Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[bodecea]

Studies by adults says kids are healthy in a homosexual home, but the studies do not say, "if given a choice, would the child choose to live in a man-man homosexual home".

If children are given a choice in all cases, gay and straight, they'd probably chose to live in a rich and famous person's home with swimming pool, ponies, and a limo.

 

[bodecea]

In case you are forgetting, Sil.

A mardigras parade

Clearly these people are trying to attract children to a sinful heterosexual lifestyle of premarital sex and teenage pregnancy. How dare you allow heterosexuals to get married and adopt children.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, other than this parade or party in the street called mardigra is also shunned by huge amounts of people who do care about their children and themselves upon what they are exposed to upon this nations streets or within the nations schools and/or public places in which they may visit or participate in.

There are people or citizens whom think that this is also wrong for the nation to be agreeing with and/or to be doing such things out in the public that you are using as an example of here in order to enforce somehow your argument that is being made. It's truly a spectacle of pure debauchery at it's worse these types of things are, and yet they were once confined to certain borders or areas where one had to seek these things out instead of them seeking us out like they do now.

Now with that said, such events as these are drenched in sinfulness that many do regret if they had participated in them, and it is that they wished looking back that they had never participated in such events as they had done over the years gone by now.

These days or even in the days of old they were just plain wrong in most peoples minds, because they are over the top and corrupting to any and everything that moves. They need to be cleaned up instead of accepted as um-bridled & worse um-bordered or even worse than that enhanced to the point of having these types of exposures going way to far finally in society. It all probably has gone to far already upon leaving the boundaries in which they were once confined to, but the genie has been let out of the bottle now, and so all the good citizens of this nation can do is damage control or to separate and stay away from it all somehow, but that's getting harder and harder these days for people to do... This type of stuff was always taboo, and people are being ruined by these things anymore, and many are becoming tired of it all I think, so the shift from it might come soon, but I could be wrong yet I hope not...

The point is to expose the double standard. The "sinfulness" of the straight people I pictured is never used as a reason to deny all heterosexual couples the right to a marriage license and adoption. Yet when gay people show the same behavior, it is used to deny all gay couples the right to a marriage license and adoption.

Us sick people, those that couple together with a combination of everything required to create life?

Those sick people?

Remember, the world depends on those couplings.

True story folks

Yes, we have a declining population problem because of gays.

 

[Pop23]

In case you are forgetting, Sil.

A mardigras parade

Clearly these people are trying to attract children to a sinful heterosexual lifestyle of premarital sex and teenage pregnancy. How dare you allow heterosexuals to get married and adopt children.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, other than this parade or party in the street called mardigra is also shunned by huge amounts of people who do care about their children and themselves upon what they are exposed to upon this nations streets or within the nations schools and/or public places in which they may visit or participate in.

There are people or citizens whom think that this is also wrong for the nation to be agreeing with and/or to be doing such things out in the public that you are using as an example of here in order to enforce somehow your argument that is being made. It's truly a spectacle of pure debauchery at it's worse these types of things are, and yet they were once confined to certain borders or areas where one had to seek these things out instead of them seeking us out like they do now.

Now with that said, such events as these are drenched in sinfulness that many do regret if they had participated in them, and it is that they wished looking back that they had never participated in such events as they had done over the years gone by now.

These days or even in the days of old they were just plain wrong in most peoples minds, because they are over the top and corrupting to any and everything that moves. They need to be cleaned up instead of accepted as um-bridled & worse um-bordered or even worse than that enhanced to the point of having these types of exposures going way to far finally in society. It all probably has gone to far already upon leaving the boundaries in which they were once confined to, but the genie has been let out of the bottle now, and so all the good citizens of this nation can do is damage control or to separate and stay away from it all somehow, but that's getting harder and harder these days for people to do... This type of stuff was always taboo, and people are being ruined by these things anymore, and many are becoming tired of it all I think, so the shift from it might come soon, but I could be wrong yet I hope not...

The point is to expose the double standard. The "sinfulness" of the straight people I pictured is never used as a reason to deny all heterosexual couples the right to a marriage license and adoption. Yet when gay people show the same behavior, it is used to deny all gay couples the right to a marriage license and adoption.

Us sick people, those that couple together with a combination of everything required to create life?

Those sick people?

Remember, the world depends on those couplings.

True story folks

Yes, we have a declining population problem because of gays.

When it comes to deflection, you are indeed the best Bodey.

 

[bodecea]

In case you are forgetting, Sil.

A mardigras parade

Clearly these people are trying to attract children to a sinful heterosexual lifestyle of premarital sex and teenage pregnancy. How dare you allow heterosexuals to get married and adopt children.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, other than this parade or party in the street called mardigra is also shunned by huge amounts of people who do care about their children and themselves upon what they are exposed to upon this nations streets or within the nations schools and/or public places in which they may visit or participate in.

There are people or citizens whom think that this is also wrong for the nation to be agreeing with and/or to be doing such things out in the public that you are using as an example of here in order to enforce somehow your argument that is being made. It's truly a spectacle of pure debauchery at it's worse these types of things are, and yet they were once confined to certain borders or areas where one had to seek these things out instead of them seeking us out like they do now.

Now with that said, such events as these are drenched in sinfulness that many do regret if they had participated in them, and it is that they wished looking back that they had never participated in such events as they had done over the years gone by now.

These days or even in the days of old they were just plain wrong in most peoples minds, because they are over the top and corrupting to any and everything that moves. They need to be cleaned up instead of accepted as um-bridled & worse um-bordered or even worse than that enhanced to the point of having these types of exposures going way to far finally in society. It all probably has gone to far already upon leaving the boundaries in which they were once confined to, but the genie has been let out of the bottle now, and so all the good citizens of this nation can do is damage control or to separate and stay away from it all somehow, but that's getting harder and harder these days for people to do... This type of stuff was always taboo, and people are being ruined by these things anymore, and many are becoming tired of it all I think, so the shift from it might come soon, but I could be wrong yet I hope not...

The point is to expose the double standard. The "sinfulness" of the straight people I pictured is never used as a reason to deny all heterosexual couples the right to a marriage license and adoption. Yet when gay people show the same behavior, it is used to deny all gay couples the right to a marriage license and adoption.

Us sick people, those that couple together with a combination of everything required to create life?

Those sick people?

Remember, the world depends on those couplings.

True story folks

Yes, we have a declining population problem because of gays.

When it comes to deflection, you are indeed the best Bodey.

You mean my tongue in cheek response to your bolded statement above?

 

[Pop23]

Not sure what you are trying to say here, other than this parade or party in the street called mardigra is also shunned by huge amounts of people who do care about their children and themselves upon what they are exposed to upon this nations streets or within the nations schools and/or public places in which they may visit or participate in.

There are people or citizens whom think that this is also wrong for the nation to be agreeing with and/or to be doing such things out in the public that you are using as an example of here in order to enforce somehow your argument that is being made. It's truly a spectacle of pure debauchery at it's worse these types of things are, and yet they were once confined to certain borders or areas where one had to seek these things out instead of them seeking us out like they do now.

Now with that said, such events as these are drenched in sinfulness that many do regret if they had participated in them, and it is that they wished looking back that they had never participated in such events as they had done over the years gone by now.

These days or even in the days of old they were just plain wrong in most peoples minds, because they are over the top and corrupting to any and everything that moves. They need to be cleaned up instead of accepted as um-bridled & worse um-bordered or even worse than that enhanced to the point of having these types of exposures going way to far finally in society. It all probably has gone to far already upon leaving the boundaries in which they were once confined to, but the genie has been let out of the bottle now, and so all the good citizens of this nation can do is damage control or to separate and stay away from it all somehow, but that's getting harder and harder these days for people to do... This type of stuff was always taboo, and people are being ruined by these things anymore, and many are becoming tired of it all I think, so the shift from it might come soon, but I could be wrong yet I hope not...

The point is to expose the double standard. The "sinfulness" of the straight people I pictured is never used as a reason to deny all heterosexual couples the right to a marriage license and adoption. Yet when gay people show the same behavior, it is used to deny all gay couples the right to a marriage license and adoption.

Us sick people, those that couple together with a combination of everything required to create life?

Those sick people?

Remember, the world depends on those couplings.

True story folks

Yes, we have a declining population problem because of gays.

When it comes to deflection, you are indeed the best Bodey.

You mean my tongue in cheek response to your bolded statement above?

The bolded section is absolute fact

Only those who don't participate in providing for the future would find that ultimate truth funny.

 

[bodecea]

The point is to expose the double standard. The "sinfulness" of the straight people I pictured is never used as a reason to deny all heterosexual couples the right to a marriage license and adoption. Yet when gay people show the same behavior, it is used to deny all gay couples the right to a marriage license and adoption.

Us sick people, those that couple together with a combination of everything required to create life?

Those sick people?

Remember, the world depends on those couplings.

True story folks

Yes, we have a declining population problem because of gays.

When it comes to deflection, you are indeed the best Bodey.

You mean my tongue in cheek response to your bolded statement above?

The bolded section is absolute fact

Only those who don't participate in providing for the future would find that ultimate truth funny.

Again...we have a "problem" with declining population......don't we? And it's the gays' fault.

 

[ShackledNation]

1. Researchers advocate their findings in all areas of science. If research reaches one conclusion, but others are assuming another conclusion is true, a research has every right to publicize their research and correct false assumptions.

No, they do not. They let the science speak on their behalf. They do not engage in public policy debates. That's considered bad form.

If findings say X is bad, a researcher is perfectly fine arguing for policy suggestions that reduce X. It is not bad form at all to make policy recommendations based on findings.

4. The comparisons in the study control for those differences.

When you control for the differences the sample size drops significantly. When 79% of male homosexuals live in households with $100,000 family income, then of the 89 male homosexuals in this study, only 19 lived in households with less than $100,000 family income. Having only 19 households severely limits the ability to tease out what is happening.

Comparisons of wealthier homosexual couples to wealthier heterosexuals couples would not face that issue, nor do female homosexual couples.

5. Before any interview participants must be consulted. That is done for ethical reasons, and was done for the heterosexual parents as well.

It was not. There were no heterosexual parents interviewed at all. The heterosexual control group was represented by old data from two studies dealing with other topics, one from 1997 and the other from 2009. This homosexual study was conducted in 2012. Until we invent time machines, what you say didn't happen.[/quote]
Not just interviews, but any type of survey research. People have to be informed and give consent. That is not unique to interviews. Participants are always consulted. This is a very basic aspect of the field.

Furthermore, there were two measures of the well-being of children in heterosexual relationships. The health of young Victorians survey was a paper survey. You are correct that the other was a phone survey, but comparing phone survey results and electronic/paper results is not invalid.

You change the nature of the sample audience when you present two ways of taking a survey. The paper based survey respondents can fill out the survey at their leisure, they can think about each question, they can fill out the survey over many days/evenings and most importantly they can develop an overview of the entire survey before the respond to the first question, thus enabling them to tailor their response to what they deduce about the survey. A telephone respondent has to answer the survey in one sitting, has to answer each question as it is presented to him and doesn't get to deduce the nature of the survey by reviewing it in its entirety before he commences with they survey.

This is a gross violation of good study design. It's damn atrocious.

Apparently you ignored that one of the primary measures was a paper survey of the heterosexual parents. And guess what? It did not differ significantly from the phone survey.

7. The 2009/2012 difference is simply not an issue whatsoever. There is a more valid point to make about 1997 data, at least potentially, but I don't see what problem that would create that invalidates anything.

Why not use data from the 1950s then?

The difference between 2009 is and 2012 is not at all like the difference between 1950 and 2012. Come one, you surely get that.

8. The study pointed out this fact, controlled for it when comparing groups, and explained that often homosexual couples are better educated and wealthier simply because they have to invest more time and money into having children. It is more planned, in other words. But again, the educational and income differences were controlled for. This is typical for any study in the social science field.

I take it that you have a surface understanding of social science methods, that you understand what it means to control, but your knowledge doesn't go much beyond the surface. Am I right? The limitations which arise from a small sample size and how controlling for various confounds reduces the samples size of the group under study.

Of course. But the sample size is not so small that the entire study is invalid, as you want to claim. Keep in mind that there are also far fewer homosexual couples raising children than heterosexual couples to begin with, so you are always going to have a relatively smaller sample size.

9. The study measures child health and well-being. This includes social well being, with measures such as emotional behavior, mental health, self-esteem, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, among other variables. These measures are listed right in the study. Immunizations was a very, very minor point in the study.

Immunization are an objective metric, well being is a subjective metric dependent on the testing instrument used and the testing instrument can embody bias and when a biased researcher sets out to create a study which support his desired conclusion he can find instruments which will bias the results in his chosen direction. Secondly, and most importantly, when the median age of children being parented by male homosexuals is 2, then the effects of parenting haven't had much time to develop. This study tells us NOTHING about teen outcomes nor adult outcomes yet this researcher is out in the media implying just that. Median age of 2. Goodness gracious, that's astounding.

[/quote]
Your point was no social measures were used. I pointed out that they were, and now you are saying social measures are a bad measure? You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. There is nothing biased about the instruments used. Also, there were older children in the sample. Do you know what the median age was for heterosexual parents? You are focusing on the smallest sample (gay males) and a median and ignoring the rest. And there was no data suggesting that older children raised by gay parents did any worse than children of the same age raised by heterosexual parents.

Nobody is claiming the study is perfect. But it does shed light on the topic, and is far from totally invalid because it exhibits common weaknesses of nearly all studies in the field. There is not a single study, on the other hand, that proves gay couples make worse parents.

 

[ShackledNation]

The point is to expose the double standard. The "sinfulness" of the straight people I pictured is never used as a reason to deny all heterosexual couples the right to a marriage license and adoption. Yet when gay people show the same behavior, it is used to deny all gay couples the right to a marriage license and adoption.

Us sick people, those that couple together with a combination of everything required to create life?

Those sick people?

Remember, the world depends on those couplings.

True story folks

Yes, we have a declining population problem because of gays.

When it comes to deflection, you are indeed the best Bodey.

You mean my tongue in cheek response to your bolded statement above?

The bolded section is absolute fact

Only those who don't participate in providing for the future would find that ultimate truth funny.

Actually, it's not. A man can impregnate a woman without them being a couple. Also, with in vitro fertilization, you could have a society with 100% gay couples and still have procreation. Gay couples would donate their sperm to lesbian couples who would then have children. And lesbian couples could act as surrogates for gay couples. No penis would ever have to enter a vagina.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You've just engaged in motivated reasoning in this comment. I don't think it's fruitful to continue any further. You're going to stick to your beliefs no matter what and I've now had first hand experience in two threads with you. I know all I need to at this point.

 

[Seawytch]

Studies by adults says kids are healthy in a homosexual home, but the studies do not say, "if given a choice, would the child choose to live in a man-man homosexual home".

I know 3 people who have homosexual parents and not a single one would give them up for anything. They love their parents because their parents love them. Stupid reasoning.

I am speaking of adoption, not simply having a parent who is homosexual.

Stupid comprehension on your part,

Ignorant distinction on your part. Whether adopted or given birth to, our children are still our children.

 

[Seawytch]

Studies by adults says kids are healthy in a homosexual home, but the studies do not say, "if given a choice, would the child choose to live in a man-man homosexual home".

If children are given a choice in all cases, gay and straight, they'd probably chose to live in a rich and famous person's home with swimming pool, ponies, and a limo.

I tell my kids to go find better parents all the time...I'm still stuck with the little monsters.

 

[Seawytch]

Us sick people, those that couple together with a combination of everything required to create life?

Those sick people?

Remember, the world depends on those couplings.

True story folks

Yes, we have a declining population problem because of gays.

When it comes to deflection, you are indeed the best Bodey.

When it comes to ludicrous non sequiturs, nobody beats you Pop.

 

[Seawytch]

Any parent can teach their child about sex, and it should never be graphic. Nor should it be a description of the parents' own sex life. It should be age-appropriate and factual.

You're the one making the straw man.

Never a description of the parents sex life.

That is a dictate, why can I not describe the love and intimacy that I experienced that resulted in life being created.

In order for homosexual men to be able to adopt 9 year old boys, my 1st amendment right must be violated.

I can not share the creation of my own son, with my own son, just to make things equal?

Why don't you tell us how you would describe the love and intimacy that you experienced to create life?

Go ahead, give us the sex education that you would give your child(ren). Since you think that homosexual parents are teaching their kids about who is the top and who's the bottom, let's just see you type out all the ways in which you would teach a child about heterosexual sex.

(Of course, sex education usually doesn't involve simply an indoctrination into the parents' sex practices, but that's another story.......)

Please. Enlighten us.

Again, this thread is not about me, it's about kids.

You stated children should never learn, "a description", dictating what shall not be taught by parents.

Now you dictate that I state details of my intimacy, just like an activist, we must always chase the goal posts which the activist constantly moves.

Always fishing for a fault in heterosexuals, dictating that the discussion is not about homosexuality.

Now we are told that, "Heterosexuals indoctrinate children", that is bad, hence the improper term applied to what is normal and acceptable.

Pretty scary you are

Yeah, you're all finished.

You're very comfortable putting words into the mouths of gay parents, you're very comfortable telling everyone else what they will teach their hypothetical 9-year-old children, but you refuse to tell anyone how you would educate your kids about sex. Suddenly, this isn't about you. Suddenly, I'm "dictating" the conversation.

I can't dictate what kind of sick **** you are, I can only observe your sick fuckedness.

Enjoy your night.

I will enjoy my night, thank you.

Ricechickie exposed ricechickie, you described heterosexual parents teachings as indoctrination, correct that if that is not what you meant.

Ricechickie also stated heterosexuals can not describe our intimacy with our wife to our children.

I will sleep good knowing all is quoted and saved so that those who read without posting, know the facts as well as the tactics of those who are homosexual activists.

The Icing on the Cake is when I asked a specific relevant question in which if anyone answered, would show their views contradictory to their position.

I am a sick ****, proven here, as ricechickie states, should sick - ****'s adopt 9 year old boys, and remember, I am gay, so as a gay sick ****, should I be allowed to adopt 9 year old boys?

Once again, a question put to ricechickie,

Is English not your first language? That would explain a lot.

Here is the perception of what YOU are saying:

Elektra: Gays should not be able to adopt because they have sex

Explain to us how we got that wrong, because that is what I've gotten out of your posts. You seem to think that gays cannot have children because they have sex, but you have no problem with straights having children and sex. Explain this double standard to us, please.

 

[Seawytch]

You've just engaged in motivated reasoning in this comment. I don't think it's fruitful to continue any further. You're going to stick to your beliefs no matter what and I've now had first hand experience in two threads with you. I know all I need to at this point.

This from a guy whose only proof of how horrible gays are at parenting is from a Canadian 2006 Census (before legal marriage equality in Canada) study that showed only that children of married couples do better in school than the children of unmarried couples.

To me that bolsters the marriage equality case, not yours.

 

[Pop23]

Never a description of the parents sex life.

That is a dictate, why can I not describe the love and intimacy that I experienced that resulted in life being created.

In order for homosexual men to be able to adopt 9 year old boys, my 1st amendment right must be violated.

I can not share the creation of my own son, with my own son, just to make things equal?

Why don't you tell us how you would describe the love and intimacy that you experienced to create life?

Go ahead, give us the sex education that you would give your child(ren). Since you think that homosexual parents are teaching their kids about who is the top and who's the bottom, let's just see you type out all the ways in which you would teach a child about heterosexual sex.

(Of course, sex education usually doesn't involve simply an indoctrination into the parents' sex practices, but that's another story.......)

Please. Enlighten us.

Again, this thread is not about me, it's about kids.

You stated children should never learn, "a description", dictating what shall not be taught by parents.

Now you dictate that I state details of my intimacy, just like an activist, we must always chase the goal posts which the activist constantly moves.

Always fishing for a fault in heterosexuals, dictating that the discussion is not about homosexuality.

Now we are told that, "Heterosexuals indoctrinate children", that is bad, hence the improper term applied to what is normal and acceptable.

Pretty scary you are

Yeah, you're all finished.

You're very comfortable putting words into the mouths of gay parents, you're very comfortable telling everyone else what they will teach their hypothetical 9-year-old children, but you refuse to tell anyone how you would educate your kids about sex. Suddenly, this isn't about you. Suddenly, I'm "dictating" the conversation.

I can't dictate what kind of sick **** you are, I can only observe your sick fuckedness.

Enjoy your night.

I will enjoy my night, thank you.

Ricechickie exposed ricechickie, you described heterosexual parents teachings as indoctrination, correct that if that is not what you meant.

Ricechickie also stated heterosexuals can not describe our intimacy with our wife to our children.

I will sleep good knowing all is quoted and saved so that those who read without posting, know the facts as well as the tactics of those who are homosexual activists.

The Icing on the Cake is when I asked a specific relevant question in which if anyone answered, would show their views contradictory to their position.

I am a sick ****, proven here, as ricechickie states, should sick - ****'s adopt 9 year old boys, and remember, I am gay, so as a gay sick ****, should I be allowed to adopt 9 year old boys?

Once again, a question put to ricechickie,

Is English not your first language? That would explain a lot.

Here is the perception of what YOU are saying:

Elektra: Gays should not be able to adopt because they have sex

Explain to us how we got that wrong, because that is what I've gotten out of your posts. You seem to think that gays cannot have children because they have sex, but you have no problem with straights having children and sex. Explain this double standard to us, please.

Same sex coupling is a form of sex, like a tricycle is a form of transportation.

Learn to ride a trike and you think you deserve a pilots license.

 

[Seawytch]

Why don't you tell us how you would describe the love and intimacy that you experienced to create life?

Go ahead, give us the sex education that you would give your child(ren). Since you think that homosexual parents are teaching their kids about who is the top and who's the bottom, let's just see you type out all the ways in which you would teach a child about heterosexual sex.

(Of course, sex education usually doesn't involve simply an indoctrination into the parents' sex practices, but that's another story.......)

Please. Enlighten us.

Again, this thread is not about me, it's about kids.

You stated children should never learn, "a description", dictating what shall not be taught by parents.

Now you dictate that I state details of my intimacy, just like an activist, we must always chase the goal posts which the activist constantly moves.

Always fishing for a fault in heterosexuals, dictating that the discussion is not about homosexuality.

Now we are told that, "Heterosexuals indoctrinate children", that is bad, hence the improper term applied to what is normal and acceptable.

Pretty scary you are

Yeah, you're all finished.

You're very comfortable putting words into the mouths of gay parents, you're very comfortable telling everyone else what they will teach their hypothetical 9-year-old children, but you refuse to tell anyone how you would educate your kids about sex. Suddenly, this isn't about you. Suddenly, I'm "dictating" the conversation.

I can't dictate what kind of sick **** you are, I can only observe your sick fuckedness.

Enjoy your night.

I will enjoy my night, thank you.

Ricechickie exposed ricechickie, you described heterosexual parents teachings as indoctrination, correct that if that is not what you meant.

Ricechickie also stated heterosexuals can not describe our intimacy with our wife to our children.

I will sleep good knowing all is quoted and saved so that those who read without posting, know the facts as well as the tactics of those who are homosexual activists.

The Icing on the Cake is when I asked a specific relevant question in which if anyone answered, would show their views contradictory to their position.

I am a sick ****, proven here, as ricechickie states, should sick - ****'s adopt 9 year old boys, and remember, I am gay, so as a gay sick ****, should I be allowed to adopt 9 year old boys?

Once again, a question put to ricechickie,

Is English not your first language? That would explain a lot.

Here is the perception of what YOU are saying:

Elektra: Gays should not be able to adopt because they have sex

Explain to us how we got that wrong, because that is what I've gotten out of your posts. You seem to think that gays cannot have children because they have sex, but you have no problem with straights having children and sex. Explain this double standard to us, please.

Same sex coupling is a form of sex, like a tricycle is a form of transportation.

Learn to ride a trike and you think you deserve a pilots license.

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

 

[bodecea]

Why don't you tell us how you would describe the love and intimacy that you experienced to create life?

Go ahead, give us the sex education that you would give your child(ren). Since you think that homosexual parents are teaching their kids about who is the top and who's the bottom, let's just see you type out all the ways in which you would teach a child about heterosexual sex.

(Of course, sex education usually doesn't involve simply an indoctrination into the parents' sex practices, but that's another story.......)

Please. Enlighten us.

Again, this thread is not about me, it's about kids.

You stated children should never learn, "a description", dictating what shall not be taught by parents.

Now you dictate that I state details of my intimacy, just like an activist, we must always chase the goal posts which the activist constantly moves.

Always fishing for a fault in heterosexuals, dictating that the discussion is not about homosexuality.

Now we are told that, "Heterosexuals indoctrinate children", that is bad, hence the improper term applied to what is normal and acceptable.

Pretty scary you are

Yeah, you're all finished.

You're very comfortable putting words into the mouths of gay parents, you're very comfortable telling everyone else what they will teach their hypothetical 9-year-old children, but you refuse to tell anyone how you would educate your kids about sex. Suddenly, this isn't about you. Suddenly, I'm "dictating" the conversation.

I can't dictate what kind of sick **** you are, I can only observe your sick fuckedness.

Enjoy your night.

I will enjoy my night, thank you.

Ricechickie exposed ricechickie, you described heterosexual parents teachings as indoctrination, correct that if that is not what you meant.

Ricechickie also stated heterosexuals can not describe our intimacy with our wife to our children.

I will sleep good knowing all is quoted and saved so that those who read without posting, know the facts as well as the tactics of those who are homosexual activists.

The Icing on the Cake is when I asked a specific relevant question in which if anyone answered, would show their views contradictory to their position.

I am a sick ****, proven here, as ricechickie states, should sick - ****'s adopt 9 year old boys, and remember, I am gay, so as a gay sick ****, should I be allowed to adopt 9 year old boys?

Once again, a question put to ricechickie,

Is English not your first language? That would explain a lot.

Here is the perception of what YOU are saying:

Elektra: Gays should not be able to adopt because they have sex

Explain to us how we got that wrong, because that is what I've gotten out of your posts. You seem to think that gays cannot have children because they have sex, but you have no problem with straights having children and sex. Explain this double standard to us, please.

Same sex coupling is a form of sex, like a tricycle is a form of transportation.

Learn to ride a trike and you think you deserve a pilots license.

So, you think the government should rank kinds of sex and award marriage licenses based on what kind of sex one can or does perform?

 

[Pop23]

Again, this thread is not about me, it's about kids.

You stated children should never learn, "a description", dictating what shall not be taught by parents.

Now you dictate that I state details of my intimacy, just like an activist, we must always chase the goal posts which the activist constantly moves.

Always fishing for a fault in heterosexuals, dictating that the discussion is not about homosexuality.

Now we are told that, "Heterosexuals indoctrinate children", that is bad, hence the improper term applied to what is normal and acceptable.

Pretty scary you are

Yeah, you're all finished.

You're very comfortable putting words into the mouths of gay parents, you're very comfortable telling everyone else what they will teach their hypothetical 9-year-old children, but you refuse to tell anyone how you would educate your kids about sex. Suddenly, this isn't about you. Suddenly, I'm "dictating" the conversation.

I can't dictate what kind of sick **** you are, I can only observe your sick fuckedness.

Enjoy your night.

I will enjoy my night, thank you.

Ricechickie exposed ricechickie, you described heterosexual parents teachings as indoctrination, correct that if that is not what you meant.

Ricechickie also stated heterosexuals can not describe our intimacy with our wife to our children.

I will sleep good knowing all is quoted and saved so that those who read without posting, know the facts as well as the tactics of those who are homosexual activists.

The Icing on the Cake is when I asked a specific relevant question in which if anyone answered, would show their views contradictory to their position.

I am a sick ****, proven here, as ricechickie states, should sick - ****'s adopt 9 year old boys, and remember, I am gay, so as a gay sick ****, should I be allowed to adopt 9 year old boys?

Once again, a question put to ricechickie,

Is English not your first language? That would explain a lot.

Here is the perception of what YOU are saying:

Elektra: Gays should not be able to adopt because they have sex

Explain to us how we got that wrong, because that is what I've gotten out of your posts. You seem to think that gays cannot have children because they have sex, but you have no problem with straights having children and sex. Explain this double standard to us, please.

Same sex coupling is a form of sex, like a tricycle is a form of transportation.

Learn to ride a trike and you think you deserve a pilots license.

So, you think the government should rank kinds of sex and award marriage licenses based on what kind of sex one can or does perform?

You conveniently forgot to add "or the possible result of the sex we perform"

No need to rank the obvious, only one form of coupling produces ALL HUMAN LIFE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

All other types are simply forms of masturbation.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, this thread is not about me, it's about kids.

You stated children should never learn, "a description", dictating what shall not be taught by parents.

Now you dictate that I state details of my intimacy, just like an activist, we must always chase the goal posts which the activist constantly moves.

Always fishing for a fault in heterosexuals, dictating that the discussion is not about homosexuality.

Now we are told that, "Heterosexuals indoctrinate children", that is bad, hence the improper term applied to what is normal and acceptable.

Pretty scary you are

Yeah, you're all finished.

You're very comfortable putting words into the mouths of gay parents, you're very comfortable telling everyone else what they will teach their hypothetical 9-year-old children, but you refuse to tell anyone how you would educate your kids about sex. Suddenly, this isn't about you. Suddenly, I'm "dictating" the conversation.

I can't dictate what kind of sick **** you are, I can only observe your sick fuckedness.

Enjoy your night.

I will enjoy my night, thank you.

Ricechickie exposed ricechickie, you described heterosexual parents teachings as indoctrination, correct that if that is not what you meant.

Ricechickie also stated heterosexuals can not describe our intimacy with our wife to our children.

I will sleep good knowing all is quoted and saved so that those who read without posting, know the facts as well as the tactics of those who are homosexual activists.

The Icing on the Cake is when I asked a specific relevant question in which if anyone answered, would show their views contradictory to their position.

I am a sick ****, proven here, as ricechickie states, should sick - ****'s adopt 9 year old boys, and remember, I am gay, so as a gay sick ****, should I be allowed to adopt 9 year old boys?

Once again, a question put to ricechickie,

Is English not your first language? That would explain a lot.

Here is the perception of what YOU are saying:

Elektra: Gays should not be able to adopt because they have sex

Explain to us how we got that wrong, because that is what I've gotten out of your posts. You seem to think that gays cannot have children because they have sex, but you have no problem with straights having children and sex. Explain this double standard to us, please.

Same sex coupling is a form of sex, like a tricycle is a form of transportation.

Learn to ride a trike and you think you deserve a pilots license.

So, you think the government should rank kinds of sex and award marriage licenses based on what kind of sex one can or does perform?

It already does.