Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by fastsix, Jun 19, 2014.
Didn't you hear? Lincoln changed his party affiliation.
What process? It's biology. Male + female = baby. Legality, morality, whatever aside, the biology of what creates a baby hasn't changed.
For those making the "interracial" argument. I'm in an interracial marriage. It's still between a man and a woman. We're not changing that mold.
Now, again, put marriage and unions to one side. People have kids all the time that aren't married. Whether right or wrong, that "moment" created a life. The biology says who is who. Later on, if there's adoption involved, or surrogacy, or whatever, there are legal papers for that, and that's a different area.
I kind of think that's his point.
I must have misunderstood....he wrote that he "disagreed with the process that got us there".
Yeah the process of two men obviously biologically incapable of having a baby together. This whole thing is bizarrely of the charts unnatural.
Just to be clear, Im on record saying the biological dad should be on the BC.
Yes. Of course. Im referring to the process that babies should be made out of love between a mommy and daddy, and not in some clinical daddy/daddy borrowing a womb way.
You and I are actually agreeing on the specific point of the birth certificate. The biological dad and mother should be listed
About as clever as whinging about "kids these days" and thinking you're making some point. "When I was a kid, we had respect for old people," said some old guy every year since the beginning of time.
My great grandfather thought my grandfather's generation was going to hell because they listened to the likes of Glenn Miller.
Where do you get this crap?
This "relatively" new phenomena of two people of the same sex "adopting children" is causing issues for those kids. The argument, "we are doing it for the kids" is bogus bull$hit. They are doing it for the same reason they want to be "married". For validation and acceptance of their "arrangement". If they were truly out for the best interest of the child, they would find a loving couple consisting of a man and a woman to adopt the child
Well, it is called majority rule. It is the substance of liberal strategic overrun of American values: normalize the desired values in children who grow up to change the milieu of society. The desired values are post modern and post Christian: anti-religion, total sexual freedom, individualism, authoritarianism to enforce secular humanism, and socialism. It has been a very successful strategy. Society will become much more liberal, and then it will fail internally. This has been repeated in history time and again. In Roman Empire terms, we are in the Halcyon period, and the end of America will come. Just not in our lifetime.
This is also why church's are hijacked such as shown by the PCUSA announcement yesterday.
And yet the only research study that concluded that children are harmed growing up in same-sex couple households has been so completely de-bunked that it has been thrown out of court several times while the author has been dropped as witness. Meanwhile, there are several studies that show children of same sex couples do just as well as their counterparts raised in more traditional settings. Doesn't mean that no, there are no issues from children being raised by same-sex couples, just the occurrence of said issues happen at the same rate as children raised by hetero couples, and are no more or less severe on the whole.
Talk about a Family Tree..or is it a weed? Maybe a web. Not sure. Ancestry.com better revise their tree software quick.
That is total bull crap. Plenty of child psychologists will tell you that kids growing up in same sex households have plenty of issues....and much more than growing up in a home with one mommy and one daddy.
At least post studies