Thread: President's Speech

wow. just wow.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

MY objections against gay marriage have nothing to do with religion. It has to do with gay couples then demanding to be able to raise children. I think it is wrong to expose children to a gay household because gay couples turn out gay children at a statistically much higher percentage than non-gay couples. 3% verses 15%. I have been through this argument MANY times with liberals. I still think the 3% is an exaggerated number.

My views on contraception have nothing to do with religion. Giving contraceptives to children encourages them to have sex WAY before they are able to handle the consequences, both physical and mental. I do think it is wrong to force religious organizations to supply contraceptives against their beliefs as Obamacare is attempting to do.

Wow....I dont even know what to say to this, So I will say nothing. But I would love to read your studies backing your statement.

Originally Posted by alb1981

Wow....I dont even know what to say to this, So I will say nothing. But I would love to read your studies backing your statement.

It may take me a while to find it. The heated debate was on Facebook and way over a year ago. I may have gotten the 15% number from the Gay person arguing against me. There is this though.

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the bottom of the article it suggest that children do best when raised in a home with two "Biological parents." It is under "Misrepresentation of research" where they also state that most studies to date are flawed in some way.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

It may take me a while to find it. The heated debate was on Facebook and way over a year ago. I may have gotten the 15% number from the Gay person arguing against me. There is this though.

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the bottom of the article it suggest that children do best when raised in a home with two "Biological parents." It is under "Misrepresentation of research" where they also state that most studies to date are flawed in some way.

Well we all know that a free source managed by individuals like wikipedia could never ever be misrepresented by false statements, so it must be fact. I will read the entire article and get back to you.

Just FYI, As a social worker who places at risk children into professional foster homes, Not once have I ever been hesitant to place a child in one of my LGBT homes. They have been Stellar foster parents who follow the letter of the law and just want to help.

I have been providing, what i consider, great rebuttals( not necessarily "correct" but something for you to counter point) to your large number of uninformed assertions up to this point. You continue to ignore my response or just add another, unrelated opinion into the mix without addressing what was currently on the table.
After that last response I can see how truly misinformed you are and that things like facts and data mean nothing to you. People aren't "turned gay", not all gay people want children, why do you care if they are gay .......and now have to tell you how abstinence is the WORST method every considered
-states with abstinence programs in school and anti-contraceptive learning programs consistently have the highest teen birth rates
Teen moms: Which state has the highest birth rate? - Health - Women's health - msnbc.com

Red State Fail: Abstinence Only Education Leads To Highest Rates Of Teen Pregnancy In The Country | Addicting Info

-by fighting to eliminate safe sex programs or contraceptive education the risk of STD's shoots through the roof

Effective Sex Education


The information is out there, because you choose to invent your own and ignore the facts doesn't make you correct.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

It may take me a while to find it. The heated debate was on Facebook and way over a year ago. I may have gotten the 15% number from the Gay person arguing against me. There is this though.

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the bottom of the article it suggest that children do best when raised in a home with two "Biological parents." It is under "Misrepresentation of research" where they also state that most studies to date are flawed in some way.

so what about single people raising children, divorced couples, drug abusing people, people with a criminal record ......you also stand against them being able to adopt or have children .....because by your own logic your concern is that they would all be "raised better" with a TV family from the 50's

Originally Posted by alb1981

Well we all know that a free source managed by individuals like wikipedia could never ever be misrepresented by false statements, so it must be fact. I will read the entire article and get back to you.

Just FYI, As a social worker who places at risk children into professional foster homes, Not once have I ever been hesitant to place a child in one of my LGBT homes. They have been Stellar foster parents who follow the letter of the law and just want to help.

Another problem I have with Gays is right now they are trying to legislate themselves into a protected class. Just like it is a hate crime to kill or hate speech. This is stupid, a crime is a crime. Why should there be enhanced punishment because it is against a gay person or anyone for that matter?

Or, "he fired me because I am gay." Why should his sexual orientation have any bearing on the matter? Can't I fire someone because I just don't like them? It happens where I work all the time. Should I get special protection because I like oral sex occasionally? That's what the gays want.

seriously man stop while your ahead...

Wow, I think this thread has derailed.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Another problem I have with Gays is right now they are trying to legislate themselves into a protected class. Just like it is a hate crime to kill or hate speech. This is stupid, a crime is a crime. Why should there be enhanced punishment because it is against a gay person or anyone for that matter?

Or, "he fired me because I am gay." Why should his sexual orientation have any bearing on the matter? Can't I fire someone because I just don't like them? It happens where I work all the time. Should I get special protection because I like oral sex occasionally? That's what the gays want.

again, i'm hoping you are just throwing all this out there to get a rise out of people...

i suppose it's whether or not you believe homosexuality is a choice or not. i have a hunch on that one...but just for grins, lets just say you think it's not a choice. that no one would willingly choose to be part of a class that is by-and-large, treated worse than "the norm"...would you also then say that it's fine to fire someone because of race? gender? disability? these are things people have no control over. has nothing to do with personality or job performance.