A Poll Businesses Boycotting Laws Protecting Christians Might Want To Look At First..

[Skylar]

Natural rights? Lmao!! Are you really going to use the parenting attributes of animals here? Plenty of animals abandon their young. Plenty of males kill the young of other males. And in many species, the female has no choice in the mating.

Like it or not, there are still very innate traits when it comes to humans. Lefties try to obfuscate that reality to fit their fascist agendas.

LOL! Spare me the "Lefties" nonsense. What you are using as a reason to not allow gays to marry is a fairytale.

I am discussing reality. And in that reality, straight couples create children and then abandon them. Some are adopted by gay couples.

Lefties is accurate. And you're doing the lefty anecdotal dance in order to wag the dog of normalcy. The George Burns routine. George Burns smoked cigars daily and lived to 100. Using your lefty anecdotal (lack of) logic, that means smoking is good for you.

Not even close. Your argument against gay couples raising children is that natural law requires them to be raised by those who created them. That is nonsense. They kids are available for adoption because some straight couple abandoned them. Claiming some farcical natural law does not change the fact that it happens.

You use the anecdotal again. A hardship case is one thing but to mainstream the anomalous is bad for the society as proven empirically over the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad whenever it possible, as clearly demonstrated in recent generations.
Progress a little.

By that standards, same sex parenting is 'anecdotal'. Eliminating any 'mainstream' argument you might make.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Like it or not, there are still very innate traits when it comes to humans. Lefties try to obfuscate that reality to fit their fascist agendas.

LOL! Spare me the "Lefties" nonsense. What you are using as a reason to not allow gays to marry is a fairytale.

I am discussing reality. And in that reality, straight couples create children and then abandon them. Some are adopted by gay couples.

Lefties is accurate. And you're doing the lefty anecdotal dance in order to wag the dog of normalcy. The George Burns routine. George Burns smoked cigars daily and lived to 100. Using your lefty anecdotal (lack of) logic, that means smoking is good for you.

Not even close. Your argument against gay couples raising children is that natural law requires them to be raised by those who created them. That is nonsense. They kids are available for adoption because some straight couple abandoned them. Claiming some farcical natural law does not change the fact that it happens.

You use the anecdotal again. A hardship case is one thing but to mainstream the anomalous is bad for the society as proven empirically over the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad whenever it possible, as clearly demonstrated in recent generations.
Progress a little.

By that standards, same sex parenting is 'anecdotal'. Eliminating any 'mainstream' argument you might make.

Same sex parenting is anecdotal. It's anomalous. It needs to stay that way. Where alternatives to structured (mom/dad) families is a plurality or majority, social demise prevails. Empirical.

 

[WinterBorn]

Natural rights? Lmao!! Are you really going to use the parenting attributes of animals here? Plenty of animals abandon their young. Plenty of males kill the young of other males. And in many species, the female has no choice in the mating.

Like it or not, there are still very innate traits when it comes to humans. Lefties try to obfuscate that reality to fit their fascist agendas.

LOL! Spare me the "Lefties" nonsense. What you are using as a reason to not allow gays to marry is a fairytale.

I am discussing reality. And in that reality, straight couples create children and then abandon them. Some are adopted by gay couples.

Lefties is accurate. And you're doing the lefty anecdotal dance in order to wag the dog of normalcy. The George Burns routine. George Burns smoked cigars daily and lived to 100. Using your lefty anecdotal (lack of) logic, that means smoking is good for you.

Not even close. Your argument against gay couples raising children is that natural law requires them to be raised by those who created them. That is nonsense. They kids are available for adoption because some straight couple abandoned them. Claiming some farcical natural law does not change the fact that it happens.

You use the anecdotal again. A hardship case is one thing but to mainstream the anomalous is bad for the society as proven empirically over the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad whenever it possible, as clearly demonstrated in recent generations.
Progress a little.

I posted a link to 78 separate studies, 74 of which show no harm to children by being raised by a same sex couple.

 

[WinterBorn]

LOL! Spare me the "Lefties" nonsense. What you are using as a reason to not allow gays to marry is a fairytale.

I am discussing reality. And in that reality, straight couples create children and then abandon them. Some are adopted by gay couples.

Lefties is accurate. And you're doing the lefty anecdotal dance in order to wag the dog of normalcy. The George Burns routine. George Burns smoked cigars daily and lived to 100. Using your lefty anecdotal (lack of) logic, that means smoking is good for you.

Not even close. Your argument against gay couples raising children is that natural law requires them to be raised by those who created them. That is nonsense. They kids are available for adoption because some straight couple abandoned them. Claiming some farcical natural law does not change the fact that it happens.

You use the anecdotal again. A hardship case is one thing but to mainstream the anomalous is bad for the society as proven empirically over the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad whenever it possible, as clearly demonstrated in recent generations.
Progress a little.

By that standards, same sex parenting is 'anecdotal'. Eliminating any 'mainstream' argument you might make.

Same sex parenting is anecdotal. It's anomalous. It needs to stay that way. Where alternatives to structured (mom/dad) families is a plurality or majority, social demise prevails. Empirical.

Do you suddenly expect there to be a majority of same sex parents?

 

[Syriusly]

LOL! Spare me the "Lefties" nonsense. What you are using as a reason to not allow gays to marry is a fairytale.

I am discussing reality. And in that reality, straight couples create children and then abandon them. Some are adopted by gay couples.

Lefties is accurate. And you're doing the lefty anecdotal dance in order to wag the dog of normalcy. The George Burns routine. George Burns smoked cigars daily and lived to 100. Using your lefty anecdotal (lack of) logic, that means smoking is good for you.

Not even close. Your argument against gay couples raising children is that natural law requires them to be raised by those who created them. That is nonsense. They kids are available for adoption because some straight couple abandoned them. Claiming some farcical natural law does not change the fact that it happens.

You use the anecdotal again. A hardship case is one thing but to mainstream the anomalous is bad for the society as proven empirically over the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad whenever it possible, as clearly demonstrated in recent generations.
Progress a little.

By that standards, same sex parenting is 'anecdotal'. Eliminating any 'mainstream' argument you might make.

. Where alternatives to structured (mom/dad) families is a plurality or majority, social demise prevails. Empirical.

Oh I really want to see that 'empirical' data.

Please please.

I am always amused by this claim when it is made.

 

[Skylar]

Like it or not, there are still very innate traits when it comes to humans. Lefties try to obfuscate that reality to fit their fascist agendas.

LOL! Spare me the "Lefties" nonsense. What you are using as a reason to not allow gays to marry is a fairytale.

I am discussing reality. And in that reality, straight couples create children and then abandon them. Some are adopted by gay couples.

Lefties is accurate. And you're doing the lefty anecdotal dance in order to wag the dog of normalcy. The George Burns routine. George Burns smoked cigars daily and lived to 100. Using your lefty anecdotal (lack of) logic, that means smoking is good for you.

Not even close. Your argument against gay couples raising children is that natural law requires them to be raised by those who created them. That is nonsense. They kids are available for adoption because some straight couple abandoned them. Claiming some farcical natural law does not change the fact that it happens.

You use the anecdotal again. A hardship case is one thing but to mainstream the anomalous is bad for the society as proven empirically over the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad whenever it possible, as clearly demonstrated in recent generations.
Progress a little.

I posted a link to 78 separate studies, 74 of which show no harm to children by being raised by a same sex couple.

Another was released today showing no harm.

 

[Skylar]

LOL! Spare me the "Lefties" nonsense. What you are using as a reason to not allow gays to marry is a fairytale.

I am discussing reality. And in that reality, straight couples create children and then abandon them. Some are adopted by gay couples.

Lefties is accurate. And you're doing the lefty anecdotal dance in order to wag the dog of normalcy. The George Burns routine. George Burns smoked cigars daily and lived to 100. Using your lefty anecdotal (lack of) logic, that means smoking is good for you.

Not even close. Your argument against gay couples raising children is that natural law requires them to be raised by those who created them. That is nonsense. They kids are available for adoption because some straight couple abandoned them. Claiming some farcical natural law does not change the fact that it happens.

You use the anecdotal again. A hardship case is one thing but to mainstream the anomalous is bad for the society as proven empirically over the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad whenever it possible, as clearly demonstrated in recent generations.
Progress a little.

By that standards, same sex parenting is 'anecdotal'. Eliminating any 'mainstream' argument you might make.

Same sex parenting is anecdotal. It's anomalous. It needs to stay that way. Where alternatives to structured (mom/dad) families is a plurality or majority, social demise prevails. Empirical.

Its certainly not 'mainstream'. Killing your argument.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Like it or not, there are still very innate traits when it comes to humans. Lefties try to obfuscate that reality to fit their fascist agendas.

LOL! Spare me the "Lefties" nonsense. What you are using as a reason to not allow gays to marry is a fairytale.

I am discussing reality. And in that reality, straight couples create children and then abandon them. Some are adopted by gay couples.

Lefties is accurate. And you're doing the lefty anecdotal dance in order to wag the dog of normalcy. The George Burns routine. George Burns smoked cigars daily and lived to 100. Using your lefty anecdotal (lack of) logic, that means smoking is good for you.

Not even close. Your argument against gay couples raising children is that natural law requires them to be raised by those who created them. That is nonsense. They kids are available for adoption because some straight couple abandoned them. Claiming some farcical natural law does not change the fact that it happens.

You use the anecdotal again. A hardship case is one thing but to mainstream the anomalous is bad for the society as proven empirically over the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad whenever it possible, as clearly demonstrated in recent generations.
Progress a little.

I posted a link to 78 separate studies, 74 of which show no harm to children by being raised by a same sex couple.

Again, it's not about the anomalous. It's about contributing to a larger community. Add homo parents to a black community and you will contribute immediately to a prevailing and current problem rooted in the predominance of unstructured families.
Add to that the intent of denying a human being its natural right of the opportunity to be raised by its actual natural parents. Rude and arrogant. And cruel.

 

[WinterBorn]

LOL! Spare me the "Lefties" nonsense. What you are using as a reason to not allow gays to marry is a fairytale.

I am discussing reality. And in that reality, straight couples create children and then abandon them. Some are adopted by gay couples.

Lefties is accurate. And you're doing the lefty anecdotal dance in order to wag the dog of normalcy. The George Burns routine. George Burns smoked cigars daily and lived to 100. Using your lefty anecdotal (lack of) logic, that means smoking is good for you.

Not even close. Your argument against gay couples raising children is that natural law requires them to be raised by those who created them. That is nonsense. They kids are available for adoption because some straight couple abandoned them. Claiming some farcical natural law does not change the fact that it happens.

You use the anecdotal again. A hardship case is one thing but to mainstream the anomalous is bad for the society as proven empirically over the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad whenever it possible, as clearly demonstrated in recent generations.
Progress a little.

I posted a link to 78 separate studies, 74 of which show no harm to children by being raised by a same sex couple.

Again, it's not about the anomalous. It's about contributing to a larger community. Add homo parents to a black community and you will contribute immediately to a prevailing and current problem rooted in the predominance of unstructured families.
Add to that the intent of denying a human being its natural right of the opportunity to be raised by its actual natural parents. Rude and arrogant. And cruel.

Human beings are denied this so called "natural right" to be raised by those who created them in almost all segments of society. Singling out gays is just your own hatred coming through.

And the idea that same sex couples will all have unstructured families is simply nonsense.

 

[Silhouette]

There's no mom or dad in gay couples. Always missing one.

 

[Silhouette]

Human beings are denied this so called "natural right" to be raised by those who created them in almost all segments of society. Singling out gays is just your own hatred coming through.

And the idea that same sex couples will all have unstructured families is simply nonsense.

Yet, 90% of the people responding to the OP link poll said they think it's important for a child to have the mother/father structure. Gays cannot provide this. Ever.

If I ran a business, I'd be keenly aware of a 90% "important" result in a poll..

 

[mdk]

Human beings are denied this so called "natural right" to be raised by those who created them in almost all segments of society. Singling out gays is just your own hatred coming through.

And the idea that same sex couples will all have unstructured families is simply nonsense.

Yet, 90% of the people responding to the OP link poll said they think it's important for a child to have the mother/father structure. Gays cannot provide this. Ever.

If I ran a business, I'd be keenly aware of a 90% "important" result in a poll..

What do you think these businesses should do as result of your misrepresentations? Should they stop serving gays b/c they don't provide a mother and a father?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Lefties is accurate. And you're doing the lefty anecdotal dance in order to wag the dog of normalcy. The George Burns routine. George Burns smoked cigars daily and lived to 100. Using your lefty anecdotal (lack of) logic, that means smoking is good for you.

Not even close. Your argument against gay couples raising children is that natural law requires them to be raised by those who created them. That is nonsense. They kids are available for adoption because some straight couple abandoned them. Claiming some farcical natural law does not change the fact that it happens.

You use the anecdotal again. A hardship case is one thing but to mainstream the anomalous is bad for the society as proven empirically over the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad whenever it possible, as clearly demonstrated in recent generations.
Progress a little.

I posted a link to 78 separate studies, 74 of which show no harm to children by being raised by a same sex couple.

Again, it's not about the anomalous. It's about contributing to a larger community. Add homo parents to a black community and you will contribute immediately to a prevailing and current problem rooted in the predominance of unstructured families.
Add to that the intent of denying a human being its natural right of the opportunity to be raised by its actual natural parents. Rude and arrogant. And cruel.

Human beings are denied this so called "natural right" to be raised by those who created them in almost all segments of society. Singling out gays is just your own hatred coming through.

And the idea that same sex couples will all have unstructured families is simply nonsense.

So bad things make other bad things OK as far as you're concerned. That makes you part of the problem.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not even close. Your argument against gay couples raising children is that natural law requires them to be raised by those who created them. That is nonsense. They kids are available for adoption because some straight couple abandoned them. Claiming some farcical natural law does not change the fact that it happens.

You use the anecdotal again. A hardship case is one thing but to mainstream the anomalous is bad for the society as proven empirically over the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad whenever it possible, as clearly demonstrated in recent generations.
Progress a little.

I posted a link to 78 separate studies, 74 of which show no harm to children by being raised by a same sex couple.

Again, it's not about the anomalous. It's about contributing to a larger community. Add homo parents to a black community and you will contribute immediately to a prevailing and current problem rooted in the predominance of unstructured families.
Add to that the intent of denying a human being its natural right of the opportunity to be raised by its actual natural parents. Rude and arrogant. And cruel.

Human beings are denied this so called "natural right" to be raised by those who created them in almost all segments of society. Singling out gays is just your own hatred coming through.

And the idea that same sex couples will all have unstructured families is simply nonsense.

So bad things make other bad things OK as far as you're concerned. That makes you part of the problem.

That is not even close to what I have said.

But you harping on this notion that a child has a right to be raised by the ones who conceived him is a ridiculous addition to this topic. It may be a lovely pipe-dream, but is not even close to the reality of our world.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You use the anecdotal again. A hardship case is one thing but to mainstream the anomalous is bad for the society as proven empirically over the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad whenever it possible, as clearly demonstrated in recent generations.
Progress a little.

I posted a link to 78 separate studies, 74 of which show no harm to children by being raised by a same sex couple.

Again, it's not about the anomalous. It's about contributing to a larger community. Add homo parents to a black community and you will contribute immediately to a prevailing and current problem rooted in the predominance of unstructured families.
Add to that the intent of denying a human being its natural right of the opportunity to be raised by its actual natural parents. Rude and arrogant. And cruel.

Human beings are denied this so called "natural right" to be raised by those who created them in almost all segments of society. Singling out gays is just your own hatred coming through.

And the idea that same sex couples will all have unstructured families is simply nonsense.

So bad things make other bad things OK as far as you're concerned. That makes you part of the problem.

That is not even close to what I have said.

But you harping on this notion that a child has a right to be raised by the ones who conceived him is a ridiculous addition to this topic. It may be a lovely pipe-dream, but is not even close to the reality of our world.

Once again you act as though nature is nothing more than idealism. That is a propaganda ploy. You either have fallen for it or you're guilty of perpetrating it.
Kids being raised by their actual parents is the norm, not a pipe dream.

 

[WinterBorn]

I posted a link to 78 separate studies, 74 of which show no harm to children by being raised by a same sex couple.

Again, it's not about the anomalous. It's about contributing to a larger community. Add homo parents to a black community and you will contribute immediately to a prevailing and current problem rooted in the predominance of unstructured families.
Add to that the intent of denying a human being its natural right of the opportunity to be raised by its actual natural parents. Rude and arrogant. And cruel.

Human beings are denied this so called "natural right" to be raised by those who created them in almost all segments of society. Singling out gays is just your own hatred coming through.

And the idea that same sex couples will all have unstructured families is simply nonsense.

So bad things make other bad things OK as far as you're concerned. That makes you part of the problem.

That is not even close to what I have said.

But you harping on this notion that a child has a right to be raised by the ones who conceived him is a ridiculous addition to this topic. It may be a lovely pipe-dream, but is not even close to the reality of our world.

Once again you act as though nature is nothing more than idealism. That is a propaganda ploy. You either have fallen for it or you're guilty of perpetrating it.
Kids being raised by their actual parents is the norm, not a pipe dream.

Yes, it is the norm. But being the norm does not, in any way shape or form, mean it is what will happen in every case. Nor should it. Parents who would throw away their child would likely be abusive if they were forced to keep the child. When couples divorce, the child lives with one and visits with the other. But there are children who are waiting to be adopted. That is a simple fact of life. And many of those waiting for adoption have medical and/or emotional issues that make them difficult to place. Gay couples often take those children and do very well by them.

As for "nature", our lives are so far removed from nature that these claims have little meaning. Plus, there are plenty of cases, in nature, where a baby is raised by someone other than its natural parents.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Again, it's not about the anomalous. It's about contributing to a larger community. Add homo parents to a black community and you will contribute immediately to a prevailing and current problem rooted in the predominance of unstructured families.
Add to that the intent of denying a human being its natural right of the opportunity to be raised by its actual natural parents. Rude and arrogant. And cruel.

Human beings are denied this so called "natural right" to be raised by those who created them in almost all segments of society. Singling out gays is just your own hatred coming through.

And the idea that same sex couples will all have unstructured families is simply nonsense.

So bad things make other bad things OK as far as you're concerned. That makes you part of the problem.

That is not even close to what I have said.

But you harping on this notion that a child has a right to be raised by the ones who conceived him is a ridiculous addition to this topic. It may be a lovely pipe-dream, but is not even close to the reality of our world.

Once again you act as though nature is nothing more than idealism. That is a propaganda ploy. You either have fallen for it or you're guilty of perpetrating it.
Kids being raised by their actual parents is the norm, not a pipe dream.

Yes, it is the norm. But being the norm does not, in any way shape or form, mean it is what will happen in every case. Nor should it. Parents who would throw away their child would likely be abusive if they were forced to keep the child. When couples divorce, the child lives with one and visits with the other. But there are children who are waiting to be adopted. That is a simple fact of life. And many of those waiting for adoption have medical and/or emotional issues that make them difficult to place. Gay couples often take those children and do very well by them.

As for "nature", our lives are so far removed from nature that these claims have little meaning. Plus, there are plenty of cases, in nature, where a baby is raised by someone other than its natural parents.

You are parroting the propaganda that alternatives to nature are inevitable.

 

[WinterBorn]

Human beings are denied this so called "natural right" to be raised by those who created them in almost all segments of society. Singling out gays is just your own hatred coming through.

And the idea that same sex couples will all have unstructured families is simply nonsense.

So bad things make other bad things OK as far as you're concerned. That makes you part of the problem.

That is not even close to what I have said.

But you harping on this notion that a child has a right to be raised by the ones who conceived him is a ridiculous addition to this topic. It may be a lovely pipe-dream, but is not even close to the reality of our world.

Once again you act as though nature is nothing more than idealism. That is a propaganda ploy. You either have fallen for it or you're guilty of perpetrating it.
Kids being raised by their actual parents is the norm, not a pipe dream.

Yes, it is the norm. But being the norm does not, in any way shape or form, mean it is what will happen in every case. Nor should it. Parents who would throw away their child would likely be abusive if they were forced to keep the child. When couples divorce, the child lives with one and visits with the other. But there are children who are waiting to be adopted. That is a simple fact of life. And many of those waiting for adoption have medical and/or emotional issues that make them difficult to place. Gay couples often take those children and do very well by them.

As for "nature", our lives are so far removed from nature that these claims have little meaning. Plus, there are plenty of cases, in nature, where a baby is raised by someone other than its natural parents.

You are parroting the propaganda that alternatives to nature are inevitable.

I am not parroting anything. But given that straight couples do, in fact, abandon their children on occasion. Why should those children be left in state care because of some vague idea of what is "natural"?

 

[Silhouette]

I am not parroting anything. But given that straight couples do, in fact, abandon their children on occasion. Why should those children be left in state care because of some vague idea of what is "natural"?

Is there a contract requiring them to be abandoned? No?

In gay marriage though there's a contract requiring them to be without either a mother or father for life. Let's try to stay on topic here..

 

[WinterBorn]

I am not parroting anything. But given that straight couples do, in fact, abandon their children on occasion. Why should those children be left in state care because of some vague idea of what is "natural"?

Is there a contract requiring them to be abandoned? No?

In gay marriage though there's a contract requiring them to be without either a mother or father for life. Let's try to stay on topic here..

Tell that to your boy who keeps pressing the issue towards me. I merely respond.

Oh, and isn't every single parent raising a child without either a mother or a father?