Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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....
1. ANTI-INTERRACIAL State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."
2. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."
3. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."
4. ANTI-GAY Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), 2011: “It not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”
5. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."
6. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."
7. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."
8. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Bob Jones University, (1998!!!): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."
9. ANTI-GAY Family Research Council publication, 2002: "A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."
10. ANTI-INTERRACIAL From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."
Gee, funding contraception may reduce that but, oh wait, you're against that too.
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.
Or have your insurance--you know the thing you pay for to eleviate medical costs--help you pay for it in part. Oh wait, you're against that too.
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.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.
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").
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.
The rest of us are eligible to marry someone we love, homosexuals cannot under the repressive laws in place today. Now, why do you think that's right? Because homosexuals should not enjoy the privileges and benefits of marriage because they happen to be homosexuals? What is the virtue of keeping a class of sober tax paying American citizens who are committing NO CRIME by way of their sexual preference segregated from the provisions of contract law and the establishment of a wedded couple?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.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.
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.
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").
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.
I was trying to make the point that talking out of your ass and making stuff up about someone you know nothing about is just plain absurd. I broke down my responses to your comments - are you really incapable of following along here?
As far as ALS - I never claimed (or even implied) that homosexuality is a "disease". The example I used was to illustrate the "logic" (or, rather, the completely lack thereof) of giving up on something because it doesn't have a good rate in terms of percentages. He wanted to focus on marriage having a 50% failure rate - so I gave him the 100% failure rate of ALS and asked if we should give up on that. You can't be this stupid - you're pretending not to understand because I made a point which you can't dispute.
And yes, gay people do want special rights. They already have ALL of the same rights that everyone else has - freedom of speech, religion, bear arms, etc. Hell, they can even get married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex - just like the rest of us do.
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.
Does the gender of parents really matter? | Psychology Today
No, she's not. Your link is about gender, but her comment was about having two parents. Parents of different genders playing 'different' gender roles is not the same as not needing a mother and father. I know it's drilled into the heads of lefties from the earliest age that everything is the same and you cannot judge anything, but the standard arrangement of things didn't happen by accident.
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).
The rest of us are eligible to marry someone we love, homosexuals cannot under the repressive laws in place today. Now, why do you think that's right? Because homosexuals should not enjoy the privileges and benefits of marriage because they happen to be homosexuals? What is the virtue of keeping a class of sober tax paying American citizens who are committing NO CRIME by way of their sexual preference segregated from the provisions of contract law and the establishment of a wedded couple?
Because marriage is a contract and animals cannot consent to enter into a contract.The rest of us are eligible to marry someone we love, homosexuals cannot under the repressive laws in place today. Now, why do you think that's right? Because homosexuals should not enjoy the privileges and benefits of marriage because they happen to be homosexuals? What is the virtue of keeping a class of sober tax paying American citizens who are committing NO CRIME by way of their sexual preference segregated from the provisions of contract law and the establishment of a wedded couple?
Fair enough question... So let me ask you, do you support a man marrying his horse or a woman marrying her goat? If not, why?
No, she's not. Your link is about gender, but her comment was about having two parents. Parents of different genders playing 'different' gender roles is not the same as not needing a mother and father. I know it's drilled into the heads of lefties from the earliest age that everything is the same and you cannot judge anything, but the standard arrangement of things didn't happen by accident.
The link supports her claim that gender is immaterial in the raising children.
No, she's not. Your link is about gender, but her comment was about having two parents. Parents of different genders playing 'different' gender roles is not the same as not needing a mother and father. I know it's drilled into the heads of lefties from the earliest age that everything is the same and you cannot judge anything, but the standard arrangement of things didn't happen by accident.
The link supports her claim that gender is immaterial in the raising children.
She mentioned "single parents" in her response. Did you bother to read it?
The link supports her claim that gender is immaterial in the raising children.
She mentioned "single parents" in her response. Did you bother to read it?
Yes she referenced single parents, and? What about that did you find stupid?
So let me ask you, do you support a man marrying his horse or a woman marrying her goat? If not, why?
She mentioned "single parents" in her response. Did you bother to read it?
Yes she referenced single parents, and? What about that did you find stupid?
That having one parent is no different than having two. It obviously is.
Yes she referenced single parents, and? What about that did you find stupid?
That having one parent is no different than having two. It obviously is.
Sorry, but I didn't get that out of her statement.
Because marriage is a contract and animals cannot consent to enter into a contract.The rest of us are eligible to marry someone we love, homosexuals cannot under the repressive laws in place today. Now, why do you think that's right? Because homosexuals should not enjoy the privileges and benefits of marriage because they happen to be homosexuals? What is the virtue of keeping a class of sober tax paying American citizens who are committing NO CRIME by way of their sexual preference segregated from the provisions of contract law and the establishment of a wedded couple?
Fair enough question... So let me ask you, do you support a man marrying his horse or a woman marrying her goat? If not, why?
The rest of us are eligible to marry someone we love, homosexuals cannot under the repressive laws in place today. Now, why do you think that's right? Because homosexuals should not enjoy the privileges and benefits of marriage because they happen to be homosexuals? What is the virtue of keeping a class of sober tax paying American citizens who are committing NO CRIME by way of their sexual preference segregated from the provisions of contract law and the establishment of a wedded couple?
Fair enough question... So let me ask you, do you support a man marrying his horse or a woman marrying her goat? If not, why?
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.
Or have your insurance--you know the thing you pay for to eleviate medical costs--help you pay for it in part. Oh wait, you're against that too.
Really? I'm against insurance?
