CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Rana said:
I don't doubt they are doing stuff, I doubt they are givingClinton credit for it.
Click to expand...

They didnt give him credit. In a half hour debate on the topic, among a long list of arguments, they included the fact that Clinton didnt consider a "blow" to be "sex".
 
apple0154 said:
Some folks are so unappreciative. :(
Click to expand...

She even blamed me for getting her drunk. She made it sound like I poured it down her throat and then raped her. Probably ashamed of herself so she needs to blame me. It's not my fault she decided to get pure later in life.
 
Rana said:
Eatin ain't cheatin was a saying long before Clinton, and I seriously doubt Eight grade girls were saying such, that sounds a little bombastic.

Where would they hear things like that? Sounds like an urban legend.
Click to expand...

LOL! I never heard that saying but it's a good one. Thanks for the laugh!
 
dixon76710 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Ahhh, but you forget that it was less than 40 years ago that many states started to strike down the laws that made it illegal for gays to adopt. One of the driving forces behind that (aside from the grass root political pressure) was the overload in the foster child system.
Click to expand...
Not sure of your point. Any two people could adopt a child. Two platonic friends, two closely related adults. Two 18 yr old boys with boners arent some how more qualified to adopt and raise children than two platonic friends or two closely related adults. What possible justification could government have for giving the gay boys with boners family model preference over ANY OTHER POSSIBLE COMBINATION OF TWO CONSENTING ADULTS who could adopt a child? ESPECIALLY since its a preference for both biological parents raising THEIR own children that you find unacceptable.


Okay, let's take this from the top so you'll understand what my point is. Your first 3 statements are grossly error ridden. Adoption is NOT just a nilly willy process were "any two people" can adopt. Up until about 35 years ago, the emphasis for adoptive parents were on finding a stable married heterosexual couple (male & female), if relatives of the child(ren) were not available or able to take care of them. But as social services and foster care system became over-whelmed with kids literally growing up in foster care, rules were changed to single men or women as well. But as I said before, it was only in the last 40 years or less that the LAWS which prohibited gay people (single or couples) from adopting children or being part of the foster care parenting system were changed. Essentially, the legal challenge came from actual biological parent who divorced their straight partner after coming out of the closet and sued for custody. Now it's ILLEGAL to deny gay folk from adoption...providing they can meet the same economic and social/household standards as a straight couple. That's just a matter of history and fact. Had YOU READ my previous post carefully, you would have noted that I made no such inference that biological parents raising their own children was "unacceptable". I don't know how you came to that absurd conclusion.

And while heterosexual sex has a strong tendency to naturally lead to procreation, homosexual sex has no such tendency whatsoever to lead to adoption. Silly to argue we cant encourage all heterosexual couples to marry in case they procreate while arguing that WE MUST encourage all homosexuals to marry in case they might want to adopt.
Click to expand...

What's even sillier is that I made no such assertion or advocacy. Again, here's what I wrote:

Personally, I could care less about what adults do...it's this nonsense about raising kids to prove "equality" or "normality" that I disagree to. But since there's no federal law passed that bans gay couples from adopting or "having" children through artificial insemination/surrogacy or via divorce, society will have to play out that card.
 
Taichiliberal said:
What's even sillier is that I made no such assertion or advocacy. Again, here's what I wrote:

Personally, I could care less about what adults do...it's this nonsense about raising kids to prove "equality" or "normality" that I disagree to. But since there's no federal law passed that bans gay couples from adopting or "having" children through artificial insemination/surrogacy or via divorce, society will have to play out that card.
Click to expand...

I interpreted that as you advocating for gay marriage. My bad.
 
dixon76710 said:
Its not about procreation. Its about providing and caring fro the product of that procreation. You still havent yet even comprehended a thing I or the court casess have said. Willful ignorance?

And government doesnt know which couples will procreate. We do know that all that do wil be exclusively heterosexual couples. Just because govenment could subject every couple to medical examinations and a battery of laboratory testing to detrermine who is capeable of procreation, I cant imagine where you people come up with this idea that the constitution would require that they must.

And you people keep presenting this same argument, again and again as if youve discovered some previously undiscovered answer when the same argument, has beeen presented in court case after court case and dismissed as irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You can keep stamping your feet, all you want; but if it's about "providing and caring for the product of that procreation", then why are men and women past the child bearing years allowed to marry or to stay married?
and
Why do we allow couples to marry that have no intention of procreating; because while the Government may not know, most people find out.
 
dixon76710 said:
Did you not even read what I posted and you quoted, or just unable to comprehend? Willful ignorance?
Click to expand...

The only one showing willful ignorance, in this discussion, has been you.
First it's about procreation, then it isn't, and then it is again.
Then it's about caring and providing for that procreation, then it isn't, and then it is again.
You really need to make up your mind, about which soap box you intend to stand on.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
The only one showing willful ignorance, in this discussion, has been you.
First it's about procreation, then it isn't, and then it is again.
Then it's about caring and providing for that procreation, then it isn't, and then it is again.
You really need to make up your mind, about which soap box you intend to stand on.
Click to expand...


You know, the forum has a quote function. Instead of spending so much time telling me what I have said, why not quote me. You people come up with some silly interpretations
 
dixon76710 said:
You know, the forum has a quote function. Instead of spending so much time telling me what I have said, why not quote me. You people come up with some silly interpretations
Click to expand...

QUOTE YOU!!!

I always use the quote feature; whereas you do nothing but try to spin away from every comment that you don't agree with.
You take forever to answer a question; by ignoring it, until it's been asked several times.
Every reason you've presented, has been shown to be false and you just keep repeating them.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
QUOTE YOU!!!

I always use the quote feature; whereas you do nothing but try to spin away from every comment that you don't agree with.
You take forever to answer a question; by ignoring it, until it's been asked several times.
Every reason you've presented, has been shown to be false and you just keep repeating them.
Click to expand...

Noooo

USFREEDOM911 said:
The only one showing willful ignorance, in this discussion, has been you.
First it's about procreation, then it isn't, and then it is again.
Then it's about caring and providing for that procreation, then it isn't, and then it is again.
You really need to make up your mind, about which soap box you intend to stand on.
Click to expand...

Not a quote in there. Just a list of purposeful mischaracterizations of what Ive said. Like I said, use the quote function, and less time telling me what Ive said in the past.
 
dixon76710 said:
Noooo



Not a quote in there. Just a list of purposeful mischaracterizations of what Ive said. Like I said, use the quote function, and less time telling me what Ive said in the past.
Click to expand...

I see you've finally admitted that you're to stupid to remember the idiocy that you've posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top