ditzyliberal
What does reading the words have to do with it? Yes, I read your post. Your inability to use the quotes makes it hard to respond in context, so I will just do it in one comment. I am tired of fixing your mess.
Copy and paste is beyond you? Jeez, you're either one lazy bastard or to dumb to realize this lame ploy of yours just won't cut it. The chronology of the posts will also expose your dishonesty.
BS, you did argue that my claims, that many of those would divorce and some were lying, was supposition and conjecture. You repeated it several times. The point of that was that the number of children in two parents homes throughout childhood was not as high as you implied. It never had anything to do with two homosexuals having sex and producing offspring. There is absolutely no connection between the two, dumbfuck.
You're full of it String....the source material YOU provided did not support your BS about divorce and single parent homes when carefully examined. Cornered, you then LIE about what I previously wrote in responses to your assertions and statements. The chronology of the posts will always expose your dishonesty.
I may have confused articles. I tried to find the original source and had difficulty. Who cares. 63% or 67%. The census does corroborate the Rutgers study. 4% is gotta be pretty close to the margin of error on either. But we can use 67%, because +/-4% who fucking cares! Some dumb fuck playing gotcha games because his arguments are worthless, that's who.
"Pretty close...gotta be...and who cares if it's not accurate or there is no direct corroboration????" 
What school gave YOU a diploma? Seriously, I would like to see you go up to some medical/scientific/mechanical institution of learning with some claims and then present them with the "logic" you use here to justify why your "opinion" is valid. You'd be arrested for causing hernias and repiratory ailments due to the laughter.
You're a fucking joke, String
Hey mastermind, water is wet. That proves my argument and you can't contradict my logic. That proves gays should be able to marry.
Again, I never stated that gays couldn't get married. That was just a dodge injected by you to try and avoid your inability to fault my statements regarding the root cause as to why the "gay family" is an artificial construct. The chronology of the posts will always expose your dishonesty.
That's to what your argument on homosexual procreation amounts.
No, that is what YOU falsely try to claim it is. Anyone with a high school education can read what I wrote and see what a dishonest person you are regarding this. It is as if you were trying to prove OJ guilty and said, "he played for the Bills... prove me wrong!" Why? An absurd statement on your part that has no relevence to the discussion at hand.
Your dishonest attempts to dodge the issue are transparent and pathetic, String. Grow up!
What is the difference between a medical problem and a biological impossibility? That matters to marriage, how?
It pertains to children, as I've stated and explained earlier. Your playing dumb or actually being unable to comprehend and retain what others write is just a waste of time, given the easy accesibility of the chronology of the posts.
There is no proof that homosexuals cannot raise kids or that heterosexual children suffer under them. That's just nonsense.
And as long as jokers like you lie, deny and remain ignorant of what's going on in the world, that statement is valid to you. Just don't read the Stacey/Bilblarz report and other like material....it'll rip the hinges of your fragile mind apart!
You still have not proven anything, except that you are fucking stupid. I know and have known that water is wet, OJ played for the Bills and two people of the same sex can't produce offspring. I just don't see how any of those points matter one iota to the topic of gay marriage or families. Until you make a case for the points relevance you have nothing.
