Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I love when you rationalize!
first you said:"We have solved the problem of hunger in the US, at least for now."-GG
then you said"According to your information, not a single person has starved to death in the US due to lack of food availability."-GG
the article never mentions STARVATION! ASSHAT!
moving the goal posts when your ass is in a crack is chicken shit !
kinda kills any credibilty you might have had.
Here's a thought, Pick one line of bullshit and stick with it!
I like to have passionate debates but I prefer to keep them civil.
IMO, hunger leads to starvation. If there is zero starvation, hunger problems are not severe, therefore, not a major problem in the U.S. IMO.
Your opinion on this subject is ill informed and idiotic.
As many as 17 million children nationwide are struggling with what is known as food insecurity. To put it another way, one in four children in the country is living without consistent access to enough nutritious food to live a healthy life, according to the study, "Map the Meal Child Food Insecurity 2011."
HUNGER HURTS: Millions of American Kids Go Hungry - ABC News
bump!I love when you rationalize!
first you said:"We have solved the problem of hunger in the US, at least for now."-GG
then you said"According to your information, not a single person has starved to death in the US due to lack of food availability."-GG
the article never mentions STARVATION! ASSHAT!
moving the goal posts when your ass is in a crack is chicken shit !
kinda kills any credibilty you might have had.
Here's a thought, Pick one line of bullshit and stick with it!
I like to have passionate debates but I prefer to keep them civil.
IMO, hunger leads to starvation. If there is zero starvation, hunger problems are not severe, therefore, not a major problem in the U.S. IMO.
Your opinion is ill informed and idiotic.
As many as 17 million children nationwide are struggling with what is known as food insecurity. To put it another way, one in four children in the country is living without consistent access to enough nutritious food to live a healthy life, according to the study, "Map the Meal Child Food Insecurity 2011."
HUNGER HURTS: Millions of American Kids Go Hungry - ABC News
another steaming pile- !!!!I like to have passionate debates but I prefer to keep them civil.
IMO, hunger leads to starvation. If there is zero starvation, hunger problems are not severe, therefore, not a major problem in the U.S. IMO.
Your opinion on this subject is ill informed and idiotic.
As many as 17 million children nationwide are struggling with what is known as food insecurity. To put it another way, one in four children in the country is living without consistent access to enough nutritious food to live a healthy life, according to the study, "Map the Meal Child Food Insecurity 2011."
HUNGER HURTS: Millions of American Kids Go Hungry - ABC News
2 percent of all American households sometimes feel the "usual uneasy sensation" of hunger due to a lack of economic resources and the vast majority of those with children manage to spare them from hunger.[8]
Certainly, this constitutes a problem; even more certainly, the truth is far from the collective-emergency myth that "one in eight Americans is struggling with hunger."
read more here: Is America Struggling with Hunger? - Jeremie T.A. Rostan - Mises Daily
I like to have passionate debates but I prefer to keep them civil.
IMO, hunger leads to starvation. If there is zero starvation, hunger problems are not severe, therefore, not a major problem in the U.S. IMO.
Your opinion on this subject is ill informed and idiotic.
As many as 17 million children nationwide are struggling with what is known as food insecurity. To put it another way, one in four children in the country is living without consistent access to enough nutritious food to live a healthy life, according to the study, "Map the Meal Child Food Insecurity 2011."
HUNGER HURTS: Millions of American Kids Go Hungry - ABC News
2 percent of all American households sometimes feel the "usual uneasy sensation" of hunger due to a lack of economic resources and the vast majority of those with children manage to spare them from hunger.[8]
Certainly, this constitutes a problem; even more certainly, the truth is far from the collective-emergency myth that "one in eight Americans is struggling with hunger."
read more here: Is America Struggling with Hunger? - Jeremie T.A. Rostan - Mises Daily
It is sad that you decide to make up facts when you have none.
Can you show me any facts that infidelity is the "norm" in gay relationships? Bear in mind, this is only concerning committed relationships, not single gay men.
Unhealthy sexual relations? Really? Because all of the sexual relations you mentioned are present in straight marriages too. I didn't mention that as a "they do it too" reply. I mentioned it because youwantto use that as a reason to deny gays a marriage, but straights do it with impunity.
Also, when we are talking about consentual open relationships, it is not a huge sources of violence in the household, broken homes or diseases. You are confusing the effects of infidelity with couples being totally aware of outside sexual contacts.
Moving the goal posts?
No, most "straight" marriages are not full of infidelity. There is evidence that the majority of traditional marriage has faithful partners.
Swingers and those that "cheat" are not the norm for "straight" marriages. They are not accepted outside of their "corrupt" circles. That is why they are not coming forward to legalize their behavior. When their community finds out, they are "disgraced".
No, there are problems with swingers. I did not say it was a "huge" problem. How many childrens' lives have to be ruined before it is a bad thing?
I haven't seen any evidence that gays in committed relationships have problems with infidelity.
And no, I did not move the goalposts. I simply showed that you are not holding straights to the same standards.
Swingers may not be anything like a majority, but their numbers approach what gay marriages would probably approach.
I haven't seen any evidence that gays in committed relationships have problems with infidelity.
And no, I did not move the goalposts. I simply showed that you are not holding straights to the same standards.
Swingers may not be anything like a majority, but their numbers approach what gay marriages would probably approach.
Did you miss that part where I said that swingers are NOT accepted outside of their corrupt circles?
Did you notice I didn't seem to care what social groups accept what other groups? We are not discussing popularity.
Incorrect, as usual.
Marriage law is gender-neutral, a contract between two equal partners. Consequently marriage laws are not being changed, and no additional rights requested, simply an acknowledgement of existing equal access rights as mandated by the 14th Amendment.
Marriage is not gender neutral. Redefining marriage means that you are more interested in deceit than having a lawful binding contract.
Who is being deceived? The gay couples are open and honest about their relationships.
With the doctrine of coverture no longer in effect in marriage law:
The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a womans legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husbands upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as anion of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouses role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.
The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage.
Perry v. Brown
Since state-mandated gender roles are no longer in play with regard to marriage law, there is no logical, legal, or Constitutional reason to exclude same-sex couples from those laws. Nothing is being changed, no new rights requested.
And still, that has nothing do with gays being denied their rights under the 14th amendment.
ever here the term objective evidence? Those links are the farthest thing from it!ok, i found a few lines in the article that are obviously bs.
"not a single society in the long history of mankind has ever attempted to substitute homosexual relationships for traditional marriage." no one is substituting gay relationships for marriage.
"radical movements are merely battalions of the revolutionary army, each charged with a particular subversive task. Undoubtedly, the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file gays are well-meaning people who have sincerely bought into the myth peddled by their leaders that the marriage license is the ultimate token of recognition of their normalcy. They know not what they are doing. But the wizards behind the curtain know better, and there shouldn't be any illusions about their intentions: They want nothing less than to bring down the capitalist system, and they view their movement as a battering ram to shatter its principal bastion, america. Bringing down the traditional family is a crucial step in that direction."
so its all a plot to destroy america? And even most of the gays involved are unaware of the plot? Lol how does that tinfoil hat fit?
The entire article continues the "marriage has always been..." and "it will destroy the institution of marriage" arguments. Still vague answers and nonsense.
As for the nonsense, "aside from the tremendous damage same-sex marriage does to the well-being and normal development of children..."
from: study: Same-sex parents raise well-adjusted kids
"researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.
Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.
"some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," perrin says. "they did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."
another study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and a similar number of children of heterosexual mothers found no differences in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships."
from: children with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents | american academy of child & adolescent psychiatry
"sometimes people are concerned that children being raised by a gay parent will need extra emotional support or face unique social stressors.current research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults. It is important for parents to understand that it is the the quality of the parent/child relationship and not the parents sexual orientation that has an effect on a childs development.
children raised by gay couples show good progress through school
same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find - usatoday.com
so the arguments that it is tremendously damaging to the well-being and normal development of children are bunk. That leaves the same old "it will destroy marriage" and "they are out to destroy america" arguments.
Just one anecdotal piece of evidence. My 3 kids from my first marriage lived with my ex and her partner for about half of their lives. I was very involved, but my work requires travel. All three exhibit some similar characteristics. None of them were ever disciplinary problems (2 were never sent to the principal's office). All 3 graduated with honors from high school, one of them with a gpa of 4.28. All three graduated from a major university, one of them with more honors than i can list. All 3 have had serious relationships with the opposite gender (one is engaged, one is in a long-term relationship). In short, they are as close to perfect kids as you can ask for.
homosexual parenting studies are flawed, report says | fox news homosexual parenting studies are flawed, report says
timothy j. Dailey ph.d. -- homosexual parenting: Placing children at risk homosexual parenting: Placing children at risk
welcome to forthechildreninc. homosexuality: Bad for children
just some links presenting the opposite view.
Yes, homosexual marriage is "substituting" homosexual marriage for traditional marriage. That is why they claim they are the "same" as a married heterosexual couple.
A plot to destroy the country? Check history, destroying the traditional family is the first step of manipulation. After that, it gets worse.
so what gives you the moral authority to judge what kind of sex is corrupt and what is not?I haven't seen any evidence that gays in committed relationships have problems with infidelity.
And no, I did not move the goalposts. I simply showed that you are not holding straights to the same standards.
Swingers may not be anything like a majority, but their numbers approach what gay marriages would probably approach.
Did you miss that part where I said that swingers are NOT accepted outside of their corrupt circles?
you can knock off the moralizing any time...
Moving the goal posts?
No, most "straight" marriages are not full of infidelity. There is evidence that the majority of traditional marriage has faithful partners.
Swingers and those that "cheat" are not the norm for "straight" marriages. They are not accepted outside of their "corrupt" circles. That is why they are not coming forward to legalize their behavior. When their community finds out, they are "disgraced".
No, there are problems with swingers. I did not say it was a "huge" problem. How many childrens' lives have to be ruined before it is a bad thing?
I haven't seen any evidence that gays in committed relationships have problems with infidelity.
And no, I did not move the goalposts. I simply showed that you are not holding straights to the same standards.
Swingers may not be anything like a majority, but their numbers approach what gay marriages would probably approach.
I am not surprised that you see no problems with homosexual relationships and infidelity. You seem willing to bend over backward to embrace the corruption homosexual activity represents.
I do hold straights to the same standards. Do you see me petitioning to give "live-ins" marriage benefits? Do you see me saying there is nothing wrong with infidelity in marriage? Do you see me claiming there is nothing wrong with "swingers"?
The heterosexuals in those groups do not flaunt their behavior in company where respect is important. They are as deceitful as those that engage in homosexual behavior. Unlike the homosexual activists, they are not demanding that society is changed to "welcome" their perverse behavior. That is the difference. Now would you like to get back on topic? Active homosexuals are living a lie. They are pretending one or both are interchangeable with the opposite sex for a sincere life time mate. They cannot be, their DNA identifies them.
so what gives you the moral authority to judge what kind of sex is corrupt and what is not?Did you miss that part where I said that swingers are NOT accepted outside of their corrupt circles?
you can knock off the moralizing any time...
I don't understand why they think how anybody else lives their live has anything to do with them. I really, really don't get it.
Did you miss that part where I said that swingers are NOT accepted outside of their corrupt circles?
Did you notice I didn't seem to care what social groups accept what other groups? We are not discussing popularity.
You are right. We are discussing a tiny fraction of the population forcing their wants and desires to be supported by the rest of the population. And they do not care how many people disagree with them. They do not care what the rest of the population believes. It is only "their" beliefs that are to be followed, by "force" if necessary. That does not sound like "rights" to me.
neither do I.so what gives you the moral authority to judge what kind of sex is corrupt and what is not?
you can knock off the moralizing any time...
I don't understand why they think how anybody else lives their live has anything to do with them. I really, really don't get it.
It is ironic that "they" would dictate you behavior but to even question the validity of their's is to bring out the talking points, like agenda. hater etc..
No, I don't think so. I will agree that we are in an economic downswing right now, but society is doing fine.
You don't think exponential increases in crime, in murder, in abortion, in STDs, in teen pregnancy, show a decline? You think those things are indicative of *fine*?
Crime in general, and violent crime especially, has been on the decline since the 70s.
Teen pregnancies are also down. At least according to the CDC: Products - Data Briefs - Number 89 - April 2012
As for abortions, there are no wild increases. Again, according to the CDC: CDC - Data and Statistics - Reproductive Health
"In 2008, 825,564 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. This represents essentially no change from the number of abortions reported in 2007. The abortion rate for 2008 was 16.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years. This also is unchanged from 2007. The abortion ratio was 234 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2008. This is a 1% increase from 2007. During 19992008, the reported abortion numbers, rates, and ratios decreased 3%, 4%, and 10%, respectively. During 19992008, women aged 2029 years accounted for the majority of abortions."
So there are no "exponential increases" as you claimed.
Earlier you claimed yours was not a religous argument.
Spiritual principles are universal. They include, the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. They also include the following:
I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude to God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, beauty, coolness, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and phony self esteem.
I think much of this has to do with where you look and the influence of the media and politicians.
I have seen great examples of love, selflessness, courage and sacrifice. Spend some time working with disastor relief or working in an area hit by a disastor and you will see it too. The problem is, the media doesn't report it. They'd rather spew garbage that keep us uncomfortable or afraid. And that is because reporting fearful things is self-serving.
I see that the value given to beauty, popularity, coolness, wealth,pride, power, thrill seeking and fame have always been with us. These are nothing new. But again, the media loves to portray what they want. It is self-serving.
I see more people communicating with more different people than ever before in the history of mankind. Anytime we have more communication there is the potential for conflict, but also the potential for great things.
I see that we have more people having access to a quality education than ever before in our history. We have more people with more access to better medical care than ever before in our history. We have more people following their dreams. We have more people free to change professions and careers. We have people who, just a few decades ago, saw only limited options now having virtually unlimited opportunities. We have music, literature and arts available to more people from more sources than ever in our history.
I see unrest being portrayed because the populations are no longer able to be controlled, as they were just a few decades ago. If that scares you I am sorry.
I see our society in a flux, as these new freedoms create new avenues for people that did not exist a short time ago. If that scares you I am sorry.
One of the basic points you need to consider is the influence of the media. You can rant about porno and glamor junk ruining us. But what ruins us is the acceptance of news slanted to an agenda. That is what destroys. That is what causes fear. And teh reaction to that fear is damaging.
Think about when you watch the news. If you are having a great day, life is good and you feel hopeful, do you rush to turn on CNN or Fox? No. But if there is a disastor you certainly do. You watch news when you are scared. News is no longer a service. News is big business. And how do they keep you watching? By keeping you afraid. Stop being afraid and you'll be much happier.
Gays marrying will not destroy anything. It is a minor issue at best, unless you are gay and in a situation where on of the benefits of being married would help.
Our society is doing fine. The economic downturn was not created by gays or diversity or any of the other things you fear. It was created by greed and by the people in charge being uninterested in what is best for people.
Spiritual principles are universal. They include, the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. They also include the following:
I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude to God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, beauty, coolness, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and phony self esteem.
I think much of this has to do with where you look and the influence of the media and politicians.
I have seen great examples of love, selflessness, courage and sacrifice. Spend some time working with disastor relief or working in an area hit by a disastor and you will see it too. The problem is, the media doesn't report it. They'd rather spew garbage that keep us uncomfortable or afraid. And that is because reporting fearful things is self-serving.
I see that the value given to beauty, popularity, coolness, wealth,pride, power, thrill seeking and fame have always been with us. These are nothing new. But again, the media loves to portray what they want. It is self-serving.
I see more people communicating with more different people than ever before in the history of mankind. Anytime we have more communication there is the potential for conflict, but also the potential for great things.
I see that we have more people having access to a quality education than ever before in our history. We have more people with more access to better medical care than ever before in our history. We have more people following their dreams. We have more people free to change professions and careers. We have people who, just a few decades ago, saw only limited options now having virtually unlimited opportunities. We have music, literature and arts available to more people from more sources than ever in our history.
I see unrest being portrayed because the populations are no longer able to be controlled, as they were just a few decades ago. If that scares you I am sorry.
I see our society in a flux, as these new freedoms create new avenues for people that did not exist a short time ago. If that scares you I am sorry.
One of the basic points you need to consider is the influence of the media. You can rant about porno and glamor junk ruining us. But what ruins us is the acceptance of news slanted to an agenda. That is what destroys. That is what causes fear. And teh reaction to that fear is damaging.
Think about when you watch the news. If you are having a great day, life is good and you feel hopeful, do you rush to turn on CNN or Fox? No. But if there is a disastor you certainly do. You watch news when you are scared. News is no longer a service. News is big business. And how do they keep you watching? By keeping you afraid. Stop being afraid and you'll be much happier.
Gays marrying will not destroy anything. It is a minor issue at best, unless you are gay and in a situation where on of the benefits of being married would help.
Our society is doing fine. The economic downturn was not created by gays or diversity or any of the other things you fear. It was created by greed and by the people in charge being uninterested in what is best for people.
Do you have any, ANY proof that "homosexual marriage" will not destroy anything?
Do you have ANY examples where a society has excepted homosexual marriage as a "respectable" choice (not just a whimsical mockery)?
You have made a strong statement. Where is the evidence?
