricky dicky ricky.

Smirk.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25717 Feb 4, 2013
1. Sweetie, you are delusional, even Regnerus admits that his self-professed study of the effectiveness of "lesbian mothers" and "gay fathers" isn't a study of the effectiveness of lesbian mothers and gay fathers, just the effectiveness of those parents who met his incredibly dubious definition of "lesbian mothers" and "gay fathers". It isn't really a study of children who grew up with gay parents as any rational person would consider growing up with gay parents to mean, it's a study of children who came from broken biological homes with the twist of their having been same sex sex by one or both of your biological parents (if both, he only counted your dad to have actual dads in his study).

2. Your capacity for rational thought is seriously limited, ain't it? Sweetie, a child born into a same sex couple and raised by them from birth will grow up realizing there is something up here that they are going to have to ask about at some point, but they aren't going to grow up viewing their non-biological parent as merely a step-parent unless the biological parent treats them that way. They would raise a child as "ours", not "mine", Cinderella wouldn't be looking for an ugly step parent because she wouldn't have any step parents. You know, just like opposite sex couples raise their kids when one or more of their parents aren't biologically related to them but are there legally from birth onward.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25718 Feb 4, 2013
3. Yes dear, statistically speaking, based on information that we have from the dubious accomplishments of the dubious relationships of our alleged superiors on the evolutionary ladder, heterosexually attracted people, having one or more non-biologically related parent in the home decreases a child's chance of "success". Your trying to make the leap in logic that would make Evel Knievel proud, that this means that having same sex parents inherently decreases a child's chance of success isn't the least bit surprising. But much like many of his leaps, yours hasn't ended well either. Good parents are good parents, biologically related or not and living with your biological parents certainly isn't a guarantee of a successful outcome, or that their kids will live long enough to have an outcome.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25719 Feb 4, 2013
4. Of course there are gay step-parent situations, I've known couples with a gay version of the Brady Bunch on their hands, with both of them bringing pre-existing kids into the relationship. Is it the "ideal" situation? Well, if your only "ideal" is living with your biologically related mommy and daddy who live together in lawfully wedded HOLY matrimony, probably not. But we all know that far too often, your "ideal" of what is in that child's best interest in terms of their chances of success is far from an ideal place for them to be. Just like with heterosexual relationships with step-children, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25720 Feb 4, 2013
5. Hon, Regnerus has already admitted that he really can't fake having a clue as to how many actual lesbian couples he had among his children of lesbian mothers, because his definition of having a lesbian mother doesn't really mean that you actually had or were even raised by a lesbian mother. What part of that reality aren't you grasping?
Gator

Wrens, GA

#25721 Feb 4, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
You're as bold of a LIAR as your daddy,Satan the Wicked One.
Of course he's a liar, anyone dumb enough to let Satan trick him into believing that a man having sex with another man will definitely lie as well.

That's the same guy that tried telling me that Jesus is ok with homosexual.
Gator

Wrens, GA

#25722 Feb 4, 2013
Rosa Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that so terrible? The world is overpopulated, after all.
7 billion and counting...
I knew all you stupid gays were against human life. Your a disgrace to the human race.
Gator

Wrens, GA

#25723 Feb 4, 2013
PaperPerson wrote:
I feel that homosexuality is ok because it means more women for me. And im not worried about the lesbians because most are big butch looking chicks, however it pains the heck out of me to see a super fine lesbian check. It has always been dream to turn a hot lesbian straight, because i was just that good. Oh and the only reason i would be like pissed about homosexuality is if i had a son and he was gay. I wouldn't like hate them, but i would be distant.
An excellent way of putting it. Except that for all the nasty gay guys floating around all up in your face. Talk about annoying, and then there are the bisexual guys that spread their aids onto the straight girls and then the straight girls spread it to straight guys. There are even groups of gays called "bug catchers" that actually try to get aids in order to spread it to as many straight people as possible.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25724 Feb 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
1. Sweetie, you are delusional, even Regnerus admits that his self-professed study of the effectiveness of "lesbian mothers" and "gay fathers" isn't a study of the effectiveness of lesbian mothers and gay fathers, just the effectiveness of those parents who met his incredibly dubious definition of "lesbian mothers" and "gay fathers". It isn't really a study of children who grew up with gay parents as any rational person would consider growing up with gay parents to mean, it's a study of children who came from broken biological homes with the twist of their having been same sex sex by one or both of your biological parents (if both, he only counted your dad to have actual dads in his study).
2. Your capacity for rational thought is seriously limited, ain't it? Sweetie, a child born into a same sex couple and raised by them from birth will grow up realizing there is something up here that they are going to have to ask about at some point, but they aren't going to grow up viewing their non-biological parent as merely a step-parent unless the biological parent treats them that way. They would raise a child as "ours", not "mine", Cinderella wouldn't be looking for an ugly step parent because she wouldn't have any step parents. You know, just like opposite sex couples raise their kids when one or more of their parents aren't biologically related to them but are there legally from birth onward.
1. Did you read what you wrote?

2. No child is EVER 'born into a same sex couple'.

And blood is thicker than water. Your gay twirl doesn't change that, as much as you pontificate.

Why so angry about it???

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25725 Feb 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
3. Yes dear, statistically speaking, based on information that we have from the dubious accomplishments of the dubious relationships of our alleged superiors on the evolutionary ladder, heterosexually attracted people, having one or more non-biologically related parent in the home decreases a child's chance of "success". Your trying to make the leap in logic that would make Evel Knievel proud, that this means that having same sex parents inherently decreases a child's chance of success isn't the least bit surprising. But much like many of his leaps, yours hasn't ended well either. Good parents are good parents, biologically related or not and living with your biological parents certainly isn't a guarantee of a successful outcome, or that their kids will live long enough to have an outcome.
So you agree with me that a child is in immensely better circumstances being with his mother and father.

No surprise to most people. They knew that is what God and nature intends.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25726 Feb 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
4. Of course there are gay step-parent situations, I've known couples with a gay version of the Brady Bunch on their hands, with both of them bringing pre-existing kids into the relationship. Is it the "ideal" situation? Well, if your only "ideal" is living with your biologically related mommy and daddy who live together in lawfully wedded HOLY matrimony, probably not. But we all know that far too often, your "ideal" of what is in that child's best interest in terms of their chances of success is far from an ideal place for them to be. Just like with heterosexual relationships with step-children, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
Come on tricky ricky dicky,

MOST often things work better for kids with their biological parents.

MOST often they DON'T work out better in default situations. And according to the latest, largest, most scientific study available, especially with lesbian couples.

Just the straight facts.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25727 Feb 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
5. Hon, Regnerus has already admitted that he really can't fake having a clue as to how many actual lesbian couples he had among his children of lesbian mothers, because his definition of having a lesbian mother doesn't really mean that you actually had or were even raised by a lesbian mother. What part of that reality aren't you grasping?
Sugar bunns (Isn't that what your partner calls you?), Regnerus gave the most fair treatment he could of all seven family types he studied.

You are demanding the 'special' treatment other studies of lesbian couples with children gave. Perhaps you are confused, those are the ones that are debunked as distorted and unscientific.

Smile.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25728 Feb 4, 2013
Gator wrote:
Of course he's a liar, anyone dumb enough to let Satan trick him into believing that a man having sex with another man will definitely lie as well.
That's the same guy that tried telling me that Jesus is ok with homosexual.
Sweetie, you do realize that you've rushed in to agree with someone who is more than just a wee bit seriously crazy, don't you? The reason I call him Adolf is because he was oblivious enough to keep posting to this thread using the name Adolf Hitler. He's also posted to this thread as a Muslim on several occasions, so there's no real way of telling what his beliefs actually are, if any.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25729 Feb 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
1. Did you read what you wrote?
What part of a study of gay parents that the study's own author admits wasn't a study of gay parents aren't you getting?
KiMare wrote:
2. No child is EVER 'born into a same sex couple'.
And blood is thicker than water. Your gay twirl doesn't change that, as much as you pontificate.
Sweetie, under the law in most states, when a child is born to one partner in a legal marriage through the use of donated egg or sperm, their spouse is listed as the child's second parent, biologically related or not. Legally that child is born into the relationship/marriage, even when it is a physical impossibility. No twirl, no pontification, simply a matter of fact statement of long settled law. It has also been applied to same sex couples in legally recognized civil unions and marriages. See the Miller Jenkins case for a bad example.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25730 Feb 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:

Come on tricky ricky dicky,
MOST often things work better for kids with their biological parents.
MOST often they DON'T work out better in default situations. And according to the latest, largest, most scientific study available, especially with lesbian couples.
Just the straight facts.
Smile.
Your thoughts should be just as painful to think as they are to read. Buttercup, your generalizations are meaningless, having an intact nuclear family is not a guarantee of success any more than having a non-nuclear family is a guarantee of failure. We all know of nuclear families which proved to be toxic and so-called non-traditional families which have proved more than successful. You can quote statistics all you want, but the reality is its the people involved that are more important than their demographic.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25731 Feb 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Sugar bunns (Isn't that what your partner calls you?), Regnerus gave the most fair treatment he could of all seven family types he studied.
You are demanding the 'special' treatment other studies of lesbian couples with children gave. Perhaps you are confused, those are the ones that are debunked as distorted and unscientific.
Smile.
Sweetie, by his own admission, his family types of "lesbian mothers" and "gay fathers" didn't really include many folk that were actually "lesbian mothers" or "gay fathers", only people who met his dubious definition. The only thing that these children actually had in common was having come from a broken biological home, only one of the participants had been raised since childhood by a same sex couple, the vast majority never actually lived with a parent in a same sex relationship. For you to claim that it shows the flaws of same sex parenting is just absurd on its face.

I don't demand special treatment for studies on LGBT folk hon, I just think that it would be nice if it had been a study of children who were actually raised by lesbian mothers and/or gay fathers and not the clusterf*ck it turned into. I also appreciate it when they are honest, this one wasn't. It was done as a hit piece of biased research, like so much of the anti-gay so-called science out there. But this one tried to go legitimate, when it should be painfully clear to anyone who actually read that tripe that it wasn't.

Since: Dec 09

Cleveland, TN

#25732 Feb 4, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
God never intended for men to be romantically involved with one another.
Well it's a good thing for all the homosexuals that this God of yours is a myth. phew, there's a load off.

Seriously, how can you say with a straight face that there's a God who made gays, but never intended for them to be gay? That there's a God who created good and evil and everything else, but the evil is actually our fault, as is the fact that He created us to desire evil ways...so naturally we gotta burn if we don't choose to act as opposite as possible of the way He created us...

It's just nonsense. Any God would understand that this doesn't make sense. Why would He want people to be further encouraged to steer away from Him by telling a bunch of dipshit men to write a bunch of silly convoluted stories? He REALLY wants to make it even that much harder for all us humans to not be the way he made us? ugh...

Since: Dec 09

Cleveland, TN

#25733 Feb 4, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
You're as bold of a LIAR as your daddy,Satan the Wicked One.
What about his daddy, God, the one who created wickedness for which we all must burn? What kind of an asshole would set a plate of cookies in front of a bunch of kids, just to tell them not to eat them, or else burn forever, but let me make you really crave the cookies too...p.s. I love you and am forgiving!

Since: Dec 09

Cleveland, TN

#25734 Feb 4, 2013
Elohimsokie wrote:
<quoted text>Most of 'em are reprobates and Yahweh will not hear them.
Santa doesn't actually get your mail either. But I'm still holdin out for that genuine unicorn horn...

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min RiversideRedneck 92,233
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min RiversideRedneck 979,249
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 21 min RADEKT 285,936
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Patriot 667,504
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr ChristineM 445,557
News Letter: DNC accept responsibility 1 hr Rider on the Storm 24
The Best Song! (Feb '07) 2 hr Fred 934
More from around the web