quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: TheCabal
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

And what's the likelihood that if your children ARE wards of the state because you're irresponsible, you're probably NOT married.

Perhaps because you cannot validat it.



Can't validate what?

That unmarried people are irresponsible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

No seriously. That's how they started. The reason you had to get permission from the state to get married is because the state wanted to make sure blacks weren't marrying whites... or in some cases it was making sure Jews weren't marrying Christians, etc.

That's what the entire purpose was back in the 20s, when marriage licenses became more or less standard practice.

You know I read that mega many years ago, but then that was before I was aware that we are victims of propaganda second only to himmler.

quote:

And what's the likelihood that if your children ARE wards of the state because you're irresponsible, you're probably NOT married.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: TheCabal
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

And what's the likelihood that if your children ARE wards of the state because you're irresponsible, you're probably NOT married.

Perhaps because you cannot validat it.



Can't validate what?

That unmarried people are irresponsible.



That's a lovely strawman you've built there. But, why would I need to validate a claim I never made?

Well it is your post I am quoting. See the bolded part of your post that I am quoting. So it is not a straw man but in fact what you said.

quote:

And what's the likelihood that if your children ARE wards of the state because you're irresponsible, you're probably NOT married.

quote:


It means that very irresponsible people tend to be single.


Have you any validation for this moronic statement.

Get it yet?

Not until you can validate your moronic statement that
"very irresponsible people tend to be single"

Get it yet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

hey he has his imaginary magnum it makes sense he would have an imaginary partner

quote:


How is that even a controversial statement?

If it is not a controversial statement then it should be pretty easy for you to validate it.

Or are you the sort of person who finds a high level of irresponsibility an attractive quality in a partner?

The overwhelming majority of my partners are prostitutes from nevada butt huts...(I am old and ugly). Their only responsibility to me is to show me that I got my money's worth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: TheCabal

Ok, just how would I 'validate' the notion that irresponsibility is not an attractive trait in a marriage partner, and that therefore very irresponsible people have trouble getting married?

That is not what I ask you to validate. While the opposite to your idiotic statement is quite easy to validate.
That being that those who marry are irresponsible. To wit: the divorce rate is proof of irresponsibility.

"Marriage and divorce are both common experiences. In Western cultures, more than 90 percent of people marry by age 50. Healthy marriages are good for couples’ mental and physical health. They are also good for children; growing up in a happy home protects children from mental, physical, educational and social problems. However, about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher."

http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Nnanji


Na, I believe he frequents prostitutes. I'm sure that what he considers his money's worth is he lowers his pants and the whores point and laugh.


You think prostitutes get paid for that?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: TheCabal



No thomsonx, the opposite of MY statement is extreme irresponsibility is an attractive trait in a possible marriage partner.

The idiotic statement is the one you came up with that you wish was mine.


I quoted it from your post.
You have shown you cannot validate it.
Have a nice day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
That list of big names who are boycotting states with these anti-LGBT policies is getting longer and longer, isn't it? Do you know, I'm beginning to believe that it really isn't just democrats/liberals/commies/socialists/lefties/authoritarians (take your pick, they're all the same thing, as we all know) who are against these repulsive measures. I mean, the Disney corporation? Wow! I suspect that wouldn't have happened when Walt was alive, but even so ....

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
That list of big names who are boycotting states with these anti-LGBT policies is getting longer and longer, isn't it? Do you know, I'm beginning to believe that it really isn't just democrats/liberals/commies/socialists/lefties/authoritarians (take your pick, they're all the same thing, as we all know) who are against these repulsive measures. I mean, the Disney corporation? Wow! I suspect that wouldn't have happened when Walt was alive, but even so ....

Yes, and from my perspective, it works. Those years ago when Colorado voted Amendment 2 into law (it was an anti-rights bill) the state took one heck of a hit in the tourism industry. As the list of big names that won't come to your state grows, it has an impact.