[hwacker]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

hwacker hwacker:

gay couples should not have kids.

There are a lot of straight couples that should not have kids. Would you rather have a state run orphanage and have society of "The People's Children" as in Commieland?

Straight couples MAKE kids, gays don't.

[hwacker]

lily lily:

$1:

put it to a vote then we can put it to bed forever.

That wasn't an answer to my question.

no you asked if i would accept it.

well we can't see until we have a vote.

stop playing games

[scarecrowe]

hwacker hwacker:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

hwacker hwacker:

gay couples should not have kids.

There are a lot of straight couples that should not have kids. Would you rather have a state run orphanage and have society of "The People's Children" as in Commieland?

Straight couples MAKE kids, gays don't.

A-D-O-P-T-shun

[roger-roger]

hwacker hwacker:

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

We often hear of the existence of child poverty (even though in a relative sense, Canadians are not impoverished). Nevertheless, the benefits of marriage originated from the need to protect the children involved in the relationship and to assist their caregivers.
Childless couples should not be rewarded simply because of cohabitation for there is no contribution they make to the greater good of society in such an arrangement. Worse yet, money is taken out of the "system" and given to the unworthy that instead should go towards improving the lives of children. You may argue that childless couples pay for their spousal benefits but in the end, the cost of supporting spouses for the sake of them being officially declared a spouse comes from the tax breaks given to those corporate entities that provide the benefit to the working spouse and that tax break in the end affects support programs for those rearing children.

In the end, all the lovey dovey couplets out there without children are simply freeloading and helping create "child poverty". Also, all this hoopala about wanting to have legally recognized marriages no matter what the circumstances for the sake of "equality" is simply driven by shear greed. Shame on you.

What about the gay couples who have gay childeren?

gay couples should not have kids.

I guess for this is:
SHUT UP! BECAUSE ITS WRONG! To think a caring couple sharing their love with a child!

Next you will be saying gay people should have special fountains and be registered with the state, because they are so disgusting and morally bankrupt
Gay men can adopt or have a surrogate mother, Women can do the same and have a surrogate father. Why have such an issue?

[hwacker]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

A-D-O-P-T-shun

round and round we go.

gays should not be allowed to adopt.

[scarecrowe]

hwacker hwacker:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

A-D-O-P-T-shun

round and round we go.

gays should not be allowed to adopt.

Adoption is never like going to buy case of beer. Customers are approved in this country and most others. S&M types would be weeded out by a thorough checking for telltale signs.

[simjanes2k]

lily lily:

I want to hear your own reason(s) for banning SSMs.

I thought that was clear from the start.

My own reasons? I am not opposed to SSMs. I thought that was clear from the start. I don't live in California, nor do I know anyone very well who is gay. And I don't believe in God.

I was just giving you reasons for why it is now illegal in CA, USA.

[simjanes2k]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

So you see nothing wrong with religion dictating your life?

Of course I do. I don't believe in God, and I don't want a fictional person to determine what I can and cannot do.

[roger-roger]

hwacker hwacker:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

A-D-O-P-T-shun

round and round we go.

gays should not be allowed to adopt.

rea⋅son   /ˈrizən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ree-zuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
6. Logic. a premise of an argument.
7. Philosophy. a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.
c. Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.

–verb (used without object) 8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.
–verb (used with object) 11. to think through logically, as a problem (often fol. by out).
12. to conclude or infer.
13. to convince, persuade, etc., by reasoning.
14. to support with reasons.
—Idioms15. bring (someone) to reason, to induce a change of opinion in (someone) through presentation of arguments; convince: The mother tried to bring her rebellious daughter to reason.
16. by reason of, on account of; because of: He was consulted about the problem by reason of his long experience.
17. in or within reason, in accord with reason; justifiable; proper: She tried to keep her demands in reason.
18. stand to reason, to be clear, obvious, or logical: With such an upbringing it stands to reason that the child will be spoiled.
19. with reason, with justification; properly: The government is concerned about the latest crisis, and with reason.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1175–1225; ME resoun, reisun (n.) < OF reisun, reson < L ratiōn- (s. of ratiō) ratio

Now that you know what the word means, give us some reasons to support your argument.

[roger-roger]

simjanes2k simjanes2k:

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

So you see nothing wrong with religion dictating your life?

Of course I do. I don't believe in God, and I don't want a fictional person to determine what I can and cannot do.

Then why do you support non secular government decisions?

[simjanes2k]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

hwacker hwacker:

gay couples should not have kids.

There are a lot of straight couples that should not have kids. Would you rather have a state run orphanage and have a society with "The People's Children" as in Commieland?

Okay that's totally accurate. I really hate some people having kids for the hell of it, while my fiance and I save money and prepare to buy a house, make sure we can pay for college, etc...

I actually had a friend say "I'm gonna be a great dad, man."

He was at the time turning into one lousy piece of trash, and I told him. It would have been REALLY great if there were a law in place, so maybe I could make a citizens' arrest and turned him in for something.

"Procreating while Influenced by Retardation" or something.

[simjanes2k]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Then why do you support non secular government decisions?

I don't necessarily. What made you think that?

[roger-roger]

You are defending the religious decision of homosexuals not being allowed to marry.

[simjanes2k]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

You are defending the decision of homosexuals not being allowed to marry.

No, I am explaining it. I never defended it or said they were right, only that the democratic system in place is working as intended by allowing the majority to inflict their decisions upon the minority.

Much as liberals have done with this presidency.

[roger-roger]

We all know why it happened, we were just debating on how wrong it was for this being allowed to go for a vote. I just have trouble seeing why you think its ok that this was put to a vote.