6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage

[The Rabbi]

I've had people call me "Dad" or "Pops" in the street because I am over 50 with gray hair. Does that make me their parent?

Your failure to address the post is noted.

I look forward to you lecturing the children of Bob Hope about they aren't his 'real' children.

Oh wait- no- its only when Gay- or as you call them 'faggots'- adopt that they aren't real parents.

What about when African Americans- or as you would call them 'n*ggers'- adopt- are they real parents?

I did address the post. You derailed it by claiming that merely calling someone Mom or Dad ipso facto makes them parents. That is obviously false.

Parents- or not Parents?

Not parents in the biological sense.
What difference does it make?

Apparently it makes a difference to you- since you have been arguing about 'parents'

Me: If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

Bripat9643 Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Rabbi: Gay couples dont have children. Yet another example of gays playing "dress up".

Me:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said."There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents,and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

It doesn't make any difference to you because you don't want those children to have married parents.

But it matters to Justice Kennedy.

And that is a good thing.

Dude, the children of gay couples will not have married parents even if gay marriage is legalized. What about that do you miss?

 

[The Rabbi]

That is absurd. There is no such thing as "more equal." Something is eiterh equal or it isnt.

No its not absurd.

In 1840, in most of the United States only white men could vote.
In 1870, African American men were also given the legal right to vote.....but not women.
Voting was then 'more equal' than it was before.
And in 1919, women were given the right to vote- making voting even 'more equal'- but only if you were 21 or older.

Yes- voting- and marriage- can be more equal than before.

What makes you think I approve of giving everyone the vote?

I am fairly certain you don't believe anyone should have the vote. Maybe a small circle of people who you think think the way you do. But I suspect you are most comfortable with a Putin like figure that tells everyone what they should do.

Actually, I'm an anarchist. I oppose all government, no matter what its form. Democracy is just another form of tyranny, as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't allow anyone to be able to vote my freedoms away if I had my druthers.

Yet- here you are arguing that government should treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals.

Sounds more like a fascist than an anarchist.

No, idiot. The argument is homosexuals are already treated exactly like heterosexuals. What homos want is special treatment.

 

[Syriusly]

Your failure to address the post is noted.

I look forward to you lecturing the children of Bob Hope about they aren't his 'real' children.

Oh wait- no- its only when Gay- or as you call them 'faggots'- adopt that they aren't real parents.

What about when African Americans- or as you would call them 'n*ggers'- adopt- are they real parents?

I did address the post. You derailed it by claiming that merely calling someone Mom or Dad ipso facto makes them parents. That is obviously false.

Parents- or not Parents?

Not parents in the biological sense.
What difference does it make?

Apparently it makes a difference to you- since you have been arguing about 'parents'

Me: If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

Bripat9643 Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Rabbi: Gay couples dont have children. Yet another example of gays playing "dress up".

Me:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said."There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents,and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

It doesn't make any difference to you because you don't want those children to have married parents.

But it matters to Justice Kennedy.

And that is a good thing.

Dude, the children of gay couples will not have married parents even if gay marriage is legalized. What about that do you miss?

The children of gay couples in California now have married parents- thanks to the jurisprudence and wisdom of the Supreme Court including Justice Kennedy.

Just like the children of Bob Hope had married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

No its not absurd.

In 1840, in most of the United States only white men could vote.
In 1870, African American men were also given the legal right to vote.....but not women.
Voting was then 'more equal' than it was before.
And in 1919, women were given the right to vote- making voting even 'more equal'- but only if you were 21 or older.

Yes- voting- and marriage- can be more equal than before.

What makes you think I approve of giving everyone the vote?

I am fairly certain you don't believe anyone should have the vote. Maybe a small circle of people who you think think the way you do. But I suspect you are most comfortable with a Putin like figure that tells everyone what they should do.

Actually, I'm an anarchist. I oppose all government, no matter what its form. Democracy is just another form of tyranny, as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't allow anyone to be able to vote my freedoms away if I had my druthers.

Yet- here you are arguing that government should treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals.

Sounds more like a fascist than an anarchist.

No, idiot. The argument is homosexuals are already treated exactly like heterosexuals. What homos want is special treatment.

Special treatment- as in being treated the same as heterosexuals.......yeah great argument.

 

[Seawytch]

And while no one has been jailed or fined, Wisconsin made it a criminal offense to get married in another state.

We've aready disposed of this argument.

The courts disposed of it when they ruled Wisconsin's ban unconstitutional.

So what are you blathering about?

You're the one blathering. Gays are married and marrying in more states everyday. You're tilting. Tilt away!

Until the SUpreme Court reaffirms their opinion in Windsor, that states control what constitutes marriage. Then its back in the closet for your kind.

Care to place a wager on the potential SCOTUS ruling? It will be the bigots that will have to try the closet on for size.

 

[Seawytch]

Your failure to address the post is noted.

I look forward to you lecturing the children of Bob Hope about they aren't his 'real' children.

Oh wait- no- its only when Gay- or as you call them 'faggots'- adopt that they aren't real parents.

What about when African Americans- or as you would call them 'n*ggers'- adopt- are they real parents?

I did address the post. You derailed it by claiming that merely calling someone Mom or Dad ipso facto makes them parents. That is obviously false.

Parents- or not Parents?

Not parents in the biological sense.
What difference does it make?

Apparently it makes a difference to you- since you have been arguing about 'parents'

Me: If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

Bripat9643 Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Rabbi: Gay couples dont have children. Yet another example of gays playing "dress up".

Me:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said."There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents,and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

It doesn't make any difference to you because you don't want those children to have married parents.

But it matters to Justice Kennedy.

And that is a good thing.

Dude, the children of gay couples will not have married parents even if gay marriage is legalized. What about that do you miss?

Dude, they already do. My partner and I have been our children's parents since they were born. We have both legally been their parents years before we got civilly married, dude.

 

[Seawytch]

34 states now...

"These families, like all of us, want their children to adventure into the world without fear of violence; to achieve all that their talent and perseverance allows without fear of discrimination; and to love themselves so that they can love others. No family wants to deprive its precious children of the chance to marry the loves of their lives. Montana no longer can deprive Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples of the chance to marry their loves," Judge Morris wrote in the decision.

Judge Lifts Same-Sex Marriage Ban In Montana - Judge Lifts Same-Sex Marriage Ban In Montana

 

[bripat9643]

What?
That made no sense, even for you.

Oh, it makes perfect sense. No one has said anything about 'homosexuals being prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want'. You're refuting an argument that hasn't been made. That's a strawman, an obtuse fallacy of logic.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need such fallacies. Yet you routinely embrace them.

Fags were unable to persuade the voting public of their cause so they took to the courts, dressed themselves up as black civil rights workers c.1965, and pretended to assume the mantel of black struggles.

Ah, but the public does support gay marriage by between 12 to 19 points. And the advocacy of gays for their right to same sex marriage preceded the public's support....just as the advocacy of interracial marriage by both whites and blacks preceded public support for it. In the case of the latter, by about 30 years.

Rights aren't dependent on public support. The public doesn't have the right to vote away fundamental rights. And marriage is a fundamental right.

But gays are not blacks. The parameters of the struggle are quite different. And a sober discussion reveals that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage. Esp since gay marriages probably fail in greater percentages than real marriages.

The State has the same compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage as it does sanctioning the marriages of the infertile or the childless. There's clearly a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. But partnership between two adults. And there's no valid reason to deny gays access to this valid basis of marriage.

The State lacks a state interest in denying gays their right to marry whom they will. Denying them doesn't serve even a rational reason either. It simply is......because it has been. And that's insufficient to deny someone a fundamental right. Which is why gay marriage is now legal in 32 of 50 states.

As for gay marriages, they are real marriage. Your baseless speculation about their rate of failure is meaningless conjecture backed by nothing. And worth even less.

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false. I did not put forth a strawman argument at all. I put forth an argument that refuted your assertion.
Gays are not denied a fundamental right. They have exactly the same right that straight people have. And many gays have marriage licenses.
Gay marriage is not real marriage. It is play marriage. It is make-believe marriage. It is "gee we want to be just like real couples" marriage. But pretend is no basis for laws.

All marriage is real marriage. Any couple with a marriage license is really married. Those without aren't.

That's easily proven false. All you arguments have been proven false, but that won't stop you from using them over and over and over again.

Actually all true
All marriage is real marriage. Any couple with a marriage license is really married. Those without aren't

The only exception is that you can be legally married without a licence in common law marriages states.

But anyone with a marriage license is really married.

So if I have two marriage licenses with two different women, are both "real" marriages?

 

[bripat9643]

I did address the post. You derailed it by claiming that merely calling someone Mom or Dad ipso facto makes them parents. That is obviously false.

Parents- or not Parents?

Not parents in the biological sense.
What difference does it make?

Apparently it makes a difference to you- since you have been arguing about 'parents'

Me: If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

Bripat9643 Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Rabbi: Gay couples dont have children. Yet another example of gays playing "dress up".

Me:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said."There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents,and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

It doesn't make any difference to you because you don't want those children to have married parents.

But it matters to Justice Kennedy.

And that is a good thing.

Dude, the children of gay couples will not have married parents even if gay marriage is legalized. What about that do you miss?

Dude, they already do. My partner and I have been our children's parents since they were born. We have both legally been their parents years before we got civilly married, dude.

Wrong. One of you was not the legal parent nor the biological parent.

 

[Seawytch]

Parents- or not Parents?

Not parents in the biological sense.
What difference does it make?

Apparently it makes a difference to you- since you have been arguing about 'parents'

Me: If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

Bripat9643 Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Rabbi: Gay couples dont have children. Yet another example of gays playing "dress up".

Me:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said."There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents,and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

It doesn't make any difference to you because you don't want those children to have married parents.

But it matters to Justice Kennedy.

And that is a good thing.

Dude, the children of gay couples will not have married parents even if gay marriage is legalized. What about that do you miss?

Dude, they already do. My partner and I have been our children's parents since they were born. We have both legally been their parents years before we got civilly married, dude.

Wrong. One of you was not the legal parent nor the biological parent.

We are both their legal parents. Biology has nothing to do with parenting.

 

[bripat9643]

Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Are you that ignorant- or stupid- or just lying?

From the Supreme Court oral arguments on Prop 8:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Apparently you are ignorant, stupid or lying. The gay "couples" did not have those children. They do not share genes.

they want their parents to have full recognition and full status

I am sure that the parents of adoptive children- and those who have used sperm donors to have children- will be surprised to find out that they are not 'real' parents from your point of view.

I am sure their kids would be also.

They aren't the biological parents, certainly, and that makes them inferior parents.

So you think Bob Hope and his wife were inferior parents? Simply because they adopted?

They don't look like inferior parents to me.....

You don't really know what kind of parent Bob Hope was. However, we are discussing averages here, not exceptional people.

 

[bripat9643]

Not parents in the biological sense.
What difference does it make?

Apparently it makes a difference to you- since you have been arguing about 'parents'

Me: If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

Bripat9643 Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Rabbi: Gay couples dont have children. Yet another example of gays playing "dress up".

Me:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said."There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents,and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

It doesn't make any difference to you because you don't want those children to have married parents.

But it matters to Justice Kennedy.

And that is a good thing.

Dude, the children of gay couples will not have married parents even if gay marriage is legalized. What about that do you miss?

Dude, they already do. My partner and I have been our children's parents since they were born. We have both legally been their parents years before we got civilly married, dude.

Wrong. One of you was not the legal parent nor the biological parent.

We are both their legal parents. Biology has nothing to do with parenting.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Do I really need to explain the birds and the bees to you?

 

[bripat9643]

That is absurd. There is no such thing as "more equal." Something is eiterh equal or it isnt.

No its not absurd.

In 1840, in most of the United States only white men could vote.
In 1870, African American men were also given the legal right to vote.....but not women.
Voting was then 'more equal' than it was before.
And in 1919, women were given the right to vote- making voting even 'more equal'- but only if you were 21 or older.

Yes- voting- and marriage- can be more equal than before.

What makes you think I approve of giving everyone the vote?

I am fairly certain you don't believe anyone should have the vote. Maybe a small circle of people who you think think the way you do. But I suspect you are most comfortable with a Putin like figure that tells everyone what they should do.

Actually, I'm an anarchist. I oppose all government, no matter what its form. Democracy is just another form of tyranny, as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't allow anyone to be able to vote my freedoms away if I had my druthers.

Yet- here you are arguing that government should treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals.

Sounds more like a fascist than an anarchist.

Nope, I'm arguing that they should be treated exactly the same.

 

[bripat9643]

Not parents in the biological sense.
What difference does it make?

Apparently it makes a difference to you- since you have been arguing about 'parents'

Me: If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

Bripat9643 Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Rabbi: Gay couples dont have children. Yet another example of gays playing "dress up".

Me:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said."There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents,and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

It doesn't make any difference to you because you don't want those children to have married parents.

But it matters to Justice Kennedy.

And that is a good thing.

Dude, the children of gay couples will not have married parents even if gay marriage is legalized. What about that do you miss?

Dude, they already do. My partner and I have been our children's parents since they were born. We have both legally been their parents years before we got civilly married, dude.

Wrong. One of you was not the legal parent nor the biological parent.

We are both their legal parents. Biology has nothing to do with parenting.

How could you both be the legal parents before some judge imposed the farce called "gay marriage" on the people of your state?

 

[bripat9643]

What makes you think I approve of giving everyone the vote?

I am fairly certain you don't believe anyone should have the vote. Maybe a small circle of people who you think think the way you do. But I suspect you are most comfortable with a Putin like figure that tells everyone what they should do.

Actually, I'm an anarchist. I oppose all government, no matter what its form. Democracy is just another form of tyranny, as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't allow anyone to be able to vote my freedoms away if I had my druthers.

Yet- here you are arguing that government should treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals.

Sounds more like a fascist than an anarchist.

No, idiot. The argument is homosexuals are already treated exactly like heterosexuals. What homos want is special treatment.

Special treatment- as in being treated the same as heterosexuals.......yeah great argument.

Nope. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have the same privilege.

 

[Seawytch]

Apparently it makes a difference to you- since you have been arguing about 'parents'

Me: If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

Bripat9643 Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Rabbi: Gay couples dont have children. Yet another example of gays playing "dress up".

Me:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said."There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents,and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

It doesn't make any difference to you because you don't want those children to have married parents.

But it matters to Justice Kennedy.

And that is a good thing.

Dude, the children of gay couples will not have married parents even if gay marriage is legalized. What about that do you miss?

Dude, they already do. My partner and I have been our children's parents since they were born. We have both legally been their parents years before we got civilly married, dude.

Wrong. One of you was not the legal parent nor the biological parent.

We are both their legal parents. Biology has nothing to do with parenting.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Do I really need to explain the birds and the bees to you?

I'm quite aware of how procreation works. You seem to think parenting and procreating are the same. They aren't.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not parents in the biological sense.
What difference does it make?

Apparently it makes a difference to you- since you have been arguing about 'parents'

Me: If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

Bripat9643 Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Rabbi: Gay couples dont have children. Yet another example of gays playing "dress up".

Me:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said."There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents,and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

It doesn't make any difference to you because you don't want those children to have married parents.

But it matters to Justice Kennedy.

And that is a good thing.

Dude, the children of gay couples will not have married parents even if gay marriage is legalized. What about that do you miss?

Dude, they already do. My partner and I have been our children's parents since they were born. We have both legally been their parents years before we got civilly married, dude.

Wrong. One of you was not the legal parent nor the biological parent.

We are both their legal parents. Biology has nothing to do with parenting.

ROFLMFAO!!!

 

[Syriusly]

I am fairly certain you don't believe anyone should have the vote. Maybe a small circle of people who you think think the way you do. But I suspect you are most comfortable with a Putin like figure that tells everyone what they should do.

Actually, I'm an anarchist. I oppose all government, no matter what its form. Democracy is just another form of tyranny, as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't allow anyone to be able to vote my freedoms away if I had my druthers.

Yet- here you are arguing that government should treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals.

Sounds more like a fascist than an anarchist.

No, idiot. The argument is homosexuals are already treated exactly like heterosexuals. What homos want is special treatment.

Special treatment- as in being treated the same as heterosexuals.......yeah great argument.

Nope. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have the same privilege.

Yep- just a white person was allowed to marry anyone they wanted- as long as they were white. That worked so well for you in court 50 years ago.

 

[Syriusly]

Apparently it makes a difference to you- since you have been arguing about 'parents'

Me: If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

Bripat9643 Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Rabbi: Gay couples dont have children. Yet another example of gays playing "dress up".

Me:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said."There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents,and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

It doesn't make any difference to you because you don't want those children to have married parents.

But it matters to Justice Kennedy.

And that is a good thing.

Dude, the children of gay couples will not have married parents even if gay marriage is legalized. What about that do you miss?

Dude, they already do. My partner and I have been our children's parents since they were born. We have both legally been their parents years before we got civilly married, dude.

Wrong. One of you was not the legal parent nor the biological parent.

We are both their legal parents. Biology has nothing to do with parenting.

How could you both be the legal parents before some judge imposed the farce called "gay marriage" on the people of your state?

God you are a ignorant.

 

[Syriusly]

Are you that ignorant- or stupid- or just lying?

From the Supreme Court oral arguments on Prop 8:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Apparently you are ignorant, stupid or lying. The gay "couples" did not have those children. They do not share genes.

they want their parents to have full recognition and full status

I am sure that the parents of adoptive children- and those who have used sperm donors to have children- will be surprised to find out that they are not 'real' parents from your point of view.

I am sure their kids would be also.

They aren't the biological parents, certainly, and that makes them inferior parents.

So you think Bob Hope and his wife were inferior parents? Simply because they adopted?

They don't look like inferior parents to me.....

You don't really know what kind of parent Bob Hope was. However, we are discussing averages here, not exceptional people.

I do know what kind of parent Bob Hope was- he was a legal parent- as legal a parent as my wife and I are to our child.

You think of adoptive parents as inferior parents- even though they are the ones who step up and choose to be parents to the children abandoned by their biological parents.