Yep, gay marriage will definitely ruin the institution of marriage </sarcasm>

DamnYankee said:
Your game is denying the obvious in spite of a mountain of evidence falling all around you.
Click to expand...
how many times has your hero Clint Eastwood been married? Ronald Reagan was married twice and Nancy was pregnant when he married her. Newt has multiple marriages, and left a wife for another woman while his wife was fighting cancer. yup, conservatives honor marriage.
 
I haven't read any of the responses on this thread, though I could probably predict most of them at this point. But the institution of marriage is taking a beating from the hetero's these days - an absolute beating. The whole "gay marriage will destroy the instition of marriage" argument gets lamer & more futile with each passing year.

Just to add - unless you can remember the moment when you "decided" to be attracted to a certain sex, pipe down.
 
Socrtease said:
how many times has your hero Clint Eastwood been married? Ronald Reagan was married twice and Nancy was pregnant when he married her. Newt has multiple marriages, and left a wife for another woman while his wife was fighting cancer. yup, conservatives honor marriage.
Click to expand...
Your argument has been tried before and failed. Just because the institution is under attack doesn't justify further attacks. It doesn't matter "what side" the current attackers are from. :)
 
Darla said:
LOL you keep saying that. I've never heard of it anywhere else. I hope I never do! I will just take your word that such people exist...
Click to expand...

[translation]
Darla said: I really didn't have anything constructive to say; but I did want to kiss your ass.
[/translation]
 
Socrtease said:
how many times has your hero Clint Eastwood been married? Ronald Reagan was married twice and Nancy was pregnant when he married her. Newt has multiple marriages, and left a wife for another woman while his wife was fighting cancer. yup, conservatives honor marriage.
Click to expand...

How many times did Clinton insert that cigar into an interns vagina?
 
apple0154 said:
This is my justification for not bringing them into the world, into a hell-hole.
Click to expand...
Prove that every child born into poverty will be abused and/or neglected.
Prove that every child born to a single parent will be abused and/or neglected.
Prove that every child born, that wasn't planned, will be abused and/or neglected.

By your standards, the majority of the children born during the time period of 1929 to almost 1940 should have been aborted.
This alone proves that you're an idiot.

You really should work on Kanada, before you worry about the US.

Child Neglect Laws in Canada

Oddly enough I found this little exert, in the article.

"Neglect in Childbirth
Mothers who are pregnant are responsible for the safe arrival of the baby and making provisions so that the child has a chance to live. As written in the Criminal Code 242, a female who fails to provide the basics of life needed to survive with the intent that the baby shall not live and conceal the birth are guilty of an indictable offense with a prison term of no more than five years. Being pregnant and having a baby carries the responsibility of a caregiver. Failing to adequately care for a newborn baby carries the same sort of penalties as parents who neglect an older child."
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Prove that every child born into poverty will be abused and/or neglected.
Prove that every child born to a single parent will be abused and/or neglected.
Prove that every child born, that wasn't planned, will be abused and/or neglected.

By your standards, the majority of the children born during the time period of 1929 to almost 1940 should have been aborted.
This alone proves that you're an idiot.

You really should work on Kanada, before you worry about the US.

Child Neglect Laws in Canada

Oddly enough I found this little exert, in the article.

"Neglect in Childbirth
Mothers who are pregnant are responsible for the safe arrival of the baby and making provisions so that the child has a chance to live. As written in the Criminal Code 242, a female who fails to provide the basics of life needed to survive with the intent that the baby shall not live and conceal the birth are guilty of an indictable offense with a prison term of no more than five years. Being pregnant and having a baby carries the responsibility of a caregiver. Failing to adequately care for a newborn baby carries the same sort of penalties as parents who neglect an older child."
Click to expand...

The level of child abuse in the US is three times that of Canada and is the worst in the developed world, with Texas being the top offender. North Carolina has the worst record for mothers killing their own children.

More than 20,000 American children are believed to have been killed in their own homes by family members in the last 10 years, nearly four times the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. A BBC investigation finds that the United States has the worst child-abuse record of all the industrialized nations. Every week, 66 children under 15 die from physical abuse or neglect in the First World, 27 of them in the U.S. Experts say teen pregnancy, high-school dropout rates, violent crime, imprisonment, and poverty are generally much higher in the United States.
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15288865
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15288865
 
Last edited:
Thats quite a statistic, especially if its anywhere near true......

well.., the only excuse I can offer is, the US is home to a large number of liberal assholes (50%+) that think that killing children for their own convenience before birth, is just and necessary, so there is no reason to imagine that a little thing like the actual birth will stop them from killing children for their own convenience even after their birth....

Simple logic....
 
bravo said:
Thats quite a statistic, especially if its anywhere near true......

well.., the only excuse I can offer is, the US is home to a large number of liberal assholes (50%+) that think that killing children for their own convenience before birth, is just and necessary, so there is no reason to imagine that a little thing like the actual birth will stop them from killing children for their own convenience even after their birth....

Simple logic....
Click to expand...

Comic Sans in blue, are you serious?
 
bravo said:
Thats quite a statistic, especially if its anywhere near true......

well.., the only excuse I can offer is, the US is home to a large number of liberal assholes (50%+) that think that killing children for their own convenience before birth, is just and necessary, so there is no reason to imagine that a little thing like the actual birth will stop them from killing children for their own convenience even after their birth....

Simple logic....
Click to expand...


Yes, Texas is well known to be a liberal state along with North Carolina.
 
Thor said:
What is the solution, to kill them in the womb? The Christian Children's Fund is obviously doing their part to make the world a better place for children. I myself sponsor two children, one in Bolivia and another in Haiti. I'm not trying to be rude, especially since you're someone I respect - but I must ask, what do you do for these children, Apple?

If everyone in the western world voluntarily opened their wallets, whether it be through micro loans, sponsoring children/families, or giving their time (whether secular or religious in nature), the remainder of the world would be a much better place, I assure you that.
Click to expand...


Opened their wallet? Gave their time? You closet Marxist, you!!! :lol:

As for killing them in the womb there is no "them".

A woman usually knows she's pregnant by the end of the second month. Do you honestly believe something 3/4 of an inch long is a human being? How can anyone justify allowing the process to continue which may result in the birth of a child and subjecting that child to what we see in the video? The hunger. The disease. The squalid conditions.

As for what I do for those particular children...nothing. It's like trying to plug a damn with ones finger. I believe a better approach is to condemn the governments and religious institutions that prevent the distribution of birth control and the services of abortion.

There are politicians who don't want international aid going to Planned Parenthood and being used for abortion. While it's noble to try and help the children I believe the emphasis should be placed on preventing those children from coming into the world in the first place and that's done in the voting booth and writing ones representative.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Prove that every child born into poverty will be abused and/or neglected.
Prove that every child born to a single parent will be abused and/or neglected.
Prove that every child born, that wasn't planned, will be abused and/or neglected.

By your standards, the majority of the children born during the time period of 1929 to almost 1940 should have been aborted.
This alone proves that you're an idiot.

You really should work on Kanada, before you worry about the US.

Child Neglect Laws in Canada

Oddly enough I found this little exert, in the article.

"Neglect in Childbirth
Mothers who are pregnant are responsible for the safe arrival of the baby and making provisions so that the child has a chance to live. As written in the Criminal Code 242, a female who fails to provide the basics of life needed to survive with the intent that the baby shall not live and conceal the birth are guilty of an indictable offense with a prison term of no more than five years. Being pregnant and having a baby carries the responsibility of a caregiver. Failing to adequately care for a newborn baby carries the same sort of penalties as parents who neglect an older child."
Click to expand...

Oddly enough I found this at the same link. "Children who are emotionally ignored or not given the proper nutrition to develop into young adults are experiencing neglect that can be punishable under Canadian laws."

Referring to the video I posted one can reasonably conclude the women who brought children into the world knowing they couldn't supply proper nutrition would be guilty of a Canadian crime.

Let's take a closer look at that article. It's written, "According to the Canadian Children's Rights Council, neglect manifests in the form of failing to provide attention to a child's psychological, emotional or physical development. "

Now we're getting somewhere. Considering abortion is legal in Canada a woman has a choice between aborting a child she is not prepared to look after psychologically, emotionally and physically or bring that child into the world and be guilty of committing a crime.

Makes perfect sense to me. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top