# Video Clip of a kid with two fathers (yes, that kind)



## Kagom (Oct 17, 2006)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM&NR[/ame]

Say what you will.  I just thought it was nice to see a kid being taken care of.


----------



## dmp (Oct 18, 2006)

No YouTube from work - but if that's a vid showing a boy living with/influenced by two Gay men, it's a VERY sad story.  They are likely causing that boy irreparable harm.


----------



## Nienna (Oct 18, 2006)

Nice that he is being taken care of. Only wish he would have the chance to experience the love of a mother, too.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 18, 2006)

Nienna said:


> Nice that he is being taken care of. Only wish he would have the chance to experience the love of a mother, too.


Most of the time, these kids do have the mater/fraternal role in their life via friends and family.

dmp: I highly disagree with that.


----------



## dmp (Oct 18, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Most of the time, these kids do have the mater/fraternal role in their life via friends and family.



Which absolutely does NOTHING to provide a child with a 'mother'. 



> dmp: I highly disagree with that.




I would expect nothing less.  I still love you, however...and believe in you.  Don't give up completely on yourself, okay, brother?


----------



## Nienna (Oct 18, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Most of the time, these kids do have the mater/fraternal role in their life via friends and family.
> 
> dmp: I highly disagree with that.



Friends & family are nice, but only a female in the ROLE of a mother can provide a child with the kind of influence against which he/she molds his/her character. Same applies to children of divorced parents.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 18, 2006)

Nienna said:


> Friends & family are nice, but only a female in the ROLE of a mother can provide a child with the kind of influence against which he/she molds his/her character. Same applies to children of divorced parents.


And I'm the child of divorced parents and I had had a lot of males take the role of father to me (mostly family and one "boyfriend" my mom had).  The scales tend to tip to me being very masculine because of said influences and roles.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Oct 18, 2006)

I wonder who the boy's real mother is.  I bet the kid wonders that too and what it would have been like to have lived with her....or a real adoptive mother.

This display is sickening.  Did this kid get up on a stage and sing about "two fathers" all on his own?  I doubt it.  Just more homosexual propaganda....this time using a child as a prop.  I also don't like the children in the audience being propagandized either.

The "two fathers" may think they are doing good by taking care of the kid...  and perhaps they are, especially if the child needed a home and there was no other available.  However, to sing in public about the idea that they could ever replace this boy's mother is absurd, a slap at the boy's real mother, and a transgression of nature.


----------



## dmp (Oct 18, 2006)

Kagom said:


> And I'm the child of divorced parents and I had had a lot of males take the role of father to me (mostly family and one "boyfriend" my mom had).  The scales tend to tip to me being very masculine because of said influences and roles.



masculine isn't the problem. You didn't have your father around.  Not just a guy to be a man around you - I mean your father.  A permanent, live-in loving Male figure.  I'm not masculine so much, but I did have a dad 'there'.  I'm NOT saying that to say neener-neener - but to illustrate that having a father around won't lead to masculinity so much as it will lead to balance.

Not saying you're jacked up, just saying you didn't have an optimum experience.  

:manhug:


----------



## Kagom (Oct 18, 2006)

ScreamingEagle said:


> I wonder who the boy's real mother is.  I bet the kid wonders that too and what it would have been like to have lived with her....or a real adoptive mother.
> 
> This display is sickening.  Did this kid get up on a stage and sing about "two fathers" all on his own?  I doubt it.  Just more homosexual propaganda....this time using a child as a prop.  I also don't like the children in the audience being propagandized either.
> 
> The "two fathers" may think they are doing good by taking care of the kid...  and perhaps they are, especially if the child needed a home and there was no other available.  However, to sing in public about the idea that they could ever replace this boy's mother is absurd, a slap at the boy's real mother, and a transgression of nature.


You don't know the whole story and neither do I, but I'm rather sure they didn't force the kid to do anything.  And I'm sure the mother isn't around for a reason.  Maybe a whore or something like that?


----------



## Kagom (Oct 18, 2006)

dmp said:


> masculine isn't the problem. You didn't have your father around.  Not just a guy to be a man around you - I mean your father.  A permanent, live-in loving Male figure.  I'm not masculine so much, but I did have a dad 'there'.  I'm NOT saying that to say neener-neener - but to illustrate that having a father around won't lead to masculinity so much as it will lead to balance.
> 
> Not saying you're jacked up, just saying you didn't have an optimum experience.
> 
> :manhug:


I've lived with both parents on separate occasions for longer than a year.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Oct 18, 2006)

Kagom said:


> You don't know the whole story and neither do I, but I'm rather sure they didn't force the kid to do anything.  And I'm sure the mother isn't around for a reason.  Maybe a whore or something like that?



You really know how to miss/avoid/ignore the main point, don't you? 

Maybe "tap dancing" around things is a trait you learned from being passed back and forth as a kid.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 18, 2006)

ScreamingEagle said:


> You really know how to miss/avoid/ignore the main point, don't you?
> 
> Maybe "tap dancing" around things is a trait you learned from being passed back and forth as a kid.


Such a nice thing to say.  I wasn't passed back and forth.  I went from living with my mom to my dad and finally back to my mom.  I've spent equal time with both parents.

I only addressed your second paragraph is all.  It's not missing or avoiding your main point.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 23, 2006)

Kagom said:


> And I'm the child of divorced parents and I had had a lot of males take the role of father to me (mostly family and one "boyfriend" my mom had).  The scales tend to tip to me being very masculine because of said influences and roles.



Being gay is masculine? Very masculine? You have an odd sense of reality.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 23, 2006)

ScreamingEagle said:


> I wonder who the boy's real mother is.  I bet the kid wonders that too and what it would have been like to have lived with her....or a real adoptive mother.
> 
> This display is sickening.  Did this kid get up on a stage and sing about "two fathers" all on his own?  I doubt it.  Just more homosexual propaganda....this time using a child as a prop.  I also don't like the children in the audience being propagandized either.
> 
> The "two fathers" may think they are doing good by taking care of the kid...  and perhaps they are, especially if the child needed a home and there was no other available.  However, to sing in public about the idea that they could ever replace this boy's mother is absurd, a slap at the boy's real mother, and a transgression of nature.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ScreamingEagle again.



Amen brother.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 23, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Being gay is masculine? Very masculine? You have an odd sense of reality.


I said no such thing, glock.  I said that I'm rather masculine.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 23, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I said no such thing, glock.  I said that I'm rather masculine.



In post 7 you said "The scales tend to tip to me being very masculine...". You have also stated on numerous occasions that you are gay. I find the two to be incompatible.

You may even be the "giver" vs. the "getter" in your perverted distortions of sexual intercouse but that image is not associated with masculinity.:talk2:

I also find it not masculine at all to have to claim to be masculine, or to run from arguments, both traits of yours. 

Of course, I wouldn''t expect for you to admit that I am right, as that would take someone who is, well, masculine.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 23, 2006)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Maybe "tap dancing" around things is a trait you learned from being passed back and forth as a kid.


What a dickheaded thing to say.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 23, 2006)

glockmail said:


> In post 7 you said "The scales tend to tip to me being very masculine...". You have also stated on numerous occasions that you are gay. I find the two to be incompatible.
> 
> You may even be the "giver" vs. the "getter" in your perverted distortions of sexual intercouse but that image is not associated with masculinity.:talk2:
> 
> ...


Admitting you're right would be wrong.  I'm talking about how I come across.  I do come across as masculine to anyone who knows me.  I'm not a flamer and I never cease to surprise people who find out that I am, in fact, gay.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 23, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Admitting you're right would be wrong.  I'm talking about how I come across.  I do come across as masculine to anyone who knows me.  I'm not a flamer and I never cease to surprise people who find out that I am, in fact, gay.


  Wouldn't surprise me, as I knew a lot of football types who were gay. Actually I've been told that a relatively high percentage of these "tough guys" are gay. And gay is not masculine at all. To me real manliness comes from an inner strength to do what is right, all the time, not to give in to fashion, selfish desires, perversions, or accept lesser from yourself. Alchoholics are not masculine either, for the same reason.


----------



## manu1959 (Oct 23, 2006)

glockmail said:


> In post 7 you said "The scales tend to tip to me being very masculine...". You have also stated on numerous occasions that you are gay. I find the two to be incompatible.
> 
> You may even be the "giver" vs. the "getter" in your perverted distortions of sexual intercouse but that image is not associated with masculinity.:talk2:
> 
> ...




wher i come from we call that PWed


----------



## theHawk (Oct 24, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Wouldn't surprise me, as I knew a lot of football types who were gay. Actually I've been told that a relatively high percentage of these "tough guys" are gay. And gay is not masculine at all. To me real manliness comes from an inner strength to do what is right, all the time, not to give in to fashion, selfish desires, perversions, or accept lesser from yourself. Alchoholics are not masculine either, for the same reason.



Why aren't there more women like you out there? :clap1:


----------



## glockmail (Oct 24, 2006)

theHawk said:


> Why aren't there more women like you out there? :clap1:


 I think that there are a lot of women out there that think this way. Maybe you just need to be a better listener.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 24, 2006)

Admitting you're wrong can be a feminine trait too.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Oct 24, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:


> What a dickheaded thing to say.



 ...says one of the biggest tapdancers on the board   


I believe there is a big connection between the problems of our country, including homosexuality, and the problem of divorce and the absence of their fathers.  Kids today are being raised with no father or 2 or 3 or more "fathers", not to mention other relatives that come and go.  Two "gay fathers" just makes things worse.  With so many broken families it's no wonder children become confused and insecure and unable to grow up properly with a solid set of morals and beliefs and so eventually run into trouble one way or another.

I think it is time we (as a society) stop wasting our time on the stupid issue of "gay marriage".  Instead we should focus on the truly important issues of marriage and divorce and how divorce and family breakdown harms our children and the future of America.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

Said1 said:


> Admitting you're wrong can be a feminine trait too.


 Yes, for women, I agree. It certaintly is a sign of humility and dignity, traits lacking in a lot of people.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 25, 2006)

ScreamingEagle said:


> ...says one of the biggest tapdancers on the board
> 
> 
> I believe there is a big connection between the problems of our country, including homosexuality, and the problem of divorce and the absence of their fathers.  Kids today are being raised with no father or 2 or 3 or more "fathers", not to mention other relatives that come and go.  Two "gay fathers" just makes things worse.  With so many broken families it's no wonder children become confused and insecure and unable to grow up properly with a solid set of morals and beliefs and so eventually run into trouble one way or another.
> ...


What does any of that have to do with you being a dick? Is this your justification, or something?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Oct 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:


> What does any of that have to do with you being a dick? Is this your justification, or something?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 25, 2006)

ScreamingEagle said:


>


I'm still not sure what that has to do with you being a dick, but since you've gone three two posts now without denying it, I'll just assume you agree.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 25, 2006)

Shame on your stereotypical and prejudicial comments about people (Males and females / masculine and feminine).  You silly puritanical nosey, critical, busybodies.  Im confident that this young singer and his parents are doing just fine as a family.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

> _originaly posted by_ *The ClTaurus*_] [@ ScreamingEagle]  I'm still not sure what that has to do with you being a dick, but since you've gone three two posts now without denying it, I'll just assume you agree._


_

Better to be a dick than not to know what a dick is for, SKIPPY DICK.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=493858&postcount=119_


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Shame on your stereotypical and prejudicial comments about people (Males and females / masculine and feminine).  You silly puritanical nosey, critical, busybodies.  Im confident that this young singer and his parents are doing just fine as a family.


Any scientific basis for your confidence, or just a general loathing of normality?


----------



## Mr. P (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Any scientific basis for your confidence, or just a general loathing of normality?



Do you have any scientific basis to disprove his post or are you just blovating? Just wondering.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Any scientific basis for your confidence, or just a general loathing of normality?




Any scientific basis for your lack of confidence, stereotypical and prejudicial comments?


----------



## dmp (Oct 25, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Any scientific basis for your lack of confidence, stereotypical and prejudicial comments?




Translation: No, I don't.  I just let people come up with their own morals...except people I don't agree with.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Oct 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:


> I'm still not sure what that has to do with you being a dick, but since you've gone three two posts now without denying it, I'll just assume you agree.



You know what they say about the word "assume"....however you can leave me out of it.  



> Originally posted by Mattskramer
> Shame on your stereotypical and prejudicial comments about people (Males and females / masculine and feminine). You silly puritanical nosey, critical, busybodies. I&#8217;m confident that this young singer and his parents are doing just fine as a family.



I am not confident of your confidence.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Better to be a dick than not to know what a dick is for, SKIPPY DICK.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=493858&postcount=119


Is this another example of sophisticated humor? Or perhaps you're showing me how a real man (or woman? which is it, btw?) should act?


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Any scientific basis for your lack of confidence, stereotypical and prejudicial comments?


 You were the one making tha claim, therefore the burden of proof is yours.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:


> Is this another example of sophisticated humor? Or perhaps you're showing me how a real man (or woman? which is it, btw?) should act?


 It is an example of how a real man or woman deals with you, Skippy.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> It is an example of how a real man or woman deals with you, Skippy.


So are you a shining example of womanhood and femininity? Should we look to you as the feminine model?


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:


> So are you a shining example of womanhood and femininity? Should we look to you as the feminine model?


 Who's we? You and your poodle?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Who's we? You and your poodle?


We as in the members of this board, and the world beyond.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:


> We as in the members of this board, and the world beyond.


 I wasn't aware that you represented all those people. My, aren't you special!


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> I wasn't aware that you represented all those people. My, aren't you special!


Perhaps you could point out where I claimed I did.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:


> Perhaps you could point out where I claimed I did.


 You alluded to it in Post #42.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> You alluded to it in Post #42.


Hardly. You made an assumption. An incorrect one.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:


> Hardly. You made an assumption. An incorrect one.



So it is just you and your poodle then?


----------



## Said1 (Oct 25, 2006)

Well. This thread sucks now.

I can prove it too.

And no, I have no 'scientific proof' to offer with respect to my observations, which, btw I do asssert as fact.

Pretentious enough? If not let me know, bad day at the mines.


----------



## Kagom (Oct 25, 2006)

Said1 said:


> Well. This thread sucks now.
> 
> I can prove it too.
> 
> ...


I demand scientific evidence regardless!


----------



## Said1 (Oct 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I demand scientific evidence regardless!



Biteth, moi!


----------



## Kagom (Oct 25, 2006)

Said1 said:


> Biteth, moi!


But, but, I wanted you to prove your point with science! 

You have hurt me deeply, Said1.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> But, but, I wanted you to prove your point with science!
> 
> You have hurt me deeply, Said1.



Ok, you asked for it:0111010001101111001000000111010001101111011100000010000001101001011101000010000001100001011011000110110000100000011011110110011001100110001011000010000001101101011110010010000001100100011011110110011100100000011000110111001001100001011100000111000001100101011001000010000001101111011011100010000001110100011010000110010100100000011001100110110001101111011011110111001000101110001000000101010001100001011011000110101100100000011000010110001001101111011101010111010000100000011110010110111101110101011100100010000001110011011010000110100101110100001000000110110001110101011000110110101100100001


----------



## Kagom (Oct 25, 2006)

Said1 said:


> Ok, you asked for it:0111010001101111001000000111010001101111011100000010000001101001011101000010000001100001011011000110110000100000011011110110011001100110001011000010000001101101011110010010000001100100011011110110011100100000011000110111001001100001011100000111000001100101011001000010000001101111011011100010000001110100011010000110010100100000011001100110110001101111011011110111001000101110001000000101010001100001011011000110101100100000011000010110001001101111011101010111010000100000011110010110111101110101011100100010000001110011011010000110100101110100001000000110110001110101011000110110101100100001


How DARE you speak Robotese to me!  You goddamn metalback.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> So it is just you and your poodle then?


The sophistication (not to mention originality) is slaying me. Your husband is a lucky man!


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:


> The sophistication (not to mention originality) is slaying me. Your husband is a lucky man!


 Best to keep it simple with young boys.
:spank3:


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Best to keep it simple with young boys.
> :spank3:


Yeah that's probably best... you wouldn't want to be shown up by one.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:


> Yeah that's probably best... you wouldn't want to be shown up by one.


But yet you keep trying, Clitty.:rotflmao:


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 26, 2006)

[c said:
			
		

> ockmail;496442]But yet you keep trying, Clitty.:rotflmao:


Except for you're the one who instigated in this thread. I know it boosts your self esteem to think that I'm obsessed with you, but please don't let it get in the way of reality. You look foolish.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:


> ..... You look foolish.


 

Missed again: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=493357&postcount=86

Learn how to shoot like a white boy.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> You were the one making tha claim, therefore the burden of proof is yours.



Other claims came before mine.  The people who posted the following assumptions must establish the burden of proving their statements. 

Post number 2 was before my post.  It says _ No YouTube from work - but if that's a vid showing a boy living with/influenced by two Gay men, it's a VERY sad story. They are likely causing that boy irreparable harm._

Post number 6 says _ Friends & family are nice, but only a female in the ROLE of a mother can provide a child with the kind of influence against which he/she molds his/her character. Same applies to children of divorced parents_

Where is the scientific basis for their comments?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Missed again: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=493357&postcount=86
> 
> Learn how to shoot like a white boy.


More sophisticated humor?


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 26, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Other claims came before mine.  The people who posted the following assumptions must establish the burden of proving their statements.
> 
> Post number 2 was before my post.  It says _ No YouTube from work - but if that's a vid showing a boy living with/influenced by two Gay men, it's a VERY sad story. They are likely causing that boy irreparable harm._
> 
> ...



You mean other than the countless studies that show a direct link between the lack of a stable, mother and father home and a plethora of psychological problems?  Children without both and mother and a father have higher incidents of suicide and psychiatric disorders.  Men who grew up with no father typically have a poor view on how to treat women, as they grew up with no role model.  Men who grew up with no mother tend to be very needy and often try to satisfy their lack of a female parent through shallow relationships.  Women who grew up without a father tend to be promiscuous, as they try to fill the gap with boyfriends.  Women who grew up without a mother tend to have skewed views of men and don't really act normally around them.

This idea that a child raised in a family with only one gender of parent is just a liberal dream world.  The world isn't the way you want it to be just because you want it that way.  The world is what it is and we have to deal with it.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 26, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Other claims came before mine.  The people who posted the following assumptions must establish the burden of proving their statements.
> 
> Post number 2 was before my post.  It says _ No YouTube from work - but if that's a vid showing a boy living with/influenced by two Gay men, it's a VERY sad story. They are likely causing that boy irreparable harm._
> 
> ...



My, it must have been frustrating where you have been. Have you been having nightmares about me? Me and that eeeviiill Ann?:spank3: 

Posts 2 and 6 are expressing commonly held beliefs; post 2 with a qualifier, and 6 with a trail of logic. In contrast, your post 30 not only castigates your fellow posters for expressing their opinions, but expresses your confidence that they are wrong. So I ask you again, where is the scientific basis of your confidence?  Or are you simply registering a general loathing of normality?:whip3:


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 27, 2006)

Hobbit said:


> You mean other than the countless studies that show a direct link between the lack of a stable, mother and father home and a plethora of psychological problems?  Children without both and mother and a father have higher incidents of suicide and psychiatric disorders.  Men who grew up with no father typically have a poor view on how to treat women, as they grew up with no role model.  Men who grew up with no mother tend to be very needy and often try to satisfy their lack of a female parent through shallow relationships.  Women who grew up without a father tend to be promiscuous, as they try to fill the gap with boyfriends.  Women who grew up without a mother tend to have skewed views of men and don't really act normally around them.
> 
> This idea that a child raised in a family with only one gender of parent is just a liberal dream world.  The world isn't the way you want it to be just because you want it that way.  The world is what it is and we have to deal with it.



How much higher are the negative consequences? Where are the numbers?  Do you have a legitimate unbiased link to a web site?  I doubt that the difference is significant? There are likely other evils that we allow that are even more damaging to children. Let us rid ourselves of the cannon balls before we tackle the BB.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> My, it must have been frustrating where you have been. Have you been having nightmares about me? Me and that eeeviiill Ann?:spank3:
> 
> Posts 2 and 6 are expressing commonly held beliefs; post 2 with a qualifier, and 6 with a trail of logic. In contrast, your post 30 not only castigates your fellow posters for expressing their opinions, but expresses your confidence that they are wrong. So I ask you again, where is the scientific basis of your confidence?  Or are you simply registering a general loathing of normality?:whip3:



So?  They are both unsubstantiated opinions as is mine.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 27, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> So?  They are both unsubstantiated opinions as is mine.


 No, theirs _are_ substantiated as I've stated before. Yours is not.


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 29, 2006)

glockmail said:


> No, theirs _are_ substantiated as I've stated before. Yours is not.



Where are the statistics, hard facts, and links to scientific studies?  Without this, all we have is unsubstantiated opinion.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 29, 2006)

"Posts 2 and 6 are expressing commonly held beliefs; post 2 with a qualifier, and 6 with a trail of logic. In contrast, your post 30 not only castigates your fellow posters for expressing their opinions, but expresses your confidence that they are wrong. So I ask you again, where is the scientific basis of your confidence?  Or are you simply registering a general loathing of normality?"


----------



## mattskramer (Oct 29, 2006)

glockmail said:


> "Posts 2 and 6 are expressing commonly held beliefs; post 2 with a qualifier, and 6 with a trail of logic. In contrast, your post 30 not only castigates your fellow posters for expressing their opinions, but expresses your confidence that they are wrong. So I ask you again, where is the scientific basis of your confidence?  Or are you simply registering a general loathing of normality?"



The comment in post # 2 says _They are likely causing that boy irreparable harm._

How likely is it that they are causing the boy irreparable harm?  In whole percentage points the answer will be 51 percent  100 percent inclusive.   Where is the scientific base for this?  It may be a common belief that such is the case (whatever percentage of the population believes it) but that does not make it statistically sound that they are probably causing the boy irreparable harm. All that you have is an allegedly popular notion that they are allegedly likely causing the boy irreparable harm. 

The comments in post # 6 say _Friends & family are nice, but only a female in the ROLE of a mother can provide a child with the kind of influence against which he/she molds his/her character. Same applies to children of divorced parents._

Again, this is only ones opinion.  It might be a popular opinion but it is still an opinion.  Again I ask for the statistics and references.


----------



## glockmail (Oct 29, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> The .... references.


Ditto as before.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 4, 2007)

> TORONTO (Reuters) - A five-year-old Canadian boy can have two mothers and a father, an Ontario court ruled this week in a landmark case that redefines the meaning of family and examines the rights of parents in same-sex relationships.


 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070103/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_parents

That didn't take long. We said that this would be next.


----------



## Kagom (Jan 4, 2007)

glockmail said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070103/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_parents
> 
> That didn't take long. We said that this would be next.


For a moment there, I thought you were indicating polygamy.  After going through the article, I didn't see that.  You failed to deliver to me.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 4, 2007)

Kagom said:


> For a moment there, I thought you were indicating polygamy.  After going through the article, I didn't see that.  You failed to deliver to me.


 Its called incrementalism. Polygamy is next.


----------



## jillian (Jan 4, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Its called incrementalism. Polygamy is next.




I believe polygamy goes back to bibilical times. Nothing incremental about it.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 4, 2007)

jillian said:


> I believe polygamy goes back to bibilical times. Nothing incremental about it.


 Still into that Old Testament stuff? Haven't we gone throught this? 

But of course. As a liberal, you have no capacity to learn.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 4, 2007)

glockmail said:


> To me real manliness comes from an inner strength to do what is right, all the time, not to give in to fashion, selfish desires, perversions, or accept lesser from yourself. Alchoholics are not masculine either, for the same reason.



I really like that definition.

That is exactly why Jesus Christ is the Man!

And sorry i dont want derail the thread, but my comment doesnt really have to do with the premise. i just liked the comment.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 4, 2007)

Said1 said:


> Admitting you're wrong can be a feminine trait too.



since when do women admit they are wrong?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 4, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Shame on your stereotypical and prejudicial comments about people (Males and females / masculine and feminine).  You silly puritanical nosey, critical, busybodies.  Im confident that this young singer and his parents are doing just fine as a family.



Why do people like yourself insist that there isnt a difference between male and females? We are designed differently. We are wired differently. We may share many many similiar traits but we are different. And im glad we are. Because its our differences that compliment and perfect each other.

The breakdown of the family will cause the destruction predicted in the last days.


----------



## wiggles (Jan 4, 2007)

Kagom said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM&NR
> 
> Say what you will.  I just thought it was nice to see a kid being taken care of.



Gay couples make as good parents as anybody.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 4, 2007)

Hobbit said:


> You mean other than the countless studies that show a direct link between the lack of a stable, mother and father home and a plethora of psychological problems?  Children without both and mother and a father have higher incidents of suicide and psychiatric disorders.  Men who grew up with no father typically have a poor view on how to treat women, as they grew up with no role model.  Men who grew up with no mother tend to be very needy and often try to satisfy their lack of a female parent through shallow relationships.  Women who grew up without a father tend to be promiscuous, as they try to fill the gap with boyfriends.  Women who grew up without a mother tend to have skewed views of men and don't really act normally around them.
> 
> This idea that a child raised in a family with only one gender of parent is just a liberal dream world.  The world isn't the way you want it to be just because you want it that way.  The world is what it is and we have to deal with it.



Hold on there Hobbit, cat mommies raise their little cubs just fine...he he he. After all we aren't any different than animals, why just yesterday I remember reading how a monkee just built a supersonic airplane and flew it nonstop around the world....... sure, on "the planet of the Apes".

I find this video to be exactly what I suspect has been coming for years. Not only is the little boy a goner but they have indoctrinated every kid in that room with this silly song. I am afraid a lawsuit would definitely be in order if a child of mine would have been in that setting coerced into singing such an assinine bunch of bullshit. No prayer is allowed in school, no pledge of alligiance but it's ok to push homosexuality on kids(yes I know this isn't the U.S. ...... yet). This song wasn't a little cute song about having 2 ultra cool and faddish homosexuals for daddies, it was a very big production that was all about making all those other kids feel abnormal for having real parents, nothing nice about it.


----------



## Annie (Jan 5, 2007)

wiggles said:


> Gay couples make as good parents as anybody.



You have some data to back that up? With that said, broad generalizations from either side on any issue are just that, broad generalizations. Fallacious statements, concealed as generalizations are well, fallacious. 

We all have our assumptions, based upon our hypothesis or worse, prejudices. Here's mine on this topic: if I had 'control' of all children needing adults to raise them my first placements would be into financially independent, married, two parent famiies. Now some children, because of age, health issues, behavioral issues, they might be 'left overs' or undesirable-in fairness, if I were in 'control' probably fewer than expected, cause I wouldn't be so worried about race, religion, other current 'issues', as long as the parents were vetted 'caring.'

Still, there would be some. Then I'd look for adult(s) that best fit with the issues the child exhibited. For instance, you wouldn't want to put a hyper child with an older adult in a downtown highrise. However, a child confined to a wheelchair might fit just right. All children, if not irreperably harmed by institutionalization do better with caring adults than warehoused. So while my ideal might not be adults that didn't look like the child or have the same sexuality as the child would 'hopefully' have, the child would still be better off with the differences, than the alternative.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 5, 2007)

wiggles said:


> Gay couples make as good parents as anybody.


 Sure. You ever see a mom throw a baseball or show a boy how to throw a punch?


----------



## sitarro (Jan 5, 2007)

wiggles said:


> Gay couples make as good parents as anybody.



Sounds like the indoctrination has worked perfectly with you. I bet you just love "Will and Grace" reruns too. Homosexuals are so very cool!!!!!!Let's elect one for President and all of our country's problems will be solved.


----------



## wiggles (Jan 5, 2007)

_From the American Psychological Association:_
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpchildren.html

_the American Psychiatric Association:_
http://www.google.com/custom?domain...ort.jpg;S:http://www.psych.org;FORID:1;&hl=en

_And the American Academy of Pediatrics_
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/febsamesex.htm


----------



## wiggles (Jan 5, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Sure. You ever see a mom throw a baseball or show a boy how to throw a punch?



I've seen lots of moms throw baseballs. Not too many I know like to teach their kids how to resolve their conflicts by punching people though.


----------



## jillian (Jan 5, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Sure. You ever see a mom throw a baseball or show a boy how to throw a punch?




Oh... I dunno... I've done the football thing with my little guy and his dojo master is a woman who is not to be f'd with.... and she IS the one who taught him how to bust it up.

So there ya go.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 5, 2007)

wiggles said:


> I've seen lots of moms throw baseballs. Not too many I know like to teach their kids how to resolve their conflicts by punching people though.



which is exactly why they will get walked all over..


----------



## wiggles (Jan 5, 2007)

Avatar4321 said:


> which is exactly why they will get walked all over..



Did you miss jillian's post? It's the one right above yours.


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 5, 2007)

wiggles said:


> Did you miss jillian's post? It's the one right above yours.



Women who can beat the shit out of you but don't are sooo hot !!!!


----------



## sitarro (Jan 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Oh... I dunno... I've done the football thing with my little guy and his dojo master is a woman who is not to be f'd with.... and she IS the one who taught him how to bust it up.
> 
> So there ya go.



Not to be fucked with? That is like saying Annika Sorenstam, top female golf pro on the LPGA Tour, isn't to be fucked with on a golf course. She would get her ass handed to her if she plays any of the top 125 money winners on the men's PGA Tour(especially if she has to play them from the real tees instead of the ladies tees). I'm sure any male with the same belt would kick your dojo master's ass.


----------



## wiggles (Jan 5, 2007)

sitarro said:


> Not to be fucked with? That is like saying Anika Sorrenstam, top female golf pro on the LPGA Tour, isn't to be fucked with on a golf course. She would get her ass handed to her if she plays any of the top 125 money winners on the men's PGA Tour(especially if she has to play them from the real tees instead of the ladies tees). I'm sure any male with the same belt would kick your dojo master's ass.



Fact remains, she could teach her kid how to throw a punch just fine.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 5, 2007)

Avatar4321 said:


> Why do people like yourself insist that there isnt a difference between male and females? We are designed differently. We are wired differently. We may share many many similiar traits but we are different. And im glad we are. Because its our differences that compliment and perfect each other.
> 
> The breakdown of the family will cause the destruction predicted in the last days.



Why do children from single parent households grow up with more difficulties than do children who are raised by two parents?  Correlation does not mean causation.  Could it be that the low socioeconomic status of single-parent families has an influence.  Could it be that many children are trouble to begin with and that difficult children drive parents apart?   Could it be that the child was growing in a two-parent family in which there was daily strife and that if the couple had not divorced, the child would have had even more problems?  There are so many factors to consider.

We do not have enough gay families with children in which to make an adequate study. 

Finally, aside from biological / anatomical differences, women and men are the same.  I think that most of the non-anatomical differences are simply the results of social conditioning.  If you could raise children from the moment of birth in totally scientifically controlled environments, there would be no gender differences except for those that serve a biological function: sex organs, lactating breasts, etc.


----------



## Annie (Jan 5, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Why do children from single parent households grow up with more difficulties than do children who are raised by two parents?  Correlation does not mean causation.  Could it be that the low socioeconomic status of single-parent families has an influence.  Could it be that many children are trouble to begin with and that difficult children drive parents apart?   Could it be that the child was growing in a two-parent family in which there was daily strife and that if the couple had not divorced, the child would have had even more problems?  There are so many factors to consider.
> 
> We do not have enough gay families with children in which to make an adequate study.
> 
> Finally, aside from biological / anatomical differences, women and men are the same.  I think that most of the non-anatomical differences are simply the results of social conditioning.  If you could raise children from the moment of birth in totally scientifically controlled environments, there would be no gender differences except for those that serve a biological function: sex organs, lactating breasts, etc.


While there is a lot to argue about here, which of course is your point, let's just address this:



> Finally, aside from biological / anatomical differences, women and men are the same.  I think that most of the non-anatomical differences are simply the results of social conditioning.


First stated as 'fact,' no qualifiers. Second stated 'with qualifier'-see green. 

What do you have to back up either contention?


----------



## wiggles (Jan 5, 2007)

You guys keep contending that gay parents are bad for kids without backing that up, then when someone states an opposing point of view you ask for substantiation. If you're going to keep asking people you disagree with to substantiate their statements, it's only fair that you do the same.


----------



## Annie (Jan 5, 2007)

wiggles said:


> You guys keep contending that gay parents are bad for kids without backing that up, then when someone states an opposing point of view you ask for substantiation. If you're going to keep asking people you disagree with to substantiate their statements, it's only fair that you do the same.



Not me, read my early morning post. My questioning has to do with Matts.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 6, 2007)

What proof does *Avatar4321* have that supports the implication that there are more differences between men and women than that what is provided by anatomy?  

Okay.  It is my opinion, based on my thought process and review of articles, that aside from biological / anatomical differences, women and men are the same. I think that most of the non-anatomical differences are simply the results of social conditioning.

Anyway, here is an article of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2005/1462074.htm

"It's amazing how people's perceptions of themselves and their own behaviour is in fact a reflection of assumptions and constructs in society."


----------



## Annie (Jan 6, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> What proof does *Avatar4321* have that supports the implication that there are more differences between men and women than that what is provided by anatomy?
> 
> Okay.  It is my opinion, based on my thought process and review of articles, that aside from biological / anatomical differences, women and men are the same. I think that most of the non-anatomical differences are simply the results of social conditioning.
> 
> ...



Interesting though that may be, it's one person's analysis of data she had studied for over 20 years. Said analysis that runs counter to most, so either hers will be replicated or not. See:  http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=46327


----------



## glockmail (Jan 8, 2007)

jillian said:


> Oh... I dunno... I've done the football thing with my little guy and his dojo master is a woman who is not to be f'd with.... and she IS the one who taught him how to bust it up.
> 
> So there ya go.



OK- your two examples have conviced me taht you liberals are right. 5000 years of tradition must be wrong.


----------



## wiggles (Jan 8, 2007)

Some traditions are bullshit.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 8, 2007)

wiggles said:


> Some traditions are bullshit.



Based on what? Because you say so? You ever stop to think that maybe a tradition was set up for a good reason. I am amazed at how some people thing their ancestors were a bunch of morons who made up rules and regulations and traditions for society just for the heck of it. 

Why is it peopel dont bother to ask why the tradition exists to begin with? What problem were they trying to solve. And I can guarentee you, marriage traditions did not exclude homosexual relationships because they were homophobic.


----------



## wiggles (Jan 8, 2007)

Avatar4321 said:


> Based on what? Because you say so? You ever stop to think that maybe a tradition was set up for a good reason. I am amazed at how some people thing their ancestors were a bunch of morons who made up rules and regulations and traditions for society just for the heck of it.
> 
> Why is it peopel dont bother to ask why the tradition exists to begin with? What problem were they trying to solve. And I can guarentee you, marriage traditions did not exclude homosexual relationships because they were homophobic.


So, what's your position then? Everyone should be forced to live the way you say so? Women can't go to work or run for office, gay people have to pretend to be straight, everyone has to get married and have kids - because the 50s were just so damn peachy keen for everybody?
Why don't you actually look into how some of these "traditions" came about instead of blindly accepting them just because they're old.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 8, 2007)

wiggles said:


> Some traditions are bullshit.


 Yeah, like marraige.


----------



## wiggles (Jan 8, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Yeah, like marraige.




Good example.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 8, 2007)

glockmail said:


> OK- your two examples have conviced me taht you liberals are right. 5000 years of tradition must be wrong.



Oh.  You should know better.  Appealing to tradition like appealing to popularity is another simple fallacy. Just because something has a long history does not make it right or wrong.  Slavery has a history.  For a long time, women were not allowed to vote.  There are probably many more examples. 

http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/TraditionalWisdom.html

1. It's all right for President Reagan to impound funds voted by the Congress. Every recent president - Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson - did so. In fact, Nixon did so on a grand scale. 

2. Cannibal father to cannibal son: "Go ahead and eat your dinner! You know we've always eaten people." 

http://www.christianlogic.com/loop/logic_loop_16.htm

One good example  usually given in refutation of Appeal to Tradition and also many other fallacies  concerns the belief in a flat Earth. Some people in the late fifteenth century thought Columbus would simply fall over the edge when he sailed the ocean blue because, "everybody has always known that the Earth is flat." "Always," is the key word. There are many historical examples of an Appeal to Tradition turning out false.

Another curious example is of the woman who would always, when cooking a turkey, cut off a certain part and place it next to the rest in the pan before cooking. When asked why she did this she claimed that she had seen her mother do it. When the mother was questioned about this she also cited a maternal example (I may be getting some of these details wrong  at least from the version I heard). It was eventually discovered that some grandmother down the line had initiated this practice because her pan was too small.

http://www.geocities.com/phineasbg/kirklogic.html

The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microorganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 9, 2007)

wiggles said:


> Good example.


 So my grandparents, their  3 kids, my parents, and their five kids, and all us offspring are wrong?


----------



## glockmail (Jan 9, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Oh.  You should know better.  Appealing to tradition like appealing to popularity is another simple fallacy. Just because something has a long history does not make it right or wrong.  Slavery has a history.  For a long time, women were not allowed to vote.  There are probably many more examples.
> 
> http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/TraditionalWisdom.html
> 
> ...


Welcome back, Matts. I knew you couldnt live a full life without me.

Perhaps you could show me where in the Bible:
1.	Slavery is encouraged. 
2.	Womens opinions in matters of State are discouraged.
3.	Cannibalism is accepted.
4.	Turkeys are cooked without one leg.

Regards to your witches and demons, you dont have a valid train of logic.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 9, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Welcome back, Matts. I knew you couldnt live a full life without me.
> 
> Perhaps you could show me where in the Bible:
> 1.	Slavery is encouraged.
> ...



I am not talking about the Bible.  You implied that 5000 years of tradition couldnt be wrong.  I thought that you meant that since marriage, for 5000 years, has been limited to couples of the opposite sex, it should continue to be limited to couples of the opposite sex.  If such is the case, my logic holds.  Just because something has a tradition does not mean that the thing is good or bad. 

If you mean that because a very old book (the Bible) says that marriage is to be limited to couples of the opposite sex, and that marriage is based on the Bible, it still does not follow that marriage should remain limited to couples of the opposite sex even if all other statements of the Bible are absolutely true. 

We do not live in a theocracy.  People do not have to believe the Bible in order to be Americans. Just because the Bible gives a specific piece of advice, it does not mean that the advice must be followed, even if all other statements of the Bible are absolutely true.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 9, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I am *not* talking about the Bible.  You implied that 5000 years of tradition couldn&#8217;t be wrong.  I thought that you meant that since marriage, for 5000 years, has been limited to couples of the opposite sex, it should continue to be limited to couples of the opposite sex.  If such is the case, my logic holds.  Just because something has a tradition does not mean that the thing is good or bad.
> 
> If you mean that because a very old book (*the Bible*) says that marriage is to be limited to couples of the opposite sex, and that marriage is based on the *Bible*, it still does not follow that marriage should remain limited to couples of the opposite sex even if all other statements of the *Bible* are absolutely true.
> 
> We do not live in a theocracy.  People do not have to believe the *Bible *in order to be Americans. Just because the *Bible *gives a specific piece of advice, it does not mean that the advice must be followed, even if all other statements of the *Bible *are absolutely true.


 [bold mine to highlight conflicting statements] Your logic continues to evade me. I did notice that you tactfully avoided my questions though.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 10, 2007)

glockmail said:


> [bold mine to highlight conflicting statements] Your logic continues to evade me. I did notice that you tactfully avoided my questions though.



My statements do not conflict at all.  The bottom line is that tradition does not make a behavior or policy right or wrong.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 11, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> My statements do not conflict at all.  The bottom line is that tradition does not make a behavior or policy right or wrong.


 You compared silly little intergenerational traditions based on lack of knowledge with Biblical traditions. The comparison is beyond silly. And you still avoided my questions.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> You compared silly little intergenerational traditions based on lack of knowledge with Biblical traditions. The comparison is beyond silly. And you still avoided my questions.



I was not talking about Biblical tradition.  I was talking about tradition. Whether or not the Bible mentions it or does not mention it is irrelevant.  What new knowledge was discovered that made slaves free and allowed women to vote?  

Anyway, in answer to your questions  as irrelevant as they are:

The Bible does not encourage slavery.  It does surprise me that, as despicable as slavery is, the Bible does not discourage it.

The Bible does not discourage women from giving their opinions in matters of State.  Yet, it does discourage women from speaking on religious matters.  It also calls on women to obey their husbands. 

The Bible does not encourage or discourage cannibalism.  I doubt that there are instructions on how to prepare turkeys.  Yet, the Old Testament (with the same God) gives bizarre and detailed instructions on how to prepare food and what may or may not be consumed.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 12, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> [1]I was not talking about Biblical tradition.  I was talking about tradition. Whether or not the Bible mentions it or does not mention it is irrelevant.  What new knowledge was discovered that made slaves free and allowed women to vote?
> 
> Anyway, in answer to your questions  as irrelevant as they are:
> 
> ...



1.	The new knowledge was the teachings of Christ. In America that took the Republicans going to war with the Democrats in order to convince them of this. Later on, after losing the Civil War, the Democrats organized a terrorist group, the KKK, in an attempt to subvert the Republican victory. Christs teachings were again used to advance civil rights in the 1960s by MLK.
2.	In biblical times the losers of a war were often spared their lives by becoming indentured servants or slaves. This was more preferable to genocide. There are many instances in the Bible where proper treatment of slaves/ servants is emphasized.
3.	It is good for a woman to obey her husband.
4.	What you call bizarre methods are still used today, and form the basis of many of our current food safety practices. Isnt it amazing that these practices were known of before man understood germ theory.


----------



## Emmett (Jan 13, 2007)

Kagom said:


> You don't know the whole story and neither do I, but I'm rather sure they didn't force the kid to do anything.  And I'm sure the mother isn't around for a reason.  Maybe a whore or something like that?



It clearly said he was an orphan! Maybe he had loving parents who were killed somehow! I don't know why our first suggestion would be that his mom was a whore! Incidentally, a whore may still be a very good mom for all we know.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 13, 2007)

Emmett said:


> It clearly said he was an orphan! Maybe he had loving parents who were killed somehow! I don't know why our first suggestion would be that his mom was a whore! Incidentally, a whore may still be a very good mom for all we know.



Here is a possibility:  He was the product of a very bitter and troubled marriage.  Luckily his parents divorced before the child became too traumatized by the violent relationship.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 13, 2007)

glockmail said:


> 1.	The new knowledge was the teachings of Christ. In America that took the Republicans going to war with the Democrats in order to convince them of this. Later on, after losing the Civil War, the Democrats organized a terrorist group, the KKK, in an attempt to subvert the Republican victory. Christ&#8217;s teachings were again used to advance civil rights in the 1960&#8217;s by MLK.
> 2.	In biblical times the losers of a war were often spared their lives by becoming indentured servants or slaves. This was more preferable to genocide. There are many instances in the Bible where proper treatment of slaves/ servants is emphasized.
> 3.	It is good for a woman to obey her husband.
> 4.	What you call bizarre methods are still used today, and form the basis of many of our current food safety practices. Isn&#8217;t it amazing that these practices were known of before man understood germ theory.



1. I think that it is good that we do not apply every sentence of Biblical tradition as the law of the land today. 

2. I never thought of slaves as being the captives of war.  Perhaps we should use that approach with the Iraq and Afghanistan detainees.  I&#8217;ll buy one for $100.00.  I think that it would have been more humane to simply confiscate the enemies&#8217; weapons and let the defeated people have their unarmed freedom. 

God tells Moses to exterminate the residents of Canaan and destroy all of their religious symbols and possessions. See Numbers 33:50-52.  It seems as though, once a land is conquered, it is okay to take people as slaves in some places but not in others.  

Also, see Deuteronomy 2:33-36.  At God's instructions, the Israelites "utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones" leaving "none to remain."

In Deuteronomy 3:3-6 the Israelites, with God's help, kill all the men, women, and children of every city.  Wow.  God&#8217;s people could not even take children as slaves. 

In Deuteronomy 7:2 God instructs the Israelites to kill, without mercy, all the inhabitants (strangers) of the land that they conquer. Golly.  Couldn&#8217;t they take some of the conquered people as slaves?​

3. What if the Bible had a matriarchal tone?  Would you be so willing to obey your wife, no matter what, if the Bible had told you to do so?

4. Is it true that the carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not cloven footed, nor cheweth the cud, is unclean unto you?  Is it true that every one that toucheth them shall be unclean?  See Leviticus 11:26. 

Oops.  I wore a leather jacket and cotton pants and touched a football.

'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. See Leviticus 19:19. 

Awww. The mule is such a useful work animal.  It is too bad that God does not approve of such an animal.  After all, it is a cross between a horse and a donkey. 

Oops.  I wore a leather jacket and cotton pants and touched a football.


----------



## eots (Jan 14, 2007)

don't forget Chaney's daughter she will  make a wonderful mother...er father?
mother/father don't ya think ?


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 14, 2007)

eots said:


> don't forget Chaney's daughter she will  make a wonderful mother...er father?
> mother/father don't ya think ?



I have no problem with it.  See:

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=513546&postcount=55


----------



## sitarro (Jan 14, 2007)

eots said:


> don't forget Chaney's daughter she will  make a wonderful mother...er father?
> mother/father don't ya think ?



Ya know eots,

 You might have a little more credibility if you knew how to spell the name of the man that has been Vice President of the United States for the last 6 years, was White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense and a member of the House of Representatives. His name is Richard Bruce Cheney.

How do you know what kind of mother Mary Cheney will be except that she was raised by two very decent parents?


----------



## eots (Jan 15, 2007)

sitarro said:


> Ya know eots,
> 
> You might have a little more credibility if you knew how to spell the name of the man that has been Vice President of the United States for the last 6 years, was White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense and a member of the House of Representatives. His name is Richard Bruce Cheney.
> 
> How do you know what kind of mother Mary Cheney will be except that she was raised by two very decent parents?



fine then..cheney it is ..so now i will be more credible when i say dick cheney
 is Illuminati ,skull and bones ,new world order globalist ,who worships Satan at the bohemian grove along with all the rest of them , Kerry as well
a election between skull and bones and skull and bones what a joke


----------



## glockmail (Jan 15, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> God tells Moses to exterminate the residents of Canaan and destroy all of their religious symbols and possessions. See Numbers 33:50-52.  It seems as though, once a land is conquered, it is okay to take people as slaves in some places but not in others.  .....



You do realize that this was an attempt to destroy the sin that existed in these tribes, don't you?

The first reference to a homosexual act is in Genesis 9:20-25, along with the curse by Noah: Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers."

Ancient Hebrew commonly speaks of a mans nakedness to refer to sexual intercourse. The only logical conclusion here is that Ham committed a homosexual act on a drunken, sleeping Noah.

In Genesis 10:15-20 we find the descendents of Ham: Canaan fathered Sidon his firstborn and Heth, and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites. Afterward the clans of the Canaanites dispersed. And the territory of the Canaanites extended from Sidon in the direction of Gerar as far as Gaza, and in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha. These are the sons of Ham, by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations.

In Deuteronomy 7:1-2 we see that Noahs curse is also Gods curse: "When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.​


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 16, 2007)

glockmail said:


> You do realize that this was an attempt to destroy the sin that existed in these tribes, don't you?
> 
> The first reference to a homosexual act is in Genesis 9:20-25, along with the curse by Noah: Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers."
> 
> ...



Let us kill the sinner to destroy the sin.  That approach has not been used since, perhaps, the Salem Witch Trials.  Let us return to the Biblical days. 

Getting back to my comment, it still stands that, on some occasions, God did not call for the taking of slaves but for the killing of everyone in the land that the chosen people were to take.  

You can talk around it all as you like but God even called for the killing of children.   That simply amazes me. If it were I, at the very least, Id simply take the kids, let them live, and teach them the ways of my people.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 17, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Let us kill the sinner to destroy the sin.  That approach has not been used since, perhaps, the Salem Witch Trials.  Let us return to the Biblical days.
> 
> Getting back to my comment, it still stands that, on some occasions, God did not call for the taking of slaves but for the killing of everyone in the land that the chosen people were to take.
> 
> You can talk around it all as you like but God even called for the killing of children.   That simply amazes me. If it were I, at the very least, Id simply take the kids, let them live, and teach them the ways of my people.



The "kids" you refer to were of tribes inherently stained with sin as I stated before and gave Biblical reference to. I have a more detailed cut-n-paste about this issue if you are interested. 

God is willing to sacrifice the lives of individuals to preserve the human race. It may seem harsh from our perspective but for Him its no different that destroying some widgets that were poorly cast, in order to save the integrity of the design.


----------

