Gay marriage

[exphys88]

There have been individuals in this thread who have stated they are ok with both polygamy and incest. no use even continuing the argument if that is what we are dealing with here in the US

I'm happy that people like you are no longer arguing against gay marriage. Why waste your time, it's going to happen.

There are still countries that homosexuality is a crime in, maybe you should move to Africa so you can live a righteous life.

 

[LAM]

Much more importantly, a person should be able to vote for or against laws based on what they believe.

sure if that "belief" is based on objective data and not the subjective.

 

[Zaphod]

As the supreme court most eloquently stated. Cell phones have been around longer than gay marriage.

The fact is children due better in homes where there is a mother and a father. men and women are different, and both roles ideally should be fulfilled in a home for children. crime goes down when the traditional basic family unit is strong. that's just a fact.

Show me evidence where gay parents do worse than straight parents.

You have yet to answer how gay marriage affects you.

 

[bio-chem]

Show me evidence where gay parents do worse than straight parents.

You have yet to answer how gay marriage affects you.

Should I draw pictures for you? Because gay marriage has been around for such a short time it would obviously be hard to show with empirical data the effects of gay parents on children. Hence the reason the supreme court made the point during questioning that cell phones have been around longer. Many justices feel uncomfortable making a ruling on such an issue when it is at best not well understood.

Gay marriage effects society. That is the point i've been making for 7 pages in this thread. Obviously you are too dense to pick up on simple facts as i've stated them. My previous post said very clearly that society is better when the traditional, ideal family unit is kept strong. I can not be more clear than how crystal clear I'm being. I believe we should do all we can to strengthen the traditional family unit with a loving father and mother both in the home focused on raising their children. Men and women bring different strengths and weaknesses complimentary to each other, and both needed when raising the next generation.

I'll not be returning to this thread again. It's completely worthless to share ideas when individuals here somehow think that it's ok to argue incest and polygamy should be allowed on the heels of gay marriage because it doesn't hurt me personally. Yes, I understand that laws must be balanced when taking into account the freedoms of the individual vs. the needs of society. I just come down on the other side of the line with you on this issue, that isn't going to change.

 

[bio-chem]

sure if that "belief" is based on objective data and not the subjective.

No fool. Regardless on what they want to base that belief on. whether you agree with what they base their belief system on or not makes no difference. That is what DOMS has been saying this whole time. By making the argument that anyone can chose for another what they are allowed to base their beliefs on when voting our entire constitution would become void. You can not legislate how a person thinks. which it seems you, and many others her are trying to do.

 

[DOMS]

sure if that "belief" is based on objective data and not the subjective.

No fool. Regardless on what they want to base that belief on. whether you agree with what they base their belief system on or not makes no difference. That is what DOMS has been saying this whole time. By making the argument that anyone can chose for another what they are allowed to base their beliefs on when voting our entire constitution would become void. You can not legislate how a person thinks. which it seems you, and many others her are trying to do.

What bio-chem said.

Additionally, I can -- and have -- made a fact-filled argument of the benefits of sending blacks and Hispanics back to their ethnic country of origin. That's with objective data, so it's okay, right?

 

[Zaphod]

Should I draw pictures for you? Because gay marriage has been around for such a short time it would obviously be hard to show with empirical data the effects of gay parents on children. Hence the reason the supreme court made the point during questioning that cell phones have been around longer. Many justices feel uncomfortable making a ruling on such an issue when it is at best not well understood.

Gay marriage effects society. That is the point i've been making for 7 pages in this thread. Obviously you are too dense to pick up on simple facts as i've stated them. My previous post said very clearly that society is better when the traditional, ideal family unit is kept strong. I can not be more clear than how crystal clear I'm being. I believe we should do all we can to strengthen the traditional family unit with a loving father and mother both in the home focused on raising their children. Men and women bring different strengths and weaknesses complimentary to each other, and both needed when raising the next generation.

I'll not be returning to this thread again. It's completely worthless to share ideas when individuals here somehow think that it's ok to argue incest and polygamy should be allowed on the heels of gay marriage because it doesn't hurt me personally. Yes, I understand that laws must be balanced when taking into account the freedoms of the individual vs. the needs of society. I just come down on the other side of the line with you on this issue, that isn't going to change.

You'll come back. You can't help yourself. How long gay marriage has been around has nothing to do with it. You have yet to bring one fact to the table about how gay marriage hurts society. If you are so worried about the strengths of traditional marriage you'd best start working on how and why the divorce rate is so high.

I'm glad you finally admitted that gay marriage has no effect on your life. That being the case what is your argument against it? You have none. Traditional marriage is in shambles, especially across the bible belt. Oh, the irony in that fact. The folks arguing against gay marriage and the positives of traditional marriage can't even stay together. So much for that argument.

 

[troubador]

What bio-chem said.

Additionally, I can -- and have -- made a fact-filled argument of the benefits of sending blacks and Hispanics back to their ethnic country of origin. That's with objective data, so it's okay, right?

You want us to give our seal of approval on an argument we haven't seen? Your premise is unverified, you don't have a sound argument.

 

[DOMS]

You want us to give our seal of approval on an argument we haven't seen? Your premise is unverified, you don't have a sound argument.

What? You're allergic to the search feature?

 

[troubador]

What? You're allergic to the search feature?

No, apathetic. You're question was an attempt to get us to say "no", then you would call us hypocrites and attempt to make the argument that a factual argument isn't the best method to vote/form an opinion, or something like that (ironically)... it doesn't matter really. However, your question (disguised as an argument) is just a fallacy of begging the question. It's a make believe scenario where you claim to have proven something, without proof that you did, that is most likely adverse to people's sensibilities and claim that logic isn't enough. It's incredibly stupid. So the answer to the question 'since DOMS made an argument does that make it true?' is no.

 

[maniclion]

Gay marriage isn't a new concept. I went to a gay marriage back in 2002. It wasn't official, but it was a ceremony with an ordained minister. Gay and lesbian couples have been raising children for quite a long time. I also know a gay couple that aren't officially married yet they adopted a foster child who was living in a tent on the beach with a drug addict mother and father.

 

[DOMS]

No, pathetic. You're question was an attempt to get us to say "no", then you would call us hypocrites and attempt to make the argument that a factual argument isn't the best method to vote/form an opinion, or something like that (ironically)... it doesn't matter really. However, your question (disguised as an argument) is just a fallacy of begging the question. It's a make believe scenario where you claim to have proven something, without proof that you did, that is most likely adverse to people's sensibilities and claim that logic isn't enough. It's incredibly stupid. So the answer to the question 'since DOMS made an argument does that make it true?' is no.

Since so you're so confused, I'll spell it out for you. There are a lot of things that we should do that make logical sense, but that libtards such as yourself, wouldn't agree to. For example, the idea that religious people shouldn't be able to vote based on their beliefs has lead anti-big brother types to endorse thought-police.

 

[LAM]

What bio-chem said.

Additionally, I can -- and have -- made a fact-filled argument of the benefits of sending blacks and Hispanics back to their ethnic country of origin. That's with objective data, so it's okay, right?

LMAO! so says IMs resident sociopath.

you can through yourself right in there also DOMS on that boat back to where your people immigrated from. because when compared to the capitalists and superwealthy that run the country there is no difference between those in the underclass and people like yourself as wealth is extremely subjective.

 

[troubador]

Since so you're so confused, I'll spell it out for you. There are a lot of things that we should do that make logical sense, but that libtards such as yourself, wouldn't agree to. For example, the idea that religious people shouldn't be able to vote based on their beliefs has lead anti-big brother types to endorse thought-police.

So the "idea that religious people shouldn't be able to vote based on their beliefs" makes logical sense but libtards like me won't agree to banning them from voting and somehow that has lead anti-big brother types to endorse thought-police. Your insane ass is just rambling now.

bio-chem, what did you like about the post? Was it the anti-big brother types endorsing thought-police? My favorite was where he said I'm confused right before making a nonsensical argument.

 

[DOMS]

LMAO! so says IMs resident sociopath.

So speaks IM's closet racist and conspiracy nut.

you can through yourself right in there also DOMS on that boat back to where your people immigrated from.

It's the quality of the immigrants people that matter. The facts show that some make this place worse with their very presence. I've posted the facts time and time again. You just don't like them, so you just can't wrap your head around it.

because when compared to the capitalists and superwealthy that run the country there is no difference between those in the underclass and people like yourself as wealth is extremely subjective.

Fiscal classes are subjective? Yes, because food, clothes, houses, and money in the bank are subjective. Holy shit...

 

[DOMS]

So the "idea that religious people shouldn't be able to vote based on their beliefs" makes logical sense but libtards like me won't agree to banning them from voting and somehow that has lead anti-big brother types to endorse thought-police. Your insane ass is just rambling now.

bio-chem, what did you like about the post? Was it the anti-big brother types endorsing thought-police? My favorite was where he said I'm confused right before making a nonsensical argument.

Wow, that's a lot of nonsense you managed to fit into one post. You're trying so hard to make your point, that you've gone full retard. You're just like the hardcore libtard, something doesn't fit into your world view, so it mentally ceases to exist for you. Your mother would be proud.

 

[troubador]

Wow, that's a lot of nonsense you managed to fit into one post. You're trying so hard to make your point, that you've gone full retard. You're just like the hardcore libtard, something doesn't fit into your world view, so it mentally ceases to exist for you. Your mother would be proud.

I laid out an argument in post 220 and you just kept trolling. You can't form an argument that isn't an ad hominem.

 

[DOMS]

I laid out an argument in post 220 and you just kept trolling. You can't form an argument that isn't an ad hominem.

This will come as a shock to you, but other people can construct an argument with the appropriate disparaging remarks. Which is what I've done to you, but you don't like that your argument is flawed so you only see the disparaging remarks. Which is pretty freakin' hilarious.

 

[troubador]

This will come as a shock to you, but other people can construct an argument with the appropriate disparaging remarks. Which is what I've done to you, but you don't like that your argument is flawed so you only see the disparaging remarks. Which is pretty freakin' hilarious.

Then name one anti-big brother type who endorses thought police, with references.

My argument is - claiming your argument is sound does not make it so and therefore doesn't support any other argument.

 

[FUZO]

why is this thread still going

 

[Zaphod]

why is this thread still going

Because you just replied twelve hours after the last post.

 

[maniclion]

why is this thread still going

Because people who think the Gov. shouldn't tell them what to do concerning guns when they aren't harming anyone, but only have a potential theoretical chance to turn around and say the gov. should stick their nose in someones business even though their sexual preference doesn't harm anyone else except for on a potentially spiritual level(ie won't get into heaven).