·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- LBGT Terrorism
LBGT TerrorismFollow
#527Almalieque,
Posted: Sep 18 2012 at 6:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm saying that there's a difference between your biological children and your non-biological children. There is no "these children don't count", but "you can't make an argument on biological children using non-biological children".
Not content to play second fiddle to some neo-varus sock, Alma bumps his own thread.
Eske Esquire wrote:
Not content to play second fiddle to some neo-varus sock, Alma bumps his own thread.
How is replying to posts directed at me "bumping" a thread?
Now that I think of it, if varus came back as "nega_varus", or something like that, I'd actually be kind of pleased with the lil' bugger.
Also, Alma, I've got ya on ignore, bud. Not trying to rile ya up (though that would be funny), just letting you know that you don't have to make the wasted effort.
Also, Alma, I've got ya on ignore, bud. Not trying to rile ya up (though that would be funny), just letting you know that you don't have to make the wasted effort.
Eske Esquire wrote:
Also, Alma, I've got ya on ignore, bud. Not trying to rile ya up (though that would be funny), just letting you know that you don't have to make the wasted effort.
I've heard that one before. Look, "everyone" has me on "ignore". As I stated on this thread, there is a difference between setting me on "ignore" and actually ignoring me. The simple fact that you responded yields me to believe that you're not ignoring me. But, hey, do us all a favor and prove me wrong.
I don't have you on ignore, friend.
I do ignore you most of the time, though, because I'm the hero the Asylum needs, not the one it deserves.
I do ignore you most of the time, though, because I'm the hero the Asylum needs, not the one it deserves.
Did someone say something?
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Omegavegeta wrote:
Did someone say something?
Yeah, that guy you're always talking to wanted to know if you could do a lunch sometime, maybe followed by some vigorous bumming? Asked me to give you the message.
Kavekk wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
Did someone say something?
Yeah, that guy you're always talking to wanted to know if you could do a lunch sometime, maybe followed by some vigorous bumming? Asked me to give you the message.
If he didn't spend 5 pages presenting his circular arguments to me, only to concede to a post containing hard ball questions that he could not possibly counter, I would almost buy him "ignoring" me.
So you know how there's a lot of step families around now, where the significant nuclear family is made up of children related biologically to only one of the parents? And there's even nuclear families where death or divorce has left loving and functional nuclear families where neither of the parents are the biological parents of the children?
And you know how many infertile heterosexual couples bear/ raise children that are either only biologically related to one of the parents, or biologically (DNA wise) related to neither? Or at least not DNA related in a direct parent-child biological relationship? And the cases of sister/aunt/daughter parents who hand their babies over to their sisters/nieces to raise cause they're infertile, or to their own parents to raise cause they're too young to be responsible parents?)
And you know how many orphaned, abandoned or abused children who are taken and adopted out or fostered out to non biologically related parent/s who have a home to give to them?
And you know how gay, **** and bi couples could wind up with biologically related children, even actually THEIR OWN biological children, or non biological children, to love and to raise, like in any of the above examples?
Do you realise IT DOESN'T ******* MATTER IF HOMOSEXUALS HAVE CHILDREN OR NOT, THEY ARE STILL ENTITLED TO GET MARRIED REGARDLESS?
And you know how many infertile heterosexual couples bear/ raise children that are either only biologically related to one of the parents, or biologically (DNA wise) related to neither? Or at least not DNA related in a direct parent-child biological relationship? And the cases of sister/aunt/daughter parents who hand their babies over to their sisters/nieces to raise cause they're infertile, or to their own parents to raise cause they're too young to be responsible parents?)
And you know how many orphaned, abandoned or abused children who are taken and adopted out or fostered out to non biologically related parent/s who have a home to give to them?
And you know how gay, **** and bi couples could wind up with biologically related children, even actually THEIR OWN biological children, or non biological children, to love and to raise, like in any of the above examples?
Do you realise IT DOESN'T ******* MATTER IF HOMOSEXUALS HAVE CHILDREN OR NOT, THEY ARE STILL ENTITLED TO GET MARRIED REGARDLESS?
Alma wrote:
If he didn't spend 5 pages presenting his circular arguments to me, only to concede to a post containing hard ball questions that he could not possibly counter, I would almost buy him "ignoring" me.
I conceded? You answered why u think ****'s are icky? YOU'VE TAKEN OFF YOUR SHOWER SHORTS!?!!!
These all point to impending doom.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
#538Almalieque,
Posted: Sep 19 2012 at 11:00 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Huh? You're confusing multiple topics into one.
EXACTLY!
Idiot.
Idiot.
I think you are just confused with one topic tbh.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
#541Almalieque,
Posted: Sep 19 2012 at 3:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm just letting you know your mistake. No need to be abashed.
#542gbaji,
Posted: Sep 19 2012 at 4:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The question is whether the state (and the rest of the people in society) has a vested interest in having them get married.
Quote:
I've explained this dozens of times on this forum, yet it still seems as though most posters would rather just close their minds and repeat the same tired rhetoric.
That's because they have ironically become the people they hate.
gbaji wrote:
I've explained this dozens of times on this forum, yet it still seems as though most posters would rather just close their minds and repeat the same tired rhetoric.
It's just obvious.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Almalieque wrote:
That's because they have ironically become the people they hate.
As if I'd work for Bioware.
gbaji wrote:
I'm affected quite a bit if 0% of heterosexual couples marry versus 100%.
I know your argument for why we support heterosexual marriage (for the children, from what I can tell) but how exactly does that affect you?
It amazes me that gbaji believes gay people do not have children.
1. Many have children from previous hetero marriages. Despite being homosexual, they can get custody, and usually do if their spouse died (as opposed to them getting divorced.)
2. Ladies can get artificially inseminated whether they are het or lesbian.
3. Single or partnered gay folks may end up caring for their relative's children. If DFACS comes along and takes away someone's kids because that someone is a crystal meth addict, and there aren't any foster families, relatives will be contacted and asked if they can take in the kids. A responsible homosexual uncle is going to be better for a child than a meth addict mama.
So, why can't we respect these otherwise wholly American made families too?
1. Many have children from previous hetero marriages. Despite being homosexual, they can get custody, and usually do if their spouse died (as opposed to them getting divorced.)
2. Ladies can get artificially inseminated whether they are het or lesbian.
3. Single or partnered gay folks may end up caring for their relative's children. If DFACS comes along and takes away someone's kids because that someone is a crystal meth addict, and there aren't any foster families, relatives will be contacted and asked if they can take in the kids. A responsible homosexual uncle is going to be better for a child than a meth addict mama.
So, why can't we respect these otherwise wholly American made families too?
catwho wrote:
It amazes me that gbaji believes gay people do not have children.
1. Many have children from previous hetero marriages. Despite being homosexual, they can get custody, and usually do if their spouse died (as opposed to them getting divorced.)
2. Ladies can get artificially inseminated whether they are het or lesbian.
3. Single or partnered gay folks may end up caring for their relative's children. If DFACS comes along and takes away someone's kids because that someone is a crystal meth addict, and there aren't any foster families, relatives will be contacted and asked if they can take in the kids. A responsible homosexual uncle is going to be better for a child than a meth addict mama.
So, why can't we respect these otherwise wholly American made families too?
1. Many have children from previous hetero marriages. Despite being homosexual, they can get custody, and usually do if their spouse died (as opposed to them getting divorced.)
2. Ladies can get artificially inseminated whether they are het or lesbian.
3. Single or partnered gay folks may end up caring for their relative's children. If DFACS comes along and takes away someone's kids because that someone is a crystal meth addict, and there aren't any foster families, relatives will be contacted and asked if they can take in the kids. A responsible homosexual uncle is going to be better for a child than a meth addict mama.
So, why can't we respect these otherwise wholly American made families too?
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
gbaji wrote:
I've explained this dozens of times on this forum,
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
catwho wrote:
It amazes me that gbaji believes gay people do not have children.
Siesen wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm affected quite a bit if 0% of heterosexual couples marry versus 100%.
I know your argument for why we support heterosexual marriage (for the children, from what I can tell) but how exactly does that affect you?
Because he loves the CP!
Edited, Sep 19th 2012 5:26pm by stupidmonkey
Edited, Sep 19th 2012 5:32pm by stupidmonkey
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Recent Visitors: 364
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (364)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- LBGT Terrorism
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC