Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[JoeB131]

I'm starting to think Poodle suffers from some sort of OCD.

 

[Unkotare]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Are even you this stupid?

 

[Seawytch]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Are even you this stupid?

She's right.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog.../201002/does-the-gender-parents-really-matter

 

[Redfish]

nobody is trying to take away the kid's parents.

Well, you took a father away from your children. She's just asking which parent she doesn't need for people like you. Apparently you believe that father's are not necessary (since you deny your own children a father).

How interesting though that you're afraid to admit it. Just shows you know you're wrong...

No father was "taken away" from our children. They don't have a father and never did. They have two mothers and a donor (we used a known donor so they know he is their donor, but do not view him as a parent).

I've provided peer reviewed studies and position statements from major medical and pediatric associations that all come to the same conclusion...that our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

You've provided your opinion to the contrary.

Children have the best results in stable, married households regardless of the gender of their parents. Study after study shows that. You still haven't ventured a guess at the ONLY area where gender matters. Wassa matta, chicken?I'll give you a hint...it's not peeing standing up.

sorry, wytchey, but I feel sorry for your "kids". they are being raised in an abnormal situation and will be very gender confused as adults.

who is the father figure? you or your "partner". every gay couple that I have known, male or female, has one member that is masculine and one that is feminine. Which are you?

 

[Redfish]

And 100% of all people who contract Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) will die from it. So I guess we should just give up on trying to cure it by your "logic", right?

If you see marriage (and the logical episode of not everybody is compatible forever despite their best intentions) as a "disease" you should indeed give up since you are immune from logic.

Do run from the question - you essentially claim that we should give up on traditional marriage because it has (according to you) a 50% failure rate.

Well so do many things - should we give up on all of them?

Ever notice that the rise in the rates of failed marriage correlates perfectly with the rise if the disease known as liberalism?

good point, there is also a correlation between failed marriages and government payments that incentivize having kids out of wedlock. the more illigitimate kids, the bigger the welfare payment. and we wonder why the inner cities are so screwed up.

 

[candycorn]

And 100% of all people who contract Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) will die from it. So I guess we should just give up on trying to cure it by your "logic", right?

If you see marriage (and the logical episode of not everybody is compatible forever despite their best intentions) as a "disease" you should indeed give up since you are immune from logic.

Do run from the question - you essentially claim that we should give up on traditional marriage because it has (according to you) a 50% failure rate.

Well so do many things - should we give up on all of them?

Ever notice that the rise in the rates of failed marriage correlates perfectly with the rise if the disease known as liberalism?

In no way did I ever suggest such a thing. I did state--very clearly--that given that "traditional" marriage is not working for 1/2 of those who take the vow and that the institution is based on lifelong committment according to the vows that most take--there is no danger to the institution from gay couples.

As always with conservatives, you are responding to what you wish I said, not what I actually did say. Much like you and others stated what you WISHED the polls indicated back in November....not what they actually indicated; The result, total failure...an occurence I'm sure your intimately familiar with.

 

[candycorn]

If you see marriage (and the logical episode of not everybody is compatible forever despite their best intentions) as a "disease" you should indeed give up since you are immune from logic.

Do run from the question - you essentially claim that we should give up on traditional marriage because it has (according to you) a 50% failure rate.

Well so do many things - should we give up on all of them?

Ever notice that the rise in the rates of failed marriage correlates perfectly with the rise if the disease known as liberalism?

good point, there is also a correlation between failed marriages and government payments that incentivize having kids out of wedlock. the more illigitimate kids, the bigger the welfare payment. and we wonder why the inner cities are so screwed up.

Gee, funding contraception may reduce that but, oh wait, you're against that too. Nevermind.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Well, you took a father away from your children. She's just asking which parent she doesn't need for people like you. Apparently you believe that father's are not necessary (since you deny your own children a father).

How interesting though that you're afraid to admit it. Just shows you know you're wrong...

No father was "taken away" from our children. They don't have a father and never did. They have two mothers and a donor (we used a known donor so they know he is their donor, but do not view him as a parent).

I've provided peer reviewed studies and position statements from major medical and pediatric associations that all come to the same conclusion...that our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

You've provided your opinion to the contrary.

Children have the best results in stable, married households regardless of the gender of their parents. Study after study shows that. You still haven't ventured a guess at the ONLY area where gender matters. Wassa matta, chicken?I'll give you a hint...it's not peeing standing up.

sorry, wytchey, but I feel sorry for your "kids". they are being raised in an abnormal situation and will be very gender confused as adults.

who is the father figure? you or your "partner". every gay couple that I have known, male or female, has one member that is masculine and one that is feminine. Which are you?

Because no kid raised in a traditional family has ever been gender confused.

I came from a broken and severely fucked up "traditional" home. As long as Seawytch and her parter are raising their kids with love and stability, then I'll be kind of envious of their childhood.

 

[P@triot]

No father was "taken away" from our children. They don't have a father and never did. They have two mothers and a donor (we used a known donor so they know he is their donor, but do not view him as a parent).

I've provided peer reviewed studies and position statements from major medical and pediatric associations that all come to the same conclusion...that our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

You've provided your opinion to the contrary.

Children have the best results in stable, married households regardless of the gender of their parents. Study after study shows that. You still haven't ventured a guess at the ONLY area where gender matters. Wassa matta, chicken?I'll give you a hint...it's not peeing standing up.

Still running from the question (you must be in phenomenal shape as much running as you do from straight forward questions).

I never said you "took away" their father. I said you denied them their father (you can't take away what you denied in the first place). Want to try again?

Run Seawytch Run!!!!

They are "denied" nothing. They have two parents that love them unconditionally which is all kids need. Do you know how many children are being raised in single parent households? That's who you should worry about, not kids raised in stable, loving homes.

And I never said that there weren't "two parents that love them unconditionally" - I said you denied them their father.

And I will ask this question again (you are good at runnning scard from questions ) - why do they need two parents if they are the same gender? And what does the redundant female (whether it is you or the other mom) bring to the table? You seem to be obsessed with the number two. Why not three?

It's more than just "two" - it's also about a MOM and a DAD. Since you can't fullfill that need in your home, you choose to ignore that fact and instead focus on "two" since that's what you have.

How much do you want to make a bet if your S.O. left you, suddenly your narrative would change from "two" to "kids only need one parent who loves them unconditionally" (and yes, I said KIDS because I'm quoting you - notice the quotes?).

 

[Seawytch]

Well, you took a father away from your children. She's just asking which parent she doesn't need for people like you. Apparently you believe that father's are not necessary (since you deny your own children a father).

How interesting though that you're afraid to admit it. Just shows you know you're wrong...

No father was "taken away" from our children. They don't have a father and never did. They have two mothers and a donor (we used a known donor so they know he is their donor, but do not view him as a parent).

I've provided peer reviewed studies and position statements from major medical and pediatric associations that all come to the same conclusion...that our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

You've provided your opinion to the contrary.

Children have the best results in stable, married households regardless of the gender of their parents. Study after study shows that. You still haven't ventured a guess at the ONLY area where gender matters. Wassa matta, chicken?I'll give you a hint...it's not peeing standing up.

sorry, wytchey, but I feel sorry for your "kids". they are being raised in an abnormal situation and will be very gender confused as adults.

Save your pity for kids that need it and that wouldn't be ours. My daughter feels sorry for ALL her friends because their parents are divorced. Pity those kids, not ones in loving stable homes where their patents planned carefully for them and love them unconditionally.

who is the father figure? you or your "partner". every gay couple that I have known, male or female, has one member that is masculine and one that is feminine. Which are you?

Studies have already been provided that show gender is immaterial in the raising of children. We don't raise them in bubbles you know. Despite having two mothers, my son pees standing up, shoots a gun and is respectful to women. My daughter plays dress up, likes boys and hates Justin Beber. Neither are "gender confused" in the least, unlike many people I know raised by heterosexuals.

Do you know any gays that live in this century?

 

[P@triot]

If you see marriage (and the logical episode of not everybody is compatible forever despite their best intentions) as a "disease" you should indeed give up since you are immune from logic.

Do run from the question - you essentially claim that we should give up on traditional marriage because it has (according to you) a 50% failure rate.

Well so do many things - should we give up on all of them?

Ever notice that the rise in the rates of failed marriage correlates perfectly with the rise if the disease known as liberalism?

No one is advocating ‘giving up’ on traditional marriage, particularly same-sex couples. They obviously believe in the institution and want to strengthen it with their unions, which is their right to do. They should be applauded and supported.

If you redefine marriage you have given up on traditional marriage, you goofball....

 

[Seawytch]

Still running from the question (you must be in phenomenal shape as much running as you do from straight forward questions).

I never said you "took away" their father. I said you denied them their father (you can't take away what you denied in the first place). Want to try again?

Run Seawytch Run!!!!

They are "denied" nothing. They have two parents that love them unconditionally which is all kids need. Do you know how many children are being raised in single parent households? That's who you should worry about, not kids raised in stable, loving homes.

And I never said that there weren't "two parents that love them unconditionally" - I said you denied them their father.

And I will ask this question again (you are good at runnning scard from questions ) - why do they need two parents if they are the same gender? And what does the redundant female (whether it is you or the other mom) bring to the table? You seem to be obsessed with the number two. Why not three?

It's more than just "two" - it's also about a MOM and a DAD. Since you can't fullfill that need in your home, you choose to ignore that fact and instead focus on "two" since that's what you have.

How much do you want to make a bet if your S.O. left you, suddenly your narrative would change from "two" to "kids only need one parent who loves them unconditionally" (and yes, I said KIDS because I'm quoting you - notice the quotes?).

If you can't figure out why children have better outcomes in stable homes with two parents, nobody here can help you.

 

[P@triot]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Are even you this stupid?

(Believe it or not - she really is).....

She said to me in a private conversation that she doesn't support murder because murder effects society since it is written about in newspapers and we read it.

But she supports abortion because it's not written about so nobody knows so nobody grieves....

I'm serious man... I couldn't make that up if I wanted too

 

[P@triot]

They are "denied" nothing. They have two parents that love them unconditionally which is all kids need. Do you know how many children are being raised in single parent households? That's who you should worry about, not kids raised in stable, loving homes.

And I never said that there weren't "two parents that love them unconditionally" - I said you denied them their father.

And I will ask this question again (you are good at runnning scard from questions ) - why do they need two parents if they are the same gender? And what does the redundant female (whether it is you or the other mom) bring to the table? You seem to be obsessed with the number two. Why not three?

It's more than just "two" - it's also about a MOM and a DAD. Since you can't fullfill that need in your home, you choose to ignore that fact and instead focus on "two" since that's what you have.

How much do you want to make a bet if your S.O. left you, suddenly your narrative would change from "two" to "kids only need one parent who loves them unconditionally" (and yes, I said KIDS because I'm quoting you - notice the quotes?).

If you can't figure out why children have better outcomes in stable homes with two parents, nobody here can help you.

Well by your logic, wouldn't children do exponentially better with three or four parents then? Right?

 

[Nosmo King]

Your 'logic' conflates Lou Gehrig's disease and a natural, immutable condition that is neither debilitating nor fatal (except for the bigotry heaped upon homosexuals by a few churlish boors in society).

I didn't "conflate" anything genius - I simply used Candycorn's complete lack of logic against himself. If citing failure rates of 50% is a reason to give up on marriage, then we have to give up on all things with a 50% failure rate or worse.

And you know it too - you're just throwing a hissy because liberals hate consistency which exposes the contradictions in their own absurd ideology.

You must believe that homosexuality is a disorder, a disease in and of itself. Why would you be in the shrinking backward minority to hold such incorrect and hateful ideas?

And you must be a pedophile... Why would you be in the sick, twisted, dark minority who get off on touching innocent children and destroy their lives?

(Hint: if you're going to make wild and completely irrational accusations about me, I will do the same thing to your dumb ass).

For the record, I do believe liberalism is a disorder, a disease in and of itself. In fact, I'm 100% certain of it.

Homosexuals are asking, and rightly so, for tolerance, not demanding acceptance. Do you know the difference?

What?!? They already are accepted stupid! This is not the Middle East - we do not torture and stone homosexuals to death.

And we are way past "demanding acceptance" with the homosexual community. They long ago moved on to demanding special treatment and additional rights (stems from their view of themselves as victims since they were born "different").

No I'm not throwing an ideological hissy fit. I'm pointing out that comparing Lou Gehrig's disease and homosexuality shows that you are somehow under the impression that diseases are relevant to sexual preference.

And what point were you trying so feebly to make by calling me a pedophile? Pedophia is a crime, but homosexuality is not.

And every time some idiot opposes some other group, they say the same idiotic thing once that group seeks equal justice under the law: "they want 'special' rights". This is wrong on its face. Folks aren't seeking "special" rights, just the rights everyone else enjoys as part of their status as citizens of the United States.

 

[Seawytch]

And I never said that there weren't "two parents that love them unconditionally" - I said you denied them their father.

And I will ask this question again (you are good at runnning scard from questions ) - why do they need two parents if they are the same gender? And what does the redundant female (whether it is you or the other mom) bring to the table? You seem to be obsessed with the number two. Why not three?

It's more than just "two" - it's also about a MOM and a DAD. Since you can't fullfill that need in your home, you choose to ignore that fact and instead focus on "two" since that's what you have.

How much do you want to make a bet if your S.O. left you, suddenly your narrative would change from "two" to "kids only need one parent who loves them unconditionally" (and yes, I said KIDS because I'm quoting you - notice the quotes?).

If you can't figure out why children have better outcomes in stable homes with two parents, nobody here can help you.

Well by your logic, wouldn't children do exponentially better with three or four parents then? Right?

They might. Are there studies? There ARE studies on same sex parenting and every one comes to the same conclusion...our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

 

[Seawytch]

Do run from the question - you essentially claim that we should give up on traditional marriage because it has (according to you) a 50% failure rate.

Well so do many things - should we give up on all of them?

Ever notice that the rise in the rates of failed marriage correlates perfectly with the rise if the disease known as liberalism?

No one is advocating ‘giving up’ on traditional marriage, particularly same-sex couples. They obviously believe in the institution and want to strengthen it with their unions, which is their right to do. They should be applauded and supported.

If you redefine marriage you have given up on traditional marriage, you goofball....

Then you better give up...10 states and counting...

 

[P@triot]

Do run from the question - you essentially claim that we should give up on traditional marriage because it has (according to you) a 50% failure rate.

Well so do many things - should we give up on all of them?

Ever notice that the rise in the rates of failed marriage correlates perfectly with the rise if the disease known as liberalism?

good point, there is also a correlation between failed marriages and government payments that incentivize having kids out of wedlock. the more illigitimate kids, the bigger the welfare payment. and we wonder why the inner cities are so screwed up.

Gee, funding contraception may reduce that but, oh wait, you're against that too. Nevermind.

No we're not! Go ahead and "fund" contraception Candycorn (what's the matter - too cheap?!?). Or have the couple "fund" it themselves. Or have their friends "fund" it. Or have their parents "fund" it.

The only thing we are against is government unconstitutionally taking OUR money that we EARNED to hand it over to liberal high school dropouts who want to get high and fuck anything that moves (opposite sex, same sex, or animal).

 

[P@triot]

No one is advocating ‘giving up’ on traditional marriage, particularly same-sex couples. They obviously believe in the institution and want to strengthen it with their unions, which is their right to do. They should be applauded and supported.

If you redefine marriage you have given up on traditional marriage, you goofball....

Then you better give up...10 states and counting...

There are 50 states in the union genius. Are you really crowing about the fact that 80% of the entire nation rejects your belief? Really?

 

[P@triot]

If you can't figure out why children have better outcomes in stable homes with two parents, nobody here can help you.

Well by your logic, wouldn't children do exponentially better with three or four parents then? Right?

They might. Are there studies? There ARE studies on same sex parenting and every one comes to the same conclusion...our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

I love your reference to "studies"

Studies by who? Left-wing liberal homosexual whack-a-doo's who desperately want to advance their own cause? Can you provide me with even ONE single study done by heterosexual conservatives that supports your opinion? Just one?

I mean, history has shown (from the Nazi's right up to "Climate Gate" today) that the left believes "the ends justifies the means" and therefore they will falsify data and spread propaganda for their cause.

As I've said many times - you people don't look at the facts and come to the proper conclusion. You people draw your conclusion first and then manufacture facts to support it (while ignoring actual facts).