Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
681

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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? [/quote]

Well since we have an overwhelming number of straight married couples willing to adopt these children how is it that homosexuals even get the chance to adopt? And there is always those who just want to get married with no children, and those who will have children anyway regardless of marriage status.

682

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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? [/quote]

Well since we have an overwhelming number of straight married couples willing to adopt these children how is it that homosexuals even get the chance to adopt? And there is always those who just want to get married with no children, and those who will have children anyway regardless of marriage status.[/quote]

Nice sidestep, but you got caught.

Now do you agree or disagree with what I’ve written above.

683

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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? [/quote]

Well since we have an overwhelming number of straight married couples willing to adopt these children how is it that homosexuals even get the chance to adopt? And there is always those who just want to get married with no children, and those who will have children anyway regardless of marriage status.[/quote]

Nice sidestep, but you got caught.

Now do you agree or disagree with what I’ve written above.[/quote]

Don’t completely disagree but I am leaning more towards that side. These long term studies may never conclude 100% on either side so it just sounds like an excuse to prevent them from having children. Typically children are taken away from people after it has been concluded it is not a safe environment, not the other way around.

684

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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? [/quote]

Well since we have an overwhelming number of straight married couples willing to adopt these children how is it that homosexuals even get the chance to adopt? And there is always those who just want to get married with no children, and those who will have children anyway regardless of marriage status.[/quote]

Nice sidestep, but you got caught.

Now do you agree or disagree with what I’ve written above.[/quote]

Don’t completely disagree but I am leaning more towards that side. These long term studies may never conclude 100% on either side so it just sounds like an excuse to prevent them from having children. [/quote]

Nature took care of that already two homosexuals can’t have children. And as I’ve said until all the facts are in they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children either. And shame on you for wanting to experiment on children.

And that has nothing to do with the question at hand. As one particular study points out children raised by homosexuals may have a greater chance of becoming homosexual. And since no one knows how people become homosexual this is nothing I want to experiment with.

685

[quote]ZEB wrote:
As one particular study points out children raised by homosexuals may have a greater chance of becoming homosexual.[/quote]

Your “one particular study” uses outcome rates that were collected in a manner that makes them just as far removed from reality as if they had been made up based on a series of coin tosses. That is not an exaggeration.

If you want to wave studies around as evidence, you’re gonna have to try a little bit harder. Address the criticisms of the study you posted (at least ATTEMPT to clue us in to how the data is not entirely useless), find a different one to support your position, or quit dragging that turd into the discussion as something worthy of serious consideration.

You aren’t fooling anyone by dodging these criticisms – you’re just highlighting your inability to critically interpret the scientific literature you tout as compelling evidence. Whether this is due to personal bias or general ignorance is still up in the air.

686

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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? [/quote]

Well since we have an overwhelming number of straight married couples willing to adopt these children how is it that homosexuals even get the chance to adopt? And there is always those who just want to get married with no children, and those who will have children anyway regardless of marriage status.[/quote]

Nice sidestep, but you got caught.

Now do you agree or disagree with what I’ve written above.[/quote]

Don’t completely disagree but I am leaning more towards that side. These long term studies may never conclude 100% on either side so it just sounds like an excuse to prevent them from having children. [/quote]

Nature took care of that already two homosexuals can’t have children. And as I’ve said until all the facts are in they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children either. And shame on you for wanting to experiment on children.

And that has nothing to do with the question at hand. As one particular study points out children raised by homosexuals may have a greater chance of becoming homosexual. And since no one knows how people become homosexual this is nothing I want to experiment with.
[/quote]

Okay now what does all this have to do with gay marriage?

687

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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? [/quote]

Well since we have an overwhelming number of straight married couples willing to adopt these children how is it that homosexuals even get the chance to adopt? And there is always those who just want to get married with no children, and those who will have children anyway regardless of marriage status.[/quote]

Nice sidestep, but you got caught.

Now do you agree or disagree with what I’ve written above.[/quote]

Don’t completely disagree but I am leaning more towards that side. These long term studies may never conclude 100% on either side so it just sounds like an excuse to prevent them from having children. [/quote]

Nature took care of that already two homosexuals can’t have children. And as I’ve said until all the facts are in they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children either. And shame on you for wanting to experiment on children.

And that has nothing to do with the question at hand. As one particular study points out children raised by homosexuals may have a greater chance of becoming homosexual. And since no one knows how people become homosexual this is nothing I want to experiment with.
[/quote]

Okay now what does all this have to do with gay marriage?[/quote]

You’ve run out of defending the possibility of placing kids in harms way so now you want to go back to the original point of the thread?

We all know that threads take odd twists and turns. This is not such an odd twist for the name of the thread.

Now answer my question!

688

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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? [/quote]

Well since we have an overwhelming number of straight married couples willing to adopt these children how is it that homosexuals even get the chance to adopt? And there is always those who just want to get married with no children, and those who will have children anyway regardless of marriage status.[/quote]

Nice sidestep, but you got caught.

Now do you agree or disagree with what I’ve written above.[/quote]

Don’t completely disagree but I am leaning more towards that side. These long term studies may never conclude 100% on either side so it just sounds like an excuse to prevent them from having children. [/quote]

Nature took care of that already two homosexuals can’t have children. And as I’ve said until all the facts are in they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children either. And shame on you for wanting to experiment on children.

And that has nothing to do with the question at hand. As one particular study points out children raised by homosexuals may have a greater chance of becoming homosexual. And since no one knows how people become homosexual this is nothing I want to experiment with.
[/quote]

Okay now what does all this have to do with gay marriage?[/quote]

You’ve run out of defending the possibility of placing kids in harms way so now you want to go back to the original point of the thread?

We all know that threads take odd twists and turns. This is not such an odd twist for the name of the thread.

Now answer my question!

[/quote]

Thought I did answer it unless you asked more that I am not interested in and ignored. I’m not debating child raising with you because I am sure we agree more than we disagree so there is no point. Thread was about gay marriage so I am trying to stick to that as it is the only thing I have a problem with (problem being the majority of states are against it). If you made a thread about raising children I probably would not have posted in it in the first place.

689

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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? [/quote]

Well since we have an overwhelming number of straight married couples willing to adopt these children how is it that homosexuals even get the chance to adopt? And there is always those who just want to get married with no children, and those who will have children anyway regardless of marriage status.[/quote]

Nice sidestep, but you got caught.

Now do you agree or disagree with what I’ve written above.[/quote]

Don’t completely disagree but I am leaning more towards that side. These long term studies may never conclude 100% on either side so it just sounds like an excuse to prevent them from having children. [/quote]

Nature took care of that already two homosexuals can’t have children. And as I’ve said until all the facts are in they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children either. And shame on you for wanting to experiment on children.

And that has nothing to do with the question at hand. As one particular study points out children raised by homosexuals may have a greater chance of becoming homosexual. And since no one knows how people become homosexual this is nothing I want to experiment with.
[/quote]

Okay now what does all this have to do with gay marriage?[/quote]

You’ve run out of defending the possibility of placing kids in harms way so now you want to go back to the original point of the thread?

We all know that threads take odd twists and turns. This is not such an odd twist for the name of the thread.

Now answer my question!

[/quote]

Thought I did answer it unless you asked more that I am not interested in and ignored. I’m not debating child raising with you because I am sure we agree more than we disagree so there is no point. Thread was about gay marriage so I am trying to stick to that as it is the only thing I have a problem with (problem being the majority of states are against it). If you made a thread about raising children I probably would not have posted in it in the first place.[/quote]

This is as good a way of getting out of our debate as any other.

690

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
As one particular study points out children raised by homosexuals may have a greater chance of becoming homosexual.[/quote]

Your “one particular study” uses outcome rates that were collected in a manner that makes them just as far removed from reality as if they had been made up based on a series of coin tosses. That is not an exaggeration.

If you want to wave studies around as evidence, you’re gonna have to try a little bit harder. Address the criticisms of the study you posted (at least ATTEMPT to clue us in to how the data is not entirely useless), find a different one to support your position, or quit dragging that turd into the discussion as something worthy of serious consideration.

You aren’t fooling anyone by dodging these criticisms – you’re just highlighting your inability to critically interpret the scientific literature you tout as compelling evidence. Whether this is due to personal bias or general ignorance is still up in the air.[/quote]

It’s bias.

691

It’s not about “experimenting on children”
Gays already do have children and they already raise them.

We have basically three options here :
A) we forbid it, and we take these children away from their homosexual parents
B) we don’t care and we ignore it
C) we legalize it, and we give these parents the same rights and the same duties than any other parents

Regardless of my opinion on gay marriage, I definetely don’t want a State that got the power to execute option A.
“I’m sorry, but more studies are needed” is not something i want to hear from a police officer.

692

[quote]kamui wrote:
since no one knows how people become homosexual this is nothing I want to experiment withIt’s not about “experimenting on children”
Gays already do have children and they already raise them.[/quote]

Are you serious? WOW…I didn’t know that. Hmmm…Now what do I say? Well…you caught me off guard. LOL

[quote]We have basically three options here :
A) we forbid it, and we take these children away from their homosexual parents
B) we don’t care and we ignore it
C) we legalize it, and we give these parents the same rights and the same duties than any other parents[/quote]

D) Don’t allow gay marriage until all the information is in. (You should have thought of that huh?)

You are for gay marriage.

[quote]I definetely don’t want a State that got the power to execute option A.
“I’m sorry, but more studies are needed” is not something i want to hear from a police officer.
[/quote]

That’s a weak straw man argument when did I ever even suggest that? This is the usual crap you get on message boards from the PC left. You basically have no argument so you post nonsense like this.

Run along.

693

I did.
Your D is my B : doing nothing. at least for now.

[quote]

You are for gay marriage.[/quote]

See, this is where you start embarassing yourself in these debates :
you identified me as a member of “the PC left” and for this reason you think that you know my position on this issue.
you’re wrong.
I’m not a member of “the PC left”.
And I’m against gay marriage, and i have said it multiple times in various threads on this board.

That’s a weak straw man argument when did I ever even suggest that? This is the usual crap you get on message boards from the PC left. You basically have no argument so you post nonsense like this.

Run along.[/quote]

-It’s not a straw man since i never said it was YOUR position. It’s the logical and unavoidable consequence of option A.
You seem to favor option B. Which is quite fine.

Glad we clarified that.

-if the argument is weak, feel free to demonstrate it.

694

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You are for gay marriage. [/quote]

Kamui has been an opponent of gay marriage, and in fact, one of my favorite lines in explaining why there is no general public purpose for gay marriage comes from Kamui in another thread (but I can’t get my hands on it): a great line that gay marriage doesn’t fulfill the need of the res publica.*

*I am paraphrasing, probably very poorly.

695

[quote]kamui wrote:

-if the argument is weak, feel free to demonstrate it.
[/quote]

You have no argument therefore it is difficult to combat such a thing. You set up a straw man in place of my real position. Perhaps you can go back and read some of my posts and then you will capture my meaning.

696

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You are for gay marriage. [/quote]

Kamui has been an opponent of gay marriage, and in fact, one of my favorite lines in explaining why there is no general public purpose for gay marriage comes from Kamui in another thread (but I can’t get my hands on it): a great line that gay marriage doesn’t fulfill the need of the res publica.*

*I am paraphrasing, probably very poorly.[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification TB, this site is rife with young politically correct lefty’s. But in this case I stand corrected.

697

Being against gay marriage is the equivalent of being a supporter of segregation, denying equal rights to a specific group is wrong, regardless of your personal beliefs.

There is no indication that homosexuality is a “learned” behavior, no reputable studies, no scientific research, zero, zip, nothing. I can only imagine how gay friendly Dick Cheney’s household was for his daughter growing up. Anecdotal? Sure, but true nonetheless.

As far as gays and adoption I believe it is far better for a child to be raised by two loving parents than by a foster care system that is clearly broken.

698

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Being against gay marriage is the equivalent of being a supporter of segregation, denying equal rights to a specific group is wrong, regardless of your personal beliefs.
[/quote]

You don’t make any sense. Homosexuals already have the same rights in relation to marriage as “straight” people. A gay man can marry any woman he wants. A “straight” man can’t marry another man. Same rights.

699

Oh good here comes Brian ushering in more of his liberal cliche lines.

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Being against gay marriage is the equivalent of being a supporter of segregation, denying equal rights to a specific group is wrong, regardless of your personal beliefs.[/quote]

First of all you didn’t read the thread that is obvious. Secondly, there is no comparison to Blacks as they are born that way. Now do you know something about homosexuals that the rest of the world doesn’t know? Because as of today there has been no proof that homosexuals are born that way. So there goes your segregation comparison down the toilet. And homosexuals already do have equal rights. The men can marry any woman who will have them. What you want is more special rights for this select group that makes up about 2% of the population.

Pay attention much?

This could be far more nurture than nature.

For males the following seems to be prevalent in homosexuals:

-Distant relationship with father.

-Sexually abused as a child.

-Feeling ostracized from their peer group as a child.

But there are no more studies being done which would further these theories because the PC left stopped them dead in their tracks.

However, there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic. Odd huh?

Of course you believe that, it keeps you on track for spitting back all the liberal media talking points that you’ve been soaking in for 40 years. Yet, there are no long-term studies which conclude that it is better for a child is there? IS THERE?

Run along Brian…

700

ZEB,

I now realize you get all of your information from some obscure right wing site that promotes a return to traditional family values pray the gay away intelligent design ideology.

FYI, everything you posted is wrong. There are no specific traits behavioral or otherwise that identify homosexuality. Yes people are born gay or straight, could you choose to be gay today ZEB? I know I couldn’t. It is similar to segregation because you are creating an “other” class, separate but equal civil unions but not marriage (or for the true knuckledraggers not even civil unions).

Enjoy being wrong, I’m sure it helps you get through the day.