Same sex households up 60 pct; 1 in 5 have kids

[gabosaurus]

Let there be hate! :slap:

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/20/1/same-sex-households-up-40-1-in-5-have-kids-ar-251593/

[J.T]

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Ban hetero marriage!

Marriage is about rearing children. Marriage is between a woman and a woman. Anything else is detrimental to the child and puts the animalistic lusts of rutting heteros before the interests of the child.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html

[darin]

Sounds like it'll be good for the livelihood of psychiatrists

[KartRacerBoy]

I didn't read Gabby's link but if one in five same sex households have kids (most of which I would guess are adopted), I'd say great! My mother in law was in and out of foster homes and as a public defender I've represented foster kids and their parents. My wife has been an adoption attorney for 15 years or more. The fact that someone wants to love such kids up for adoption is nothing but good, imo. There are too many kids that heterosexual couples don't want to adopt. The fact that SOMEONE wants to love them is more important than WHO wants to love them.

[ConHog]

I didn't read Gabby's link but if one in five same sex households have kids (most of which I would guess are adopted), I'd say great! My mother in law was in and out of foster homes and as a public defender I've represented foster kids and their parents. My wife has been an adoption attorney for 15 years or more. The fact that someone wants to love such kids up for adoption is nothing but good, imo. There are too many kids that heterosexual couples don't want to adopt. The fact that SOMEONE wants to love them is more important than WHO wants to love them.

My own personal opinion is that unless there are actual documented reasons for NOT allowing gays to adopt that it should be up to individual adoption agencies on whether they want to facilitate those adoptions or not. And "being gay is yucky" simply isn't a good enough reason.

[OCA]

Children adopted by "quuer choicers" are probably better off dead, their mental state will be one of pure hell their entire lives.

But you can't help them! The APA says so.

[Thunderknuckles]

Whether you believe in God or evolution, there is a reason why men and women were created the way they are. Thus, homosexuality is either degenerate behavior and/or an unintended genetic aberration and no one aspires to either. Children have it hard enough in a liberal progressive society which has devalued the bond between a man and woman to the point where far too many children have their foundations ripped out from beneath them in a divorce. This additional complexity is exactly what they need.

[KartRacerBoy]

Being an unloved child shuffled about from foster home to foster home will make children happy and full of self esteem! But the mere thought of gay parents would send children off the deep end.

Do you hear your own thoughts? Do you folks realize how stupid they are? Sheeze.

[OCA]

Being an unloved child shuffled about from foster home to foster home will make children happy and full of self esteem! But the mere thought of gay parents would send children off the deep end.

Do you hear your own thoughts? Do you folks realize how stupid they are? Sheeze.

Shuffling them off to queer "parents", there is a fallacy if there ever was one, is the equivalent bad.

[Kathianne]

I didn't read Gabby's link but if one in five same sex households have kids (most of which I would guess are adopted), I'd say great! My mother in law was in and out of foster homes and as a public defender I've represented foster kids and their parents. My wife has been an adoption attorney for 15 years or more. The fact that someone wants to love such kids up for adoption is nothing but good, imo. There are too many kids that heterosexual couples don't want to adopt. The fact that SOMEONE wants to love them is more important than WHO wants to love them.

I tend to agree, though at this time would go with the idea of hard-to-place infants and children as a better alternative than the foster care system.

Why, 'at this time?' Simply not enough information on the family structure to make a decision that all things are equal regarding the small number of healthy infants available for adoption.

Then again I'm for restrictions by age and income regarding adoption also for much the same reasons.

[KartRacerBoy]

Shuffling them off to queer "parents", there is a fallacy if there ever was one, is the equivalent bad.

I have a pretty strong hunch you really don't know shit about kids, do you? Even if you have kids.

[ConHog]

I have a pretty strong hunch you really don't know shit about kids, do you? Even if you have kids.

He doesn't know shit about anything; he's just stupid. Ignore him and converse with the adults.

[logroller]

Children adopted by "quuer choicers" are probably better off dead,their mental state will be one of pure hell their entire lives.

Dude, did you just get back from a Westboro Baptist Church rally?


http://www.godhatesfags.com/photos/photo3GHFFL0811.JPG

If only all kid's mental states could be so heavenly...

[KartRacerBoy]

What I think OCA meant is that any kid born to him is better off dead.

That is the only rational interpretation of any his hateful posts.

[OCA]

Wow, you people really hate kids:

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11B30.pdf


http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

[ConHog]

Wow, you people really hate kids:

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11B30.pdf


http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

The only person expressing any hate in this thread is you, you stupid muppett.

[J.T]

Shuffling them off to queer "parents", there is a fallacy if there ever was one, is the equivalent bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdiz0k0Rudw

[Missileman]

The only person expressing any hate in this thread is you, you stupid muppett.

You better be careful...that's a Gen-u-ine internet badass you're fuckin with. :laugh2:

[fj1200]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html

I have a hunch that the lesbian couples that are having kids are generally more educated than the ones who aren't and, correct me if I'm wrong KRB, education is the best predictor of children's success.

[ConHog]

I have a hunch that the lesbian couples that are having kids are generally more educated than the ones who aren't and, correct me if I'm wrong KRB, education is the best predictor of children's success.

Well, I have a sneaking suspision that a VERY large percentage of these same sex household that have kids are in fact comprised of two women who were at one time fucking men and in fact got pregnant by them and that is where the kids came in the first place. Which doesn't speak much to how good a job same sex partners can do raising kids, but it sure blows a hole in the "gays are born that way " , or as I call it the theory of gayativity. Oops there own evidence rooted em out this time.

[Missileman]

Well, I have a sneaking suspision that a VERY large percentage of these same sex household that have kids are in fact comprised of two women who were at one time fucking men and in fact got pregnant by them and that is where the kids came in the first place. Which doesn't speak much to how good a job same sex partners can do raising kids, but it sure blows a hole in the "gays are born that way " , or as I call it the theory of gayativity. Oops there own evidence rooted em out this time.

How many times have you read about some guy that comes out of the closet after he's been married for 15 yrears and had a few kids?

[ConHog]

How many times have you read about some guy that comes out of the closet after he's been married for 15 yrears and had a few kids?



Oh, I didn't mean that read that only women do that at all. It's just usually two women who go lesbian and form a little family with their kids and such. I realyz not always though.

[Missileman]

Oh, I didn't mean that read that only women do that at all. It's just usually two women who go lesbian and form a little family with their kids and such. I realyz not always though.

I imagine the majority go the sperm donor route.

[J.T]

The finding is based on 78 children who were all born to lesbian couples who used donor insemination to become pregnant



So not only are you homopohobes just plain fucking stupid, you're also illiterate.

[ConHog]

The finding is based on 78 children who were all born to lesbian couples who used donor insemination to become pregnant



So not only are you homopohobes just plain fucking stupid, you're also illiterate.

you hateful little bitch, aint no one scared of your queer ass.

we just don't bother to read every little part of every stupid link you post. 78 children? That's what you base your great findings on? Piss off troll.

[logroller]

The finding is based on 78 children who were all born to lesbian couples who used donor insemination to become pregnant




So not only are you homopohobes just plain fucking stupid, you're also illiterate.

Who's a homophobe?

[ConHog]

Who's a homophobe?

JT the idiot Christaphobe thinks everyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality is a homophobe, anyone that doesn't welcome Muslims into the country with welcome arms is an Islamaphobe and anyone who doesn't appreciate him staring at their ass is his next victim. He's weird.

[Prince Lemon]

All stories about fags.Those scat munchers make sick to my brains.

[KartRacerBoy]

All stories about fags.Those scat munchers make sick to my brains.

Prince, you assume u have brains. This is NOT a universal assumption on this site.

[logroller]

All stories about fags.Those scat munchers make sick to my brains.

If scat was all I had for brains, I'd be sick too!

[J.T]

All stories about fags.Those scat munchers make sick to my brains.

The same brains behind your amazing ability to compose such wonderful posts, with such masterful use of spaces, prepositions, and common idiomatic expressions?

[ConHog]

The same brains behind your amazing ability to compose such wonderful posts, with such masterful use of spaces, prepositions, and common idiomatic expressions?

English isn't his first language you fool. At least he isn't a fucking troll who is constantly on the verge of a perma ban.

[gabosaurus]

A child with two loving parents (of whatever sex or sexual orientation) is preferable to most other options.
I have dealt with such. The kids are much better off than with single parents or divorced parents. You see, most kids don't see homophobic hate like many of you do. They just want love and attention.

The least adjusted and most problematic kids are those of divorce, particularly those with feuding parents. Then there are the remarried parents who try to force their kids to accept the new spouse as a new parents.
Worst of all are remarried parents who have kids with their second spouse. The newer child is invariably treated better.

If you are married to your original spouse and have kids, you can talk shit about same sex couples all you want. But if you are a divorced single parent or remarried in a new family, you are worse than the problem you are trying to create.

[ConHog]

A child with two loving parents (of whatever sex or sexual orientation) is preferable to most other options.
I have dealt with such. The kids are much better off than with single parents or divorced parents. You see, most kids don't see homophobic hate like many of you do. They just want love and attention.

The least adjusted and most problematic kids are those of divorce, particularly those with feuding parents. Then there are the remarried parents who try to force their kids to accept the new spouse as a new parents.
Worst of all are remarried parents who have kids with their second spouse. The newer child is invariably treated better.

If you are married to your original spouse and have kids, you can talk shit about same sex couples all you want. But if you are a divorced single parent or remarried in a new family, you are worse than the problem you are trying to create.

Please allow me to address your bullshit.

First, not everyone who opposes gays is a homophobe, In fact , I would wager that MOST people are in fact not afraid of gays. So take that weak ass word back to USMB where it belongs.


Second, not all kids who's parent remarries and has kids with the new spouse are treated worse than the new kid. In fact I am one such parent, my son was 12 when I remarried and then he became a big brother a year later. If anything he has it better now than he did when it was just me raising him.


In short, you don't know a damn thing

[fj1200]

... got pregnant by them and that is where the kids came in the first place.

I don't get that impression from the couples I know in the neighborhood. I haven't gotten up the courage to ask though, I don't want to be THAT guy. :laugh:

[fj1200]

The finding is based on 78 children who were all born to lesbian couples who used donor insemination to become pregnant



Talk about cherry picking to get the results you want. They apparently have the education to research and the money to afford such a method. I think if you chose only the straights who needed help to get pregnant you'd get the same type of results.

[Gunny]

Being an unloved child shuffled about from foster home to foster home will make children happy and full of self esteem! But the mere thought of gay parents would send children off the deep end.

Do you hear your own thoughts? Do you folks realize how stupid they are? Sheeze.

And of course all examples are "unloved children shuffled from foster home to foster home". Why is it every time I see this argument, it's ALWAYS the same? Unloved, mistreated foster children versus some poster child of a same sex couple they can call happy and full of self esteem.

Do you realize how stupid is the argument that children raised by same sex couples have no more propensity to be gay than those raised in a hetero household?

[J.T]

Worst of all are remarried parents who have kids with their second spouse. The newer child is invariably treated better.

Invariably? Really? I think that you can't even imagine loving and caring for all your children with full breath of your heart says more about you than anyone else. You're not really all that good a person deep down, are you?


But if you are a divorced single parent or remarried in a new family, you are worse than the problem you are trying to create.

Yes, because children should only have the love, attention, guidance, and protection of two parental figures if they're gay or everything worked out like a goddamn fair tale the first time. Children who are deprived of a parental figure through divorce, death, or other circumstance should never be allowed someone to fill that role and there is nothing more evil than a child having a positive role model and caregiver at home after their parents divorce...

[Trigg]

A child with two loving parents (of whatever sex or sexual orientation) is preferable to most other options.
I have dealt with such. The kids are much better off than with single parents or divorced parents. You see, most kids don't see homophobic hate like many of you do. They just want love and attention.

The least adjusted and most problematic kids are those of divorce, particularly those with feuding parents. Then there are the remarried parents who try to force their kids to accept the new spouse as a new parents.
Worst of all are remarried parents who have kids with their second spouse. The newer child is invariably treated better.

If you are married to your original spouse and have kids, you can talk shit about same sex couples all you want. But if you are a divorced single parent or remarried in a new family, you are worse than the problem you are trying to create.

Well then, as a MARRIED mother of 4 children who all have the same father, here are my 2 cents.

Children have enough problems trying to fit in and struggle their way through puberty, having same sex parents is just another obsticle to them becoming well adjusted adults.

Interrestingly, I looked up the statistics on gay couples staying together. Hint: It's WORSE then hetero couples. So you are going to get a generation of kids from gay, seperated couples who re-commit with another person and adopt more children "together", no way for that to go south.

I don't think gay people should be allowed to adopt, it's just another way to screw kids up IMHO.

[Missileman]

Interrestingly, I looked up the statistics on gay couples staying together. Hint: It's WORSE then hetero couples. So you are going to get a generation of kids from gay, seperated couples who re-commit with another person and adopt more children "together", no way for that to go south.

I don't think gay people should be allowed to adopt, it's just another way to screw kids up IMHO.

It's a known fact that half of all straight marriages end in divorce, and it's no stretch to say that non-married couples would break up at a higher percentage than that, so how much WORSE could it possibly be? A few percentage points?

[logroller]

A child with two loving parents (of whatever sex or sexual orientation) is preferable to most other options.
I have dealt with such. The kids are much better off than with single parents or divorced parents. You see, most kids don't see homophobic hate like many of you do. They just want love and attention.

The least adjusted and most problematic kids are those of divorce, particularly those with feuding parents. Then there are the remarried parents who try to force their kids to accept the new spouse as a new parents.
Worst of all are remarried parents who have kids with their second spouse. The newer child is invariably treated better.

If you are married to your original spouse and have kids, you can talk shit about same sex couples all you want. But if you are a divorced single parent or remarried in a new family, you are worse than the problem you are trying to create.

I'm married with three kids and I love them all. I probably favor my son, b/c younger=sweeter and he can't compete with sisters so much his senior. If you asked my daughters, 9 and 11, they'd both say they're the worst treated. Just last week in fact, my 2yr old son admonished me for being "not fair". I wonder where he got that from???? I think that's just a kid's natural behavior to gain favor in their sibling rivalry. Got a little trick to discern the guilty party in disputes though; I just tell them they're both behaving foolishly and I don't want to hear anything more-- "go to your rooms"; whoever moves first is guilty, invariably.

[Nukeman]

It's a known fact that half of all straight marriages end in divorce, and it's no stretch to say that non-married couples would break up at a higher percentage than that, so how much WORSE could it possibly be? A few percentage points?I believe the fallacy of your argument is that all the people getting divorced are FIRST TIME divorces. I think if you look at the statistics first time divorce is much lower than 50%. It the people that get married and have multiple divorces that skew the whole thing.

You are more likely to get divorced if you already have, and when the numbers for second third and fourth are taken as a whole than your 50% statistic is BS..



According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%
http://www.divorcerate.org/

So according to this 60% of hetero couples STAY married!!!! hmm so you have a better chance of staying married than being divorced, instead of a equal chance.....

Now the question remains how well homosexuals stay together??!?!?!?

[J.T]

Really? Divorce? Divorce rates have been about steady for generations, if you count only those who were alive long to actually get divorced in the past. So what if gays divorce and remarry? So do straights, at a comparable rate. Hell, these kids are lucky both parents are still alive- that's a recent development in society

[Nukeman]

Really? Divorce? Divorce rates have been about steady for generations, if you count only those who were alive long to actually get divorced in the past. So what if gays divorce and remarry? So do straights, at a comparable rate. Hell, these kids are lucky both parents are still alive- that's a recent development in societyThe point was brought up by gabbs by stating that the children of gay couples were going to be less traumatized than a divorced straight couple. I call bullshit on that and stand by others that say there is probably a higher percentage of screwed up children from broken homosexual homes than straight!!!!

[J.T]

The point was brought up by gabbs by stating
Listening to Gabby was your first mistake, comrade.


that the children of gay couples were going to be less traumatized than a divorced straight couple.

Gabby is in another thread opposing two-caregiver households are evil. It's best to ignore her when it comes to these matters.

[Missileman]

I believe the fallacy of your argument is that all the people getting divorced are FIRST TIME divorces. I think if you look at the statistics first time divorce is much lower than 50%. It the people that get married and have multiple divorces that skew the whole thing.

You are more likely to get divorced if you already have, and when the numbers for second third and fourth are taken as a whole than your 50% statistic is BS..



http://www.divorcerate.org/

So according to this 60% of hetero couples STAY married!!!! hmm so you have a better chance of staying married than being divorced, instead of a equal chance.....

Now the question remains how well homosexuals stay together??!?!?!?

Nice cherry picking job there.


The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.


Does that mean the truth is somewhere around 45%?


For the sake of argument though, let's use your numbers. You still wind up with a 40% failure rate of marriages and you still can assume that break-ups of non-married straight couples would easily eclipse that 40% mark.

Only time will tell if gays are better or worse at marriage than straights...they've just started getting married.

[ConHog]

Nice cherry picking job there.



Does that mean the truth is somewhere around 45%?


For the sake of argument though, let's use your numbers. You still wind up with a 40% failure rate of marriages and you still can assume that break-ups of non-married straight couples would easily eclipse that 40% mark.

Only time will tell if gays are better or worse at marriage than straights...they've just started getting married.

My gut tells me they will be no better, or worse, than heteros.

[gabosaurus]

The point was brought up by gabbs by stating that the children of gay couples were going to be less traumatized than a divorced straight couple. I call bullshit on that and stand by others that say there is probably a higher percentage of screwed up children from broken homosexual homes than straight!!!!

I call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Any children from broken homes are going to be traumatized. A child who lives in a loving same sex home is going to be better adjusted than one that comes from a broken or fragmented home.

[fj1200]

Interrestingly, I looked up the statistics on gay couples staying together. Hint: It's WORSE then hetero couples. So you are going to get a generation of kids from gay, seperated couples who re-commit with another person and adopt more children "together", no way for that to go south.

Are you holding constant for homosexuals who would be married but are not? Do the statistics compare ALL heterosexual couples who move in and move out and would be comparable to your lack of gay commitment?

[KartRacerBoy]

I call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Any children from broken homes are going to be traumatized. A child who lives in a loving same sex home is going to be better adjusted than one that comes from a broken or fragmented home.

Frankly, I think it will all depend on the personalities of the children and the parents. My parents divorced early and thank god for that. Even after divorce, my dad tried to use my sisters and I as weapons against my mom (who we lived with).

I was also a divorce attorney once upon a time. I've seen mom and dads try to do the same thing regularly. It is a rare thing when both parents act as adults, but it doesn't guarantee that the kids will be fine. Sometimes the best thing for the kids is for their parents to get divorced.

So I don't buy the "any children from broken homes are going to be traumitized" thing. I do agree that loving parents (same sex or opposite sex) at least gives kids a head start, all else equal.

[Nukeman]

I call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Any children from broken homes are going to be traumatized. A child who lives in a loving same sex home is going to be better adjusted than one that comes from a broken or fragmented home.Gabs use some of your higher educational skills will you and try reading comprehension...

I also said this.....


higher percentage of screwed up children from broken homosexual homes than straight!!!! I wasn't comparing broken hetero to unbroken hom. I was comparing broken to broken. In the homsexual one you add a very strong element that is not there in the hetero relationship....

[ConHog]

Frankly, I think it will all depend on the personalities of the children and the parents. My parents divorced early and thank god for that. Even after divorce, my dad tried to use my sisters and I as weapons against my mom (who we lived with).

I was also a divorce attorney once upon a time. I've seen mom and dads try to do the same thing regularly. It is a rare thing when both parents act as adults, but it doesn't guarantee that the kids will be fine. Sometimes the best thing for the kids is for their parents to get divorced.

So I don't buy the "any children from broken homes are going to be traumitized" thing. I do agree that loving parents (same sex or opposite sex) at least gives kids a head start, all else equal.

My son was 2 the last time he seen his mom, it hasn't seemed to have negatively affected him at all. Of course that is no doubt at least partially due to having an excellent and involved stepmother who he in fact calls mom even though he was 12 when she came along.

[logroller]

Are you holding constant for homosexuals who would be married but are not? Do the statistics compare ALL heterosexual couples who move in and move out and would be comparable to your lack of gay commitment?

No such statistics would be publicized, if they're even taken. The results would undoubtedly be traumatizing to the master-debaters on the subject:laugh:

[gabosaurus]

Kids do not hold the prejudices as adults. They see their parents and relatives as their parents and relatives. A kid raised by two same sex parents will regard that as normal, the same way a kid raised by their mom and dad.
Back in the 60s and 70s, there were those who felt that kids raised by mixed race parents would never make it, that they would be confused and angry. That never happened, either.
Kids learn hatred and prejudice from adults. It is not inbred.

[Kathianne]

Kids do not hold the prejudices as adults. They see their parents and relatives as their parents and relatives. A kid raised by two same sex parents will regard that as normal, the same way a kid raised by their mom and dad.
Back in the 60s and 70s, there were those who felt that kids raised by mixed race parents would never make it, that they would be confused and angry. That never happened, either.
Kids learn hatred and prejudice from adults. It is not inbred.

and yet, mixed race adoptions of healthy infants are not allowed in many states because 'the child needs to be place with same race' laws. There have been cases where finalized adoptions of children have been overturned by claims of best interests of child regarding race, from parents that had lost custody of child.

I think those types of exceptions are just as wrong as denying a child parents over state.

[KartRacerBoy]

No such statistics would be publicized, if they're even taken. The results would undoubtedly be traumatizing to the master-debaters on the subject:laugh:

I saw what you did there. It were amusing.

[KartRacerBoy]

and yet, mixed race adoptions of healthy infants are not allowed in many states because 'the child needs to be place with same race' laws. There have been cases where finalized adoptions of children have been overturned by claims of best interests of child regarding race, from parents that had lost custody of child.

I think those types of exceptions are just as wrong as denying a child parents over state.


I don't think those adoption race laws exist anymore and haven't for 40+ years. Or if they still on the books they are not enforced becz they are blatantly unconstitutional under equal protection law.

[Kathianne]

I don't think those adoption race laws exist anymore and haven't for 40+ years. Or if they still on the books they are not enforced becz they are blatantly unconstitutional under equal protection law.

I said laws when I should have said rules by adoption agencies, though those rules fell into use by pressure from interests groups. I'm pretty certain they are still in use today, which is why so many seeking to adopt go overseas for healthy babies.

[ConHog]

I said laws when I should have said rules by adoption agencies, though those rules fell into use by pressure from interests groups. I'm pretty certain they are still in use today, which is why so many seeking to adopt go overseas for healthy babies.

But you agree that as a private organization they should be able to set their own rules; don't you?

[Kathianne]

But you agree that as a private organization they should be able to set their own rules; don't you?

Of course. That doesn't mean though in this case that it's 'in the best interests of the child.' I and others have rights too, which include saying that the agencies are wrong.

[ConHog]

Of course. That doesn't mean though in this case that it's 'in the best interests of the child.' I and others have rights too, which include saying that the agencies are wrong.

Absolutely, you have EVERY right to express your opinion, and I would defend that right as vigorously as I would defend their right to adopt to who they want to.

As for the best interest of the child, I have oft found that that is the least of anyone's worries, regardless of what they say.

[J.T]

Of course. That doesn't mean though in this case that it's 'in the best interests of the child.'

You've evidence to suggest that it's somehow harmful to place children with foster parents of their own race?

Generally speaking, especially with children who are no longer toddlers, I'd argue it's probably best for the child to grow up surrounded by his or her own kind, in a familiar culture and in an environment in which they belong.


I and others have rights too

Having just the baby in in the window that you want is not among them.

[Kathianne]

You've evidence to suggest that it's somehow harmful to place children with foster parents of their own race?

Generally speaking, especially with children who are no longer toddlers, I'd argue it's probably best for the child to grow up surrounded by his or her own kind, in a familiar culture and in an environment in which they belong.


Having just the baby in in the window that you want is not among them.

I was never arguing your first point. I'd even go along that with all things being equal as far as available and willing parents, it would make sense to give to those with common factors regarding race. I don't think it's good though to prevent different races parents to adopt a baby because of race, when there aren't same race parents available. In the past that's happened, allowing an infant to grow into a difficult to place child. That's wrong in my opinion.

As for 'own kind', all concerned are of same kind.

Be gone.

[ConHog]

You've evidence to suggest that it's somehow harmful to place children with foster parents of their own race?

Generally speaking, especially with children who are no longer toddlers, I'd argue it's probably best for the child to grow up surrounded by his or her own kind, in a familiar culture and in an environment in which they belong.


Having just the baby in in the window that you want is not among them.

You're evidence to suggest that placing babies with a race other than their own is somehow harmful?

And no, you being a racist isn't evidence . It's a fact, but it isn't evidence to suggest that babies are harmed by placing them outside their race.

[KartRacerBoy]

I said laws when I should have said rules by adoption agencies, though those rules fell into use by pressure from interests groups. I'm pretty certain they are still in use today, which is why so many seeking to adopt go overseas for healthy babies.

Nope. Laws. Rules. If they try to do this shit, publicly or privately, it is illegal either under the constitution or civil rights laws. Now whether they get caught is another matter.

[ConHog]

Nope. Laws. Rules. If they try to do this shit, publicly or privately, it is illegal either under the constitution or civil rights laws. Now whether they get caught is another matter.

Civil Rights Act as it pertains to private persons and organizations is unconstitutional, as a lawyer you know I'm right. Would anyone ever have the guts to cahllenge it all the way to the SCOTUS? Probably not, but it IS unconstitutional.

[KartRacerBoy]

Generally speaking, especially with children who are no longer toddlers, I'd argue it's probably best for the child to grow up surrounded by his or her own kind, in a familiar culture and in an environment in which they belong.




You can argue that 'til the cows come home, but since the alternative for kids in foster care is life long foster care, I believe getting any parent to love them, perfect or imperfect, is better than none. Actually being loved can make up for a whole lot of other imperfections.

[ConHog]

You can argue that 'til the cows come home, but since the alternative for kids in foster care is life long foster care, I believe getting any parent to love them, perfect or imperfect, is better than none. Actually being loved can make up for a whole lot of other imperfections.


I'm with you on this one. I've seen all to many children who weren't receiving the love they needed from home. And guess what JT , in most cases those people were of the same race.

Just because JT couldn't possibly love someone of a race other than his, doesn't mean others can't do so.

[logroller]

Civil Rights Act as it pertains to private persons and organizations is unconstitutional, as a lawyer you know I'm right. Would anyone ever have the guts to cahllenge it all the way to the SCOTUS? Probably not, but it IS unconstitutional.

It's just not "ripe" enough.

[ConHog]

It's just not "ripe" enough.



Do you think this Court would have the guts to overturn 50 years of accepted unconstitutional law? With a black man, a possible gay, and a proud Latina woman? I doubt it.

[KartRacerBoy]

Civil Rights Act as it pertains to private persons and organizations is unconstitutional, as a lawyer you know I'm right. Would anyone ever have the guts to cahllenge it all the way to the SCOTUS? Probably not, but it IS unconstitutional.

Get the hell out of my scotch cabinet! Goddamn it, that's why I leave the cheap vodka lying around. For lousy constitutional scholars like you and fj. :laugh:

[ConHog]

Get the hell out of my scotch cabinet! Goddamn it, that's why I leave the cheap vodka lying around. For lousy constitutional scholars like you and fj. :laugh:

Bleh, I hate Scotch. I'll drink a little whiskey every now and then, but I'm pretty much a beer kinda guy. Well and tequila just because well my wife serves up a wonderful tequila body shot. :laugh:

[J.T]

Do you think this Court would have the guts to overturn 50 years of accepted unconstitutional law? With a black man, a possible gay, and a proud Latina woman? I doubt it.

Blacks, Browns, and Gays are incapable of following or enforcing the law?


Can we have a single thread without your homophobia and racism showing?

[KartRacerBoy]

Bleh, I hate Scotch. I'll drink a little whiskey every now and then, but I'm pretty much a beer kinda guy. Well and tequila just because well my wife serves up a wonderful tequila body shot. :laugh:

On your hairy belly? Blech! I'll pass. :laugh:

[ConHog]

Blacks, Browns, and Gays are incapable of following or enforcing the law?


Can we have a single thread without your homophobia and racism showing?

For the last time JT, I do NOT fear you.

[ConHog]

On your hairy belly? Blech! I'll pass. :laugh:

Sir, if I were flexible enough to enjoy a body shot off of my own body, I probably wouldn't have needed to get married in the first place. :laugh2:

[Binky]

When I read the topic of this thread I had to sit back and think how I felt about it. While I do not condone homosexual behavior, I also know that there have been children whether adoted or not, living in homes with zero desirability. Homes where they were unloved, brow beaten, pounded on and demoralized by their own natural parents and/or caregivers. Children are the very essence of human life. They are what it's all about. Since finding someone to love that can love you back can be difficult, children deserve the chance to be loved and to give it back to those that bestow it on them. All children deserve parents that will love, protect and teach them. Children have a tendancy to look at the world smiling, enjoying what it can offer. They see good things. Happy things. Wonderful things. And if there's a chance they can be happy by being adopted by homosexual parents, then why not? It's all about the children.

[J.T]

I do not condone homosexual behavior...
Children are... what it's all about.
Yeah, sex is for procreation alone- and it should hurt because women brought sin into the world too :rolleyes:
Do your duty, wimmins- it's what you exist for and what sex and your existence are all about

https://www.nydailynews.com/img/2010/06/11/amd_lady_gaga_finger.jpg

[Binky]

Yeah, sex is for procreation alone- and it should hurt because women brought sin into the world too :rolleyes:
Do your duty, wimmins- it's what you exist for and what sex and your existence are all about

https://www.nydailynews.com/img/2010/06/11/amd_lady_gaga_finger.jpg



Get lost. :laugh:

[logroller]

When I read the topic of this thread I had to sit back and think how I felt about it. While I do not condone homosexual behavior, I also know that there have been children whether adoted or not, living in homes with zero desirability. Homes where they were unloved, brow beaten, pounded on and demoralized by their own natural parents and/or caregivers. Children are the very essence of human life. They are what it's all about. Since finding someone to love that can love you back can be difficult, children deserve the chance to be loved and to give it back to those that bestow it on them. All children deserve parents that will love, protect and teach them. Children have a tendancy to look at the world smiling, enjoying what it can offer. They see good things. Happy things. Wonderful things. And if there's a chance they can be happy by being adopted by homosexual parents, then why not? It's all about the children.

Cue the music: "We are the world"
http://www.m-scene.de/lighter/lighter.gif

[logroller]

JT's alter ego.

http://d.yimg.com/ec/image/v1/release/48589794;encoding=jpg;size=300;fallback=defaultIma ge

[ConHog]

JT's alter ego.

http://d.yimg.com/ec/image/v1/release/48589794;encoding=jpg;size=300;fallback=defaultIma ge

Subtitled:

JB's tenuous existence on DP

[LuvRPgrl]

It's a known fact that half of all straight marriages end in divorce, and ?

yea, that stat is right up there with 10% of the general population is homo,,,in other words PURE BULLSHIT

[LuvRPgrl]

Back in the 60s and 70s, there were those who felt that kids raised by mixed race parents would never make it, that they would be confused and angry. .

so, all who sincerely believe homosexuality is abnormal are racists? I dont think so.
I am adamently opposed to racism, and just as adament that homos are abnormal and shouldnt be adopting kids.

[KartRacerBoy]

JT is right on this one and binky is the ass.

[Missileman]

yea, that stat is right up there with 10% of the general population is homo,,,in other words PURE BULLSHIT

You're wrong again...nothing new.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32286-Same-sex-households-up-60-pct-1-in-5-have-kids&p=486704#post486704

[LuvRPgrl]

You're wrong again...nothing new.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32286-Same-sex-households-up-60-pct-1-in-5-have-kids&p=486704#post486704

LAME, TRY RE READING THE POST
The first part of the post you responded to says that the percentage of first time marriages ending in divorce is less than half,,,

The most important aspects of this issue haven't even been brought up yet.

[Little-Acorn]

Same sex households up 60 pct; 1 in 5 have kids

Hmph.

Economic downturn is so widespread, especially with the housing market crashing as it did, that people can't even afford rent any more. So they're taking roommates (of the same gender of course) to share the costs, just as college kids do. And with divorces and abandonments spiralling, some of those roommates even have kids, now without a complete family.

And the homosexual advocates and other leftist hysterics get excited and think it's all about them. Including our very own gabby, inevitably.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[KartRacerBoy]

Same sex households up 60 pct; 1 in 5 have kids

Hmph.

Economic downturn is so widespread, especially with the housing market crashing as it did, that people can't even afford rent any more. So they're taking roommates (of the same gender of course) to share the costs, just as college kids do. And with divorces and abandonments spiralling, some of those roommates even have kids, now without a complete family.

And the homosexual advocates and other leftist hysterics get excited and think it's all about them. Including our very own gabby, inevitably.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.


Wow. What a totally useless post that added nothing to the conversation.

[Little-Acorn]

Same sex households up 60 pct; 1 in 5 have kids

Hmph.

Economic downturn is so widespread, especially with the housing market crashing as it did, that people can't even afford rent any more. So they're taking roommates (of the same gender of course) to share the costs, just as college kids do. And with divorces and abandonments spiralling, some of those roommates even have kids, now without a complete family.

And the homosexual advocates and other leftist hysterics get excited and think it's all about them. Including our very own gabby, inevitably.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Wow. What a totally useless post that added nothing to the conversation.

Well, my post certainly added nothing to YOUR conversation... because your conversation has little to do with the topic of the thread.

I was pointing out why the basic premise of the OP was wrong, and so its conclusions were equally wrong.

Sorry if my posts aren't of the quality of "On your hairy belly? Blech! I'll pass."

But you might try actually addressing the topic of the thread occasionally instead of hijacking it and wandering off into Romper Room... if you don't want to be derailed in turn.

[Missileman]

LAME, TRY RE READING THE POST
The first part of the post you responded to says that the percentage of first time marriages ending in divorce is less than half,,,

The most important aspects of this issue haven't even been brought up yet.

Depending on the study, the rate for first time marriages was...wait for it...50%

[KartRacerBoy]

Well, my post certainly added nothing to YOUR conversation... because your conversation has little to do with the topic of the thread.

I was pointing out why the basic premise of the OP was wrong, and so its conclusions were equally wrong.

Sorry if my posts aren't of the quality of "On your hairy belly? Blech! I'll pass."

But you might try actually addressing the topic of the thread occasionally instead of hijacking it and wandering off into Romper Room... if you don't want to be derailed in turn.

I apologize for getting along with people on this site. Horrible of me, I know. I will endeavor to project more hate like you do.

And I've addressed the topic quite often. I'm just not quite the ass you are.

[ConHog]

Depending on the study, the rate for first time marriages was...wait for it...50%

I believe it is only that high because it is now so easy to get a divorce. Don't even need a reason really. Just "Eh I'm tired of his/her shit" is good enough. To me divorce should re reserved for adultery/abuse/refusal to give head (which is in fact abuse.)

[Missileman]

I believe it is only that high because it is now so easy to get a divorce. Don't even need a reason really. Just "Eh I'm tired of his/her shit" is good enough. To me divorce should re reserved for adultery/abuse/refusal to give head (which is in fact abuse.)

I agree that it's easier to get a divorce nowadays. However, I don't believe that people should be forced to remain with someone they've grown to despise, for whatever reason, simply because they "are married". In an ideal world, you'd meet your perfect mate and live happily ever after. Unfortunately, that ideal world doesn't exist.

[Little-Acorn]

I agree that it's easier to get a divorce nowadays. However, I don't believe that people should be forced to remain with someone they've grown to despise, for whatever reason, simply because they "are married".

Sometime people "are married" BECAUSE they knew it would be easy to get out of, and so grabbed the first good-looking head of hair who came by, without worrying too much about the longer term. What the h*ll, I can always dump him/her next month.

(Not quite that simply, of course, but you see what I mean)

If divorce were forbidden except for the "Three A's" (adultery, abuse, alcoholism, anyone got a fourth?), would people be a little more careful and circumspect about choosing their MATE FOR LIFE, resulting in fewer (there will never be NO) nuptial disasters?

[Missileman]

Sometime people "are married" BECAUSE they knew it would be easy to get out of, and so grabbed the first good-looking head of hair who came by, without worrying too much about the longer term. What the h*ll, I can always dump him/her next month.

(Not quite that simply, of course, but you see what I mean)

If divorce were forbidden except for the "Three A's" (adultery, abuse, alcoholism, anyone got a fourth?), would people be a little more careful and circumspect about choosing their MATE FOR LIFE, resulting in fewer (there will never be NO) nuptial disasters?

I would say only if it also became acceptable to shack up for a few years before going down the aisle. There are way too many things you can't find out about a person through just dating.

[ConHog]

I would say only if it also became acceptable to shack up for a few years before going down the aisle. There are way too many things you can't find out about a person through just dating.

Acceptable to who? My brother just got married to the girl he's been living with for 10 years. As far as I know, no one has looked down on them for waiting so long. Although we did make fun of them like crazy at the after wedding party for taking so long.

[Missileman]

Acceptable to who? My brother just got married to the girl he's been living with for 10 years. As far as I know, no one has looked down on them for waiting so long. Although we did make fun of them like crazy at the after wedding party for taking so long.

There's still a taboo on pre-marital sex (Living in sin) in certain segments of society.

[ConHog]

There's still a taboo on pre-marital sex (Living in sin) in certain segments of society.

Sure it is, but we gotta do what we each have to do.

[J.T]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIeAnU7_7TA


I believe it is only that high because it is now so easy to get a divorce. Don't even need a reason really. Just "Eh I'm tired of his/her shit" is good enough. To me divorce should re reserved for adultery/abuse/refusal to give head (which is in fact abuse.)


So the government should force people to stay in unhappy relationships?

So you're not only a Statist, you want to use Der Staat to make people miserable?

[Gunny]

so, all who sincerely believe homosexuality is abnormal are racists? I dont think so.
I am adamently opposed to racism, and just as adament that homos are abnormal and shouldnt be adopting kids.

The attempt to compare race to behavior is as lame as it is old. Nothing but desperately grasping at straws.

[ConHog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIeAnU7_7TA




So the government should force people to stay in unhappy relationships?

So you're not only a Statist, you want to use Der Staat to make people miserable?






You do understand that stating my OPINION is not the same thing as stating what I believe law should be don't you?


Fool

[LuvRPgrl]

The attempt to compare race to behavior is as lame as it is old. Nothing but desperately grasping at straws.
Aknd yet they continue to play that card. You think they are so stupid they actually believe it, or the just dont mind being LIARS.?

[LuvRPgrl]

Sometime people "are married" BECAUSE they knew it would be easy to get out of, and so grabbed the first good-looking head of hair who came by, without worrying too much about the longer term. What the h*ll, I can always dump him/her next month.

(Not quite that simply, of course, but you see what I mean)

If divorce were forbidden except for the "Three A's" (adultery, abuse, alcoholism, anyone got a fourth?), would people be a little more careful and circumspect about choosing their MATE FOR LIFE, resulting in fewer (there will never be NO) nuptial disasters?

I dont support alcoholism by itself an exception.

Desertion

[LuvRPgrl]

You're wrong again...nothing new.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32286-Same-sex-households-up-60-pct-1-in-5-have-kids&p=486704#post486704

WELL, THIS IS Y0UR LINK:

It is frequently reported that the divorce rate in America is 50%. This data is not accurately correct, however, it is reasonably close to actual. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that "Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue.", which is actually a projection. "50% of all marriages in the America end in divorce."
The above statement about the divorce rate in America hides all the details about distribution, however.

PLUS THIS:



The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri. According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%


So, 2 of 3 estimates on YOUR LINK say that first marriages ending in divorce is at a rate lower than 50%

Oh, and as for accusing Nukeman of cherry picking, Nukeman EXPANDED THE FIELD OF INFORMATION, it is YOU who did the cherry picking by ignoring some of his stats.

e tu bruta, d spider is ready....

[LuvRPgrl]

I agree that it's easier to get a divorce nowadays. However, I don't believe that people should be forced to remain with someone they've grown to despise, for whatever reason, simply because they "are married". In an ideal world, you'd meet your perfect mate and live happily ever after. Unfortunately, that ideal world doesn't exist.

Hmmm, I didnt know that all couples who divorce for irreconsilable differences, either did, or were going to despise each other.

oh hey, by the way, I followed one of your links and the only info I found on co habitating said that those who do before marriage, have a higher divorce rate than those who don't.

[Little-Acorn]

I dont support alcoholism by itself an exception.

Desertion

Whoops! That's the one I forgot. Thanx LuvRPgrl.

I'll call it "abandonment", just so it starts with an "A" and I can make a cute triplet out of it.

Alcoholism often leads to any of the Big Three. But I guess Alcoholism per se isn't one of the B3.

[ConHog]

Bring back the pimp slap, sure were a lot less divorces then.

[LuvRPgrl]

Whoops! That's the one I forgot. Thanx LuvRPgrl.

I'll call it "abandonment", just so it starts with an "A" and I can make a cute triplet out of it.

Alcoholism often leads to any of the Big Three. But I guess Alcoholism per se isn't one of the B3.

ahhh, man, you got me on that one. I was trying to think of another term for it that started with an A, but couldnt come up with it.

Yea, alcoholism often leads to behavior that is grounds, but not always.
In the beginning (God created...),,err, I mean, the beginning of AA, virtually none of the couples wound up divorcing.
Now, these days finding a pure Alcoholic is damn difficult, virtually all coming into meetings have drug issues too, compared to drug addiction, alcoholism is just its baby brother.

[LuvRPgrl]

Same sex households up 60 pct; 1 in 5 have kids

Hmph.

Economic downturn is so widespread, especially with the housing market crashing as it did, that people can't even afford rent any more. So they're taking roommates (of the same gender of course) to share the costs, just as college kids do. And with divorces and abandonments spiralling, some of those roommates even have kids, now without a complete family.

And the homosexual advocates and other leftist hysterics get excited and think it's all about them. Including our very own gabby, inevitably.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

can you clarify? R U saying that most, or alot of the households are same sex, but not always as a "romantic' or "committed" couple?

[J.T]

Bring back the pimp slap, sure were a lot less divorces then.

Yep, the solution is to beat your women more. That'll put an end to their uppityness...


Allah Akhbar, conhog...

[ConHog]

Yep, the solution is to beat your women more. That'll put an end to their uppityness...


Allah Akhbar, conhog...

Give me your email and I'll PayPal $5 so you can hire someone to pull that giant stick out of your ass. You seriously have NO sense of humor at all.

[Little-Acorn]

Same sex households up 60 pct; 1 in 5 have kids

Hmph.

Economic downturn is so widespread, especially with the housing market crashing as it did, that people can't even afford rent any more. So they're taking roommates (of the same gender of course) to share the costs, just as college kids do. And with divorces and abandonments spiralling, some of those roommates even have kids, now without a complete family.

And the homosexual advocates and other leftist hysterics get excited and think it's all about them. Including our very own gabby, inevitably.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

can you clarify? R U saying that most, or alot of the households are same sex, but not always as a "romantic' or "committed" couple?

Bingo.

Most of my college roomies were nice guys. But I didn't then (and don't now) consider any of them part of a "couple" with me, of any kind.

Yet we would show up smack in the middle of the statistics being crowed over by the guy in the OP's article.

P.S. Sorry, no kids then. Any of us.

[LuvRPgrl]

Bingo.

Most of my college roomies were nice guys. But I didn't then (and don't now) consider any of them part of a "couple" with me, of any kind.

Yet we would show up smack in the middle of the statistics being crowed over by the guy in the OP's article.

P.S. Sorry, no kids then. Any of us.

Well, that makes the methodology of the survey even more important. Im wondering, what questions were asked, how were they couched.

[Missileman]

WELL, THIS IS Y0UR LINK:

It is frequently reported that the divorce rate in America is 50%. This data is not accurately correct, however, it is reasonably close to actual. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that "Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue.", which is actually a projection. "50% of all marriages in the America end in divorce."
The above statement about the divorce rate in America hides all the details about distribution, however.

PLUS THIS:



The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri. According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%


So, 2 of 3 estimates on YOUR LINK say that first marriages ending in divorce is at a rate lower than 50%

Oh, and as for accusing Nukeman of cherry picking, Nukeman EXPANDED THE FIELD OF INFORMATION, it is YOU who did the cherry picking by ignoring some of his stats.

e tu bruta, d spider is ready....

FIrst, it wasn't my link, it was Nukeman's.

Second, there were only 2 studies referenced in the link. One said 50% and one said 41%. There was no third study referenced.

Third, I distinctly referenced both figures in my reply to Nukeman, acknowledging the real figure is likely between the two while he only referenced the one that more suited his point of view.

Soooo, as usual, you have failed reading comprehension 101 again!

[J.T]

Give me your email and I'll PayPal $5 so you can hire someone to pull that giant stick out of your ass. You seriously have NO sense of humor at all.

I don't find beating women to be humorous or amusing.

[ConHog]

I don't find beating women to be humorous or amusing.

It wouldn't be amusing, if I were serious; but I am not. So.............

[LuvRPgrl]

FIrst, it wasn't my link, it was Nukeman's.!
Is Nukeman now able to hijack your screen name and pretend to be you when posting?
You see, it was a post by Missleman that I was reading when I clicked on the link.


Second, there were only 2 studies referenced in the link. One said 50% and one said 41%. There was no third study referenced.! I never said there were 3 STUDIES, but 3 estimates. My my my, you really should be careful whom you accuse of having poor reading comprehension.
And, who cares, what the fuck?? Oh yea, its your technique of ignoring the main point cuz U gettin Ur ass wiped. :)


Third, I distinctly referenced both figures in my reply to Nukeman, acknowledging the real figure is likely between the two while he only referenced the one that more suited his point of view.!
One said 50%
Another said 41% &
a third one said is below 50%, so with those numbers, your original statement of ,,,,uhhh, fact??? that it is 50%, is clearly wrong.


Soooo, as usual, you have failed reading comprehension 101 again!:laugh2:

[Missileman]

Is Nukeman now able to hijack your screen name and pretend to be you when posting?
You see, it was a post by Missleman that I was reading when I clicked on the link.

I never said there were 3 STUDIES, but 3 estimates. My my my, you really should be careful whom you accuse of having poor reading comprehension.
And, who cares, what the fuck?? Oh yea, its your technique of ignoring the main point cuz U gettin Ur ass wiped. :)


One said 50%
Another said 41% &
a third one said is below 50%, so with those numbers, your original statement of ,,,,uhhh, fact??? that it is 50%, is clearly wrong.

:laugh2:

When I quote someone's link it's still their link you fucking idiot!

One more time...slowly. There were only two estimates...41% and 50%. The opening paragraph of the link was referencing the TWO studies. There wasn't a 3rd estimate.

Since 50% was the result of one of the studies, 50% is NOT clearly wrong.

[LuvRPgrl]

When I quote someone's link it's still their link you fucking idiot!.
temper temper temper. If you dont want to get picky unish about it, you shouldnt have brought it up., Its just as much your link as it is Nukemans, cuz his ultimately takes it to the final destination,


One more time...slowly. There were only two estimates...41% and 50%. The opening paragraph of the link was referencing the TWO studies. There wasn't a 3rd estimate.!.
No, the opening paragraph was a seperate "estimate" from a completely different source and nowhere did it indicate it was based on the other two studies later mentioned. Just because you had assumed that in your mind, doesn't make it so.



Since 50% was the result of one of the studies, 50% is NOT clearly wrong.
considering your original claim "It's a known fact that half of all straight marriages end in divorce"......wait for it.....
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in that link to support you. Even if 2 or 3 estimates in those studies all said 50%, you would still be wrong, SINCE NONE OF THEM CLAIM ITS A FACT, MUCH LESS A KNOWN FACT, but even still, 2 of the 3 estimates are considerably lower than yours, the third which just barely reaches the minimum percentage ,,,is an estimate, NOT A KNOWN FACt....AND COMES FROM A NOTORIOUSLY LIBERAL source, which is known for "padding" stats.

[LuvRPgrl]

Depending on the study, the rate for first time marriages was...wait for it...50%

And for this post of yours to be true, you have to ignore every single part of the rest of the link except the one sentence that claims its 50%. Kinda s t r e t c h i n g it a bit, eh?
...I could even respect your posts if they werent so skewed in propaganda.
A much more honest post would have said something like "one of the studies...."

[Missileman]

considering your original claim "It's a known fact that half of all straight marriages end in divorce"......wait for it.....
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in that link to support you. Even if 2 or 3 estimates in those studies all said 50%, you would still be wrong, SINCE NONE OF THEM CLAIM ITS A FACT, MUCH LESS A KNOWN FACT, but even still, 2 of the 3 estimates are considerably lower than yours, the third which just barely reaches the minimum percentage ,,,is an estimate, NOT A KNOWN FACt....AND COMES FROM A NOTORIOUSLY LIBERAL source, which is known for "padding" stats.

Au contraitre!
It is frequently reported that the divorce rate in America is 50%. This data is not accurately correct, however, it is reasonably close to actual.


It's a known fact that there is data to suggest that half of all straight marriages end in divorce. Now, you claim that's bullshit. Have anything to offer other than your own?

[LuvRPgrl]

Au contraitre!

It's a known fact that there is data to suggest that half of all straight marriages end in divorce. Now, you claim that's bullshit. Have anything to offer other than your own?

Sounds like you altered your original statement.

HMMMMMM, kinda suggests your original statement wasnt accurate.
AS I HAD STATED....

[Missileman]

Sounds like you altered your original statement.

HMMMMMM, kinda suggests your original statement wasnt accurate.
AS I HAD STATED....

It very might well be if the study with the 50% finding is correct. You can't say with any certainty that it's not. I changed it to shut your whiny pie hole.

[LuvRPgrl]

It very might well be if the study with the 50% finding is correct. You can't say with any certainty that it's not. I changed it to shut your whiny pie hole.

Well, thats only a beginning.

I dont have to say with certainty that, that study is not correct.

People routinely claim "The Bible says Thou shalt not kill" yet it doesnt,
But the common man these days think it does say that, now that it has been repeated enough times

Ever hear of 10% of the gen pop is homo? Sure you have

Your statement made two claims,,,,of which only BOTH were wrong, it is not a KNOWN FACT & it isnt 50%, but if you repeat it often enough.....

[Missileman]

Well, thats only a beginning.

I dont have to say with certainty that, that study is not correct.

People routinely claim "The Bible says Thou shalt not kill" yet it doesnt,
But the common man these days think it does say that, now that it has been repeated enough times

Ever hear of 10% of the gen pop is homo? Sure you have

Your statement made two claims,,,,of which only BOTH were wrong, it is not a KNOWN FACT & it isnt 50%, but if you repeat it often enough.....

What else do you have besides the other study that came out 41%? Survey says...not a damned thing. Your contention that it isn't 50% is as hollow as your skull. Your preference for the study that came out 41% is irrelevant.

[Missileman]

People routinely claim "The Bible says Thou shalt not kill" yet it doesnt,
But the common man these days think it does say that, now that it has been repeated enough times



Really?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20:12-14&version=KJV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+5:16-18&version=KJV

And before you get all whiny about it...the Bible is definitely NOT my link.

[LuvRPgrl]

Really?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20:12-14&version=KJV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+5:16-18&version=KJV

And before you get all whiny about it...the Bible is definitely NOT my link.

Yea, KNV, as far as I know, is the only mainstream interpetation that say KILL instead of MURDER. KJV is not perfect. WIth so many others all saying otherwise, I would accept those others as the accurate interpetation, as you have done so in the past, using the majority to determine the truth.

\But even more important, is that the KJV version, has a serious problem to resolve.
If it says "thou shalt not kill"
How can the reconcile that with the following "12He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.", which is the KJV version also.

Not to mention, in Matthew, he references the ten commandments and he also states, "In days of old, you heard it was commanded thou shalt no murder..."

So, The KJV says, DONT KILL !! then follows with "You shall kill"

[J.T]

Yea, KNV, as far as I know, is the only mainstream interpetation that say KILL instead of MURDER. KJV is not perfect. WIth so many others all saying otherwise, I would accept those others as the accurate interpetation, as you have done so in the past, using the majority to determine the truth.

\But even more important, is that the KJV version, has a serious problem to resolve.
If it says "thou shalt not kill"
How can the reconcile that with the following "12He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.", which is the KJV version also.

Not to mention, in Matthew, he references the ten commandments and he also states, "In days of old, you heard it was commanded thou shalt no murder..."

So, The KJV says, DONT KILL !! then follows with "You shall kill"

It's not a matter of translation. The whole damn thing falls apart 2 chapters in.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

Seriously, 3000 years and they can't find a decent editor to check for continuity?

Only retards buy into the book in the first damn place.

[ConHog]

It's not a matter of translation. The whole damn thing falls apart 2 chapters in.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

Seriously, 3000 years and they can't find a decent editor to check for continuity?

Only retards buy into the book in the first damn place.

You sure are scared of retarded Christians.......

Christaphobe.

[J.T]

You sure are scared of retarded Christians.......

Christaphobe.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/08/mosque-firebomb-suspect-corvallis-arrested.html

Religion is a blight upon the world, a disease of the mind which has been allowed for far too long to retard human progress.

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505

Your Heaven is a totalitarian theocracy. That is your fantasy, your paradise- that is the promise that gets you to obey in hopes of seeing, in the afterlife, this tyrannical and undemocratic system that will never be broken. Such fantasies speak to a deep hatred for democracy and liberty. Christianity, among others, is naturally antagonistic to liberty, free thought, scientific and social progress, and human development.

I'm not afraid of you retards. I'm just sick and tired of you fucking vermin infecting the body politic and impeding human progress.

[ConHog]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/08/mosque-firebomb-suspect-corvallis-arrested.html

Religion is a blight upon the world, a disease of the mind which has been allowed for far too long to retard human progress.

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505

Your Heaven is a totalitarian theocracy. That is your fantasy, your paradise- that is the promise that gets you to obey in hopes of seeing, in the afterlife, this tyrannical and undemocratic system that will never be broken. Such fantasies speak to a deep hatred for democracy and liberty. Christianity, among others, is naturally antagonistic to liberty, free thought, scientific and social progress, and human development.

I'm not afraid of you retards. I'm just sick and tired of you fucking vermin infecting the body politic and impeding human progress.

That's fucking hilarous that you act like the most disgusting, vile piece of shit to ever grace a message board, including spitting in someone's face when they try to make peace with you and then you turn right around and call someone else vermin? LOL

[LuvRPgrl]

It's not a matter of translation. The whole damn thing falls apart 2 chapters in.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

Seriously, 3000 years and they can't find a decent editor to check for continuity?

Only retards buy into the book in the first damn place.
sheeesh, is that the best you got?
Talk about retarded.

[LuvRPgrl]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/08/mosque-firebomb-suspect-corvallis-arrested.html

Religion is a blight upon the world, a disease of the mind which has been allowed for far too long to retard human progress.

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505

Your Heaven is a totalitarian theocracy. That is your fantasy, your paradise- that is the promise that gets you to obey in hopes of seeing, in the afterlife, this tyrannical and undemocratic system that will never be broken. Such fantasies speak to a deep hatred for democracy and liberty. Christianity, among others, is naturally antagonistic to liberty, free thought, scientific and social progress, and human development.

I'm not afraid of you retards. I'm just sick and tired of you fucking vermin infecting the body politic and impeding human progress.

OH MY !!!! I feel so horrible now that you told me how I really am?

PLEASE JT, tell me what I should do?

psssssssss, Im so happy we make you sick and tired.....

[Gaffer]

I make him sick and tired and I'm an atheist. But then I don't follow his dogma.

[ConHog]

I make him sick and tired and I'm an atheist. But then I don't follow his dogma.

I didn't even know that you were an atheist. You gotta step up your game and start calling me vermin for believing in God brother.


What sort of atheist are you anyway?

[Gaffer]

I didn't even know that you were an atheist. You gotta step up your game and start calling me vermin for believing in God brother.


What sort of atheist are you anyway?

The rational kind that doesn't need to put peoples religion down to feel superior when I'm not superior. You are free to believe what you want as long as you don't impose it on me. A true atheist doesn't get bent out of shape over religious symbols and whether people pray.

[ConHog]

The rational kind that doesn't need to put peoples religion down to feel superior when I'm not superior. You are free to believe what you want as long as you don't impose it on me. A true atheist doesn't get bent out of shape over religious symbols and whether people pray.

Oh, I SERIOUSLY doubt JT is an atheist. I believe he's just a garden variety asshole who loves to make good sport out of bashing Christians.

[Gaffer]

Oh, I SERIOUSLY doubt JT is an atheist. I believe he's just a garden variety asshole who loves to make good sport out of bashing Christians.

He just says that to get a rise out of people, more of his trolling ploy.

[ConHog]

He just says that to get a rise out of people, more of his trolling ploy.

Well his nick is Just Trolling, you know.

[Gaffer]

Well his nick is Just Trolling, you know.

I know, I gave it to him remember.

[ConHog]

I know, I gave it to him remember.

Yes :slap:

It's also possible that JT stands for Just a Tool, or Just a Turd.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes :slap:

It's also possible that JT stands for Just a Tool, or Just a Turd.

Wow, you guys have brought this thread to new heights.

[fj1200]

Heights? Someone kill this thread... NOW!!!