REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Heritage Foundation idiot makes stupid argument

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, March 29, 2013 14:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3015
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, March 22, 2013 9:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I posted about the American Academy of Pediatrics coming out in favor of gay marriage at http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=54406, and there mentioned a faulty study which is pointed to by gay-marriage opponents. The post sparked no interest, which isn't surprising, but today there's an opinion piece on CNN addressing it which I found interesting. Interesting in that it reflects the usual games played by those against an issue, and how they will try to twist and turn logic into illogic to make a stupid argument. Here is the opinion piece:
Quote:

"Pediatrics Group Backs Gay Marriage, Saying It Helps Children," proclaims a headline in The New York Times. But the advocacy group presented no new studies, no new data, to support this claim. And the studies the group cites have been shown to be insufficient to come to this conclusion about same-sex parenting.

Turns out the press release, picked up nationwide, was a PR stunt aimed at influencing the Supreme Court. The nine justices are set to hear oral arguments Tuesday and Wednesday in two cases about the constitutionality of marriage laws.

Today, 41 states define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Marriage is at the center of an intense national debate, a family-by-family, state-by state conversation that CNN substantively encourages by making room for varying perspectives and supplying state-based data. However, CNN risks obscuring that conversation about what marriage is by framing the issue as measurable by an "LGBT rights calculator."

This writer is for equal rights for all Americans. But no one has the right to redefine marriage.

It's important to future generations that Americans understand what marriage is, why it matters, and the consequences of redefining it. The Supreme Court shouldn't truncate the debate and redefine marriage by judicial decree to include same-sex relationships.

So what about that release from the American Academy of Pediatrics? Two eminent political scientists, Leon Kass (a professor at University of Chicago) and Harvey Mansfield (a professor at Harvard), filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court cautioning against accepting politicized science: "Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must necessarily rest on ideology. Ideology may be pervasive in the social sciences, especially when controversial policy issues are at stake, but ideology is not science."

Kass and Mansfield urge the court not to redefine marriage based on new, inconclusive research. The academic studies on same-sex parenting purporting to show "no differences" are, they argue, "subject to severe constraints arising from limited data" and a lack of "replicable experiments." The professors contend:
Quote:

"Even if same-sex marriage and child rearing by same-sex couples were far more common than they now are, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the effects."

Although we still have much to learn about the impact of same-sex parenting, we do know quite a bit about marriage and child well-being. We have decades of rigorous social science data confirming that children do best with a married mother and father.

In another amicus brief submitted to the court, a group of social science professors explains:

"It is not simply the presence of two parents ... but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children's development. ... Experts have long contended that both mothers and fathers make unique contributions to parenting."

Indeed, scholars have known this for quite some time. Professor David Popenoe of Rutgers University explains:

"We should disavow the notion that 'mommies can make good daddies,' just as we should disavow the popular notion ... that 'daddies can make good mommies.' ... The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being."

These statistics have penetrated American life to such a great extent that President Barack Obama can refer to them as well understood:

"We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."

Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and children.

But how can the law teach that fathers are essential if we redefine marriage to make fathers optional?

Redefining marriage denies the importance of mothers and fathers, and same-sex parenting arrangements, as the social science professors note, "by definition, exclude either a mother or a father." The concern is not whether same-sex couples can make "quality and successful efforts in raising children." The concern is that there "remain unique advantages to a parenting structure consisting of both a mother and a father, political interests notwithstanding."

Marriage policy should place the needs of children before the desires of adults. It should respect the rights of children to the care of the man and woman who created them as much as the rights of adults to live and love as they choose—which adults can do, without redefining marriage for the entire nation.

One thing CNN's calculator makes clear is that, wherever they live, Americans are in the middle of a national conversation about what marriage is, why it matters, and the consequences of redefining it.

The Supreme Court shouldn't make marriage policy for the entire nation. Rather than cut short democratic deliberation, the court should uphold the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make decisions about marriage. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/opinion/anderson-states-same-sex-marriag
e/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7


First off, I got pissed at the underlined sentence that the Academy of Pediatrics' stance is a "P.R. stunt"--for which claim, please note, no facts are presented.

Then I caught the statement that "the advocacy group presented no new studies, no new data, to support this claim ". In actuality, what the Academy did was release
Quote:

a policy statement in support of same-sex parents’ right to wed as well as to foster or adopt children. The policy was guided by the organization’s belief in gay marriage “to promote optimal health and well-being of all children.”

“We know enough about child development that we can say that children are nurtured when they have two loving, supportive, committed-to-each-other adults to take care of them,”


In other words, kids who are nurtured by two loving parents do better. Pretty simple. Something we should all wish for, in a world where broken families, divorce, single parenting, foster homes all outweigh the chance for kids to be nurtured by two loving biological parents, right? Not for this guy. He's for "equal rights for all Americans", supposedly. But since somebody once defined marriage, he's against anyone ELSE "redefining" it. It's not about "equal" rights, he claims, it's about "science", and he goes on to talk about "politicized science", and that we can't know if kids brought up by same-sex parents do better or worse because there's not enough "data" or "replicable experiments", and they presented no NEW data. Not sure where he hopes to find those experiments, but one thing is for sure: We have plenty of data showing that kids do better with two loving, nurturing parents; so in a society where that's not true for most kids, we shouldn't let two loving people who want to nurture a child get together legally. Makes sense, right?

He pisses me off. He ties himself in such knots, talking about the "needs" and "rights" of the children, as if we could legislate that children have the RIGHT "to the care of the man and woman who created them". It's a pathetically weak argument that boils down to "because it's best for children to be reared by their natural father and mother, we shouldn't allow gays to marry and provide a loving home with two nurturing parents, even if that means millions of kids end up with only one nurturing parent, or none at all". Wow. How asinine can you get?? How stupid is the argument that, since we can't legislate that biological parents stay together and raise the kids in a nurturing fashion, those for whom that is not true shouldn't be allowed to be adopted by two other loving, nurturing parents of either sex?

To take a recommendation which comes from a group focused exclusively on children, whose contention that more children having two loving, nurturing parents is a good thing, and twist and turn it to say "nothing" is better than "something" and call it just a P.R. "stunt", makes smoke come out my ears. And the only real argument is that there hasn't been "enough proof" or enough "replicable experiments" YET to prove otherwise.

And by the way, there IS plenty of data in favor of children being nurtured by same-sex couples, and the "study" that showed otherwise has been proven to be a piece of go se...check out the original thread for a laugh on THAT one!

Okay, that's my rant for the day.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 11:30 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



I'm not against gay civil unions, just gay marriage.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 11:33 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm not against gay civil unions, just gay marriage.



And just like all the others on the wrong side of history - your voice on the subject is becoming increasingly irrelevant.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 11:40 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm not against gay civil unions, just gay marriage.



And just like all the others on the wrong side of history - your voice on the subject is becoming increasingly irrelevant.



I'm so fucking tired of that arrogant, over used and empty slogan ' the wrong side of history '. Pretentious much ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 11:46 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

First off, I got pissed at the underlined sentence that the Academy of Pediatrics' stance is a "P.R. stunt"--for which claim, please note, no facts are presented.

Yeah that's about when the article 'struck out' for me. It's the same fallacy that Auraptor employs with the climate change debate: as soon as expert opinion sides with liberal thought, those experts automatically become 'left-wing activists' - not merely experts expressing their opinion. It's a very creative way of dismissing every bit of reality that doesn't fit your worldview.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 11:53 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

I'm so fucking tired of that arrogant, over used and empty slogan ' the wrong side of history '.

It's basically a question of whether in 40-50 years your grandkids will be proud of you, or ashamed of you.

An approval of gay civil unions is not nothing, I'll give you that.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 12:02 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

I'm so fucking tired of that arrogant, over used and empty slogan ' the wrong side of history '.

It's basically a question of whether in 40-50 years your grandkids will be proud of you, or ashamed of you.

An approval of gay civil unions is not nothing, I'll give you that.

It's not personal. It's just war.



Am I in favor of denying gays the right to...

Sit at the lunch counter? Nope
To vote ? Nope.
To hold office ? Nope.
To own their own homes or businesses ? Nope.
To visit sick loved ones in the hospitals, as married spouses do ? Nope.
To adopt children ? Nope.

But because I don't agree that their unions are to be viewed as a MARRIAGE, which is between a man and a woman, that's what will bring shame upon me from my grandkids?

Pretty shallow thinking grandkids, if ya ask me. They should be more worried about how much $ I'll leave them than I should be worried about how they view me.


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 12:07 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

But because I don't agree that their unions are to be viewed as a MARRIAGE, which is between a man and a woman, that's what will bring shame upon me from my grandkids?

I don't think so. They may not be terribly proud either though.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 12:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

But because I don't agree that their unions are to be viewed as a MARRIAGE, which is between a man and a woman, that's what will bring shame upon me from my grandkids?

I don't think so. They may not be terribly proud either though.

.



I'm fully confident such won't be the case.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 1:20 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Pretty shallow thinking grandkids, if ya ask me. They should be more worried about how much $ I'll leave them




'Course they're gonna be pretty shallow-- they come from 1/4 YOUR DNA.

And that's about as deep as they're gonna get: "How much was that old A**hole worth?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 2:56 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


But because I don't agree that their unions are to be viewed as a MARRIAGE, which is between a man and a woman, that's what will bring shame upon me from my grandkids?




Which is another of those questions you can't/won't answer.

Where do you get your definition of marriage?

Where is it defined as such?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 2:57 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Pretty shallow thinking grandkids, if ya ask me. They should be more worried about how much $ I'll leave them




'Course they're gonna be pretty shallow-- they come from 1/4 YOUR DNA.

And that's about as deep as they're gonna get: "How much was that old A**hole worth?"




And then they're going to realize that no matter how much money he had, he was always morally bankrupt.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 3:53 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:
What makes a 'marriage' to me is two people coming together to share their lives with each other and to raise children if they wish too. And I don't care if they are 2 men or 2 women or a man and a woman. What is important to me is the intent.



Marriages are a joining of the 2 sexes. There ARE 2 sexes, at least in humans. Doesn't mean 2 same sex partners can't be together, as a couple.

Woo....I see how that makes me SOOOO morally bankrupt, huh?

god hates fags and all, huh?

please.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 4:48 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Note the refusal/inability to answer the question.



Shocking, I know. ;)




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 4:51 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Marriages are a joining of the 2 sexes.





According to... ?


Based on... ?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 4:58 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Marriages are a joining of the 2 sexes.





According to... ?


Based on... ?



Based on human civilization and our sexual make up. According to 10,000 years of human social evolution.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 6:38 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Cites?


10,000 years of nothing but one-man-one-woman marriage?

What does sexual makeup have to do with marriage?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 6:53 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Cites? Well, same sex couples can't reproduce, so I guess our entire civilization is a credible citation.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 22, 2013 8:33 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Cites? Well, same sex couples can't reproduce, so I guess our entire civilization is a credible citation.



That's funny, because my dear friends, two married lesbians, just had twins who are the cutest things ever! And they'll be raised in a loving, comfortable home surrounded by well-educated, caring people.

You were saying?

Oh - let me guess: the children do not have DNA from both parents. If that's your complaint, why aren't you going after step-children and adoptions and all manner of artificial insemination?

(And that will join the list of questions he won't answer!)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 3:16 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


They didn't reproduce. They needed a 3rd party.

Your lesbian friend could just as easily have had a child while partnered with a sofa, a dog or a sibling. Doesn't make them 'married'.

And I'm not " going after " anything or anyone. I've said , many times, that same sex couples have all the rights to be with who they want, and even raise a family. It's the MARRIAGE label that I feel doesn't need to be changed.

How is this such a problem for you to understand?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:30 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Your basic fallacy, Rap: Sex and marriage are two different things. Humans were reproducing long before marriage ever came along, and would continue doing so. Marriage is the CONTRACT two--or more--people take to be together. That has happened, in different civilizations, between two people of the opposite sex, same sex, and more than two people. The DEFINITION of legal marriage as between two people of opposite sexes is only legal.

There WAS NO DEFINITION of "marriage" as between two people of opposite sexes in the Bible, and different religions define marriage differently. So you have to decide first which religion you will follow and how you want to interpret the definition of "marriage" according to that religion.

For Christians,
Quote:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

The problem is there were many marriages that took place in history before governmental laws were established for marriage. Even today some countries have no legal requirements for marriage, and there are many different definitions of "marriage", depending on the religion and the country. And of course, there's the little matter that, if you want to abide by the Christian interpretation of the bible, it doesn't recognize divorce, so again you end up tied in knots.

If you want to just look at America, our government defined marriage legally, as did many of the states. At one time, polygamy was legal; it was re-defined not to be. Among American Muslims, even today a small minority of around 50,000 to 100,000 people are currently in "illegal" polygamous relationships. Our government has "defined" many things, and changed those definitions. You can only say the government has no right to RE-define marriage if you're willing to say it has no right to RE-define any of the things it has first defined. My question: Are you willing to say the government cannot re-define any of the things it has defined?

Procreation does not require "marriage". "Marriage" can be a legal contract irrespective of religion. As we are a country supposedly with religious freedom, there should be no reason people cannot be married legally within any religion they choose, or within no religion. Unless you are saying we have to be bound exclusively by the Christian religion (which goes against our freedom of religion)--in which case, again, there is no definition of marriage as between one woman and one man within the Bible, so even there it fails.

To say it takes a man and a woman to create a baby and base anything on that is to say everything has to be the way it was before science made any advances in anything. I'm sure you won't extrapolate anything that far, but that's the fact. We can do many things with the human body which make many things out of date; procreation as a requirement for marriage is as outdated as any of them.

You are welcome to your OPINION that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, but you have yet to offer any logical REASON as to why that should be so and why any country should accept only that definition.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:44 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


You keep saying the "marriage label" doesn't need to be changed.



Changed from what? You can't cite any credible source that backs up your assertions.

You seem to think only married people can reproduce, but I can assure you, you are wrong.

You seem to think that there's some magical definition (that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion) that marriage is specifically between one man and one woman, but you can't cite a single source for that.

"Because I said so" is not a valid definition, by the way.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:49 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm not against gay civil unions, just gay marriage.



And just like all the others on the wrong side of history - your voice on the subject is becoming increasingly irrelevant.



I'm so fucking tired of that arrogant, over used and empty slogan ' the wrong side of history '. Pretentious much ?



It's true. Who gives a shit if you think it' pretentious.

Im sure those who supported slavery or segregation would have been offended at the term, too. And Id give just as many fucks about their whining.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:52 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Pretty shallow thinking grandkids, if ya ask me. They should be more worried about how much $ I'll leave them




'Course they're gonna be pretty shallow-- they come from 1/4 YOUR DNA.

And that's about as deep as they're gonna get: "How much was that old A**hole worth?"



Aren't we being a tad bit overly generous to assume someone would be willing to procreate with the raptor in the first place?




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:53 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:


But because I don't agree that their unions are to be viewed as a MARRIAGE, which is between a man and a woman, that's what will bring shame upon me from my grandkids?




Which is another of those questions you can't/won't answer.

Where do you get your definition of marriage?

Where is it defined as such?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."



In his Holy Book - the GOP platform.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:43 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You keep saying the "marriage label" doesn't need to be changed.



Changed from what? You can't cite any credible source that backs up your assertions.

You seem to think only married people can reproduce, but I can assure you, you are wrong.

You seem to think that there's some magical definition (that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion) that marriage is specifically between one man and one woman, but you can't cite a single source for that.

"Because I said so" is not a valid definition, by the way.




Seems your standard reply to everything is to yap about 'cites' and sources, when some things are absolutely self evident.

In same sex marriages, who is the mommy, and who is the daddy ?

Which one is the blushing bride, and which one wears the pants in the family ?

And I never said ONLY married couples can reproduce, but since you brought up the issue, it IS the best situation to bring up healthy, happy kids, in a stable family where both mom and dad are there to help raise the children.

Doesn't mean there should be a law mandating that only married folks can have kids, but it should be pointed out and reinforced that such a union is most desirable.


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:43 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


And yet again, Raptard runs away.


Surpised?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:47 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You keep saying the "marriage label" doesn't need to be changed.



Changed from what? You can't cite any credible source that backs up your assertions.

You seem to think only married people can reproduce, but I can assure you, you are wrong.

You seem to think that there's some magical definition (that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion) that marriage is specifically between one man and one woman, but you can't cite a single source for that.

"Because I said so" is not a valid definition, by the way.




Seems your standard reply to everything is to yap about 'cites' and sources, when some things are absolutely self evident.




What is it you think is "self evident", then?

Are you saying right here and now that you'll never again ask anyone for cites or sources for anything they say?

Why won't you answer the questions asked?

Quote:


In same sex marriages, who is the mommy, and who is the daddy ?

Which one is the blushing bride, and which one wears the pants in the family ?




Is it your assertion that marriages are now to be based on pants and blushing?

Is that how weak your argument has gotten? That's it? That's your best answer?

As I always figured, you've got nothing at all.

The ONLY thing you can cite is religious texts, but you claim not to be religious, so you can't cite those, because it will show you up for the hypocrite we already know you to be.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:51 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And yet again, Raptard runs away.


Surpised?




I gave a better answer here than you did about ambassadors in the Benghazi thread. You completely bitched out of that thread.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 3:01 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Amusing.
Quote:

...it should be pointed out and reinforced that such a union is most desirable.

I'd like to know who, exactly, is saying it ISN'T, and why, if that's not always the case, the next best thing is completely unacceptable.

The argument fails completely, as at the very beginning of this thread, when the only argument is that "THIS is how it should be, so THAT shouldn't be allowed because it isn't THIS." There is absolutely no proof that children reared by two nurturing parents of the same sex do worse than children raised by a single parent, divorced parents, NON-nurturing parents, adoptive parents or institutions. Ergo, there is no valid argument against a single-sex couple raising children but "It's not perfect".

The "wears the pants" and "blushing bride" bullshit is some of the most pathetic drivel anyone here's come up with to date. Unless you can show otherwise, you have no argument.

The most recent I information I could find in a quick search, December of last year, states
Quote:

In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't.

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. (Of course, this isn't to say that heterosexual parents can't bring these same qualities to the parenting table.)

research suggests that gay and lesbian parents are actually a powerful resource for kids in need of adoption. According to a 2007 report by the Williams Institute and the Urban Institute, 65,000 kids were living with adoptive gay parents between 2000 and 2002, with another 14,000 in foster homes headed by gays and lesbians. (There are currently more than 100,000 kids in foster care in the U.S.)

An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.

The 2007 report by the Urban Institute also found that more than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians in the U.S. would like to adopt. That adds up to an estimated 2 million gay people who are interested in adoption. It's a huge reservoir of potential parents who could get kids out of the instability of the foster system, Brodzinsky said.

"When you think about the 114,000 children who are freed for adoption who continue to live in foster care and who are not being readily adopted, the goal is to increase the pool of available, interested and well-trained individuals to parent these children," Brodzinsky said.

In addition, Brodzinsky said, there's evidence to suggest that gays and lesbians are especially accepting of open adoptions, where the child retains some contact with his or her birth parents.


Research has shown that the kids of same-sex couples — both adopted and biological kids — fare no worse than the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school performance and a variety of other life-success measures.

In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.

"There's no doubt whatsoever from the research that children with two lesbian parents are growing up to be just as well-adjusted and successful" as children with a male and a female parent," Stacey told LiveScience.

The bottom line, Stacey said, is that people who say children need both a father and a mother in the home are misrepresenting the research, most of which compares children of single parents to children of married couples. Two good parents are better than one good parent, Stacey said, but one good parent is better than two bad parents. And gender seems to make no difference. While you do find broad differences between how men and women parent on average, she said, there is much more diversity within the genders than between them.

In fact, the only consistent places you find differences between how kids of gay parents and kids of straight parents turn out are in issues of tolerance and open-mindedness, according to Goldberg. In a paper published in 2007 in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Goldberg conducted in-depth interviews with 46 adults with at least one gay parent. Twenty-eight of them spontaneously offered that they felt more open-minded and empathetic than people not raised in their situation.

"These individuals feel like their perspectives on family, on gender, on sexuality have largely been enhanced by growing up with gay parents," Goldberg said.

One 33-year-old man with a lesbian mother told Goldberg, "I feel I'm a more open, well-rounded person for having been raised in a nontraditional family, and I think those that know me would agree. My mom opened me up to the positive impact of differences in people."

Children of gay parents also reported feeling less stymied by gender stereotypes than they would have been if raised in straight households. That's likely because gays and lesbians tend to have more egalitarian relationships than straight couples, Goldberg said. They're also less wedded to rigid gender stereotypes themselves.

"Men and women felt like they were free to pursue a wide range of interests," Goldberg said. "Nobody was telling them, 'Oh, you can't do that, that's a boy thing,' or 'That's a girl thing.'"

.....

"I was just thinking about this with a couple of friends and just was in tears thinking about how different my childhood might have been had same-sex marriage been legalized 25 years ago," a 23-year-old man raised by a lesbian couple told Goldberg. "The cultural, legal status of same-sex couples impacts the family narratives of same-sex families — how we see ourselves in relation to the larger culture, whether we see ourselves as accepted or outsiders." More at http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html


Yeah, sure, let's let all those kids rot with NO nurturing parents, because ONLY a man and a woman are the right way...THAT is the argument the idiot author at the beginning of this thread makes, and Rap is supporting it. Just as the right doesn't seem to give a shit about babies they keep from being aborted, once they're BORN, they apparently don't give a shit about kids in need of adoption, unless it's HETEROSEXUAL adoption...

The Family Research Council, by the way, is still touting that already-debunked study I put up; comes up first page of Google under the title "NEW STUDY ON HOMOSEXUAL PARENTS TOPS ALL PREVIOUS RESEARCH". Ta da!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:58 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)




Touché.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:53 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 25, 2013 4:54 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And yet again, Raptard runs away.


Surpised?




I gave a better answer here than you did about ambassadors in the Benghazi thread. You completely bitched out of that thread.




Well, at least you aknowlegde that you wussed out on this thread. That's real growth for someone like you. Good job!




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 25, 2013 7:21 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Nice ones, Mike; the second one in particular wins you the prize for the first guffaw of the morning!

Dunno if I ever bored you guys with this one, but while we lived in Afghanistan, I often played with my "nana's" daughter, who was the same age as me (would be about 10-11 then). Neither of us spoke the other's language, but being kids, that wasn't a problem.

One day we were out playing in the compound, and I saw Nana come out with an old man I'd never seen before, and they stood there talking. I asked mom afterwards who he was and what they were talking about. According to HER, the old, bearded man was there to check out Nazrullah as a potential bride (!), saw me and upped his price by two goats! Mom used it often as a warning, and I don't know if it was even true (she told me later Nana was ill and dying and that's why she was trying to "settle" her daughter, but who knows if that was true either), but it horrified my little-girl brain to think of Nazrullah being "sold" to that dirty old man, much less the idea that I might be!.

So it's not just a good joke, it's a good POINT; just 50 years ago in that country, women were "sold" into marriage; they still are in different ways all over the world. And more recently than THAT, interracial marriage was "defined" as illegal, so the idea that "marriage" (which has no universal definition to start with, and no religious definition in Christianity) "should be redefined" is laughable on its face.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 25, 2013 3:10 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And yet again, Raptard runs away.


Surpised?




I gave a better answer here than you did about ambassadors in the Benghazi thread. You completely bitched out of that thread.




Well, at least you aknowlegde that you wussed out on this thread. That's real growth for someone like you. Good job!




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"





He also ran away from that thread after refusing to answer my questions.


Not that I'm surprised, of course.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:54 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Still nothing from Rappy.


I'm shocked. He always provides cites for his "facts", doesn't he?





For all of his talk of "10,000 years" of society and tradition marking marriage as one man and one woman, he can't provide even one non-religious source for such a claim.

I'm inclined to think he just pulled it out of his ass, yet another in a long series of RapFacts™ that bear no relation to real facts or the truth.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:53 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


The constitutional argument for marriage equality:


"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:01 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


When Bill-O has jumped ship on anti-gay legislation, it might be time to rethink your position.







"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:15 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)









"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:06 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm not against gay civil unions, just gay marriage.



And just like all the others on the wrong side of history - your voice on the subject is becoming increasingly irrelevant.



I'm so fucking tired of that arrogant, over used and empty slogan ' the wrong side of history '. Pretentious much ?




It's pretentious to point out that conservatives have been on the wrong side of history for much of American history?

You'll really hate this, then...



How pretentious of anyone to show just how wrong you rednecks have been!







"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:21 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear Rappy's clear legal argument detailing exactly why he thinks gay marriage is unconstitutional or should be illegal.

Hint: "Because I believe it" isn't really a valid legal argument or basis for law.







"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:21 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yup, I had to smile when Bill O jumped ship. Tho' it didn't surprise me all that much...he's not stupid, in fact he's quite bright, and has dropped hints from time to time that who he appears to be on FauxNews isn't who he really is, that he does what he does for audience. When the issue starts swinging to where fewer are fired up by hate, I can easily see him switching sides publicly and putting his emphasis on more lucrative issues where it's easier to fire up more people.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 29, 2013 2:51 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)










"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump Presidency 2024 - predictions
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:54 - 15 posts
U.S. Senate Races 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:49 - 9 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:47 - 35 posts
Are we witnessing President Biden's revenge tour?
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:44 - 7 posts
No Thread On Topic, More Than 17 Days After Hamas Terrorists Invade, Slaughter Innocent Israelis?
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:35 - 35 posts
Ghosts
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:30 - 72 posts
U.S. House Races 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:30 - 5 posts
Election fraud.
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:28 - 35 posts
Will religion become extinct?
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:59 - 90 posts
Japanese Culture, S.Korea movies are now outselling American entertainment products
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:46 - 44 posts
Elon Musk
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:33 - 28 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:24 - 594 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL