Romney Signs on to Anti-Gay Group's Campaign Pledge

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Damn, you are dumb.
<quoted text>
Correlation does not imply causation.(I know you have no idea what that means!)It's particularly important to realize this when it comes to self-selecting groups.
<quoted text>
?

yah, I know what it means....why are you guys so elitist?
To cover your ignorance I've come to find.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>

And this has what to do with what? Just sounds like a telenovela.

when there are two moms, there is also always a dad out there...and even if not SUPPOSED to be the dad, we all know he is...
sure sounds more like POLYGAMY than straight marriage to me...

and since a gay couple is never complete without another parent, how is that distinction not a rational reason to have a separate name?

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Going by your maturity level, and figuring your mom had you when she was around 20, in about 20 years, your mom won't be able to produce children with anybody. Will that fact disqualify her from commenting in any meaningful way?

Of course not, with or without children, she wasn't gay. A gay couple have no chance of producing a child, disqualified.

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
yah, I know what it means....why are you guys so elitist?
To cover your ignorance I've come to find.

I'm not elitist. You're just so stupid, I figured you wouldn't know what it means.

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
when there are two moms, there is also always a dad out there...and even if not SUPPOSED to be the dad, we all know he is...
sure sounds more like POLYGAMY than straight marriage to me...
and since a gay couple is never complete without another parent, how is that distinction not a rational reason to have a separate name?

False premise. Gay couples are complete.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not elitist. You're just so stupid, I figured you wouldn't know what it means.

psst..I'm miles above you. thats a fact AND i can still be nice...

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
False premise. Gay couples are complete.

except when making a baby RIGHT?
or are you totally delusional.

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
except when making a baby RIGHT?
or are you totally delusional.

You don't have to be able to "make a baby" to be complete.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't have to be able to "make a baby" to be complete.

You do if you want a family, something gay couples are unable to achieve.

Imprtnrd wrote:

<quoted text>Looks like some heteros need to MAN UP and take responsibility for their offspring!

when a hetero realizes that your commitment to vaseline is beyond reproach we wash our hands of you, then we have to go and wash our hands

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
You do if you want a family, something gay couples are unable to achieve.

Many people form families via adoption.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Many people form families via adoption.

Yes, and there are other ways as well. Of course, that has nothing to do with the ability of a gay couple to produce a child. They can't.

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, and there are other ways as well. Of course, that has nothing to do with the ability of a gay couple to produce a child. They can't.

So what? Neither can many straight couples.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
False premise. Gay couples are complete.

Complete what? Disgusting perverts.

Vance wrote:

<quoted text>
Complete what? Disgusting perverts.

Complete couples. I know you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but try to keep up!

Sadly, research have shown gays are sexual predators including the sexual abuse of babies.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
So what? Neither can many straight couples.

Also true. A small percentage of straight couples have medical problems, most gays have no such medical problems. Instead, the coupling of two people of the same sex is against nature. Men and women have complimentary reproductive organs, two people of the same sex don't, it's impossible for them to have children.

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
again your failure to understand cause and effect...
if fatherless homes (unmarried homes) have those stats, than yes, when the father stays home via marriage it reduces those risks and marriage works!
Or do you think divorce is a reason to not have marriage laws?
then I guess then the Aurora tragedy is a reason to not have gun laws and outlaw murder.

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes
85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes.

What conclusion about cause & effect can be drawn from these statistics? NONE! Take a fucking research methods class. Let's take one example: 85% of children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes. Does that mean that an absent father CAUSES behavior disorders? NO, IT DOESN'T. Behavior disorders can be caused by many factors, including mental illness.

Brandi8 wrote:

Sadly, research have shown gays are sexual predators including the sexual abuse of babies.

Sadly, Brandi can't recognise research from propaganda. Maybe she'll do better AFTER college.

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, and there are other ways as well. Of course, that has nothing to do with the ability of a gay couple to produce a child. They can't.

So? Non-procreating straight couples are not banned from marriage, so it OBVIOUSLY ISN'T ABOUT porocreation.