Minnesota becomes 12th

RedWhiteBlue wrote:What argument?
Are you attempting to argue something? Do you think Dr. Fagan is?
Do you seriously think 'divorce' or lack of 'intact' families is somehow a 'political party' issue?
What is a "traditional" family to you? Is it in the majority, average, normal, what?

Traditional Family = Gays/Lesbians/Transgenders driving Eco-friendly electric car eating granola cursing Christians. /lib

Hey RWB! While you're moving the goal post, why don't you throw out the ole lib talking point about how children are better off after a divorce. Or did you forget that one?

Why don't you tell us what a traditional family is.

Freedom Forever wrote:Hey RWB! While you're moving the goal post, why don't you throw out the ole lib talking point about how children are better off after a divorce. Or did you forget that one?

Why don't you tell us what a traditional family is.

He believes in a "new kind of family"........

BladeRunner wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:Hey RWB! While you're moving the goal post, why don't you throw out the ole lib talking point about how children are better off after a divorce. Or did you forget that one?

Why don't you tell us what a traditional family is.

He believes in a "new kind of family"........

Cut him some slack, he's still evolving.

Freedom Forever wrote:Hey RWB! While you're moving the goal post, why don't you throw out the ole lib talking point about how children are better off after a divorce. Or did you forget that one?

Why don't you tell us what a traditional family is.

Did you read my earlier post at all?
Did you see that I said divorce is an attack on the traditional family?
Here you go:

By RedWhiteBlue: "Add in the single Moms, the unmarried couples living together raising kids. Completely absent Dads. The "every other weekend" custody. Kids raised with half-siblings, half the time. Holidays with 8 sets of Grandparents (who are half step-grandparents or grandma's boyfriend). Ex-aunts' and ex-uncles' new live-ins. How many names are on the "safe" list for each child at the daycare? How often does that change? Ask an 8-yr-old about his 'room', and he asks if you mean at his new Mom's or old Mom's or at Dad's before Dad moved in with his girlfriend."
(does that sound like I think children are better off?)

Who are you attempting to argue with (and who is moving posts)?
Did you read the results I posted from the conservative Family Research Council?

BladeRunner, who are you bleating about with that strange comment?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:Hey RWB! While you're moving the goal post, why don't you throw out the ole lib talking point about how children are better off after a divorce. Or did you forget that one?

Why don't you tell us what a traditional family is.

Did you read my earlier post at all?
Did you see that I said divorce is an attack on the traditional family?
Here you go:

By RedWhiteBlue: "Add in the single Moms, the unmarried couples living together raising kids. Completely absent Dads. The "every other weekend" custody. Kids raised with half-siblings, half the time. Holidays with 8 sets of Grandparents (who are half step-grandparents or grandma's boyfriend). Ex-aunts' and ex-uncles' new live-ins. How many names are on the "safe" list for each child at the daycare? How often does that change? Ask an 8-yr-old about his 'room', and he asks if you mean at his new Mom's or old Mom's or at Dad's before Dad moved in with his girlfriend."
(does that sound like I think children are better off?)

Who are you attempting to argue with (and who is moving posts)?
Did you read the results I posted from the conservative Family Research Council?

BladeRunner, who are you bleating about with that strange comment?

Standard tired old gay/lesbian retort ....YAWN !

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:Hey RWB! While you're moving the goal post, why don't you throw out the ole lib talking point about how children are better off after a divorce. Or did you forget that one?

Why don't you tell us what a traditional family is.

Did you read my earlier post at all?
Did you see that I said divorce is an attack on the traditional family?
Here you go:

By RedWhiteBlue: "Add in the single Moms, the unmarried couples living together raising kids. Completely absent Dads. The "every other weekend" custody. Kids raised with half-siblings, half the time. Holidays with 8 sets of Grandparents (who are half step-grandparents or grandma's boyfriend). Ex-aunts' and ex-uncles' new live-ins. How many names are on the "safe" list for each child at the daycare? How often does that change? Ask an 8-yr-old about his 'room', and he asks if you mean at his new Mom's or old Mom's or at Dad's before Dad moved in with his girlfriend."
(does that sound like I think children are better off?)

Who are you attempting to argue with (and who is moving posts)?
Did you read the results I posted from the conservative Family Research Council?

BladeRunner, who are you bleating about with that strange comment?

I was responding to your other stupid post. But go where you need to.

Skeptical wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:Hey RWB! While you're moving the goal post, why don't you throw out the ole lib talking point about how children are better off after a divorce. Or did you forget that one?

Why don't you tell us what a traditional family is.

Did you read my earlier post at all?
Did you see that I said divorce is an attack on the traditional family?
Here you go:

By RedWhiteBlue: "Add in the single Moms, the unmarried couples living together raising kids. Completely absent Dads. The "every other weekend" custody. Kids raised with half-siblings, half the time. Holidays with 8 sets of Grandparents (who are half step-grandparents or grandma's boyfriend). Ex-aunts' and ex-uncles' new live-ins. How many names are on the "safe" list for each child at the daycare? How often does that change? Ask an 8-yr-old about his 'room', and he asks if you mean at his new Mom's or old Mom's or at Dad's before Dad moved in with his girlfriend."
(does that sound like I think children are better off?)

Who are you attempting to argue with (and who is moving posts)?
Did you read the results I posted from the conservative Family Research Council?

BladeRunner, who are you bleating about with that strange comment?

Standard tired old gay/lesbian retort ....YAWN !

The fact that I think divorce is bad for the traditional family, is somehow construed to be a "gay retort" ???
Unbelievable !!!
What -- do you think divorce is somehow good for traditional families and children? Also, are you trying to suggest that divorce is a "conservative" value?

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:Hey RWB! While you're moving the goal post, why don't you throw out the ole lib talking point about how children are better off after a divorce. Or did you forget that one?

Why don't you tell us what a traditional family is.

Did you read my earlier post at all?
Did you see that I said divorce is an attack on the traditional family?
Here you go:

By RedWhiteBlue: "Add in the single Moms, the unmarried couples living together raising kids. Completely absent Dads. The "every other weekend" custody. Kids raised with half-siblings, half the time. Holidays with 8 sets of Grandparents (who are half step-grandparents or grandma's boyfriend). Ex-aunts' and ex-uncles' new live-ins. How many names are on the "safe" list for each child at the daycare? How often does that change? Ask an 8-yr-old about his 'room', and he asks if you mean at his new Mom's or old Mom's or at Dad's before Dad moved in with his girlfriend."
(does that sound like I think children are better off?)

Who are you attempting to argue with (and who is moving posts)?
Did you read the results I posted from the conservative Family Research Council?

BladeRunner, who are you bleating about with that strange comment?

I was responding to your other stupid post. But go where you need to.

What post? This:

"(CNSNews.com) - Only 45 percent of American children have spent their childhood in an intact family, according to a survey produced by a conservative advocacy group.

The "Index of Belonging and Rejection," produced by Dr. Pat Fagan of the Family Research Council's Marriage and Religion Research Institute, defines an intact family as a biological mother and father who remain legally married to one another from the time of their child's birth."

"Of all children born this year, half will not be living with both natural parents by their mid-teens."

I think that's very sad, don't you?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:Hey RWB! While you're moving the goal post, why don't you throw out the ole lib talking point about how children are better off after a divorce. Or did you forget that one?

Why don't you tell us what a traditional family is.

Did you read my earlier post at all?
Did you see that I said divorce is an attack on the traditional family?
Here you go:

By RedWhiteBlue: "Add in the single Moms, the unmarried couples living together raising kids. Completely absent Dads. The "every other weekend" custody. Kids raised with half-siblings, half the time. Holidays with 8 sets of Grandparents (who are half step-grandparents or grandma's boyfriend). Ex-aunts' and ex-uncles' new live-ins. How many names are on the "safe" list for each child at the daycare? How often does that change? Ask an 8-yr-old about his 'room', and he asks if you mean at his new Mom's or old Mom's or at Dad's before Dad moved in with his girlfriend."
(does that sound like I think children are better off?)

Who are you attempting to argue with (and who is moving posts)?
Did you read the results I posted from the conservative Family Research Council?

BladeRunner, who are you bleating about with that strange comment?

I was responding to your other stupid post. But go where you need to.

What post? This:

"(CNSNews.com) - Only 45 percent of American children have spent their childhood in an intact family, according to a survey produced by a conservative advocacy group.

The "Index of Belonging and Rejection," produced by Dr. Pat Fagan of the Family Research Council's Marriage and Religion Research Institute, defines an intact family as a biological mother and father who remain legally married to one another from the time of their child's birth."

"Of all children born this year, half will not be living with both natural parents by their mid-teens."

I think that's very sad, don't you?

I am arguing if favor of the traditional family. I am also arguing against gay marriage. (Very clear isn't it) Your ability to go off topic is really kind of sad. Now all of a sudden we are attacking you and your high moral stance on the negatives of divorce. I could care less about your divorce statistic , which you brought into the discussion to discredit marriage, (oh but you didn't say that either, so Now I'm attacking you again.) Like trying to argue with a kid.

Now lets start all over, this time I'll ask the question (s) Where do you stand on the gay marriage? (the topic of this thread.)

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:Hey RWB! While you're moving the goal post, why don't you throw out the ole lib talking point about how children are better off after a divorce. Or did you forget that one?

Why don't you tell us what a traditional family is.

Did you read my earlier post at all?
Did you see that I said divorce is an attack on the traditional family?
Here you go:

By RedWhiteBlue: "Add in the single Moms, the unmarried couples living together raising kids. Completely absent Dads. The "every other weekend" custody. Kids raised with half-siblings, half the time. Holidays with 8 sets of Grandparents (who are half step-grandparents or grandma's boyfriend). Ex-aunts' and ex-uncles' new live-ins. How many names are on the "safe" list for each child at the daycare? How often does that change? Ask an 8-yr-old about his 'room', and he asks if you mean at his new Mom's or old Mom's or at Dad's before Dad moved in with his girlfriend."
(does that sound like I think children are better off?)

Who are you attempting to argue with (and who is moving posts)?
Did you read the results I posted from the conservative Family Research Council?

BladeRunner, who are you bleating about with that strange comment?

I was responding to your other stupid post. But go where you need to.

What post? This:

"(CNSNews.com) - Only 45 percent of American children have spent their childhood in an intact family, according to a survey produced by a conservative advocacy group.

The "Index of Belonging and Rejection," produced by Dr. Pat Fagan of the Family Research Council's Marriage and Religion Research Institute, defines an intact family as a biological mother and father who remain legally married to one another from the time of their child's birth."

"Of all children born this year, half will not be living with both natural parents by their mid-teens."

I think that's very sad, don't you?

I am arguing if favor of the traditional family. I am also arguing against gay marriage. (Very clear isn't it) Your ability to go off topic is really kind of sad. Now all of a sudden we are attacking you and your high moral stance on the negatives of divorce. I could care less about your divorce statistic , which you brought into the discussion to discredit marriage, (oh but you didn't say that either, so Now I'm attacking you again.) Like trying to argue with a kid.

Now lets start all over, this time I'll ask the question (s) Where do you stand on the gay marriage? (the topic of this thread.)

Don't you agree that those numbers from the FR Council are sad?
You are "attacking" me? Didn't notice. And it's because I included the negatives of divorce as a detriment to the traditional family. Really? Or you say I brought it up to discredit marriage. Wow. I actually like marriage. I thought I was clearly discrediting divorce.

Actually, I started the thread. Minnesota has jumped out in front, and I think other states will also enact those laws, whether it's called 'civil union' or whatever. I doubt that it will ever impact me personally. Maybe the license fees will add a few more dollars to the state, and save me a few tax dollars.

Will try the liberal mentality here.

Since there are divorces among the heterosexual folks and children are/may be involved/affected this is very strong justification for homosexual unions be accepted as the savior of the American family!

Skeptical wrote:Will try the liberal mentality here.

Since there are divorces among the heterosexual folks and children are/may be involved/affected this is very strong justification for homosexual unions be accepted as the savior of the American family!

Will try the conservative menatlity here.

Homosexuals are going to rape me. I'm pretty sure about that. If two consenting homosexuals get married, that means people will be allowed to have sex with dogs. God is going to send all homosexuals to a special place in hell. Homosexuals are ruining my marriage.

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:Will try the liberal mentality here.

Since there are divorces among the heterosexual folks and children are/may be involved/affected this is very strong justification for homosexual unions be accepted as the savior of the American family!

Will try the conservative menatlity here.

Homosexuals are going to rape me. I'm pretty sure about that. If two consenting homosexuals get married, that means people will be allowed to have sex with dogs. God is going to send all homosexuals to a special place in hell. Homosexuals are ruining my marriage.

A weak attempt. I have never seen a better definition of heterophobia.

Skeptical wrote:Will try the liberal mentality here.

Since there are divorces among the heterosexual folks and children are/may be involved/affected this is very strong justification for homosexual unions be accepted as the savior of the American family!

Billy has two Daddies.

Well Freedom:
"Don't you agree that those numbers from the FR Council are sad?
You are "attacking" me? Didn't notice. And it's because I included the negatives of divorce as a detriment to the traditional family. Really? Or you say I brought it up to discredit marriage. Wow. I actually like marriage. I thought I was clearly discrediting divorce.

Actually, I started the thread. Minnesota has jumped out in front, and I think other states will also enact those laws, whether it's called 'civil union' or whatever. I doubt that it will ever impact me personally. Maybe the license fees will add a few more dollars to the state, and save me a few tax dollars."

Skeptical - don't you think that there are (will be) homosexual divorces, too? Do you really think that those relationships are somehow more stable, and would help save the statistics? I guess you could be right. They may work harder on their marriage because of the long wait for it to be recognized legally. I won't dispute you on that at all. Time will tell.

Darth Cheney wrote:Traditional Family = Gays/Lesbians/Transgenders driving Eco-friendly electric car eating granola cursing Christians. /lib

Was not aware that Subaru offered an electric car ?