[quote]forlife wrote:
John S. wrote:
Because gay marriage isn’t legitimate. A marriage is between a man and a women.
Let’s try again, and see if you can actually answer the question this time:
How does gay marriage decrease the number of legitimate couples being able to take care of a child?[/quote]
Do I have to go into detail about everything. If a gay couple adopts a kid that means the child doesn’t have the option to go to a real couple in a real marriage.
The way the government works it wouldn’t be long before a cetain % of adoptions would have to be done by gay couples. Thats how it decreases it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Of course it does, it follows the same principle.
It is a completely different argument, and has zero bearing on whether or not gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage.
It is also a horse that has been kicked so much it is now a quivering pile of glue.[/quote]
No…it’s the same principle. Your arguement dealt with who could raise otherwise unwanted children. Or, children from broken homes. Well, if that’s enough, 4 bisexuals could raise these children. Etc. Marriage benefits for them too? Can you say yes or no?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
No…it’s the same principle. Your arguement dealt with who could raise otherwise unwanted children. Or, children from broken homes. Well, if that’s enough, 4 bisexuals could raise these children. Etc. Marriage benefits for them too? Can you say yes or no?[/quote]
You’re asking whether other marriage arrangements are acceptable, without saying a thing about how gay marriage reduces the number of children raised by both biological parents. Get it yet?
On your other question, you know very well that I have answered it several times. But since it’s almost Christmas I’ll take a bite of your red herring one more time:
Yes, anyone wanting to be married should be able to get married as long as the relationship is adult, consensual, and not inherently damaging.
I’m not going to launch into yet another debate on that though, so get back to the topic.
[quote]John S. wrote:
If a gay couple adopts a kid that means the child doesn’t have the option to go to a real couple in a real marriage.
[/quote]
Is that “real couple” the biological parents of the child? Since they are not, obviously gay marriage hasn’t decreased the chance that the child would have been raised by both biological parents.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No…it’s the same principle. Your arguement dealt with who could raise otherwise unwanted children. Or, children from broken homes. Well, if that’s enough, 4 bisexuals could raise these children. Etc. Marriage benefits for them too? Can you say yes or no?
You’re asking whether other marriage arrangements are acceptable, without saying a thing about how gay marriage reduces the number of children raised by both biological parents. Get it yet?
On your other question, you know very well that I have answered it several times. But since it’s almost Christmas I’ll take a bite of your red herring one more time:
Yes, anyone wanting to be married should be able to get married as long as the relationship is adult, consensual, and not inherently damaging.
I’m not going to launch into yet another debate on that though, so get back to the topic.[/quote]
So you believe any consenting adult arrangement should get get marriage benefits. That is, if noone’s rights have been infringed upon, while entering into, or maintaining the arrangement. You would give the 4 bi-sexuals a marriage, and the related state provided benefits.
Sort of puts some truth to the claim that the agenda is to destroy the public pedestal we put marriage up on. Destroy it, by defining it so broadly that it means nothing. That it becomes some absurd social engineering joke. Clever.
By the way, whatever happened to the arguement that human sexuality is on a scale?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
More Gays raising children, means more children raised outside of the biological unit.[/quote]
Oh really? Please explain who those children are, because last I checked they STILL WOULD BE RAISED OUTSIDE OF THE BIOLOGICAL UNIT EVEN IF GAYS WEREN’T RAISING THEM.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
By the way, whatever happened to the arguement that human sexuality is on a scale?
Who said it isn’t?[/quote]
Then there’s less incentive to pursue heterosexual marriages for those sitting on the fence. The prospects of long term homosexual marriage could then be equally entertained, as far as the benefits are concerned.
If there’s a scale, then we especially want to provide incentive for people to temper themselves towards heterosexuality, and not homosexuality. Case closed now.
[quote]forlife wrote:
John S. wrote:
If a gay couple adopts a kid that means the child doesn’t have the option to go to a real couple in a real marriage.
Is that “real couple” the biological parents of the child? Since they are not, obviously gay marriage hasn’t decreased the chance that the child would have been raised by both biological parents.
God, I feel like I’m teaching kindergarten here.
[/quote]
I feel like im teaching a retard. All your points have moved past the biological stance. I have simply shown you that you are wrong, or that I disagree with many of your points.
If we want to talk about biological parents then the issue of gay people shouldn’t even come up because if you are truely gay then thre is no way for you to have kids.
Now I thought you knew this but maybe I was wrong, hopefully now you can see my points.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If there’s a scale, then we especially want to provide incentive for people to temper themselves towards heterosexuality, and not homosexuality. Case closed now.[/quote]
Reading comprehension -1
I said there is probably a homosexual <> bisexual <> heterosexual continuum.
I didn’t say all people can move wherever they want along that continuum.
Bisexuals can go either way, but hard core homo- and heterosexuals can’t romantically fall in love with someone contrary to their orientation.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If there’s a scale, then we especially want to provide incentive for people to temper themselves towards heterosexuality, and not homosexuality. Case closed now.
Reading comprehension -1
I said there is probably a homosexual <> bisexual <> heterosexual continuum.
I didn’t say all people can move wherever they want along that continuum.
Bisexuals can go either way, but hard core homo- and heterosexuals can’t romantically fall in love with someone contrary to their orientation.[/quote]
Actually, your reading comprehension is in question. I made the point that we want to give incentive for those closer to the middle of the spectrum to marry the opposite sex. The sex they can naturally reproduce with, raising their own biological children.
You’re the jack of straw men, not me. You blather about not caring about the effect of gay marriage on current children, but insist that gay marriage hurts future children.[/quote]
Precisely why this has become dull - this isn’t a strawman, genius. Good Lord.
And, you are correct - my concern is about the effect on furture children: we could try and change marriage five hundred different ways and we can’t undo the damage already done to the children not living with their natural parents.
No, I backed it up just fine - you just didn’t like my answer.
Gay marriage would encourage more children outside the biological union going forward - it’s been covered. You don’t have an adequate reply. Move along.
I haven’t dodged a thing, so there is nothing to “call me on”, but I didn’t realize we were keeping score on “calling”, so I have these still pending in your case:
“Correlations are irrelevant.”
“Evolution keeps gays around to write interesting books.”
“Gay men need marriage to stop transmittal of deadly diseases, because somehow threat of death isn’t incentive enough.”
“Everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot or is a closet homsoexual.”
These are just off the top of my head.
You are a rank amateur and a half-educated fundamentalist - and perhaps the worst advocate for your cause around these parts.
I could be mistaken, but I believe George Washington did in fact say:
The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.[/quote]
You are mistaken.
Incorrect.
The Founding Fathers were a mix of Christians and Deists largely, with a common them that they didn’t like churches with royal status.
The US is not founded with the Christian church as part of its formal authority - but it is a nation based on Western Judeo-Christian principles.
To note: the First Amendment was irrelevant to the states at the Founding, and the states have the bulk of our “public morality” laws, which naturally, across the board reflect the values inherent in the country’s religion - then and now.
Religion will always have a place in our laws because religion and culture can’t be separated that easily. Public morality laws reflect that - and they always will.
Let me guess - your PhD isn’t in American history either? You are running out of subjects - and fast.
Actually he DID say it, but you’re missing the point.[/quote]
Actually, he didn’t. I gave you the source.
Completely false. The US is derives no formal authority nor shares any formal authority with any Christian church. But it is, in character, since its Founding, by and large a Christian nation.
Whether or not the character of the nation is Christian does not affect an individual’s right to choose his religion. That choice is protected.
What is not protected is the basic architecture of our public morality laws, which will always reflect our culture - predominantly Judeo-Christian in nature.
And this notion that the nation was never supposed to be a RELIGIOUS nation - you do know that dating all the way back to the Continental Congress, through the Articles of Confederation, to the Constitution, to the present day, that sessions of Congress are opened with a daily prayer?
Again, Mak - you are a bright guy. Learn up before coming to your conclusions.
[quote]That’s what is supposed to make the USA the best country in the world.
Freedom.[/quote]
It is the best country in the world, and the US can be both a Christian nature in character and permit freedom of worship and conscience.
I tend to be a fairly separation-of-church-and-state kind of guy, but this notion that the US has always had the character of a secular, disinterested-in-religion nation is an absolute fiction.
That said, it is true that the majority of Americans are Christian. That number is declining, but I expect that will continue to be true for some time. Which is why America is unfortunately behind the social progression curve compared to other industrialized nations, and is more on the level of 3rd world countries.[/quote]
Can we sticky this?
This may be, in my years at PWI, the most ridiculous and stupid statememt uttered here.
On another note, since Forlife has dissolved any semblance of good faith by labeling his opponents and bigots and self-loathing closet homosexuals, can we now stoop to his level in light of the above comments and begin to quetsion his mental stability?
A short primer on the House and Senate chaplains, their history, the fact that church services were once held in government buildings, and a quashed constitutional challenge to the office(s):