Tennessee Seeks tonBar Same Sex Marriage

[Kittymom1026]

Why do these people have to go after people who are LGBTQs? What drives this thing? I am a woman who is attracted to men. But I do not have to devote my time to making life hard for people who have a same-sex attraction. What is the reason for attacking folks who have a same-sex orientation? They are just living their lives, same as the rest of us.

What is the motivation here? What is it that you are doing and why?

“Attacking” ??! A state wanting to protect children isn’t “attacking” the perpetrators. It is defending against the LGBT affront.

Because this isn’t JUST about freedoms of adult lifestyles. It’s about states’ interests in regulating marriage for the benefit of all parties to the contract.

If a state encourages homes without a mother or homes without a father, the state is being forced to incentivize statistically deprived children. Reams upon reams of studies show boys fare best with a father in their home & girls same with a mother.

Plus, a child notices as he grows up that the rejection of his gender in his two lesbian parents = a fundamental rejection of his maleness; no matter how many times the lesbians struggle against their manifest example to reassure him to the opposite. (Opposite true for girls contractually deprived for life from a mother).

A testimonial to prove you wrong......

A singular or minority sampling of subjective statements supporting gay marriage does not refute reams of objective peer reviewed studies to the contrary. This is especially true when a bunch of adult children raised in gay homes having a negative experience were disallowed to submit amicus briefs to Obergefell.

How much longer are you going to continue to embarrass yourself by repeating these lies? Your false information has already been debunked.
Oh, and do yourself a favor, come out of the closet.

 

[JoeB131]

How much longer are you going to continue to embarrass yourself by repeating these lies? Your false information has already been debunked.
Oh, and do yourself a favor, come out of the closet.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The push against gay, lesbian, and same-sex couple adoption is more about gay discrimination than child welfare.

Oh bullshit. Stop with your idiotic nonsense already. This is the queer version of yelling "racist". Every time you people can't fight science or facts, you scream "bigot" or "homophobe". Just stop already.

In 2012, in his New Family Structures Study, Dr. Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, addressed each of the three main problems with the earlier studies.[4] His research found that, similar to children from non-intact families, those children who at some point during their childhood lived with one parent and that parent’s same-sex partner fared, on average, significantly worse than children of married biological parents on a multitude of measures, including their educational progress as children and eventual employment and dependence on public assistance in adulthood.

There is nothing healthy about a child going home to two mom's or two dad's. Nothing. At best, they grow up questioning why they have a fucked up situation that differs from every other child they know. At worst, it plays hell on their development and mental health. The science is settled, you radical lying hippie asshole.

The Research on Same-Sex Parenting: “No Differences” No More

Holly shit! Seriously? Regnerus? He is a fraud who was humiliated in court over his bullshit

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark HYPERLINK "https://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/sociology/faculty/mdr93"Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend of the court brief To Better Social Policies, Listen to Beneficiaries the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”



Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court

I have never witnessed anyone more consumed by being gay since I watched Little Britain.
I sincerely feel sorry for you.
It's like you feel you are "the only gay in the village".
Get some help.

I didn't think that it was possible for someone to be so fucking stupid as to think that it is those who defend gays who are the closeted gays.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why do these people have to go after people who are LGBTQs? What drives this thing? I am a woman who is attracted to men. But I do not have to devote my time to making life hard for people who have a same-sex attraction. What is the reason for attacking folks who have a same-sex orientation? They are just living their lives, same as the rest of us.

What is the motivation here? What is it that you are doing and why?

“Attacking” ??! A state wanting to protect children isn’t “attacking” the perpetrators. It is defending against the LGBT affront.

Because this isn’t JUST about freedoms of adult lifestyles. It’s about states’ interests in regulating marriage for the benefit of all parties to the contract.

If a state encourages homes without a mother or homes without a father, the state is being forced to incentivize statistically deprived children. Reams upon reams of studies show boys fare best with a father in their home & girls same with a mother.

Plus, a child notices as he grows up that the rejection of his gender in his two lesbian parents = a fundamental rejection of his maleness; no matter how many times the lesbians struggle against their manifest example to reassure him to the opposite. (Opposite true for girls contractually deprived for life from a mother).

A testimonial to prove you wrong......

A singular or minority sampling of subjective statements supporting gay marriage does not refute reams of objective peer reviewed studies to the contrary. This is especially true when a bunch of adult children raised in gay homes having a negative experience were disallowed to submit amicus briefs to Obergefell.

How much longer are you going to continue to embarrass yourself by repeating these lies? Your false information has already been debunked.
Oh, and do yourself a favor, come out of the closet.

This jackass loves to exploit children to attack gays because she hates gays more than she cares about the kids. And to rail against gay parenting as an argument against same sex marriage is doubly stupid. Gay people will have kids in their care regardless of whether or not they are married-just like straight folks. But depriving them of the ability to marry will harm the children- depriving them of the legal and financial advantages of having married parents who are both there legal guardians. I have said this many times to this bigoted moron but she spewing here filth anyway

 

[Silhouette]

Why do these people have to go after people who are LGBTQs? What drives this thing? I am a woman who is attracted to men. But I do not have to devote my time to making life hard for people who have a same-sex attraction. What is the reason for attacking folks who have a same-sex orientation? They are just living their lives, same as the rest of us.

What is the motivation here? What is it that you are doing and why?

“Attacking” ??! A state wanting to protect children isn’t “attacking” the perpetrators. It is defending against the LGBT affront.

Because this isn’t JUST about freedoms of adult lifestyles. It’s about states’ interests in regulating marriage for the benefit of all parties to the contract.

If a state encourages homes without a mother or homes without a father, the state is being forced to incentivize statistically deprived children. Reams upon reams of studies show boys fare best with a father in their home & girls same with a mother.

Plus, a child notices as he grows up that the rejection of his gender in his two lesbian parents = a fundamental rejection of his maleness; no matter how many times the lesbians struggle against their manifest example to reassure him to the opposite. (Opposite true for girls contractually deprived for life from a mother).

A testimonial to prove you wrong......

A singular or minority sampling of subjective statements supporting gay marriage does not refute reams of objective peer reviewed studies to the contrary. This is especially true when a bunch of adult children raised in gay homes having a negative experience were disallowed to submit amicus briefs to Obergefell.

How much longer are you going to continue to embarrass yourself by repeating these lies? Your false information has already been debunked.
Oh, and do yourself a favor, come out of the closet.

Please point me to a majority of objective peer reviewed studies that have allegedly refuted the boy’s fare better with father in their home & girls fare better with a mother in the home.

 

[mdk]

Why do these people have to go after people who are LGBTQs? What drives this thing? I am a woman who is attracted to men. But I do not have to devote my time to making life hard for people who have a same-sex attraction. What is the reason for attacking folks who have a same-sex orientation? They are just living their lives, same as the rest of us.

What is the motivation here? What is it that you are doing and why?

“Attacking” ??! A state wanting to protect children isn’t “attacking” the perpetrators. It is defending against the LGBT affront.

Because this isn’t JUST about freedoms of adult lifestyles. It’s about states’ interests in regulating marriage for the benefit of all parties to the contract.

If a state encourages homes without a mother or homes without a father, the state is being forced to incentivize statistically deprived children. Reams upon reams of studies show boys fare best with a father in their home & girls same with a mother.

Plus, a child notices as he grows up that the rejection of his gender in his two lesbian parents = a fundamental rejection of his maleness; no matter how many times the lesbians struggle against their manifest example to reassure him to the opposite. (Opposite true for girls contractually deprived for life from a mother).

A testimonial to prove you wrong......

A singular or minority sampling of subjective statements supporting gay marriage does not refute reams of objective peer reviewed studies to the contrary. This is especially true when a bunch of adult children raised in gay homes having a negative experience were disallowed to submit amicus briefs to Obergefell.

Which adult children were disallowed to sumbit amicus briefs concerning Obergefell? Do you have any names of these people? Or like most things with you are they a figment of your imagination?

Hells bells, your own signature had a link containing many of briefs from those opposing gay marriage for many, many months. Now you’re pretending that people were suddenly not allowed to sumbit briefs.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why do these people have to go after people who are LGBTQs? What drives this thing? I am a woman who is attracted to men. But I do not have to devote my time to making life hard for people who have a same-sex attraction. What is the reason for attacking folks who have a same-sex orientation? They are just living their lives, same as the rest of us.

What is the motivation here? What is it that you are doing and why?

“Attacking” ??! A state wanting to protect children isn’t “attacking” the perpetrators. It is defending against the LGBT affront.

Because this isn’t JUST about freedoms of adult lifestyles. It’s about states’ interests in regulating marriage for the benefit of all parties to the contract.

If a state encourages homes without a mother or homes without a father, the state is being forced to incentivize statistically deprived children. Reams upon reams of studies show boys fare best with a father in their home & girls same with a mother.

Plus, a child notices as he grows up that the rejection of his gender in his two lesbian parents = a fundamental rejection of his maleness; no matter how many times the lesbians struggle against their manifest example to reassure him to the opposite. (Opposite true for girls contractually deprived for life from a mother).

A testimonial to prove you wrong......

A singular or minority sampling of subjective statements supporting gay marriage does not refute reams of objective peer reviewed studies to the contrary. This is especially true when a bunch of adult children raised in gay homes having a negative experience were disallowed to submit amicus briefs to Obergefell.

How much longer are you going to continue to embarrass yourself by repeating these lies? Your false information has already been debunked.
Oh, and do yourself a favor, come out of the closet.

Please point me to a majority of objective peer reviewed studies that have allegedly refuted the boy’s fare better with father in their home & girls fare better with a mother in the home.

A team at Columbia Law School has collected on one website the abstracts of all peer-reviewed studies that have addressed this question since 1980 so that anyone can examine the research directly, and not rely on talking heads or potential groupthink. Even when we might not agree with a study’s conclusions—with how a researcher interpreted the data—we still included it if it went through peer review and was relevant to the topic at hand. Peer review, of course, isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best ways the world has to ensure that research conclusions are at least the product of good-faith efforts to get at the truth.

The Columbia project is the largest collection of peer-reviewed scholarship on gay parenting to date. What does it show? We found 71 studies concluding that kids with gay parents fare no worse than others and only four concluding that they had problems. But those four studies all suffered from the same gross limitation: The children with gay parents were lumped in with children of family breakup, a cohort known to face higher risks linked to the trauma of family dissolution.

Even the notion that some try to put forth that there are no good studies is wrong...the studies, while not perfect do give us a very good idea on the conclusions and that is that gay homes are not better nor worse.

Here is a link to all the studies

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

I should add, the consensus that kids in gay homes do just as well as kids in straight homes is recognized

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia

Consensus

The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.[5][6][87][92] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[93] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[94]

You're welcome!

 

[Silhouette]

I’ve heard the standing consensus is that there hasn’t been enough time to tell. However, I do think it’s interesting that adult kids from gay homes were banned from submitting amicus briefs to the USSC during Obergefell. Easy to skew results in one’s cause when first hand test subjects are bound & gagged.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I’ve heard the standing consensus is that there hasn’t been enough time to tell. However, I do think it’s interesting that adult kids from gay homes were banned from submitting amicus briefs to the USSC during Obergefell. Easy to skew results in one’s cause when first hand test subjects are bound & gagged.

Would you care to document or are we just supposed to take your word LOL

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do these people have to go after people who are LGBTQs? What drives this thing? I am a woman who is attracted to men. But I do not have to devote my time to making life hard for people who have a same-sex attraction. What is the reason for attacking folks who have a same-sex orientation? They are just living their lives, same as the rest of us.

What is the motivation here? What is it that you are doing and why?

“Attacking” ??! A state wanting to protect children isn’t “attacking” the perpetrators. It is defending against the LGBT affront.

Because this isn’t JUST about freedoms of adult lifestyles. It’s about states’ interests in regulating marriage for the benefit of all parties to the contract.

If a state encourages homes without a mother or homes without a father, the state is being forced to incentivize statistically deprived children. Reams upon reams of studies show boys fare best with a father in their home & girls same with a mother.

Plus, a child notices as he grows up that the rejection of his gender in his two lesbian parents = a fundamental rejection of his maleness; no matter how many times the lesbians struggle against their manifest example to reassure him to the opposite. (Opposite true for girls contractually deprived for life from a mother).

A testimonial to prove you wrong......

A singular or minority sampling of subjective statements supporting gay marriage does not refute reams of objective peer reviewed studies to the contrary. This is especially true when a bunch of adult children raised in gay homes having a negative experience were disallowed to submit amicus briefs to Obergefell.

You're a bigot and a liar.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.... you just consider us as an inferior species who are only here to do your bidding and keep you happy.... I have many gay friends and they have always treated me with the utmost respect and never once have I ever heard them refer to a woman as a "dame!" You've called women other derogatory names on this thread and it seems that you really hate women because no gentleman who respects women would ever stoop so low as you have.

You are aware that an extremely common term gay men refer to women ....is “Breeders”.

Who else will churn out those pretty little boys/twinks?

Lies about same-sex couples adopting and raising children are nothing more than red herring fallacies contrived and propagated by the hateful, bigoted right – demagoguery intended to ‘justify’ conservatives’ bigotry and hate directed at gay Americans.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I’ve heard the standing consensus is that there hasn’t been enough time to tell. However, I do think it’s interesting that adult kids from gay homes were banned from submitting amicus briefs to the USSC during Obergefell. Easy to skew results in one’s cause when first hand test subjects are bound & gagged.

Not enough time???!! Gay people have been raising kids for decades before they could marry. So that is bullshit. And as I keep saying, to try to show that gay parents are detrimental to kids as a reason to deny them the right to marry is as stupid as stupid gets

 

[JoeB131]

Easy to skew results in one’s cause when first hand test subjects are bound & gagged.

I don't know, maybe they are into that kind of thing.

I don't judge

 

[GreenBean]

How artificial insemination- which Ms. Foster received- qualify as "natural reproduction"?

How does IVF qualify as "natural reproduction?"

What does that have to do with legal marriage?

Nothing. But these bigots use that "Unable to procreate" crap as a means of questioning the validity same sex marriage. They tried that shit all through the marriage equality litigation, as well as trying to claim that gay people are inferior parents, and got their ass kicked in court every time.

Gay marriage and gay parenting are 2 seperate issues - Fags and dikes have every right to co-miserate in the sanctity of Marriage and it never should have been denied in the first place . Gay Parenting is an entirely different topic Gays as all perverts - and I include large swarms of the religous realm in that statement should allways be kept at arms length from degenerates - its a duty we as human beings owe to our youngest members. .... progressive I don't include you in that statement - that part about being a human being that is :>

I've had about enough of your bullshit! I know of two gay men who became fosters of newborns. they are white and both babies are black. One was born drug addicted and the other with fetal alcohol syndrome. No one else wanted them, but these men took them into their home. They walked the floor with them as they screamed in pain, they took them to the doctor for treatment, they spent loads of money on these boys not knowing if they would ever get to adopt them. They introduced them to a black woman friend who had a daughter and would teach the boys about their culture. And then one day, they were granted the right to adopt them.They cried like babies and hugged them and had a family party to celebrate. NO ONE else wanted these babies....do you understand that? Many,many times gay couple will take special needs children that no one else wants. Do you think those children shouldn't be allowed to have a home where they are wanted and cherished and cared for?
Funny how it's always the "straight" couples who only take fosters for the money who are the ones abusing the kids. There was a couple here who tied a small girl up to the porch with a chicken tied around her neck and she died of starvation and hypothermia. She was a foster. They were a MAN and a WOMAN!
So stick your indignation and hate up your hateful ass!

Re: "Do you think those children shouldn't be allowed to have a home where they are wanted and cherished and cared for?" Everybody needs to be loved - it's how you define LOVE that makes the difference - the facts are irrefutable sweety --- Gay Men molest children at a ridiculously higher percentage than any other demographic - they are responsibble for about 1/3 of all child molestation aganst male children yet comprise on 3 to 5 % of the population . And by the way - you have no idea what goes on behind closed doors between those 2 perverts and the child / children in question - do you ? So kindly STFU and stop enabling child abuse

 

[GreenBean]

How artificial insemination- which Ms. Foster received- qualify as "natural reproduction"?

How does IVF qualify as "natural reproduction?"

What does that have to do with legal marriage?

Nothing. But these bigots use that "Unable to procreate" crap as a means of questioning the validity same sex marriage. They tried that shit all through the marriage equality litigation, as well as trying to claim that gay people are inferior parents, and got their ass kicked in court every time.

Gay marriage and gay parenting are 2 seperate issues - Fags and dikes have every right to co-miserate in the sanctity of Marriage and it never should have been denied in the first place . Gay Parenting is an entirely different topic Gays as all perverts - and I include large swarms of the religous realm in that statement should allways be kept at arms length from degenerates - its a duty we as human beings owe to our youngest members. .... progressive I don't include you in that statement - that part about being a human being that is :>

You are so full of shit it makes me sick

LGBT Adoption Facts

For many, LGBT adoption is still a new concept, and society’s image of a “perfect” family includes a mother and a father of opposite sexes. However, this is a just a stereotype. Today, more and more gay and lesbian couples are becoming parents, whether through artificial insemination, a surrogate or LGBT adoption. LifeLong Adoptions caters to heterosexual couples, single parents and gay & lesbian families. LGBT Adoption Facts | Gay Adoption | Same Sex Adoption


The push against gay, lesbian, and same-sex couple adoption is more about gay discrimination than child welfare. So, before you buy into the myths and rhetoric that gay adoption poses an unsafe environment for children or that a gay household is a "recruitment center" for young adults, the facts those against same-sex adoption aren't telling you:

• There are already thousands of children living in gay couple households. The 2000 U. S. Census reports 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households already have at least one child under the age of 18 living at home.


10 Ways You Can Join the Fight for Gay Rights


In 2008 there were 129,000 children waiting to be adopted, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported. In 2007, the Urban Institute reported that two million gay or lesbian individuals said they had considered adoption. A hotly debated issue in the United States is whether or not those two million interested individuals should be able to adopt the children in need. There is currently no federal law that explicitly bans or allows gays and lesbians to adopt; the decision is left up to each state.



Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_6746455_gay-lesbian-adoption.html#ixzz2vb55w73S


Here is more for you to chew on:


A final word to all of the low life bigots who shamelessly use propaganda about children in their failed war on equality. I’m sure that these figures are much higher now

There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.

Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:

• An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.

• An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.

• More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.

• Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.

• Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.

How Many U.S. Children Have Gay Parents?

In addition, adoption is legal in all 50 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades.

Given these numbers, please answer the following questions:

• If children who are in the care of gay people are at risk of abuse or having developmental/ adjustment issues why have the states been allowing this for so long?

• If mistreatment of children by gays was prevalent, why are we not hearing horror stories and seeing headlines about this on a regular basis ?

• Why have we not been seeing large numbers of adults who had been children of gays coming forward to speak out against gay parenting?

Claims that gay parenting is harmful to children are bogus and stupid.

So you know how to copy and paste from pro gay big brother rags - good for you you've moved beyond the coloring book and crayons - but ALT-Facts do not and can not alter or change reality Gay Men are still responsible for roughly 1/3 of all child abuse cases against male children - that equates to roughly 3% of the population responsible for 33% of child abuse

 

[GreenBean]

QUOTE="bodecea, post: 21833669, member: 20112"]

Oh yes, many HAVE said that gay people are sterile. Here's the fun scenerio..."if everyone on Earth was gay, we'd go extinct." Now....why would anyone think that?

Homosexuals aren't interested in having relations with dames. Just because it is "possible" for them to do it, they would be unlikely to do it enough to replace the population. IVF and other artificial methods again would not be able to keep the demand up either.

My my...you certainly think you are all up on gay knowledge, don't you? Edited-meister

[

 

[bodecea]

.... you just consider us as an inferior species who are only here to do your bidding and keep you happy.... I have many gay friends and they have always treated me with the utmost respect and never once have I ever heard them refer to a woman as a "dame!" You've called women other derogatory names on this thread and it seems that you really hate women because no gentleman who respects women would ever stoop so low as you have.

You are aware that an extremely common term gay men refer to women ....is “Breeders”.

Who else will churn out those pretty little boys/twinks?

Lies about same-sex couples adopting and raising children are nothing more than red herring fallacies contrived and propagated by the hateful, bigoted right – demagoguery intended to ‘justify’ conservatives’ bigotry and hate directed at gay Americans.

And a deflection from their own disastorous ways of "raising" children.

 

[bodecea]

QUOTE="bodecea, post: 21833669, member: 20112"]

Oh yes, many HAVE said that gay people are sterile. Here's the fun scenerio..."if everyone on Earth was gay, we'd go extinct." Now....why would anyone think that?

Homosexuals aren't interested in having relations with dames. Just because it is "possible" for them to do it, they would be unlikely to do it enough to replace the population. IVF and other artificial methods again would not be able to keep the demand up either.

My my...you certainly think you are all up on gay knowledge, don't you?

Well, considering that I am gay...I would think I have some.....and you, Comrade?

 

[GreenBean]

QUOTE="bodecea, post: 21833669, member: 20112"]

Oh yes, many HAVE said that gay people are sterile. Here's the fun scenerio..."if everyone on Earth was gay, we'd go extinct." Now....why would anyone think that?

Homosexuals aren't interested in having relations with dames. Just because it is "possible" for them to do it, they would be unlikely to do it enough to replace the population. IVF and other artificial methods again would not be able to keep the demand up either.

My my...you certainly think you are all up on gay knowledge, don't you?

Well, considering that I am gay...I would think I have some.....and you, Comrade?

have some what ? .... STDs ???

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

QUOTE="bodecea, post: 21833669, member: 20112"]

Oh yes, many HAVE said that gay people are sterile. Here's the fun scenerio..."if everyone on Earth was gay, we'd go extinct." Now....why would anyone think that?

Homosexuals aren't interested in having relations with dames. Just because it is "possible" for them to do it, they would be unlikely to do it enough to replace the population. IVF and other artificial methods again would not be able to keep the demand up either.

My my...you certainly think you are all up on gay knowledge, don't you?

Well, considering that I am gay...I would think I have some.....and you, Comrade?

The only thing green about the Bean is the diseased, gangrene brain cells that are driving his idiocy