So what about the kids? This thread is about Gay Parents

[billvon 2,990]

>You don't have a clue about what might exist. No one does.

So your claim that you know what "a lot of gays do" is complete bullshit then, as are your examples, sine you have no clue about what might exist?

Keep digging!

[Skyrad 0]

You sure he doesn't know Bill?

Quote

I hired lots of gay men.

As I suspected.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>You don't have a clue about what might exist. No one does.

So your claim that you know what "a lot of gays do" is complete bullshit then, as are your examples, sine you have no clue about what might exist?

Keep digging!

You said the example I provided never existed. I said no one knows. So then since you said my example never existed means you know about what gay men do. Right?

You wouldn't make a very good Supreme Court Justice, nor an attorney either arguing a case. Lookie here, even the one who brought the case couldn't say how they were even harmed by California's decison: yet they say all of California was harmed. Not such a good answer. (Last sentence) There's also talk about Kids in the conversation as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/26/supreme-court-gay-marriage-hearing

Good luck trying to promote your liberal agenda, even to the point of pushing it on an unwilling court that decided to hear it, not because there was standing, but because of loud noise. I'd say back to California for the state's decision. I really think this is about getting health care via a spouse, but that's going to be covered under Obamacare anyway no matter if you are married or not no matter the sexual orientation.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Good luck trying to promote your liberal agenda, even to the point of pushing it on an unwilling court that decided to hear it, not because there was standing, but because of loud noise.

When will this madness end? Won't somebody please think of the Justices!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Quote

>>He's better off with them than in an orphanage.

>You develop irregular examples

As opposed to:

"a male gay, and a born female, who becomes a man, who is also gay, if you can grasp the idea, both get married and adopts a boy . . .on top of that, lets say the male gay is more feminine than the transgender woman who is now a man. And lets add one more layer. The transgender is bisexual!"

Kids in orphanages are regular examples. Your example is so irregular that I strongly suspect it has never existed, ever.

Well, this one time, in college...

That was you!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[labrys 0]

Quote

On top of that, lets say the male gay is more feminine than the transgender woman who is now a man.

Quote

You mean like when a guy in a straight marriage is more effeminate than his wife? Should that couple not raise kids?

Well?

Owned by Remi #?

[billvon 2,990]

>You said the example I provided never existed. I said no one knows.

So you don't have any clue about what might exist. Best leave it for people who do, then.

>Good luck trying to promote your liberal agenda

Thanks! Civil rights have indeed been expanding, even with people like you trying to stop such "agendas." I have no doubt that eventually gays will gain the same equality that blacks and women have, and that the people who try to suppress their rights will someday be seen in the same light as the people who thought blacks were an inferior race.

[labrys 0]

Quote

You said the example I provided never existed. I said no one knows.

Well, it's damned sure that there are straight couples out there in which the man is more "effeminate" than the woman or the woman is more "masculine" than the man.

Should they be allowed to have and raise children?

Owned by Remi #?

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>You said the example I provided never existed. I said no one knows.

So you don't have any clue about what might exist. Best leave it for people who do, then.

>Good luck trying to promote your liberal agenda

Thanks! Civil rights have indeed been expanding, even with people like you trying to stop such "agendas." I have no doubt that eventually gays will gain the same equality that blacks and women have, and that the people who try to suppress their rights will someday be seen in the same light as the people who thought blacks were an inferior race.

Your problem is that you cut copy out of sentence and comment on that portion of the copy without taking into consideration the rest of the thought.

So based on your editing you think is was a good a idea the SC even heard the case as nothing about what California did was Unconstitutional? So you are in favor of LOUD NOISE? I think the SC made a huge mistake to even hear the case. The matter belongs in California to decide.

Here's what I said: Good luck trying to promote your liberal agenda, even to the point of pushing it on an unwilling court that decided to hear it, not because there was standing, but because of loud noise.

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Quote

>You said the example I provided never existed. I said no one knows.

So you don't have any clue about what might exist. Best leave it for people who do, then.

>Good luck trying to promote your liberal agenda

Thanks! Civil rights have indeed been expanding, even with people like you trying to stop such "agendas." I have no doubt that eventually gays will gain the same equality that blacks and women have, and that the people who try to suppress their rights will someday be seen in the same light as the people who thought blacks were an inferior race.

Your problem is that you cut copy out of sentence and comment on that portion of the copy without taking into consideration the rest of the thought.

So based on your editing you think is was a good a idea the SC even heard the case as nothing about what California did was Unconstitutional? So you are in favor of LOUD NOISE? I think the SC made a huge mistake to even hear the case. The matter belongs in California to decide.

Here's what I said: Good luck trying to promote your liberal agenda, even to the point of pushing it on an unwilling court that decided to hear it, not because there was standing, but because of loud noise.

I just realised I hadn't read the article. I've read it now. Have you?

The "loud noise" of which you speak was made by the opponents of marriage equality. Because a previous court smacked them and Prop 8 down as unconstitutional, and another court upheld that smackdown. As far as my reading of the history of Prop 8 goes (and someone please correct me if I've completely missed something here), at this stage if the SC decides the case doesn't have standing, then Prop 8 goes bye-bye? Isn't that a loss for your camp? Or are you happier having the SC wash their hands of it and leave it solely to the state, rather than have any risk at all of them setting precedent for a nation wide legalisation of same sex marriage?

ETA:

>> You wouldn't make a very good Supreme Court Justice, nor an attorney either arguing a case. Lookie here, even the one who brought the case couldn't say how they were even harmed by California's decison: yet they say all of California was harmed. Not such a good answer. (Last sentence) There's also talk about Kids in the conversation as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...gay-marriage-hearing

Um. That would be the guy arguing FOR a gay marriage ban, failing. Seriously, did you read the bits about whose arguments was whose, or just look for the bits where people were failing and assumed it was the ones with the "librul ajender"?

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[labrys 0]

Quote

The matter belongs in California to decide.

That's just like saying that school integration and inter-racial marriage was up to the southern states to decide.

Why are you not answering my question?

Owned by Remi #?

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Quote

The matter belongs in California to decide.

That's just like saying that school integration and inter-racial marriage was up to the southern states to decide.

Why are you not answering my question?

Oh shush with your liberal agenda, always wanting answers and logic and shit...

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[promise5 17]

HEY!!!!!! Sorry I joined the site in the winter and broke my leg!! Its a little hard to do anything right now.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

HEY!!!!!! Sorry I joined the site in the winter and broke my leg!! Its a little hard to do anything right now.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Oh shush with your liberal agenda, always wanting answers and logic and shit..

There's a gay liberal convention coming up and I have to defend my right to attend... and all that...

It's brutal.

Owned by Remi #?

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

You said the example I provided never existed. I said no one knows.

Well, it's damned sure that there are straight couples out there in which the man is more "effeminate" than the woman or the woman is more "masculine" than the man.

Should they be allowed to have and raise children?

Octomom shouldn't have been allowed to have kids and the doc who impregnated her should have been barred from doing that too.

There are a lot of people who probably shouldn't have kids. This matter is about gay marriage and there's thousands of years history of marriages between a man and a women that the gay community is up against changing the way its been. Gay men and gay women can't have children. There is no getting around that. Either a sperm or an egg needs to come from outside the gay bond. The kid will one day want to know their natural dad or mom, and perhaps you've not thought about the kid. I have friends who were adopted and believe me they want to know their real dad and mom. The supreme court discussed gay couples raising kids today and there's two sides to that argument as to who might be best suited to do that. Just like what we are seeing here. In the best interest of the kid is to be raised by his natural parents, both parents simultaneously under the same roof. Of course that's where the gay community disagrees.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Gay men and gay women can't have children.

You didn't answer my question. Should an effeminate man be allowed to father a child with a masculine woman?

An oh... a gay man and a gay woman can most definitely have children.

Owned by Remi #?

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Octomom shouldn't have been allowed to have kids and the doc who impregnated her should have been barred from doing that too.

Probably the one and only time I will (kinda) agree with you - the whole thing was pretty tasteless, but not illegal.

Quote

This matter is about gay marriage and there's thousands of years history of marriages between a man and a women that the gay community is up against changing the way its been.

Marriage as purely one man and one woman for thousands of years? Like hell. Even the church's involvement in marriage only goes back 4 or 5 hundred years. In your argument there I can swap the word "gay" for "coloured" and put "white" in front of man and woman and hey presto! - you're now just another out of touch bigot.

Quote

Gay men and gay women can't have children. There is no getting around that.

Infertile men and women can't have children. Older couples can't biologically have children. I have no intention of having children. There's no need to get around that as this argument has been debunked over and over and over and over. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote

Either a sperm or an egg needs to come from outside the gay bond. The kid will one day want to know their natural dad or mom, and perhaps you've not thought about the kid

Frequently gay couples source the needed sperm or egg from a close friend or even family member (in this instance also more likely to share genetic characteristics), increasing the likelihood the child will have their "biological" parent involved in their life from the get-go. If 2 parents are better than 1 supposedly, wouldn't 3 parents be fucking awesome?

Quote

I have friends who were adopted and believe me they want to know their real dad and mom.

You imply that the options for the child would be any different whether their parents were straight or gay. Source?

Quote

In the best interest of the kid is to be raised by his natural parents, both parents simultaneously under the same roof. Of course that's where the gay community disagrees.

Again - source? I mean seriously, you're truly splitting hairs saying that a same-sex couple qualifies less in this case. And my splitting hairs I mean pulling facts out of your ass once more.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[promise5 17]

Just wanted to mention this. I believe there was a child support suit in the news about a female "gay" couple that asked a friend to donate sperm. Got pregnant and after having the baby or babies they broke up and the mother went after the "guy" friend for child support. I think that happen in England though and it was all private without a clinic involved.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[oldwomanc6 52]

If you're going to use a turkey baster instead of a clinic and a lawyer, then ......

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Just wanted to mention this. I believe there was a child support suit in the news about a female "gay" couple that asked a friend to donate sperm. Got pregnant and after having the baby or babies they broke up and the mother went after the "guy" friend for child support. I think that happen in England though and it was all private without a clinic involved.

Found the one you mean, and another in Kansas. In both instances (and all others I came across) it was Child Services who went after the donor, NOT the couple. A clear example in both cases of the law not keeping up with reality...

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=22367
http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/01/03/sperm-donor-child-support-craigslist-kansas-lawsuit/

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

If you're going to use a turkey baster instead of a clinic and a lawyer, then ......

There is a lawyer joke in there somewhere;
I just can't put my finger on it...

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Just wanted to mention this. I believe there was a child support suit in the news about a female "gay" couple that asked a friend to donate sperm. Got pregnant and after having the baby or babies they broke up and the mother went after the "guy" friend for child support. I think that happen in England though and it was all private without a clinic involved.

Google: Trent Arsenault

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[promise5 17]

Don't want to go off subject here but, did child services go after the guy because the mother received aid in some form? Just wondering? Also,and maybe one of the lawyers will know this. If they had written up their own legal agreement would child services still then be able to go after the guy

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[quack 0]

Quote

I have friends who were adopted and believe me they want to know their real dad and mom.

I was adopted. And you are correct: I wanted to know my real dad and mom.

It turns out they were right there with me, since the day they picked me up!

But you have to understand, mental illness is like cholesterol. There is the good kind and the bad. Without the good kind- less flavor to life. - Serge A. Storms