However court rules, gay marriage deb...

However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

There are 2348 comments on the NewsCenter 25 story from Mar 28, 2013, titled However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end. In it, NewsCenter 25 reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NewsCenter 25.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2336 May 10, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Not if you think you can simply decide what sex is "natural" and what sex is "unnatural" without backing it up.
Is that a pun???

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2337 May 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if you know you were talking about surrogates...why are you acting like you don't know why I posted about mom/dad versus biological parents? I know...because you are untruthful...
Can you read at all??? I said I DID NOT say anything about surrogates in this discussion.

What part of DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT means to you that I've been posting about it???

Here's a hint--if you're going to argue with someone, you should at least make an effort to read what they're saying before you argue back. In your case, it won't make you look any less stupid, but it would at least keep the discussion on track.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2338 May 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that a pun???
You don't know what a pun is, do you?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2339 May 10, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you read at all??? I said I DID NOT say anything about surrogates in this discussion.
What part of DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT means to you that I've been posting about it???
Here's a hint--if you're going to argue with someone, you should at least make an effort to read what they're saying before you argue back. In your case, it won't make you look any less stupid, but it would at least keep the discussion on track.
I don't need to read your nonsense...I already know it's nonsense....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2340 May 10, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what a pun is, do you?
I 'do' know...I think 'you' don't know.....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2341 May 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
I have no hate groups, and am not part of any hate groups...your 'personal' claims mean nothing to me...
You just posted a link to an anti-gay site set up by the Witherspoon Institute. It cites it's own widely-discredited Regnerus study as "proof" that homosexuals make bad parents. It is funded by certified hate groups.

I never claimed you were a member of a hate group. I merely said citing their pseudo-scientific research will convince no one--except your fellow bigots.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2342 May 10, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You just posted a link to an anti-gay site set up by the Witherspoon Institute. It cites it's own widely-discredited Regnerus study as "proof" that homosexuals make bad parents. It is funded by certified hate groups.
Who 'certified' them??? You??? Being anti-gay-marriage doesn't mean you are anti-gay. Funding for a study only means they paid the researcher for doing the research, not for the findings they wanted. He would have been paid regardless of the outcome. He just happened to contradict what other so easily believed...but it was no suprise to those of us who already knew the truth....
I never claimed you were a member of a hate group. I merely said citing their pseudo-scientific research will convince no one--except your fellow bigots.
Sorry, no psuedo-science here...the study was done accurately and fairly...sorry you don't like the results...

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#2343 May 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Who 'certified' them??? You??? Being anti-gay-marriage doesn't mean you are anti-gay. Funding for a study only means they paid the researcher for doing the research, not for the findings they wanted. He would have been paid regardless of the outcome. He just happened to contradict what other so easily believed...but it was no suprise to those of us who already knew the truth....
<quoted text>
Sorry, no psuedo-science here...the study was done accurately and fairly...sorry you don't like the results...
You (purposefully) missed that critical detail that as proof it cites the thoroughly discredited Regnerus study. Research based on faulty previous research isn't credible.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2344 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I compared compulsions to compulsions....sorry you can't get the reference...
Sexual orientation isn't a compulsion. Sorry you can't manage to get an education...

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2345 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
But you 'do' realize that 'race' is in fact innate...since it is in the genes.....therefore, your entire example is ridiculous and therefore, moot...
Actually, there is no "race" gene. Race is simply a human construct based on identifying people based on particular groupings of physical characteristics like skin pigmentation, facial features, type of hair, etc. that are generally controlled by separate, unrelated genes.
Get That Fool wrote:
What are they basing this hypothesis on??? There is not ONE shred of conclusive medical/scientific evidence on which to base this conclusion.
Sure there is. Its existence isn't based on your willingness to acknowledge that fact.
Get That Fool wrote:
Your ramblings prove you don't know what you are talking about...
Still talking to yourself in the mirror, eh narcissistic one?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2346 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Birth control means nothing...my parent has four 'unplanned' babies...happens 'every' day...
Which only proves your parents were as incompetent as you are. Guess the unplanned fruit doesn't fall far from the tree, eh?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2347 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The only people who are 100% NOT going to ever reproduce are homosexuals together....that's it....
Sorry, but a virile man and a woman with no uterus are NEVER going to reproduce either. And if you feel inclined to assert all things all possible with God, the same go for gays.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2348 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying this is incorrect??
No, your stupidity is a well established fact.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2349 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't go to any extremes to prove your point...exceptions dear, exceptions...gay people...no exceptions dear...no exceptions...
You were the moron who made the absolute assertion:

"The only people who are 100% NOT going to ever reproduce are homosexuals together....that's it...."

The existence of ANY exception proves you a liar. You really need to learn to think before you let your stupid sh!t just spew out.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2350 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't notice any answers to my questions....
I didn't notice any responses to my posts to you on Sunday, May 4 either, hypocrite.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2351 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
As opposed to NONE of ss couples...still don't see your point...
The ability to procreate, whether accidentally or intentionally, has no relevance to who is or isn't allowed to marry in the US.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2356 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
That's quite the combo....What percentage of the population would that be???
Approximately 5+% of adult women have had hysterectomies and 5-10% of men have had vasectomies in the US (both rates that equal or exceed the estimated gay % of the total population). A combination of people having such surgeries would have a lower rate of incidence but the reality is either condition alone is sufficient to prevent procreation.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2357 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's the truth...you know...truth??? Ever bring up the truth before?? I doubt it....
"Grass is green" is also true but equally irrelevant to the topic of civil marriage.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2358 May 11, 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!
The ability or desire to procreate is not a requirement for marriage in any state. So it's most certainly NOT an issue of any relevance to legal recognition of one's marriage. It's only an issue to bigots like you who want to stick your nose into other people's bedrooms.
Get That Fool wrote:
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...

Ummmmm...I'm not seeing the corrolation between o/s coupling (natural) and the unnatural coupling of homosexuals.....they are two separate things...
Same sex coupling is perfectly natural for homosexuals. The world isn't defined nor subject to what you or other heterosexuals deem "natural".
Get That Fool wrote:
Sorry, your 'loaded' question doesn't pertain to me....
Of course it does. You just lack the spine to answer it.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2359 May 11, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not...I already know what they say..."YOU" are the one that asked for them...
Like you claimed to know what the epi-genetics study said and then proved in multiple posts you had no f-ing clue what you were talking about.
Get That Fool wrote:
You wanted a site...you got one...do you not even understand what you put in posts anymore???
Unfortunately for you, he does. Your citation didn't meet his specified criteria. That you think otherwise is irrelevant.
Get That Fool wrote:
Then if you think it calls for more studies...how can you say 'your' studies are correct???
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!
Then we must conclude your children and grandchildren are negatively affected by your bigotry as well.
Get That Fool wrote:
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 another of your usual lies. You really need to stop getting your information from hate group web sites.

"The final diagnostic criteria for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) has been approved by the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)."

"Pedophilic disorder criteria will remain unchanged from DSM-4, but the disorder name will be revised from "pedophilia" to "pedophilic disorder."

link: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/775496

A name change doesn't qualify as "removal", you ignorant, lying c*nt.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 1 min WasteWater 1,574
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Notliz 1,419,555
News Democrat asks Villages to stop playing Hillary ... 1 min tbird19482 43
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min taletha 16 239,660
News Backlash for Trump after he lashes out at the M... 3 min WasteWater 1,056
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Dogen 205,151
News EU-US trade deal talks have stalled, says Germa... 5 min gwww 1
News News 14 Mins Ago Trump rebukes racism claims as... 18 min Wholly Silicon Wafer 95
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 34 min taletha 16 7,909
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Denny CranesPlace 393,331
More from around the web