Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

#377 Aug 06 2010 at 10:07 AM Rating: Excellent
**
422 posts
Dyadem wrote:
I think I understand what your problem is:

Allowing gay marriage will:
-Increase the needs for wedding decorators
-Increase the revenue of caterers
-Produce such fabulous weddings that straight men will never be able to compete and women will never be satisfied with their dream wedding because "The gays did it better".


Wait, keep going with this....

Therefore, women will want to marry gay men so that they can have that fabulous wedding they've always wanted! So this is really a fear of straight men losing their potential wives.

"Those gays took our women!"
#378Almalieque, Posted: Aug 06 2010 at 10:08 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Those are two different scenarios. My current opinion without giving it too much thought is, it depends on the level of poverty. If all basic needs are met, I would say no. If all basic needs are not met, then I would say yes.
#379 Aug 06 2010 at 10:11 AM Rating: Excellent
**
422 posts
Almalieque wrote:
to take away merit from my argument.


Don't worry; there's not much there in the first place.
#380 Aug 06 2010 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I do wonder, though, if it were a rich homosexual couple. Would the "advantage" of being rich cancel out the "disadvantage" of being *****?


Those are two different scenarios. My current opinion without giving it too much thought is, it depends on the level of poverty. If all basic needs are met, I would say no. If all basic needs are not met, then I would say yes.


Well, it's nice that you hold that opinion and somehow think that it matters in the greater scheme of legally allowing same-sex marriage. I don't know why you would possibly have that opinion, as I see nothing that would indicate that a same-sex couple would have any disadvantage to raising a well-adjusted and perfectly normal child.
#381 Aug 06 2010 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Almalieque wrote:
All you're trying to do is to get me to say something ignorant and false to take away merit from my argument.
Well, just answer with something that isn't stupid and you'll be fine.
Quote:

Second, to answer your question. In and ideal situation where both sets of parents are equally good, the advantages of the different sex couple (regardless of sexuality) is having dedicated male/female parental role models living at home.
Again, why is this better?
#382 Aug 06 2010 at 10:16 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Just thought I'd add another HA!
#383 Aug 06 2010 at 10:24 AM Rating: Decent
Ash,

It is related. When you make drastic changes to an institution there are going to be repercusions. Homosexuals live a lifestyle that doesn't lend itself to just one partner. This lifestyle is also why homosexuals contract diseases at a much greater rate than the rest of the population and why they can't donate blood.


#384 Aug 06 2010 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Homosexuals live a lifestyle that doesn't lend itself to just one partner.


Some homosexuals don't. Some heterosexuals don't. What's your point...?
#385 Aug 06 2010 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
I don't know why we bother to continue to argue with someone whose opinions have no basis in reality.
#386 Aug 06 2010 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Lack of something better to do?
#387 Aug 06 2010 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,802 posts
Coupled with a desire to avoid working at all costs.
#388 Aug 06 2010 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
Avatar
****
8,187 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Ash,

It is related. When you make drastic changes to an institution there are going to be repercusions. Homosexuals live a lifestyle that doesn't lend itself to just one partner. This lifestyle is also why homosexuals contract diseases at a much greater rate than the rest of the population and why they can't donate blood.




God damn you ignorant ****. The FDA doesn't say that being gay makes you unable to donate blood, having sex with someone does. READ. Also it says "GAY MEN" not homosexuals, since Lesbians are homosexuals too (not just $29.99 dvds you watch while pulling at your small ****).

The FDA also states "Before giving blood, all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977." So that means that if you had a same sex act before that with a man, there is nothing preventing you from donating.

Also, can you explain to me why Women and Youth are the primary group of contracting STD's? Since it's no longer gay men did we somehow start infecting vaginas around the world?
____________________________
Things I sometimes play...

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
#389 Aug 06 2010 at 10:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Dyadem of Future Fabulous! wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Ash,

It is related. When you make drastic changes to an institution there are going to be repercusions. Homosexuals live a lifestyle that doesn't lend itself to just one partner. This lifestyle is also why homosexuals contract diseases at a much greater rate than the rest of the population and why they can't donate blood.




God damn you ignorant @#%^. The FDA doesn't say that being gay makes you unable to donate blood, having sex with someone does. READ. Also it says "GAY MEN" not homosexuals, since Lesbians are homosexuals too (not just $29.99 dvds you watch while pulling at your small ****).

The FDA also states "Before giving blood, all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977." So that means that if you had a same sex act before that with a man, there is nothing preventing you from donating.

Also, can you explain to me why Women and Youth are the primary group of contracting STD's? Since it's no longer gay men did we somehow start infecting vaginas around the world?


I can imagine Varus thinking, "Why, this post here is a good one to ignore!"
#390Almalieque, Posted: Aug 06 2010 at 11:01 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uhh, because life consists of men and women? If all of society were men or women or if males only interacted with males and same with females, then you would be absolutely correct. Since that is not the case, you are wrong. As long as there exist a society with males and females, there will exist some form of gender roles. Rather if it is good, bad whatever, it is natural because women and men are biologically different and you can't change that.
#391 Aug 06 2010 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
****
5,159 posts
Quote:
Are you actually claiming that a male can replace a mother and woman can replace a father? Seriously?

Since studies on the subject indicate yes, yes. Of course, you can come in here and make **** up with no actual evidence behind it about how important it is to have a role model living at home of both genders, but until actual facts support it you can't be surprised when no one listens.
#392 Aug 06 2010 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
Majivo wrote:
Quote:
Are you actually claiming that a male can replace a mother and woman can replace a father? Seriously?

Since studies on the subject indicate yes, yes. Of course, you can come in here and make sh*t up with no actual evidence behind it about how important it is to have a role model living at home of both genders, but until actual facts support it you can't be surprised when no one listens.


Will you post a cite, please? I had thought I had read the same somewhere, but I couldn't remember where so I didn't want to post it.
#393 Aug 06 2010 at 11:27 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,159 posts
Sorry, I don't have access to the specific documents I read while I'm out of school, and our next term doesn't start for a couple of weeks. You can pretty much take your pick from Google, though. Most of the research is in early stages, since even letting homosexual couples raise children was taboo until recently and many of the children are still in their formative years, but the preliminary results are promising.
#394 Aug 06 2010 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
There are a few out there. Here's one.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#395 Aug 06 2010 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,802 posts
Majivo wrote:
Quote:
Are you actually claiming that a male can replace a mother and woman can replace a father? Seriously?

Since studies on the subject indicate yes, yes. Of course, you can come in here and make sh*t up with no actual evidence behind it about how important it is to have a role model living at home of both genders, but until actual facts support it you can't be surprised when no one listens.


We actually had an older law clerk that was exactly in this situation. She was called Daddy and her wife was called Mommy by their kids. Kids seemed totally fine and well-adjusted. Ages ranged from baby to about 9 years old.
#396 Aug 06 2010 at 12:12 PM Rating: Decent
Mojivo,

Actually studies show that homosexuals are twice as likely to engage in violence in the household than hetero's.

Taking this into account how can you sit there and say that children raised in households that have twice as much violence are not going to suffer more than those not raised in those conditions?


Quote:
Regarding studies regarding homosexual couples and violence, a recent study by the Canadian government regarding homosexual couples states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples".[1] According the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies violence among homosexual couples is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.[2] In addition, the American College of Pediatricians states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."[2]


American college of Pediatricians


Quote:
The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.


http://culturallegacy.org/templates/System/details.asp?id=25220&PID=395136


Quote:
In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]

· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]

· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]

· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP



http://culturallegacy.org/templates/System/details.asp?id=25220&PID=395136


Fact is homosexuals don't stay married. They sleep around often which incidentally leads to their high percentages for contracting disease. Not only that but if a couple can marry they can adopt and do we really want young children exposed to relationships twice as violent as they currently are or do we want the adopted child to have to choose which parent they're going to live with every two years?

You liberals really havn't thought this through.



That you liberals continually refuse to acknowledge the facts of the situation doesn't mean the facts don't exist.












Edited, Aug 6th 2010 2:15pm by knoxxsouthy
#397 Aug 06 2010 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
Avatar
****
8,187 posts
I'm going to believe a website that states in thier "About Us" Section that:

"Vision:

To restore the biblical foundations in all areas of society.

"If the foundations fall, what can the righteous do?"
Psalms 11:3
Mission:

To inform, motivate and equipped Christians and the American public to be pro-active in defending and implementing the biblical worldview on which our country was founded."


Nice try though. Next time try to find something not written by hate mongers.
____________________________
Things I sometimes play...

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
#398 Aug 06 2010 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
American college of Pediatricians


If you want a laugh, check out their "Position Statements" at their website:

http://www.acpeds.org/Position-Statements-Where-We-Stand.html

Here are some more gems:

http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/homosexuality/

Here's a good summary:

The ACLU wrote:
When the American Academy of Pediatrics passed its policy statement supporting second-parent adoptions by lesbian and gay parents in 2002, a fringe group of approximately 60 of the AAP’s more than 60,000 members formed the “American College of Pediatricians.”1 This group has been described by one of its charter members as a “Judeo-Christian, traditional-values organization,” that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions “who hold to [the ACP’s] core beliefs,” which are that “life begins at conception, and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.”2 This group issued a position statement in January 2004 supporting the “age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation.”


::rolleyes::

Edited, Aug 6th 2010 2:24pm by Eske
#399 Aug 06 2010 at 12:33 PM Rating: Decent
Hatemongers?


Oh yeah well you support murdering babies.




#400 Aug 06 2010 at 12:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
Avatar
****
8,187 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Hatemongers?


Oh yeah well you support murdering babies.






Woah, woah...back up your ****** train of thought. Please show where I have EVER stated that I am Pro-Abortion. This is not the time nor the place to discuss that but I will simply say that while I feel abortions should be legal for the safety of the mother (where the birth could kill her, and so that she doesn't try sticking a wire coat hanger up her vag), and in rape cases.

Personally I am Pro-Life. However, being that I'm neither a woman, or going to get one pregnant, my view is absolutely unnecessary.
____________________________
Things I sometimes play...

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
#401 Aug 06 2010 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Wait, wait, it gets better:

ACpeds wrote:
One of the most coordinated efforts to convince school officials to embrace this position was launched by a coalition of 13 organizations which produced a brochure entitled, Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth. This coalition, which includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, and the National Education Association, mailed the brochure in January 2008 to all 16,000 public school superintendents in the United States. The purpose of the brochure is to:

• Promote the notion that all forms of sexual attraction among students (regardless of age) are equally and entirely normal, including heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality.
• Inform educators that all sexual-reorientation therapy may be harmful and should be prohibited.
• Warn school officials that student clubs advocating the practice of homosexuality must be allowed on campus.

The American College of Pediatricians disagrees with the coalition and presents this scientific response:

• The etiology of homosexual attraction is determined by a combination of familial, environmental, and social influences. For some individuals the inheritance of predisposing personality traits may also play a role.
• While homosexual attraction may not be a conscious choice, it is changeable for many individuals.
• Declaring and validating a student’s same-sex attraction during the adolescent years is premature and may be harmful.
• Many youth with homosexual attractions have experienced a troubled upbringing, including sexual abuse, and are in need of therapy.
• The homosexual lifestyle carries grave health risks.
• Sexual reorientation therapy can be effective. Students and parents should be aware of all therapeutic options.
• There is no evidence that pro-homosexual programs, such as on-campus student clubs, ease the health disorders of homosexual youth.
• The Just the Facts brochure is based upon statements of endorsement of adolescent homosexuality by coalition organizations, and not upon citations of evidence-based research.

Regardless of an individual's sexual orientation, sexual activity is conscious choice. Any sexual activity outside of a monogamous, heterosexual, married relationship is unhealthy and ill-advised.


SCIENCE!




Ripping apart varus' sources is almost as fun as hatemonging and baby murdering.

It should probably be hatemongering, but as I see it, a hatemonger is one who hatemongs.

Edited, Aug 6th 2010 3:16pm by Eske

Edited, Aug 6th 2010 3:20pm by Eske
This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 194 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (194)