Gay Marriage

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

By this logic, you would deny the right of marriage to female uterine cancer victims and all woman comfortably past childbearing age. Nice.

Actually, that's not really the same logic. In general terms, a man and a woman are the only way that a child can enter this world. Correct? So, in general terms, any man and woman who are married have the chance to have a child. In absolute terms, no man/man or woman/woman marriage would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth.

suck it up and admitt that it's for purely social reasons. it's a valid concern, even if others don't agree with it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

The lack of male figures due to deadbeat fathers and divorce is one of the contributing factors to homosexuality in my and a lot of other people's opinion. As men, we can be attracted to other men and seek bonds of friendship without it being sexual (that's how we choose friends, role models, etc)...because we grew up with an affectionate male to male relationship with our fathers. Men who grow up not establishing that pattern might mistake that plutonic attraction as indication of a homosexual orientation.

Bwuauahahahahahahahaha Who shares that opinion with you, the other Fund A Mental Case Whackos at your church?? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

What do you think? That these people are born genetically mutated to be sexually attracted only to men. That's WWWAAAAYYYY more plausible. :roll:

I don't know what to think regarding as to why Homosexuals are attracted sexually to those of their own gender. I do believe that in the African American Community there are more cases of single mothers than in any other sector of America and yet there isn't a higher percentage of African American Homosexuals compared to the rest .

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

The bolded portion isn't an argument? Or just not one that you agree with?

An argument implies premises and a conclusion. The bolded portion is just a passing comment.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

By this logic, you would deny the right of marriage to female uterine cancer victims and all woman comfortably past childbearing age. Nice.

Actually, that's not really the same logic. In general terms, a man and a woman are the only way that a child can enter this world. Correct? So, in general terms, any man and woman who are married have the chance to have a child. In absolute terms, no man/man or woman/woman marriage would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth.

suck it up and admitt that it's for purely social reasons. it's a valid concern, even if others don't agree with it.

Well, that's the truth in a way. It all boils down to a social reason but the biological and the sociological reasons are pretty much intertwined.

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

By this logic, you would deny the right of marriage to female uterine cancer victims and all woman comfortably past childbearing age. Nice.

Actually, that's not really the same logic. In general terms, a man and a woman are the only way that a child can enter this world. Correct? So, in general terms, any man and woman who are married have the chance to have a child. In absolute terms, no man/man or woman/woman marriage would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth.

1)You forgot test tube babies.
2)I think I missed the day in school that explained marriage was a way for people to make babies. I thought the idea of marriage was to commit to the person you're marrying and take on legal responsability. A man and a woman can have babies if they aren't married, does that mean gay people can't be single?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

By this logic, you would deny the right of marriage to female uterine cancer victims and all woman comfortably past childbearing age. Nice.

Actually, that's not really the same logic. In general terms, a man and a woman are the only way that a child can enter this world. Correct? So, in general terms, any man and woman who are married have the chance to have a child. In absolute terms, no man/man or woman/woman marriage would ever result in a child if the couple stayed true to one another and did not seek artificial means of child birth.

suck it up and admitt that it's for purely social reasons. it's a valid concern, even if others don't agree with it.

Well, that's the truth in a way. It all boils down to a social reason but the biological and the sociological reasons are pretty much intertwined.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
It had nothing to do with the parents. The children would be utterly shamed and abused by their peers.

I don't necessarily agree with HoP, but the "no one would be gay because of the social stigma" argument simply doesn't hold water. If such a thing were true, there wouldn't be any nerds, dorks, stoners, or goths either. The reality is that many people find social companionship by joining a persecuted social-minority group.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Right, but there is always the possibility that a straight couple can have children. There is never a possibility for a gay couple to have children together. (I used gay man but that obviously applies to a lesbian woman as well)

As I said earlier, there's always the chance that I would change my mind. But as things stand socially right now I just don't see how it would be a good thing for any child to be adopted by a gay couple... socially speaking of course. That's obviously a separate argument altogether.

So you're saying that only couples can have children? What about the rich women who don't want to get married and want to adopt a child. They can't have a kid naturally since there's no husband, so it's "impossible" for them to have kids. Do you think they should be denied a right to adopt a kid? Which is better, a kid with no parents or a kid with a single parent?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

The bolded portion isn't an argument? Or just not one that you agree with?

An argument implies premises and a conclusion. The bolded portion is just a passing comment.

Sorry if you can't draw your own conclusions. I'm not going to think for you.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
It had nothing to do with the parents. The children would be utterly shamed and abused by their peers.

I don't necessarily agree with HoP, but the "no one would be gay because of the social stigma" argument simply doesn't hold water. If such a thing were true, there wouldn't be any nerds, dorks, stoners, or goths either. The reality is that many people find social companionship by joining a persecuted social-minority group.

There's always being in the closet...

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
It had nothing to do with the parents. The children would be utterly shamed and abused by their peers.

I don't necessarily agree with HoP, but the "no one would be gay because of the social stigma" argument simply doesn't hold water. If such a thing were true, there wouldn't be any nerds, dorks, stoners, or goths either. The reality is that many people find social companionship by joining a persecuted social-minority group.

Exactly. That's a piss-poor argument GG. If you can deny a gay couple's adoption rights by how their peers would view them, then what about racial views, political views, etc.... there's no well defined boundaries. If the parent's are clowns for a circus, they can't adopt kids either??

Edit: Sorry Vic, I mean't GG

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

The bolded portion isn't an argument? Or just not one that you agree with?

An argument implies premises and a conclusion. The bolded portion is just a passing comment.

Sorry if you can't draw your own conclusions. I'm not going to think for you.

The entire purpose of debate and discussion is to glean information from the other side and perhaps learn something or another, shift opinions, strengthen your own. If I don't know where you're coming from it is impossible to discuss the topic. THAT IS WHAT P&N IS ALL ABOUT.

I'm not you. Give me insight into what you think, because there is certainly more than "one way to skin a cat"...now if you don't want to discuss, that's an entirely different situation entirely.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
It had nothing to do with the parents. The children would be utterly shamed and abused by their peers.

I don't necessarily agree with HoP, but the "no one would be gay because of the social stigma" argument simply doesn't hold water. If such a thing were true, there wouldn't be any nerds, dorks, stoners, or goths either. The reality is that many people find social companionship by joining a persecuted social-minority group.

Well, I only listed one major factor. There is also the social stigma factor you mentioned and also the "path of excess" factor for people who reach the end of what normal sex does for them because they burned themselves out on it mentally and need something bizarre to keep them excited. The bottom line: There's plenty of behavioral reasons for it and they're all indications of someone who needs therapy not acceptance*.

*Note I chose acceptance and not tolerance which they absolutly deserve.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
It had nothing to do with the parents. The children would be utterly shamed and abused by their peers.

I don't necessarily agree with HoP, but the "no one would be gay because of the social stigma" argument simply doesn't hold water. If such a thing were true, there wouldn't be any nerds, dorks, stoners, or goths either. The reality is that many people find social companionship by joining a persecuted social-minority group.

Well, I only listed one major factor. There is also the social stigma factor you mentioned and also the "path of excess" factor for people who reach the end of what normal sex does for them because they burned themselves out on it mentally and need something bizarre to keep them excited. The bottom line: There's plenty of behavioral reasons for it and they're all indications of someone who needs therapy not acceptance*.

*Note I chose acceptance and not tolerance which they absolutly deserve.

You do realize that gay relationships extend beyond sex, right? Why is it always about the sex, and never about anything else? Is it because people who oppose gay relationships are so sex-obsessed that they conclude that sexual 'deviancy' is a mark of immoral character? Gay people have absolutely normal relationships like heterosexual couples do. They fight, they argue, they break up, they cheat on each other, some are whores (for lack of a better word) and some are chaste. The only thing that really differentiates them is that they prefer partners of the same sex.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

The bolded portion isn't an argument? Or just not one that you agree with?

An argument implies premises and a conclusion. The bolded portion is just a passing comment.

Sorry if you can't draw your own conclusions. I'm not going to think for you.

The entire purpose of debate and discussion is to glean information from the other side and perhaps learn something or another, shift opinions, strengthen your own. If I don't know where you're coming from it is impossible to discuss the topic. THAT IS WHAT P&N IS ALL ABOUT.

I'm not you. Give me insight into what you think, because there is certainly more than "one way to skin a cat"...now if you don't want to discuss, that's an entirely different situation entirely.

It's ok MadCowDisease. If I were to draw any conclusion from his bolded statement, it's the admittance that he lacks any argument for gay adoption. He says "he doesn't see how ...." So he doesn't really have an argument against it. He just doesn't know of any argument FOR.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

The lack of male figures due to deadbeat fathers and divorce is one of the contributing factors to homosexuality in my and a lot of other people's opinion. As men, we can be attracted to other men and seek bonds of friendship without it being sexual (that's how we choose friends, role models, etc)...because we grew up with an affectionate male to male relationship with our fathers. Men who grow up not establishing that pattern might mistake that plutonic attraction as indication of a homosexual orientation.

Bwuauahahahahahahahaha Who shares that opinion with you, the other Fund A Mental Case Whackos at your church?? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

What do you think? That these people are born genetically mutated to be sexually attracted only to men. That's WWWAAAAYYYY more plausible. :roll:

I don't know what to think regarding as to why Homosexuals are attracted sexually to those of their own gender.

Well, it's dandy that you are chiming in on a matter for which you admittedly have put very little thought or have no opinions of your own. :roll:

I do believe that in the African American Community there are more cases of single mothers than in any other sector of America and yet there isn't a higher percentage of African American Homosexuals compared to the rest .

I'd like to see those statistics. Also, a surrogate father figure like an older male family member would probably suffice. Although, with the amount of apparent over-compensation among some segments of that community...who knows.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

The bolded portion isn't an argument? Or just not one that you agree with?

An argument implies premises and a conclusion. The bolded portion is just a passing comment.

Sorry if you can't draw your own conclusions. I'm not going to think for you.

The entire purpose of debate and discussion is to glean information from the other side and perhaps learn something or another, shift opinions, strengthen your own. If I don't know where you're coming from it is impossible to discuss the topic. THAT IS WHAT P&N IS ALL ABOUT.

I'm not you. Give me insight into what you think, because there is certainly more than "one way to skin a cat"...now if you don't want to discuss, that's an entirely different situation entirely.

It's ok MadCowDisease. If I were to draw any conclusion from his bolded statement, it's the admittance that he lacks any argument for gay adoption. He says "he doesn't see how ...." So he doesn't really have an argument against it. He just doesn't know of any argument FOR.

Here MadCow. Socially speaking, I don't think it is in a child's best interest to be placed in a gay household. Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time. We still can't decide as a nation whether or not to allow homosexuals to be married. Now, a lot of this is also intertwined with the biological issues I brought up earlier, but that is just a part of the whole.

As I said earlier, I'm not against gay marriage/civil unions. However, I think one step at a time would be the best course for all homosexuals. It is my opinion that trying to get too much too fast is only going to work against them.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Here MadCow. Socially speaking, I don't think it is in a child's best interest to be placed in a gay household. Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time. We still can't decide as a nation whether or not to allow homosexuals to be married. Now, a lot of this is also intertwined with the biological issues I brought up earlier, but that is just a part of the whole.

As I said earlier, I'm not against gay marriage/civil unions. However, I think one step at a time would be the best course for all homosexuals. It is my opinion that trying to get too much too fast is only going to work against them.

Thank you.

 

[TuxDave]

I can't remember who said this, but there was a quote regarding civil changes and how people claim that "it's too early to do this because it's not socially accepted yet, etc...."

It goes like "It's never a 'good' time for social changes"... or something like that.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
I can't remember who said this, but there was a quote regarding civil changes and how people claim that "it's too early to do this because it's not socially accepted yet, etc...."

It goes like "It's never a 'good' time for social changes"... or something like that.

Please, make an argument instead of a passing comment. (nods to MadCow heh)

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TuxDave
I can't remember who said this, but there was a quote regarding civil changes and how people claim that "it's too early to do this because it's not socially accepted yet, etc...."

It goes like "It's never a 'good' time for social changes"... or something like that.

Please, make an argument instead of a passing comment. (nods to MadCow heh)

Ok, my argument is:

You claim that social conditions must change first before you can pass laws allowing more gay rights. So you're looking for specific signs of acceptance before law can be passed. The quote above is saying that THAT time will never come. Essentially, without a radical 'social change', there will never be the ideal social acceptance that you're looking for.

I'm not much of a history major so I can't back it up too much, but I want to know what the 'social conditions' were surrounding women rights and black rights movements.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TuxDave
I can't remember who said this, but there was a quote regarding civil changes and how people claim that "it's too early to do this because it's not socially accepted yet, etc...."

It goes like "It's never a 'good' time for social changes"... or something like that.

Please, make an argument instead of a passing comment. (nods to MadCow heh)

Ok, my argument is:

You claim that social conditions must change first before you can pass laws allowing more gay rights. So you're looking for specific signs of acceptance before law can be passed. The quote above is saying that THAT time will never come. Essentially, without a radical 'social change', there will never be the ideal social acceptance that you're looking for.

Actually, that's not what I said at all. Here's what I said in a nutshell... focus on one battle at a time.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Actually, that's not what I said at all. Here's what I said in a nutshell... focus on one battle at a time.

Sorry, that's what I extracted from:
Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time.

Added in my above post:
I'm not much of a history major so I can't back it up too much, but I want to know what the 'social conditions' were surrounding women rights and black rights movements.

So... what's the 'first battle' that being fought right now if you say fight one battle at a time.

 

[0roo0roo]

The lack of male figures due to deadbeat fathers and divorce is one of the contributing factors to homosexuality in my and a lot of other people's opinion. As men, we can be attracted to other men and seek bonds of friendship without it being sexual (that's how we choose friends, role models, etc)...because we grew up with an affectionate male to male relationship with our fathers. Men who grow up not establishing that pattern might mistake that plutonic attraction as indication of a homosexual orientation.

that explanation totally explains the case of lesbian lynn cheney then eh? hahahaha! so sad..u believe such things.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Actually, that's not what I said at all. Here's what I said in a nutshell... focus on one battle at a time.

Sorry, that's what I extracted from:
Homosexuality is not yet a socially acceptable 'practice', so I don't see how it could possibly be a good thing for a child, in general, to be placed in that environment at this time.

Added in my above post:
I'm not much of a history major so I can't back it up too much, but I want to know what the 'social conditions' were surrounding women rights and black rights movements.

Well, that's what you get for taking only a portion of the post out of the context of the whole now isn't it?