Member of gay community: children need both a dad and a mom

[sfcalifornia]

It is always good to see a poster going on about rights and freedoms and small government on one thread - and then want governments to decide who can and can not get married on another.

If two gay people want to get married why not let them decide if its appropriate or not.

Um, actually stupid, this is very consistent with my small government beliefs. The gay community is demanding government hop into bed with them and recognize their marriage. Like all things, I'm trying to keep government out of their bed. I 100% gays creating some kind of union of their own. No government involvement.

I swear Saigon, just when I believe you have achieved the absolute pinnacle of stupidity, you figure out a way to take it to a whole new level...

We heteros invited the government into out beds long ago, dipshit. We accept all kinds of cash and prizes from the government for being married.

The government has been interfering in our social behaviors through the giving and taking of cash and prizes for quite some time, and only now do we suddenly find idiots like you complaining when someone else asks for the same privileges you have demanded and accepted from the government.

I don't see where you get the idea that government has been interfering.

Government legislates on a reactionary basis, rarely ,if ever, as a precaution. Any law that exists regarding marriage is in place because it became necessary due to a progressing society.

Which benefit or law established by the government regarding marriage do you think is unnecessary or interfering?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I'll never figure out Log Cabin Republicans.

That's ok - we'll never figure out you communitsts

Destroy God

Destroy the Family

Destroy society (drugs, alcohol, debauchery)

Destroy the economy

Destroy your nation

Hell of an ideology you idiots believe so deeply in...

No one is a Communist. That you keep repeating that we are, doesn't make it any more truth.

Obama is a communist. His handler George Soros is a communist. The people he appointed to be czars are communists. Look up Van Jones and tell me what you find out. Or don't you want to know the truth?

 

[g5000]

Um, actually stupid, this is very consistent with my small government beliefs. The gay community is demanding government hop into bed with them and recognize their marriage. Like all things, I'm trying to keep government out of their bed. I 100% gays creating some kind of union of their own. No government involvement.

I swear Saigon, just when I believe you have achieved the absolute pinnacle of stupidity, you figure out a way to take it to a whole new level...

We heteros invited the government into out beds long ago, dipshit. We accept all kinds of cash and prizes from the government for being married.

The government has been interfering in our social behaviors through the giving and taking of cash and prizes for quite some time, and only now do we suddenly find idiots like you complaining when someone else asks for the same privileges you have demanded and accepted from the government.

I don't see where you get the idea that government has been interfering.

Government legislates on a reactionary basis, rarely ,if ever, as a precaution. Any law that exists regarding marriage is in place because it became necessary due to a progressing society.

Which benefit or law established by the government regarding marriage do you think is unnecessary or interfering?

All of it.

When the government gives you a tax break for buying the right kind of refrigerator, it is attempting to modify your behavior.

Just so with giving you cash and prizes for being married, or conversely penalizing you for not being married.

You have become so accustomed to this kind of social engineering you don't even notice it. Especially if it benefits you financially.

You pay more taxes if you don't own a house. You pay more taxes if you are not married. You pay more taxes if you don't buy solar panels. The government punishes you for not doing what it, or its special interest donors to their campaigns, want you to do.

It was not a big leap to make you pay more taxes for not buying health insurance.

 

[P@triot]

Defined by you....not by me. Sadly for you, the tide is changing...and soon the laws of the land. And you'll be disenchanted more. LOL

Um... you were saying?

As I said, the tide is turning - but against you.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-huge-pro-life-win-its-a-good-day-for-babies/

 

[poet]

This makes no sense, as usual.

The vast majority of liberals are Christian, and even more believe in god.

Every anti-religious organization is comprised of liberals. You would be hard-pressed to find even the smallest handful of conservatives in organizations such as this:

Home - Freedom From Religion Foundation
Annie Laurie Gaylor (born in Tomah, Wisconsin on 2 November 1955) is co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and, with her husband Dan Barker, is the current co-president.[1] She is a self-described feminist and liberal.

Liberals have and are members of loving families, families they work to keep safe and happy.

Liberals have destroyed the family. They support any and all forms of dysfunctional activities (gay marriage, infidelity, abortion, etc.) and they usurp its functions with government run programs.



I could go on all day about how absurd this statement is, but I'll let indisputable video do all of the talking...

[ame=http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio]Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/KRgB2eeHZEw]Your Higher Taxes pay for My healthcare thanks President Obama Healthcare Reform - GloZell - YouTube[/ame]

This is not the exception - this is the liberal. They don't work, they sure as hell don't save for retirement (they believe society should pay for their retirement), and the only thing they "invest" in is their narcotics.

And liberals are members of society, they pay taxes, vote in elections, go to church, school, work, and attend high school reunions, just like every other American; through their efforts they contribute to a secure and prosperous society.

Yep - they are "members of society". Sadly, the society liberals have created is a degraded, disgusting mess of debauchery, drugs, and disease. Take a look for yourself:

The zombietime Hall of Shame

They are consequently considered a ‘cancer’ only by irrational people, partisan hacks blinded by ignorance, hate, and dogma.

While you continue to make shit up, I continue to prove you wrong with facts backed up with links.

Lies and sissy chatter.

 

[poet]

Defined by you....not by me. Sadly for you, the tide is changing...and soon the laws of the land. And you'll be disenchanted more. LOL

Um... you were saying?

As I said, the tide is turning - but against you.

North Dakota?s HUGE Pro-Life Win: ?It?s a Good Day for Babies? | TheBlaze.com

Who are you trying convince? Yourself? I'm not buying.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's ok - we'll never figure out you communitsts

Destroy God

Destroy the Family

Destroy society (drugs, alcohol, debauchery)

Destroy the economy

Destroy your nation

Hell of an ideology you idiots believe so deeply in...

No one is a Communist. That you keep repeating that we are, doesn't make it any more truth.

Obama is a communist. His handler George Soros is a communist. The people he appointed to be czars are communists. Look up Van Jones and tell me what you find out. Or don't you want to know the truth?

And conservatives wonder why they’re losing elections.

 

[P@triot]

Defined by you....not by me. Sadly for you, the tide is changing...and soon the laws of the land. And you'll be disenchanted more. LOL

Um... you were saying?

As I said, the tide is turning - but against you.

North Dakota?s HUGE Pro-Life Win: ?It?s a Good Day for Babies? | TheBlaze.com

Who are you trying convince? Yourself? I'm not buying.

I'm not trying to "convince" anyone (I know there is no convincing irrational liberals who detest facts in favor of ideology). I'm just showing everyone else how wrong you are with indisputable evidence.

 

[Wicked Jester]

It truly is sad that gay couples would elect to knowingly put their child/children in a position to have to put up with the embarrassment and humiliation of having gays as parents.

Imagine what it must be like for a child to go to, lets say, their schools open house, and while 99.9% of the children are introducing their mommy's and daddy's, the child of the gays have to introduce their mommy and mommy, or daddy and daddy.

In many ways, it's a form of child abuse....Particularly psychological abuse.

And the sad thing is, besides the embarrassment and humiliation, is that these gay couples do it for no other reason than to advance their perverted agenda.

And the above is why we have the 14th Amendment and its case law, to protect Americans from this very hate and ignorance.

Hate?....No, I don't hate gays....I could care less that they choose to be perverts. As long as it's legal, I don't have a problem with it.

The ignorance comes from people like you, who actually think that these kids raised by them, don't continually suffer from embarrassment and humiliation....And its damn sure ignorant of people like you who don't think the gays know exactly what they are putting those kids through.

 

[sfcalifornia]

We heteros invited the government into out beds long ago, dipshit. We accept all kinds of cash and prizes from the government for being married.

The government has been interfering in our social behaviors through the giving and taking of cash and prizes for quite some time, and only now do we suddenly find idiots like you complaining when someone else asks for the same privileges you have demanded and accepted from the government.

I don't see where you get the idea that government has been interfering.

Government legislates on a reactionary basis, rarely ,if ever, as a precaution. Any law that exists regarding marriage is in place because it became necessary due to a progressing society.

Which benefit or law established by the government regarding marriage do you think is unnecessary or interfering?

All of it.

When the government gives you a tax break for buying the right kind of refrigerator, it is attempting to modify your behavior.

Just so with giving you cash and prizes for being married, or conversely penalizing you for not being married.

You have become so accustomed to this kind of social engineering you don't even notice it. Especially if it benefits you financially.

You pay more taxes if you don't own a house. You pay more taxes if you are not married. You pay more taxes if you don't buy solar panels. The government punishes you for not doing what it, or its special interest donors to their campaigns, want you to do.

It was not a big leap to make you pay more taxes for not buying health insurance.

I was wondering only about specific laws involving marriage and if you could point out any particular standouts.

There are laws protecting both individuals in that marriage in the event of divorce, death or any other financial or custodial issue. I think the laws came about because of necessity due to a changing society. Which laws do you think are interfering with, as opposed to protecting, the individuals in that marriage?

 

[P@triot]

It truly is sad that gay couples would elect to knowingly put their child/children in a position to have to put up with the embarrassment and humiliation of having gays as parents.

Imagine what it must be like for a child to go to, lets say, their schools open house, and while 99.9% of the children are introducing their mommy's and daddy's, the child of the gays have to introduce their mommy and mommy, or daddy and daddy.

In many ways, it's a form of child abuse....Particularly psychological abuse.

And the sad thing is, besides the embarrassment and humiliation, is that these gay couples do it for no other reason than to advance their perverted agenda.

And the above is why we have the 14th Amendment and its case law, to protect Americans from this very hate and ignorance.

Hate?....No, I don't hate gays....I could care less that they choose to be perverts. As long as it's legal, I don't have a problem with it.

The ignorance comes from people like you, who actually think that these kids raised by them, don't continually suffer from embarrassment and humiliation....And its damn sure ignorant of people like you who don't think the gays know exactly what they are putting those kids through.

Don't kid yourself - the liberals know. The key is, they don't care. The liberal is the greedy, lazy, self-centered animal. It's all about them and their wants - the child be damned (hence the baby-mama with 9 children from 8 different men).

 

[RDD_1210]

So should single mothers without a father anywhere in their childs life should have their child taken away?

If they properly care for the child? Absolutely not.

So then you must be in favor of gay couples who properly care for the child as well. Correct?

You must have missed this question, since I never saw your response.

 

[poet]

And the above is why we have the 14th Amendment and its case law, to protect Americans from this very hate and ignorance.

Hate?....No, I don't hate gays....I could care less that they choose to be perverts. As long as it's legal, I don't have a problem with it.

The ignorance comes from people like you, who actually think that these kids raised by them, don't continually suffer from embarrassment and humiliation....And its damn sure ignorant of people like you who don't think the gays know exactly what they are putting those kids through.

Don't kid yourself - the liberals know. The key is, they don't care. The liberal is the greedy, lazy, self-centered animal. It's all about them and their wants - the child be damned (hence the baby-mama with 9 children from 8 different men).

What? Racially profiling "on the cool"???? Your obvious racially-charged innuendo is not lost on me. Liberals is not another word for black folks with loose morals and no responsibility. Whites have children out of wedlock, co-habit with multiple partners, are on welfare (more than any other group), and are devoid of any positivity as much as anyone you're implying.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wait. What?

Are you now saying you want to make having your children in foster care illegal?

You believe society should be forced to provide for the children of irresponsible parents.

I believe the irresponsible parents should be forced to take care of their own children.

It goes way beyond foster care:

If you're such an incompetent piece of shit that you need food stamps for your children (ie your so negligent in your responsibilities that you can't even feed your own children) - then we put you on a chain gain and make you earn the food for your child

If you're such an incompetent piece of shit that you need government housing for you and your children (ie your so negligent in your responsibilities that you can't even provide a roof over your child's head) - then we put you on a chain gain and make you earn the housing for your child

If you're such an incompetent piece of shit that you need government to pay for healthcare for your children (ie your so negligent in your responsibilities that you can't even pay for your own children to see a doctor) - then we put you on a chain gain and make you earn the healthcare for your child

Stop playing stupid because you hate this non-communist solution to a problem and you have no intelligent response.

Where is the money coming from to pay these neglectful parents? Seeing as in your scenario, they are prisoners, wouldn't it be taxpayer money which would pay the inmate parents? So, would that mean you are advocating taking other people's money at the point of a gun to pay for the children of irresponsible parents?

Let's say they are making minimum wage. That's $7.25 * 10 Hours per day * 5 Days a week * 50 Weeks per year = $18,125

Add to that the cost of prisons, guards, administration, and food which is about $35,000 (on average).

That's a cost to the taxpayers of $53,125 per.

The Average Cost to House Inmates in Prison | eHow.com


>>>>

 

[P@triot]

Hate?....No, I don't hate gays....I could care less that they choose to be perverts. As long as it's legal, I don't have a problem with it.

The ignorance comes from people like you, who actually think that these kids raised by them, don't continually suffer from embarrassment and humiliation....And its damn sure ignorant of people like you who don't think the gays know exactly what they are putting those kids through.

Don't kid yourself - the liberals know. The key is, they don't care. The liberal is the greedy, lazy, self-centered animal. It's all about them and their wants - the child be damned (hence the baby-mama with 9 children from 8 different men).

What? Racially profiling "on the cool"???? Your obvious racially-charged innuendo is not lost on me. Liberals is not another word for black folks with loose morals and no responsibility. Whites have children out of wedlock, co-habit with multiple partners, are on welfare (more than any other group), and are devoid of any positivity as much as anyone you're implying.

I think someone has some closet racism they need to deal with. You're right - liberal is not another word for "black-folk". It's another word for communism. Or socialism. Or marxism. Or totalitarianism. Or nazi.

Here is a prime example of the sub-animal garbage that is the modern day "liberal". How many black people do you see here? Clearly you're the closet racist:

The zombietime Hall of Shame

By the way - for the record - I fear no man. If I wanted to use the word ******, I would use the word ******. And there isn't a damn thing you or anyone else could do about it. Don't you worry - if the day ever comes where I feel it is justified to attack a person with regards to their race - you'll know it. It will be bold, overt, and unmistakable. Only a coward is passive. I stand loud & proud in my beliefs.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

What about the Federal Prison Labor set up to mass manufacture products for sale - export industry - that Obama has set up for competing with Communist nations at $1.40 labor? Isn't the goverment going to be making huge profits in keeping prisoners vs. releasing them? I don't agree with it as I see it to be no different from NK slave labor camps that manufacture products for china and china then sells - with made in china attached.. really made in NK work camps. They make products for Russia too. What about that?

 

[P@triot]

If they properly care for the child? Absolutely not.

So then you must be in favor of gay couples who properly care for the child as well. Correct?

You must have missed this question, since I never saw your response.

Well, the question doesn't make much sense in the context of the entire conversation. Since I'm not a liberal though, allow me to be very clear on this:

No, I do not believe that a child should be taken away from a gay couple who is taking quality care of the child.

However, being that you are a liberal, you're trying to change the issue rather than have an honest conversation. The issue here is, is it in the best interest of a child to be placed in the care of a gay couple to begin with? The gay individual in this article believes it is not. I tend to agree with him.

You liberals tend to be mother-nature worshipping tree-huggers. Why do you think two women or two men are incapable of breeding? Because it is unnatural. Are a gay couple capable of doing a quality job of providing care for a child. Absolutely. No rational person would ever argue otherwise. But it is the ideal situation for a child? Absolutely not. You cannot overstate the importance of having one man married to one woman in a healthy relationship to raise children.

 

[P@triot]

Where is the money coming from to pay these neglectful parents? Seeing as in your scenario, they are prisoners, wouldn't it be taxpayer money which would pay the inmate parents? So, would that mean you are advocating taking other people's money at the point of a gun to pay for the children of irresponsible parents?

Wow... I seriously can't believe I have to explain this to an adult.

We have these things called "taxes" (this is money taken against the will of the people by the government for various government expenses). These "taxes" at the local level have been used to pay for the repair of roads. These "taxes" are also used to pay for a host of government child services (orphanages, foster care, healthcare, etc.).

Now, if we take the taxes we use to pay private corporations to repair those roads and we SAVE that money by having free labor (see, we're not actually paying them ), we can use it for the cost of caring for their children.

God help us....

 

[P@triot]

You believe society should be forced to provide for the children of irresponsible parents.

I believe the irresponsible parents should be forced to take care of their own children.

It goes way beyond foster care:

If you're such an incompetent piece of shit that you need food stamps for your children (ie your so negligent in your responsibilities that you can't even feed your own children) - then we put you on a chain gain and make you earn the food for your child

If you're such an incompetent piece of shit that you need government housing for you and your children (ie your so negligent in your responsibilities that you can't even provide a roof over your child's head) - then we put you on a chain gain and make you earn the housing for your child

If you're such an incompetent piece of shit that you need government to pay for healthcare for your children (ie your so negligent in your responsibilities that you can't even pay for your own children to see a doctor) - then we put you on a chain gain and make you earn the healthcare for your child

Stop playing stupid because you hate this non-communist solution to a problem and you have no intelligent response.

Where is the money coming from to pay these neglectful parents? Seeing as in your scenario, they are prisoners, wouldn't it be taxpayer money which would pay the inmate parents? So, would that mean you are advocating taking other people's money at the point of a gun to pay for the children of irresponsible parents?

Let's say they are making minimum wage. That's $7.25 * 10 Hours per day * 5 Days a week * 50 Weeks per year = $18,125

Add to that the cost of prisons, guards, administration, and food which is about $35,000 (on average).

That's a cost to the taxpayers of $53,125 per.

The Average Cost to House Inmates in Prison | eHow.com


>>>>

Yeah - if you'll notice, I clearly stated 12 hour days. And who dictates 5 hour weeks? 7 days a week my friend.

Now, mathematics aside for a moment, there is a little more to this than the economics (astounding I have to explain it). By making the conditions miserable, these people will prefer to work and provide for their own children than be forced to work on a chain gang.

Furthermore, you libs are constantly crying like small children about "infrastructure" - imagine the roads and bridges this nation could have if we took ALL of the millions and millions of inmates and put them to work. And imagine the tax dollars we could save doing that.

 

[RDD_1210]

So then you must be in favor of gay couples who properly care for the child as well. Correct?

You must have missed this question, since I never saw your response.

Well, the question doesn't make much sense in the context of the entire conversation. Since I'm not a liberal though, allow me to be very clear on this:

No, I do not believe that a child should be taken away from a gay couple who is taking quality care of the child.

However, being that you are a liberal, you're trying to change the issue rather than have an honest conversation. The issue here is, is it in the best interest of a child to be placed in the care of a gay couple to begin with? The gay individual in this article believes it is not. I tend to agree with him.

You liberals tend to be mother-nature worshipping tree-huggers. Why do you think two women or two men are incapable of breeding? Because it is unnatural. Are a gay couple capable of doing a quality job of providing care for a child. Absolutely. No rational person would ever argue otherwise. But it is the ideal situation for a child? Absolutely not. You cannot overstate the importance of having one man married to one woman in a healthy relationship to raise children.

Which is more ideal for the child.

Letting that child remain in foster care or an orphanage or having a gay couple adopt that child?