Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Idiot alert!

you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.

I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you

Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI

The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an apéritif and yoyo dieting is a way of life.

Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock

Okay Stein-lite?

How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?

Try asking somebody who is gay and from there

I am asking you, because you said discrimination there is responsible for the high suicide rate. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?

A contributing factor of course. Go look it up.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Idiot alert!

you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.

I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you

Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI

The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an apéritif and yoyo dieting is a way of life.

Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock

Okay Stein-lite?

How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?

Try asking somebody who is gay and from there

I am asking you, because you said discrimination there is responsible for the high suicide rate. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?

​

 

[Steinlight]

Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI

The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an apéritif and yoyo dieting is a way of life.

Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock

Okay Stein-lite?

How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?

Try asking somebody who is gay and from there

I am asking you, because you said discrimination there is responsible for the high suicide rate. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?

A contributing factor of course. Go look it up.

You are just repeating yourself, saying it causes suicide. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands? You made the claim, the onus is on you to prove the claim. Why do you keep avoiding the question?

 

[Steinlight]

Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI

The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an apéritif and yoyo dieting is a way of life.

Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock

Okay Stein-lite?

How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?

Try asking somebody who is gay and from there

I am asking you, because you said discrimination there is responsible for the high suicide rate. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?

​

He won't ever get give a concrete answer. He will just say how "obvious" it is and to "google it". But somehow I am the homophobic shitlord demanding he back up his claims. The thing with the Left is they never have to prove anything. Their world view is confirmed by their FEELINGS, how dare you invalidate them!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

aq`1 << LOL! My Dog "Gunner" typed that!

The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an apéritif and yoyo dieting is a way of life.

Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock

Okay Stein-lite?

How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?

Try asking somebody who is gay and from there

I am asking you, because you said discrimination there is responsible for the high suicide rate. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?

​

He won't ever get give a concrete answer. He will just say how "obvious" it is and to "google it". But somehow I am the homophobic shitlord demanding he back up his claims. The thing with the Left is they never have to prove anything. Their world view is confirmed by their FEELINGS, how dare you invalidate them!

LOL! I know... it's pure Ideological GOLD!

 

[Seawytch]

What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.

If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...

You are so stupid and dishonest.

Look at this link

Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers

show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.

Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?

A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake.

I don't think I can make this any simpler for your poor stupid little brain. If you sell an item to the straight couple, in some states you also have to sell it to the gay couple.

God you are stupid.


When was the last time you heard of ANYONE buying a wedding cake without a topper? Oh, that's right, they don't.

Why are you so dishonest SeaBytch? Why must you make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE to have a rationale discussion with you? Do you see a poster like say Syriusly who has almost the exact same opinions as you but doesn't feel the need to LIE about everything?

NOBODY, but NOBODY walks into a bakery and buys a wedding cake and doesn't have it customized for them.

Meaning , that every couple who buys a wedding cake is asking for it to be made FOR THEM. It isn't like faggots are walking into buy a set of tires that are on a shelf.

Last chance, bring up your bullshit about this again and I'll place you on ignore with the other children.

Who gives two shits about cake toppers? A baker can tell people to get their own. It has been done before. People can and do use their own custom topper

geeze

The point being , SeaBytch has been claiming for two days that the bakers would have had no idea if they were gay because all they did was walk in and pick a cake out of a catalog, and it doesn't work that way.

Not unless you're doing your wedding for $50 total I guess.

I've been married 8 years and when we found a baker, we spent 2 fucking weeks tasting cakes, choosing cakes, choosing frostings, etc etc, the baker definitely realized we were man and soon to be wife. She didn't have to ask.

Wrong. I never said the baker didn't know they were gay Too Dumb to Breath, I said that they ordered the same cake a heterosexual would order and the baker refused them. That's where the law breaking and discrimination come in, Stupid as Fuck.

 

[Seawytch]

An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it

Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite

Yup...keep telling us how you're not a homophobic bigot while you troll NARTH.

what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about your false claim that you're not a homophobe. People who are not homophobes don't troll homophobic sites for bullshit studies.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You are so stupid and dishonest.

Look at this link

Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers

show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.

Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?

A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake.

I don't think I can make this any simpler for your poor stupid little brain. If you sell an item to the straight couple, in some states you also have to sell it to the gay couple.

God you are stupid.


When was the last time you heard of ANYONE buying a wedding cake without a topper? Oh, that's right, they don't.

Why are you so dishonest SeaBytch? Why must you make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE to have a rationale discussion with you? Do you see a poster like say Syriusly who has almost the exact same opinions as you but doesn't feel the need to LIE about everything?

NOBODY, but NOBODY walks into a bakery and buys a wedding cake and doesn't have it customized for them.

Meaning , that every couple who buys a wedding cake is asking for it to be made FOR THEM. It isn't like faggots are walking into buy a set of tires that are on a shelf.

Last chance, bring up your bullshit about this again and I'll place you on ignore with the other children.

Who gives two shits about cake toppers? A baker can tell people to get their own. It has been done before. People can and do use their own custom topper

geeze

The point being , SeaBytch has been claiming for two days that the bakers would have had no idea if they were gay because all they did was walk in and pick a cake out of a catalog, and it doesn't work that way.

Not unless you're doing your wedding for $50 total I guess.

I've been married 8 years and when we found a baker, we spent 2 fucking weeks tasting cakes, choosing cakes, choosing frostings, etc etc, the baker definitely realized we were man and soon to be wife. She didn't have to ask.

Wrong. I never said the baker didn't know they were gay Too Dumb to Breath, I said that they ordered the same cake a heterosexual would order and the baker refused them. That's where the law breaking and discrimination come in, Stupid as Fuck.

Of course they refused... they're people of the same gender pretending to get MARRIED! What self respecting person would serve them?

Let me help you through this: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Been that way sinc the flood sweety. Nothing complicated about any of this.

If you people can't get THIS much right, how do you expect anyone to accept you as people?

"People" know these things.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it

Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite

Yup...keep telling us how you're not a homophobic bigot while you troll NARTH.

what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about your false claim that you're not a homophobe. People who are not homophobes don't troll homophobic sites for bullshit studies.

LOL I googled and that's the first study that came up.

HILARIOUS, now I'm a homophobe for attempting to educate myself before posting? I mean I realize that doing so is completely foreign to you , but homophobic? LOL

 

[koshergrl]

Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.

And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.

You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.

Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.

There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.

The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.

 

[Seawytch]

Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.

And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.

You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.

Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.

There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.

The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.

So you lied and you really do read my posts. Totes adorbs!

 

[Skylar]

I disagree, the law isn't set in stone as you suggest at all.

I never argued that the law was 'set in stone'. Quite the opposite. I've argued that even using your rational, the law makes millions upon millions of exceptions for straight couples. And that if it makes them for straights, it should make them for gays.

It certainly wasn't the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to allow interracial marriage, much less same sex marriage.

The framers of the 14th amendment intended the amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. And the 9th amendment makes clear that there are reserve rights that are unemumerated, yet still held by the people. Marriage is among them, recognized by the USSC as a fundamental right.

If you're going to deny that right to gays and lesbians, you'll need a very good reason.

So you can make your appeal based on equality, but you can't make it on the law as you claim.

Obviously you can. As the framers of the 14th wanted all privileges and immunities of federal citizens protected from state interference. They demanded equal protection in the law. They didn't list which laws, they indicated merely 'the law'. The type of explicit cherry picking you're doing is something the framers of the 14th amendment never did.

And of course, the courts don't accept as valid. Rendering your standards irrelevant, both historically, logically, and legally.

Also, the whole question where homosexuals are protected class is an issue.

Read Romer V. Evans and especially Windsor v the US if you want an indication of whether or not gays are protected. Pay special attention to those sections of the Windsor rulings on the harm to children done to children of gay parents when their parent's marriages aren't recognized under the law. Many of the same arguments I've made here were made by the justice that wrote both rulings: Justice Kennedy.

Or as I like to call him 'Mr. Swing Voter'. The man who most often breaks the ties in the USSC's most controversial cases. So to answer your question or whether or not gays are protected, the answer is a definitive 'yes'.

Than the question arises, are homosexuals denied the right to marry(enter a union with someone of the opposite sex)? No, there is nothing stopping someone based on their orientation from entering into a marriage contract. So even if we accept your premise, which I disagree with, that homosexuals are a protected class under the 14th Amendment, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

That's the same reasoning that was used to justify interracial marriage bans. Where since whites and blacks were both restricted to their own race, there were no equality conflicts, as the limitations applied to both whites and blacks equally.

Problem is....there was no valid reason for the restriction. Gay marriage bans run into the same problem. You'll need a valid state interest and a rational reason for the restriction. And gay marriage opponents have neither.

As the millions upon millions of the infertile or childless that are either married or are allowed to marry demonstrates, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. And in fact no one is required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married.

Why then would we invent a standard that applies to no one, exempt all straights and then apply it exclusively to gays? There's simply no reason.

Gays and Lesbians can adopt children or create children with a surrogate, but the two partners can't have children.

Nor can infertile couples. Or those that choose to adopt rather than have their own children. But no one would insist that these aren't their children because of issues of fertility or adoption. Nor would that have any relevance to their parents ability to get married.

If they're straight, that is.

If they're gay, then your argument is quite common. And quite invalid. As you're holding gays to a completely different standard than you do straights. The children of gay couples are the children of gay couples, regardless of whether or not both are the biological parents. Or in the case of adoption, regardless of either are the biological parents.

And these children are harmed by the state refusing to recognize the marriages of their parents.

Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license.

Why wouldn't we allow homosexuals to care for children? They have children, you know that right? Why would we not allow them to care for their own kids? And under what rational would we prevent them from adopting?

I'm not quite following your logic.

I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents.

And on what rationale would you base this conclusion upon? You feel this to be true because.....

....you feel it to be true, apparently. But denying gays and lesbians the right to marry because you feel something you have no evidence to support isn't a very good reason.

As for the discussion about children not receiving inheritance. Shouldn't they have thought of that by creating a will before time, or going through the proper adopting channels and gaining full parental rights on hospital issues?

Why should gay parents have to do any more or less 'thinking' about children than straight parents? The existence of such unjust restrictions doesn't actually justify such unjust restrictions.

None of this is necessary for marriage, and it is a disingenuous argument that is supposed to pull at our heart strings so we give sanction to their immoral lifestyle.

[/quote]

The person you're arguing with isn't me. Its Justice Kennedy. As I very, very closely paraphrased his own ruling in the Windsor case.

The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. It prevents same-sex married couplesfrom obtaining government healthcare benefits they would otherwise receive. See 5 U. S. C. §§8901(5), 8905. It deprives them of the Bankruptcy Code’s special protections for domestic-support obligations. See 11 U. S. C. §§101(14A), 507(a)(1)(A), 523(a)(5), 523(a)(15). It forces them to follow a complicated procedure to file their state and federal taxes jointly. Technical Bulletin TB–55, 2010 Vt. Tax LEXIS 6 (Oct. 7, 2010); Brief for Federalism Scholars as Amici Curiae 34. It prohibits them from being buried together in veterans’ cemeteries. National Cemetery Administration Directive 3210/1, p. 37 (June 4, 2008).

DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf.

Justice Kennedy delivering the Majority Decision
Windsor V. US (2013)

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

You can dismiss the majority decision of the USSC as a 'disingenuous argument that is supposed to pull at our heart strings so we give sanction to their immoral lifestyle". But I doubt you're going to see much legal progress with such an argument.

And of course, what about gays and lesbians getting married or raising children is 'immoral'?

 

[Skylar]

Of course they refused... they're people of the same gender pretending to get MARRIED! What self respecting person would serve them?

The State recognizes their marriages as being as valid and as protected as any straight couple's marriage in 36 of 50 states. You can insist that these aren't marriages. The law says otherwise.

And among the self respecting people that would serve gay folks, I would include myself. Part of my business is making custom cake toppers. I've made 2 for gay couples. And they paid very well. Why wouldn't I do business with them?

Let me help you through this: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Been that way sinc the flood sweety. Nothing complicated about any of this.

So you say. The law in 36 states says marriage can include one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. That you disagree is legally irrelevant. As we don't base our law on your agreement.

If you people can't get THIS much right, how do you expect anyone to accept you as people?

Because they are people. Its not that complicated.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused. So your claim is wrong.
Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect
How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting
.

Let us start with 'Chapter 5'

Not one mention of being raised by homosexuals there. Not sure why you suddenly want to equate single parent with homosexual households.

Risk factors they mention:
Parent factors- personality/history of maltreatment/substance abuse/attitudes and knowledge/age
Family Factors- single parents families- families with lots of children- father absence- marital conflict- stress-
Child factors (not really relevant)
Environmental factors- poverty unemployment/social isolation

I am not sure how you think Chapter 5 supports your case.

That link explains increased physical and sexual abuse in single parent households, you claimed a man in the household made it more dangerous for children, when children are more at risk in a single mother household. The bottom two links explain increased risk in homosexual couple households..

Oh so that is what is tweaking you out.

What I said was this:

Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?

And that is a fact

Your Chapter 5 even explains this:

• A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children in this study lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.49

The statistics show how much more dangerous men are than women when it comes to child sexual assault.

http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

Table 6- men are the abusers 88-99% of the time. Family members are the abusers 12-49% of the time.

Fathers- step fathers- grandfathers- brothers- all more dangerous than female family members.

IF you used consistent standards you would be saying that lesbian couples are the safest adoptive parents.

But instead you would deny adoption to every lesbian couple, and deny those children homes, even though they are more at risk- statistically for sexual abuse- than any household with a man in it.

I know what I posted, you claimed households without men are safer, my link shows that children in single mother households or from broken families are more vulnerable and your reposted my link. Why are you proving my points for me?

Children who grow up with homosexual parents are more likely to be abused sexually and physically than children heterosexual households my studies from Regnerus showed, ten times more likely. That doesn't even begin to touch the issue of domestic abuse. Homosexuals have higher instances of domestic violence, Lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violence of any pairing.
Domestic violence rates are higher for homosexual couples than for heterosexual couples Wintery Knight

Now I know you might say, domestic violence doesn't affect children, but it does.
Impact of Domestic Violence on Children

I claimed that men are more much more likely to sexually molest a child than women.
Remember- you were the one who made the false claim that homosexuals were more likely to molest than heterosexuals. I pointed out that statistically- all men are around 10 times more likely to molest a child than a woman is.

IF you want to make an argument that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt because they molest more than heterosexuals- then unless you also agree that men should not be allowed to adopt because men are much, much more likely to molest than women- you are just being hypocritical or disingenuous.

And then of course you come up with your next reason de jure....domestic violence.

Domestic violence is a very real problem- for both straight and gay couples.

Lets look at the data

as opposed to 46 percent of lesbian women and 43 percent of straight women.
For gay men, it was 40 percent, and 21 percent for straight men.

The rates for lesbians virtually identical as that for straight women.
Gay men suffer almost twice as high....suspiciously similar the rates suffered by straight women......all by men.

Again- the question is do you apply these same standards to all people- or just to homosexuals?

For instance- black women are 2.5 times more likely to be murdered than white women by their partners. Does that mean we shouldn't allow black women to adopt?

Every excuse you give for discriminating against homosexuals, I have shown that you do not apply the same standards to other populations.

You simply are mining for excuses to discriminate against homosexuals- and don't care when the same issues affect other groups.

 

[Syriusly]

It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf

Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.

And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.

Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1

Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?

That stat in of itself means nothing. If you could show the difference between old white heterosexual males and old white homosexual males that would be a valuable statistic.

None of the statistics mean anything when it comes to child rearing.

The claim was made that homosexuals commit suicide more often than the average. Older white men commit suicide more often than the average.

But you will not apply the same standard to other populations that you demand from homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.

And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.

You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.

Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.

There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.

The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.

I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.

I think mirrors must break when she walks by.

Note the reference to Nazi's.

Loser.

 

[Syriusly]

It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf

Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.

I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.

Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.

So on to 'suicide'

Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf

The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.

And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.

Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1

Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?

22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?

It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf

Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.

I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.

Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.

So on to 'suicide'

Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf

The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.

And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.

Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1

Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?

22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?

I must hate America!

Actually I think you hate Americans.

 

[koshergrl]

Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.

And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.

You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.

Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.

There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.

The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.

So you lied and you really do read my posts. Totes adorbs!

I didn't lie. I said I had you on ignore because your posts are a total waste of time, and that since I have you on ignore I am able to mostly forget about you, because there is no gap left in ANY thread you're in, when your words are left out. You can't even tell someone's speaking..until someone gets sucked into your nonsense and THEY start talking to you.

And somehow I un-ignored you..I need to remedy that now.

 

[koshergrl]

Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.

And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.

You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.

Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.

There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.

The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.

I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.

I think mirrors must break when she walks by.

Note the reference to Nazi's.

Loser.

Nazis were heavily vested in propaganda, just like progressive loons.

And they counted on the support of dumb people who thought they were being fed *knowledge* instead of *propaganda*. Dumbasses like you.

 

[Syriusly]

Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.

And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.

You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.

Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.

There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.

The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.

I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.

I think mirrors must break when she walks by.

Note the reference to Nazi's.

Loser.

Nazis were heavily vested in propaganda, just like progressive loons.

And they counted on the support of dumb people who thought they were being fed *knowledge* instead of *propaganda*. Dumbasses like you.

Like I said- note the Nazi reference.

Godwin s law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitlerapproaches 1"[2][3]— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.