[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Yes he got me sidetracked to something that might have been related but still irrelevant to the core of the issue, one of the many tricks you guys try to pull hoping we don’t notice.
[/quote]
Heh, I got you “sidetracked” by answering a question you asked. And, thank goodness you’re so smart so you don’t get bamboozled by one of my “tricks” that I hope you don’t notice.
Clown.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I have seen no valid arguments from your side so I’ll take those 2 lame arguments vs your nothing.[/quote]
C’mon, dude. Enough. This is why these gay marriage threads get so dull. Gay marriage proponents like yourself simply pretend no one makes legitimate arguments against gay marriage, despite page after page of unanswered arguments.
You don’t have to like them or agree with them, but you can’t pretend they don’t exist.
All you’ve done is beclown yourself (again) by declaring “I’ve seen no valid arguments from your side.”[/quote]
So all the answered anti-gay marriage arguments were deemed illegitimate? Unanswered means nothing, I could spend all day posting random things on this thread then claim I won simply because many went unanswered.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Personally , I couldn’t give a toss whether gay couples marry or adopt. See? that’s my position.[/quote]
Nonsense, no one engages in such a debate without a position. Well, you would be the first and I doubt that’s the case. As I said you like playing the part of the neutral observer who is going to fairly pick apart the argument against gay marriage/adoption. Well, it didn’t work on any level.
I’ve pointed it out to you three times and you just simply deny it. Somehow I doubt that posting it for a fourth time would help. You got caught and you are simply going to deny it. I’ll add intellectual dishonesty to your other fine traits. You are like sufiandy. You put your fingers in your ears and say “no no no no” and you think that changes things. It doesn’t, everyone read what you wrote.
Get over posting a legitimate study that contradicts the several incomplete studies posted by those on your side? The studies that claim that kids raised by homosexuals seem to be functioning fine? But the only problem is they took a thin sample and there have been no long term studies to back them up. Yeah, my study is as good as those. Which leads me to my main point which is, there is not enough data on either side yet to make a determination. Yet, the PC left (that’s you even though you want to hide from it) wants homosexual marriage and adoption.
And you’ve not addressed this point even once! It’s all part of your hide and say “no no no” style of debate. Basically–YOU GOT NOTHIN!
Not at all true. I see you have a penchant for misinterpreting lots of things. Good to know. Do you want to debate that now since you are losing this one?
Or, is this just more of the same?
“A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to mislead or distract people from the real issue.”
You don’t even know when you’re doing it do you?
Yes, you hurt my feelings. I’m new at this here message board debate stuff and I’ve never once spoken to a PC leftist who thought he was much smarter than he really is. So yeah…I’m all broken up. 
Says the man who has yet to post any evidence whatsoever to back up his point. And says the man who has yet to address my main point that is, we do not have enough data yet to move forward with gay adoption. Care to enter the debate or are you just going to sit there and continue to say I’m wrong?
Neuromancer: Your study is no good maaaaaan…
Zeb: My main point is that there are not enough long-term studies which clearly demonstrate that children should be adopted by a homosexual couple. Furthermore, we don’t know how people become gay so we should understand these things before allowing chldren to be raised by two homosexuals.
Neuromancer: Yeah well let me remind you that heterosexual couples produce all of the homosexual children.
Zeb: That is a logical fallacy to the argument at hand.
Neuromancer: Nu uh…and I will say Nu uh three times in three different posts! And I will chortle at you…so there!
Zeb: Interesting that your side cannot produce any relevant proof regarding the facts that we’ve laid down in this thread.
Neuromancer: It’s not my side! HOW DARE YOU SAY IT’S MY SIDE! I am in the middle I am just posting to um…read my own posts. I don’t have a side. OKAY? No side here none at all. I just happened to fall down on this side but it doesn’t mean that I’m really on this side. As far as sides go I am not on one I just want to be clear. I am just doing this to do it. Really I don’t care about gay’s gay rights, or if they ever adopt kids. I don’t care about anything I just want to argue with you because um…eh… when I do I see pretty colors when I close my eyes --OKAY?
Zeb: I see, so you have no long-term studies which clearly prove that children raised by two homosexuals will turn out to be productive heterosexuals. YNor, do you have any proof as to why people become homosexual. Yet, you are debating on the pro gay adoption side.
Neuromancer: I’ll leave it at that and those reading can make up their own minds.
Fine with me, you’ve done about as well as the others in making your case for homosexual partners adopting. Oh sorry…not your case, the case you just happen to be fighting hard to prove but don’t really care about.
Shh…if you’re really quiet you’ll be able to imagine the snickers of those poor souls who took the time to read your absent defense of a side that you are not really on.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So all the answered anti-gay marriage arguments were deemed illegitimate?[/quote]
Who said this? I’ve seen arguments for gay marriage - they aren’t illegitimate, they are just unsound and emotionally based. Hell, I put the crux of the gay marriage “rationale” (a post hoc rationale, but I’ll set that aside) and you yourself said that you couldn’t commit to a position that there was no qualitative difference in children being raised by their biological parents versus the alternatives.
So, you ain’t helping the cause.
Well, you’ve already done the first half of that - you seem to specialize in “random” things - all you’d half to do is declare them unanswered.
Your problem is, we answer them.
sufiandy, quick question, are you related to Pittbull by any chance?
And let’s just recap this new post hoc rationale for gay marriage - there is no qualitative difference in children being raised by their biological parents than by a set of gay parents. It is a radical, radical position.
Think of it - here we have children who owe their very existence to two people, a man and woman. These children are born into the world with an obvious connection to their biological parents - think of a mother’s inherent ability to sustain the child’s life (breastfeeding). They share their parents’ genetic heritage.
The law (obviously) charges the biological parents with duties to the child beyond other people - i.e., fathers must pay child support, etc. even though they have no marital or other legal or contractual connection to the mother. This is done, of course, because we (naturally) recognize there is a special obligation of the biological parents who bring a child into the world to take care of that child.
Now, turn to this argument for gay marriage that children are no better off with their biological parents than anyone else. This position runs contrary to our entire social arranagement recognizing the special obligation of biological parents.
If what gay marriage proponents say is true, children shouldn’t inherently be anyone’s right or responsibility. Newborn infants would need to be adopted by even the birth mother and father right after they were born, because under this argument, there is nothing special about the mother-child or father-child relationship worthy of simply automatically applying responsibility or “ownership” of a child. The child is simply an individual and cannot “belong” to anyone. There is no justification for a “right of first rerfusal” by the biological parents. Why would there be?
And on and on. Under this argument, there should be no reason to require the biological father to pay child support. Why should he? His relationship to the child is no better (or worse) than anyone else’s. There is nothing special about his role.
That is what this radical theory portends.
But there isn’t a society in the world or in history that doesn’t recognize that, yes, there is something special about the relationship between a child and his/her biological parents. Indeed, our society is ordered around that fundamental concept. And should be. It’s a fact.
And yet. Gay marriage proponents - in their emotional glee to somehow, some way justify gay marriage no matter how absurd the arguments have to be taken - are willing to commit to a position that, nope, there is nothing - nothing - different or special about the relationship between a child and his/her biological parents and any other alternative arrangements. Gay parents are just as good, there is no advantage to children being raised by their biological parents, no dividends to be paid from that relationship that other relationships won’t generate, again - nothing special about that relationship. Nothing.
Say it loud. It is an incredibly radical position, supported by an incredibly radical theory. It’s absurd.
Gay marriage advocates are largley motivated by sympathy, not logic. That’s fine - I don’t think that is a rational justification for up-ending traditional marriage, but stick with that. When you venture into rationales for gay marriage other than sympathy, we’ve seen nothing short of one of the most extremist social theories Western civilization has ever witnessed.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Hey Cortes,
It’s the weekend again. I scanned a few pages but didn’t see your Avatar. I replied somewhere in the (I’m assuming) pages of BS here. If you have time and are inclined, I’d enjoy continuing our conversation.
Thanks. (PS if I missed it, let me know and I’ll go find it). [/quote]
Hey GB,
I apologize.
I did read your reply and then I got some evil kind of virus that first causes projectile vomiting followed by days worth of projectile diarrhea. I have lost about 10lbs in the past 5 days and am just not up to anything presently. I will do what I can to get to it later, via PM or other means if need be, but am about to run to the toilet again as I type this.
Not fun.
I would have taken a much greater role in this and a couple of other threads here over the past few days if not for this.
The one silver lining is that my 3 year old son finds the explosive sounds coming from the bathroom highly amusing, and is quite adept at imitating them.
Gotta run. Literally![/quote]
Odaiji ni
Take care of yourself man.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:sufiandy wrote:
Summary: More people are coming around to the idea of gay marriage and it will eventually be accepted and made legal in most states. One day our children will look back and think how dumb we were for it being illegal in the first place, so discussions like this are a waste of time.
Might makes right? Argumentum ad populum isn’t a very good argument.
That is the left’s only argument they have nothing else, other than, “Um…I think that everyone should um…do what they want maaaaaaan.”
I have seen no valid arguments from your side so I’ll take those 2 lame arguments vs your nothing.[/quote]
I’ve been reading this thread since the beginning which means that I was there when you had your argument sliced and diced by those on my side. There were many poor performances by you. But way back on page 16 I rather enjoyed this little exchange between you and Thunderbolt:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Well what do you know about this that is for sure?
You mean, how can I be sure that children are going be better raised by the two parents that brought them into the world through the most natural union of the universe and share the common connection of being equally responsible for the creation of the person - creation, not a typo - and who when they bring a child into the home for the first time and say in a misty-eyed, voice-shaken “we made that” (as all parents do) when the recognition hits them that they have just created a human being they would lay down their lives for), they realize that that emotion and sentiment and sense of duty cannot be duplicated for any other personal relationship they will ever encounter in their lives (including between one another)?
How can I be sure that the the two best people to take care of the child are the people to whom the children literally owe their existence?
How can I be sure, given that nearly every adopted child maintains a desperate desire to connect with their birth parents because they feel something is missing in their lives until they do?
How can I be sure, given that thousands of years of human history demonstrate there is no substitute for the connection between parent and child, no matter how many times we try to interfere with it?
How can I be sure, given that recent studies have explained that even by modern “metrics”, the scientific community agrees that children are best served by living with their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage?
How can I be sure, given that common sense can’t dictate a different conclusion?
I’m sure.[/quote]
Now granted this is only one exchange, but there were many others where you were handed your head. I don’t think I should be responsible for posting all of them do you?
Just admit that your feeble arguments were beaten down by sound logic. Isn’t it better to be intellectually honest than to play the message board fraud?
Hey…I’m sure you’re good at other things. Like religious bigotry for example, you’re awfully good at that.
[/quote]
Yes he got me sidetracked to something that might have been related but still irrelevant to the core of the issue, one of the many tricks you guys try to pull hoping we don’t notice.[/quote]
Still in denial huh? How many more exchanges would you like me to post? You never even had one good point! [/quote]
Yes go ahead and post more exchanges. Since this neither side thinks each other sides arguments are valid lets repeat the thread again via copy and paste. Maybe one side will win by attrition. Seriously do you have a career or family?
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< I got some evil kind of virus that first causes projectile vomiting followed by days worth of projectile diarrhea. I have lost about 10lbs in the past 5 days and am just not up to anything presently. I will do what I can to get to it later, via PM or other means if need be, but am about to run to the toilet again as I type this.
Not fun. >>>[/quote]Sounds like what happens to me me every time Mufasa tricks me into viewing images above 640x480 of the repulsive countenance of the senior senator from New York while I’m unprepared.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:sufiandy wrote:
Summary: More people are coming around to the idea of gay marriage and it will eventually be accepted and made legal in most states. One day our children will look back and think how dumb we were for it being illegal in the first place, so discussions like this are a waste of time.
Might makes right? Argumentum ad populum isn’t a very good argument.
That is the left’s only argument they have nothing else, other than, “Um…I think that everyone should um…do what they want maaaaaaan.”
I have seen no valid arguments from your side so I’ll take those 2 lame arguments vs your nothing.[/quote]
I’ve been reading this thread since the beginning which means that I was there when you had your argument sliced and diced by those on my side. There were many poor performances by you. But way back on page 16 I rather enjoyed this little exchange between you and Thunderbolt:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Well what do you know about this that is for sure?
You mean, how can I be sure that children are going be better raised by the two parents that brought them into the world through the most natural union of the universe and share the common connection of being equally responsible for the creation of the person - creation, not a typo - and who when they bring a child into the home for the first time and say in a misty-eyed, voice-shaken “we made that” (as all parents do) when the recognition hits them that they have just created a human being they would lay down their lives for), they realize that that emotion and sentiment and sense of duty cannot be duplicated for any other personal relationship they will ever encounter in their lives (including between one another)?
How can I be sure that the the two best people to take care of the child are the people to whom the children literally owe their existence?
How can I be sure, given that nearly every adopted child maintains a desperate desire to connect with their birth parents because they feel something is missing in their lives until they do?
How can I be sure, given that thousands of years of human history demonstrate there is no substitute for the connection between parent and child, no matter how many times we try to interfere with it?
How can I be sure, given that recent studies have explained that even by modern “metrics”, the scientific community agrees that children are best served by living with their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage?
How can I be sure, given that common sense can’t dictate a different conclusion?
I’m sure.[/quote]
Now granted this is only one exchange, but there were many others where you were handed your head. I don’t think I should be responsible for posting all of them do you?
Just admit that your feeble arguments were beaten down by sound logic. Isn’t it better to be intellectually honest than to play the message board fraud?
Hey…I’m sure you’re good at other things. Like religious bigotry for example, you’re awfully good at that.
[/quote]
Yes he got me sidetracked to something that might have been related but still irrelevant to the core of the issue, one of the many tricks you guys try to pull hoping we don’t notice.[/quote]
Still in denial huh? How many more exchanges would you like me to post? You never even had one good point! [/quote]
Yes go ahead and post more exchanges. Since this neither side thinks each other sides arguments are valid lets repeat the thread again via copy and paste. Maybe one side will win by attrition. Seriously do you have a career and family.[/quote]
You can think that that our side is not valid yet you have no legitimate response to our argument. For example, take a look at the post above regarding a child’s natural parents and post a legitimate response to it. Or respond to my earlier post.
You can’t and you have not in the entire thread. I’ve read it and been a part of it, you especially have no answers other than “nu uh.” (But you’re not the only one)
This is what leads me to believe that the PC left is out of answers and certainly out of logic.
But if I’m wrong I’d love to read your response. And if it is a legit response I will give you kudo’s for it, even if I disagree.
So, what’s it going to be more name calling on your part or a legitimate response?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< I got some evil kind of virus that first causes projectile vomiting followed by days worth of projectile diarrhea. I have lost about 10lbs in the past 5 days and am just not up to anything presently. I will do what I can to get to it later, via PM or other means if need be, but am about to run to the toilet again as I type this.
Not fun. >>>[/quote]Sounds like what happens to me me every time Mufasa tricks me into viewing images above 640x480 of the repulsive countenance of the senior senator from New York while I’m unprepared.
[/quote]
Have you ever looked closely into Schumer’s eye’s when he’s speaking? I have never seen a more purely insincere glad hander in my entire life. Truly an exceptionally sickening individual whose only goal in life is to say whatever he has to say to stay in power. He wrote the book on class warfare and dividing people in order to gain votes.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< I got some evil kind of virus that first causes projectile vomiting followed by days worth of projectile diarrhea. I have lost about 10lbs in the past 5 days and am just not up to anything presently. I will do what I can to get to it later, via PM or other means if need be, but am about to run to the toilet again as I type this.
Not fun. >>>[/quote]Sounds like what happens to me me every time Mufasa tricks me into viewing images above 640x480 of the repulsive countenance of the senior senator from New York while I’m unprepared.
[/quote]
I’m fairly certain that I’ve never posted a pic of Shumer.
Mufasa
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Summary: More people are coming around to the idea of gay marriage and it will eventually be accepted and made legal in most states. One day our children will look back and think how dumb we were for it being illegal in the first place, so discussions like this are a waste of time.[/quote]
Might makes right? Argumentum ad populum isn’t a very good argument.[/quote]
You would do well to remember that yourself.[/quote]
I do. Like a boss.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Personally , I couldn’t give a toss whether gay couples marry or adopt. See? that’s my position.[/quote]
Nonsense, no one engages in such a debate without a position. Well, you would be the first and I doubt that’s the case. As I said you like playing the part of the neutral observer who is going to fairly pick apart the argument against gay marriage/adoption. Well, it didn’t work on any level.
I’ve pointed it out to you three times and you just simply deny it. Somehow I doubt that posting it for a fourth time would help. You got caught and you are simply going to deny it. I’ll add intellectual dishonesty to your other fine traits. You are like sufiandy. You put your fingers in your ears and say “no no no no” and you think that changes things. It doesn’t, everyone read what you wrote.
Get over posting a legitimate study that contradicts the several incomplete studies posted by those on your side? The studies that claim that kids raised by homosexuals seem to be functioning fine? But the only problem is they took a thin sample and there have been no long term studies to back them up. Yeah, my study is as good as those. Which leads me to my main point which is, there is not enough data on either side yet to make a determination. Yet, the PC left (that’s you even though you want to hide from it) wants homosexual marriage and adoption.
And you’ve not addressed this point even once! It’s all part of your hide and say “no no no” style of debate. Basically–YOU GOT NOTHIN!
Not at all true. I see you have a penchant for misinterpreting lots of things. Good to know. Do you want to debate that now since you are losing this one?
Or, is this just more of the same?
“A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to mislead or distract people from the real issue.”
You don’t even know when you’re doing it do you?
Yes, you hurt my feelings. I’m new at this here message board debate stuff and I’ve never once spoken to a PC leftist who thought he was much smarter than he really is. So yeah…I’m all broken up.
Says the man who has yet to post any evidence whatsoever to back up his point. And says the man who has yet to address my main point that is, we do not have enough data yet to move forward with gay adoption. Care to enter the debate or are you just going to sit there and continue to say I’m wrong?
Neuromancer: Your study is no good maaaaaan…
Zeb: My main point is that there are not enough long-term studies which clearly demonstrate that children should be adopted by a homosexual couple. Furthermore, we don’t know how people become gay so we should understand these things before allowing chldren to be raised by two homosexuals.
Neuromancer: Yeah well let me remind you that heterosexual couples produce all of the homosexual children.
Zeb: That is a logical fallacy to the argument at hand.
Neuromancer: Nu uh…and I will say Nu uh three times in three different posts! And I will chortle at you…so there!
Zeb: Interesting that your side cannot produce any relevant proof regarding the facts that we’ve laid down in this thread.
Neuromancer: It’s not my side! HOW DARE YOU SAY IT’S MY SIDE! I am in the middle I am just posting to um…read my own posts. I don’t have a side. OKAY? No side here none at all. I just happened to fall down on this side but it doesn’t mean that I’m really on this side. As far as sides go I am not on one I just want to be clear. I am just doing this to do it. Really I don’t care about gay’s gay rights, or if they ever adopt kids. I don’t care about anything I just want to argue with you because um…eh… when I do I see pretty colors when I close my eyes --OKAY?
Zeb: I see, so you have no long-term studies which clearly prove that children raised by two homosexuals will turn out to be productive heterosexuals. YNor, do you have any proof as to why people become homosexual. Yet, you are debating on the pro gay adoption side.
Neuromancer: I’ll leave it at that and those reading can make up their own minds.
Fine with me, you’ve done about as well as the others in making your case for homosexual partners adopting. Oh sorry…not your case, the case you just happen to be fighting hard to prove but don’t really care about.
Shh…if you’re really quiet you’ll be able to imagine the snickers of those poor souls who took the time to read your absent defense of a side that you are not really on.
:)[/quote]
Yup. Imaginary dialogues in your head. Very entertaining. still waiting.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< I got some evil kind of virus that first causes projectile vomiting followed by days worth of projectile diarrhea. I have lost about 10lbs in the past 5 days and am just not up to anything presently. I will do what I can to get to it later, via PM or other means if need be, but am about to run to the toilet again as I type this.
Not fun. >>>[/quote]Sounds like what happens to me me every time Mufasa tricks me into viewing images above 640x480 of the repulsive countenance of the senior senator from New York while I’m unprepared.
[/quote]I’m fairly certain that I’ve never posted a pic of Shumer.
Mufasa[/quote]OHHHH yes you did. And you did it just to torment me. Twice. That kind of merciless abuse may be forgiven, but never forgotten. =] Seriously. Ya did though. Not that it really matters. I was joking.
How do I unsubscribe?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Get over posting a legitimate study that contradicts the several incomplete studies posted by those on your side? The studies that claim that kids raised by homosexuals seem to be functioning fine? But the only problem is they took a thin sample and there have been no long term studies to back them up. Yeah, my study is as good as those.[/quote]
It is absolutely not.
Assuming you have actually read “those” studies and found that that ONLY issues present are sample size and duration, you cannot honestly state that you find the limitations between them comparable.
One the one hand, we have limitations of sample size and duration.
One the other, we have statistics that were generated by using stories from parenting books explicitly stated to NOT be representative of the actual population by a SIGNIFICANT margin (the authors purposefully SELECTED FOR a 50/50 split in sexual orientation outcomes)… those STORIES were then compared to national SURVEYS that ARE representative of the population.
It is so patently, laughably, irredeemably absurd that I don’t know who you are trying to fool by saying it is in any way, shape or form comparable to legitimate limitations from studies that are otherwise based on sound research methods. While the “other” studies might have issues that limit our ability to extrapolate them to the general population, they still provide at least SOME useful information. Schumm’s analysis, on the other hand, added – literally – NOTHING to the body of research about homosexual parenting. It is a completely worthless document.
Not all “limitations” are created equal, ZEB.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Personally , I couldn’t give a toss whether gay couples marry or adopt. See? that’s my position.[/quote]
Nonsense, no one engages in such a debate without a position. Well, you would be the first and I doubt that’s the case. As I said you like playing the part of the neutral observer who is going to fairly pick apart the argument against gay marriage/adoption. Well, it didn’t work on any level.
I’ve pointed it out to you three times and you just simply deny it. Somehow I doubt that posting it for a fourth time would help. You got caught and you are simply going to deny it. I’ll add intellectual dishonesty to your other fine traits. You are like sufiandy. You put your fingers in your ears and say “no no no no” and you think that changes things. It doesn’t, everyone read what you wrote.
Get over posting a legitimate study that contradicts the several incomplete studies posted by those on your side? The studies that claim that kids raised by homosexuals seem to be functioning fine? But the only problem is they took a thin sample and there have been no long term studies to back them up. Yeah, my study is as good as those. Which leads me to my main point which is, there is not enough data on either side yet to make a determination. Yet, the PC left (that’s you even though you want to hide from it) wants homosexual marriage and adoption.
And you’ve not addressed this point even once! It’s all part of your hide and say “no no no” style of debate. Basically–YOU GOT NOTHIN!
Not at all true. I see you have a penchant for misinterpreting lots of things. Good to know. Do you want to debate that now since you are losing this one?
Or, is this just more of the same?
“A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to mislead or distract people from the real issue.”
You don’t even know when you’re doing it do you?
Yes, you hurt my feelings. I’m new at this here message board debate stuff and I’ve never once spoken to a PC leftist who thought he was much smarter than he really is. So yeah…I’m all broken up.
Says the man who has yet to post any evidence whatsoever to back up his point. And says the man who has yet to address my main point that is, we do not have enough data yet to move forward with gay adoption. Care to enter the debate or are you just going to sit there and continue to say I’m wrong?
Neuromancer: Your study is no good maaaaaan…
Zeb: My main point is that there are not enough long-term studies which clearly demonstrate that children should be adopted by a homosexual couple. Furthermore, we don’t know how people become gay so we should understand these things before allowing chldren to be raised by two homosexuals.
Neuromancer: Yeah well let me remind you that heterosexual couples produce all of the homosexual children.
Zeb: That is a logical fallacy to the argument at hand.
Neuromancer: Nu uh…and I will say Nu uh three times in three different posts! And I will chortle at you…so there!
Zeb: Interesting that your side cannot produce any relevant proof regarding the facts that we’ve laid down in this thread.
Neuromancer: It’s not my side! HOW DARE YOU SAY IT’S MY SIDE! I am in the middle I am just posting to um…read my own posts. I don’t have a side. OKAY? No side here none at all. I just happened to fall down on this side but it doesn’t mean that I’m really on this side. As far as sides go I am not on one I just want to be clear. I am just doing this to do it. Really I don’t care about gay’s gay rights, or if they ever adopt kids. I don’t care about anything I just want to argue with you because um…eh… when I do I see pretty colors when I close my eyes --OKAY?
Zeb: I see, so you have no long-term studies which clearly prove that children raised by two homosexuals will turn out to be productive heterosexuals. Nor, do you have any proof as to why people become homosexual. Yet, you are debating on the pro gay adoption side.
Neuromancer: I’ll leave it at that and those reading can make up their own minds.
Fine with me, you’ve done about as well as the others in making your case for homosexual partners adopting. Oh sorry…not your case, the case you just happen to be fighting hard to prove but don’t really care about.
Shh…if you’re really quiet you’ll be able to imagine the snickers of those poor souls who took the time to read your absent defense of a side that you are not really on.
:)[/quote]
Yup. Imaginary dialogues in your head. Very entertaining. still waiting.
[/quote]
Nothing imaginary about it. The dialogue above is a basic summary of what was said between us.
I’ve challenged you to respond to my supposition. Once again you have no long-term studies which clearly prove that children raised by two homosexuals will turn out to be productive heterosexuals. Nor, do you have any proof as to why people become homosexual. Scroll back and take an honest look at what you’ve written. Where is your proof? Why do you feel the way you do" In short, respond to my argument and prove that you are correct. Otherwise, you will be looked at as just another empty headed PC lefty.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:sufiandy wrote:
Summary: More people are coming around to the idea of gay marriage and it will eventually be accepted and made legal in most states. One day our children will look back and think how dumb we were for it being illegal in the first place, so discussions like this are a waste of time.
Might makes right? Argumentum ad populum isn’t a very good argument.
That is the left’s only argument they have nothing else, other than, “Um…I think that everyone should um…do what they want maaaaaaan.”
I have seen no valid arguments from your side so I’ll take those 2 lame arguments vs your nothing.[/quote]
I’ve been reading this thread since the beginning which means that I was there when you had your argument sliced and diced by those on my side. There were many poor performances by you. But way back on page 16 I rather enjoyed this little exchange between you and Thunderbolt:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Well what do you know about this that is for sure?
You mean, how can I be sure that children are going be better raised by the two parents that brought them into the world through the most natural union of the universe and share the common connection of being equally responsible for the creation of the person - creation, not a typo - and who when they bring a child into the home for the first time and say in a misty-eyed, voice-shaken “we made that” (as all parents do) when the recognition hits them that they have just created a human being they would lay down their lives for), they realize that that emotion and sentiment and sense of duty cannot be duplicated for any other personal relationship they will ever encounter in their lives (including between one another)?
How can I be sure that the the two best people to take care of the child are the people to whom the children literally owe their existence?
How can I be sure, given that nearly every adopted child maintains a desperate desire to connect with their birth parents because they feel something is missing in their lives until they do?
How can I be sure, given that thousands of years of human history demonstrate there is no substitute for the connection between parent and child, no matter how many times we try to interfere with it?
How can I be sure, given that recent studies have explained that even by modern “metrics”, the scientific community agrees that children are best served by living with their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage?
How can I be sure, given that common sense can’t dictate a different conclusion?
I’m sure.[/quote]
Now granted this is only one exchange, but there were many others where you were handed your head. I don’t think I should be responsible for posting all of them do you?
Just admit that your feeble arguments were beaten down by sound logic. Isn’t it better to be intellectually honest than to play the message board fraud?
Hey…I’m sure you’re good at other things. Like religious bigotry for example, you’re awfully good at that.
[/quote]
Yes he got me sidetracked to something that might have been related but still irrelevant to the core of the issue, one of the many tricks you guys try to pull hoping we don’t notice.[/quote]
Still in denial huh? How many more exchanges would you like me to post? You never even had one good point! [/quote]
Yes go ahead and post more exchanges. Since this neither side thinks each other sides arguments are valid lets repeat the thread again via copy and paste. Maybe one side will win by attrition. Seriously do you have a career and family.[/quote]
You can think that that our side is not valid yet you have no legitimate response to our argument. For example, take a look at the post above regarding a child’s natural parents and post a legitimate response to it. Or respond to my earlier post.
You can’t and you have not in the entire thread. I’ve read it and been a part of it, you especially have no answers other than “nu uh.” (But you’re not the only one)
This is what leads me to believe that the PC left is out of answers and certainly out of logic.
But if I’m wrong I’d love to read your response. And if it is a legit response I will give you kudo’s for it, even if I disagree.
So, what’s it going to be more name calling on your part or a legitimate response?
[/quote]
What argument I supposed to respond to exactly? He said children are best raised by the 2 biological parents which I am not disputing. Last time I checked gay couples did not have children by stealing them from the biological parents, so this ideal environment for child raising is not being compromised by gay marriage.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:sufiandy wrote:
Summary: More people are coming around to the idea of gay marriage and it will eventually be accepted and made legal in most states. One day our children will look back and think how dumb we were for it being illegal in the first place, so discussions like this are a waste of time.
Might makes right? Argumentum ad populum isn’t a very good argument.
That is the left’s only argument they have nothing else, other than, “Um…I think that everyone should um…do what they want maaaaaaan.”
I have seen no valid arguments from your side so I’ll take those 2 lame arguments vs your nothing.[/quote]
I’ve been reading this thread since the beginning which means that I was there when you had your argument sliced and diced by those on my side. There were many poor performances by you. But way back on page 16 I rather enjoyed this little exchange between you and Thunderbolt:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Well what do you know about this that is for sure?
You mean, how can I be sure that children are going be better raised by the two parents that brought them into the world through the most natural union of the universe and share the common connection of being equally responsible for the creation of the person - creation, not a typo - and who when they bring a child into the home for the first time and say in a misty-eyed, voice-shaken “we made that” (as all parents do) when the recognition hits them that they have just created a human being they would lay down their lives for), they realize that that emotion and sentiment and sense of duty cannot be duplicated for any other personal relationship they will ever encounter in their lives (including between one another)?
How can I be sure that the the two best people to take care of the child are the people to whom the children literally owe their existence?
How can I be sure, given that nearly every adopted child maintains a desperate desire to connect with their birth parents because they feel something is missing in their lives until they do?
How can I be sure, given that thousands of years of human history demonstrate there is no substitute for the connection between parent and child, no matter how many times we try to interfere with it?
How can I be sure, given that recent studies have explained that even by modern “metrics”, the scientific community agrees that children are best served by living with their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage?
How can I be sure, given that common sense can’t dictate a different conclusion?
I’m sure.[/quote]
Now granted this is only one exchange, but there were many others where you were handed your head. I don’t think I should be responsible for posting all of them do you?
Just admit that your feeble arguments were beaten down by sound logic. Isn’t it better to be intellectually honest than to play the message board fraud?
Hey…I’m sure you’re good at other things. Like religious bigotry for example, you’re awfully good at that.
[/quote]
Yes he got me sidetracked to something that might have been related but still irrelevant to the core of the issue, one of the many tricks you guys try to pull hoping we don’t notice.[/quote]
Still in denial huh? How many more exchanges would you like me to post? You never even had one good point! [/quote]
Yes go ahead and post more exchanges. Since this neither side thinks each other sides arguments are valid lets repeat the thread again via copy and paste. Maybe one side will win by attrition. Seriously do you have a career and family.[/quote]
You can think that that our side is not valid yet you have no legitimate response to our argument. For example, take a look at the post above regarding a child’s natural parents and post a legitimate response to it. Or respond to my earlier post.
You can’t and you have not in the entire thread. I’ve read it and been a part of it, you especially have no answers other than “nu uh.” (But you’re not the only one)
This is what leads me to believe that the PC left is out of answers and certainly out of logic.
But if I’m wrong I’d love to read your response. And if it is a legit response I will give you kudo’s for it, even if I disagree.
So, what’s it going to be more name calling on your part or a legitimate response?
[/quote]
What argument I supposed to respond to exactly? He said children are best raised by the 2 biological parents which I am not disputing. Last time I checked gay couples did not have children by stealing them from the biological parents, so this ideal environment for child raising is not being compromised by gay marriage.[/quote]
Glad you agree now let’s move forward.
As I have stated we do not know if children adopted by a homosexual couple will in fact have a tendency to become gay. And I posted one study which claims that this is exactly what’s happening. But we do not have enough long-term studies on either side which can give us any solid evidence either way. Don’t you think that we need more data before we begin experimentation on children? And don’t you also agree that since we do not know how people become homosexual that it only makes sense to first have this information before we allow homosexuals to adopt?