Sorry, disregard this post. 

---

What?

 

Again he stated the majority of gay couples adopt. I asked for a link. Gays and Lesbians cant have children biologically, hence the only way for them to raise children is through adoption which again I was asking the data for. How many GLBT Couples adopt children vs straight couples.

 

But he didn't say a majority of gay couples adopt.   He said a majority of gay couples who have children got them through adoption.  

 

So you are both wrong.   Since gays and lesbians CAN have children biologically, and since a majority of gays and lesbians who have children did NOT get them through adoption, you are both wrong. 

---

Yes, but the interesting thing is, it doesn't back up his claim.   It contradicts it.   Most gay and lesbian couples, according to that study, got their children through their own biological reproduction. 

 

So you should re-assert your original argument, whatever it was. 

 

 Again the focus of the argument was simply do the majority of gay people adopt vs straight people. He didnt include specifics like biological reproduction.  Which was my whole point of the argument. Post data and numbers that support your belief, that was what I was looking for, 

 

That's one of the fundamentals when discussing a topic. Post data to support your claim. He was the one making that claim.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

 Again the focus of the argument was simply do the majority of gay people adopt vs straight people. He didnt include specifics like biological reproduction.  Which was my whole point of the argument. Post data and numbers that support your belief, that was what I was looking for, 

 

That's one of the fundamentals when discussing a topic. Post data to support your claim. He was the one making that claim.

 

But as we have already seen, because you misunderstood what he was saying, you and he were arguing about two different things.  You still don't seem to see that. 

---

.  Since gays and lesbians CAN have children biologically, and since a majority of gays and lesbians who have children did NOT get them through adoption, you are both wrong. 

 

How can two men have sex and get pregnant?

 

How can two women have sex and get pregnant?

 

They scientifically CANNOT have children unless they were involved in a heterosexual relationship with the opposite sex to create the child at the time on conception. 

 

They (women) can then choose to enter a  lesbian relationship and give birth after the fact.

 

Men, can enter a gay relationship after help conceive a child in the heterosexual relationship after the fact.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

But as we have already seen, because you misunderstood what he was saying, you and he were arguing about two different things.  You still don't seem to see that. 

 

Again I understood what he was saying, If I needed clarification I would have asked for it. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

How can two men have sex and get pregnant?

 

How can two women have sex and get pregnant?

 

They scientifically CANNOT have children unless they were involved in a heterosexual relationship with the opposite sex to create the child at the time on conception. 

 

They (women) can then choose to enter a  lesbian relationship and give birth after the fact.

 

Men, can enter a gay relationship after help conceive a child in the heterosexual relationship after the fact.

 

What I said was, exactly, direct quote here, "gays and lesbians CAN have children biologically..."  And they can.  Just not with each other.   They can produce them biologically from a previous heterosexual relationship, or through surrogacy.

 

I never said, two men can have sex and get pregnant. 

 

You didn't read the link I provided, did you?   You said "interesting read" and you didn't read it. 

---

Thank you for the link. It is an interesting read. 

 

That was my whole point he could have provided the same information you just provided.

 

In having a debate, noone should get offended when the other person asks to provide a link to back up their claim. 

 

You asked him to provide information to prove that gay couples adopt more than straight couples. That is not what he was claiming. So therefor, you were NOT asking for a link to back up his claim.

---

What I said was, exactly, direct quote here, "gays and lesbians CAN have children biologically..."  And they can.  Just not with each other.   They can produce them biologically from a previous heterosexual relationship, or through surrogacy.

 

You didn't read the link I provided, did you?   You said "interesting read" and you didn't read it. 

I read the link. It was interesting because some of the numbers provided in terms of adoption rate among gay and lesbian couples were a lot higher than expected.

 

I don't understand you incorrectly insinuating I didn't read it but whatever.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

 Again the focus of the argument was simply do the majority of gay people adopt vs straight people.

 

No, it wasn't The original focus was that gay couples raise children by adoption more than finding other means to raise children.

 

You tried to spin it into an argument about gay people vs straight people adopting.

---

You asked him to provide information to prove that gay couples adopt more than straight couples. That is not what he was claiming. So therefor, you were NOT asking for a link to back up his claim.

 

I did ask for a link about 5 times as a matter of fact. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Why do I hear calliope music?

---

No, it wasn't The original focus was that gay couples raise children by adoption more than finding other means to raise children.

 

You tried to spin it into an argument about gay people vs straight people adopting.

 

Yes it was. 

 

He said the majority of gay couples adopt. Which automatically made it gay people vs straight people adopting hence asking for the link.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

I did ask for a link about 5 times as a matter of fact. 

 

A link for something he wasn't claiming.

---

A link for something he wasn't claiming.

 

He actually corrected himself if you go back through this thread.

 

2 other people understood what I was asking hence they posted links.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

He actually corrected himself if you go back through this thread.

 

2 other people understood what I was asking hence they posted links.

 

Count the number of people trying to explain his sentence to you. If you aren't in the group of people doing the laughing, you are probably the one getting laughed at.

---

Count the number of people trying to explain his sentence to you. If you aren't in the group of people doing the laughing, you are probably the one getting laughed at.

 

What?

 

I said if you go back through this thread, he corrected himself. What the hell are you talking about?

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

What?

 

I said if you go back through this thread, he corrected himself. What the hell are you talking about?

 

I'm starting to realize that you may never know. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were just a clever troll and not a mental midget. Now I'm starting to have second thoughts.

---

I'm starting to realize that you may never know. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were just a clever troll and not a mental midget. Now I'm starting to have second thoughts.

 

Awesome comeback. 

 

I been stopped taking you seriously when you defended men hitting women.

 

Anything else you got?

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Awesome comeback. 

 

I been stopped taking you seriously when you defended men hitting women.

 

Anything else you got?

 

Oh NoooOOz! You been stopped me? Shuck-a-muck.

---