|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:08 pm
I think everyone should have equal rights. Gay or not. It's horrible how some people treat other just because they are gay, it's not fair and against the constitution. I believe Obama is doing fine, I like him. He had to clean up Bush's mess after all.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:08 pm
Jessabeth19 Sage, being Mormon isn't illegal in the US. Are you perhaps meaning how they are not allowed the old Mormon way of having more than one wife? (Of course there are, I'm sure, still some who practice the multiple wife thing, but I believe most Mormons say that they do not believe in that. I'm not 100% on that though. ) Mmmm what I meant. Still the people who are using the old Mormon way wanting to have more than wife should be okay. That's what I was trying to get at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:41 pm
Fires of Hope Emperor Angelo XXV Jessabeth19 Emperor Angelo XXV President Obama is not a very good president. He promotes agendas that wreck families and human lives. Care to elaborate on that? I'd like to know in what ways Obama is promoting agendas that wreck families and/or human lives. *achem* Hi there, I'm a lesbian biggrin Might I ask something? Lets say you had a happy family, and a mother and a father and a son, now lets say that son discovers that he is gay, and when he wants to get married, settle down and have children of his own but he isn't aloud to, so he fights just like any other parent would for that right, or a lesbian who gets pregnant and wishes to raise her child with her loving wife, but that child is ripped away from said family (only as a worse case scenario) or back to the gay boy, he can never have a child or be with the one he loves hence breaking his heart. Also what if, like what has happened many times before the gay boy and the lesbian commit suicide breaking the hearts of their family tearing them apart and causing a lot of turmoil stress and sadness? Tell me, what if a black man and a black women got married? they're the same race, so hence it must be wrong, because nothing can be the same. Unless you have some real reason behind why the gay community is a bad thing I don't think you have a solid argument, and no dear friend 'its creepy' is not an argument, and if you say its unnatural, then why is it common in animals? as well as found greatly accepted throughout all of our ancient history? And let me ask you something in closeing, if being gay is an offense and a conscious choice then tell me this. When did you decide to be straight?
My sword is better than a scalpel! XD
Joking aside, here's the points to which I'll defend.
1. I do NOT hate homosexuals nor their orientation. What I do hate is how some lunatics (Yes, President Obama is one of them!) tend to force the homosexual agenda down people's throats!
2. In the hypothetical situation of yours, the gay son/lesbian daughter deserves love, understanding and support from his family and not bigotry nor hatred.
3. Using your example of interracial marriage as a strawman argument does not help your argument against mine. In fact, that can easily prove that your argument is trying to provoke mine and your attempt failed. It's because you used a non sequiturial argument against mine. Not a good tactic to defeat me nor my argument.
4. A lot of psychiatrists have done their research behind homosexual relationships. In various studies, they have concluded that people in homosexual relationships are much more prone to abuse than a heterosexual couple. Note that in both cases, the couples are cohabiting. There's also research done on same-sex "marriages" done by psychiatrists and the the amount of abuse done by both partners exceeds way more than what a real marriage has in terms of spousal abuse.
5. We are human beings and as such, we have free wills and reason. We are made in the image of God. Animals do not have free will nor reason. Comparing us to animals further proves that your argument is weak.
6. Homosexual behavior has been accepted in some cultures although many would frown at it.
7. Same-sex attraction is neither inborn (proving Lady Gaga's song "Born this Way to be dead wrong) nor a choice. It is a special type of cross made by God so as to bring people to Him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:08 pm
Jessabeth19 Emperor Angelo XXV Jessabeth19 Emperor Angelo XXV President Obama is not a very good president. He promotes agendas that wreck families and human lives. Care to elaborate on that? I'd like to know in what ways Obama is promoting agendas that wreck families and/or human lives. Uh, many cultures accept homosexuality because they are aware that it doesn't cause problems. There is no way that homosexuality wrecks families. As another member said, please let me know when it was that you CHOSE to be straight. You didn't. You were just attracted to the opposite sex. Think about anyone you have ever fallen in love with. Did you actively choose to love that person or did you find yourself feeling something for the person just because? I am pro-choice, but mostly for instances in which the mother's life is at stake or in cases of rape. I don't believe anyone has the right to tell a woman to carry something for 9 months which is a constant reminder that she was raped. I don't believe that sort of trauma needs to be inflicted on any woman. Also, you do realize that Obama cannot FORCE other countries to "accept the homosexual agenda", right? Of course, if by homosexual agenda you mean equal rights then, I think that's just a basic right that all people deserve, but feel free to call me crazy because of that.
Military analogy aside, here's my counterattack against your argument.
1. Homosexual behavior is not as widely acceptable in world cultures as you may claim.
2. Homosexuals do not wreck families. Using a strawman? Very well. Now, promoting same-sex marriage does wreck a lot of families in the same way as cohabitation or spousal abuse does.
3. Being homosexual or heterosexual for that matter is not a choice nor is something you're born with.
4. And I'm pro-life. Calling yourself "pro-choice" is misleading. Then again, it's a liberal term and liberal terms are always meant to be vague and confusing.
5. Doing a wrong (abortion) to fix another wrong (rape) is plain idiotic.
6. It's not just her body that's in danger but also the body of the child.
7. Oh, but he can since he's leader of a superpower and he can impose his will in the UN since the U.S. is one of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Asides from that, a superpower's influence is strong enough to sway public opinion in other countries using media and his (President Obama's) powers of persuasion.
8. Equal rights for homosexuals is not equal to the homosexual agenda. In fact, it is diametrically opposite because homosexual rights respects human rights whereas the homosexual agenda does not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:11 pm
Ze Fuzzy Bunny I think everyone should have equal rights. Gay or not. It's horrible how some people treat other just because they are gay, it's not fair and against the constitution. I believe Obama is doing fine, I like him. He had to clean up Bush's mess after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:43 am
Emperor Angelo XXV Military analogy aside, here's my counterattack against your argument. 1. Homosexual behavior is not as widely acceptable in world cultures as you may claim. 2. Homosexuals do not wreck families. Using a strawman? Very well. Now, promoting same-sex marriage does wreck a lot of families in the same way as cohabitation or spousal abuse does. 3. Being homosexual or heterosexual for that matter is not a choice nor is something you're born with. 4. And I'm pro-life. Calling yourself "pro-choice" is misleading. Then again, it's a liberal term and liberal terms are always meant to be vague and confusing. 5. Doing a wrong (abortion) to fix another wrong (rape) is plain idiotic. 6. It's not just her body that's in danger but also the body of the child. 7. Oh, but he can since he's leader of a superpower and he can impose his will in the UN since the U.S. is one of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Asides from that, a superpower's influence is strong enough to sway public opinion in other countries using media and his (President Obama's) powers of persuasion. 8. Equal rights for homosexuals is not equal to the homosexual agenda. In fact, it is diametrically opposite because homosexual rights respects human rights whereas the homosexual agenda does not. What exactly is this "agenda" you keep referring to? Allowing homosexuals to get married does NOT damage families. And as someone with a background in psychology, I would really love to see you linking some proof of these researches (and mind you, they need to be free from bias, so you cannot be using religious materials, as they have an obvious slant). Also, it's not a straw man to say that homosexuals do not wreck families. I in no way built something up to tear it down in order to make my argument seem more valid. Yes, I too actually know logical fallacies. Regarding world cultures, have you been around the world then? I have actually traveled and seen with my own eyes that there are other cultures that do not judge people because they are homosexual. If homosexuality is neither a choice nor something you are born with, what exactly would it be then? Also, pro-choice is neither misleading nor an incorrect term. Simply adding your ultra conservative slant to something doesn't change the term. I am for the choice of women to be able to save their own lives or forgo emotional torture of carrying a rapist's child. And if the mother's life is in danger, it doesn't really matter if the fetus' is as well. Without it's mother, it's not going to survive either way. I fully believe that in those situations, the mother's life is more important. Regarding the UN matter, you do realize that he only has one chair in the UN, out of what is it, 15? There are 5 countries that hold veto power, China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US. That's 4 other countries that could automatically say no to any policy the US would want. Care to prove how homosexual rights would take away from human rights? Or perhaps you don't actually know what human rights are? That is the only way I could see how you seem to think that statement would hold true. By definition, human rights are the rights that ALL humans are entitled to. If one human receives these rights then, (such as you as a [and I'm assuming here] white, working, middle class, man) every single other human deserves them too. Though you may check the Constitution, the actual idea of human rights can be traced back to ancient Greek culture (though they didn't believe slaves had rights, they did believe that everyone else had rights). Also, I think this is another instance in where separation of Church and state is ignored. It is not the place of the Church to influence the way the government decides what laws should be passed. I do feel that each church should have it's rights in saying whether or not they decide to marry homosexual couples, but they should not have the right to say that they cannot get married at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:18 pm
Emperor Angelo XXV Fires of Hope Emperor Angelo XXV Jessabeth19 Emperor Angelo XXV President Obama is not a very good president. He promotes agendas that wreck families and human lives. Care to elaborate on that? I'd like to know in what ways Obama is promoting agendas that wreck families and/or human lives. *achem* Hi there, I'm a lesbian biggrin Might I ask something? Lets say you had a happy family, and a mother and a father and a son, now lets say that son discovers that he is gay, and when he wants to get married, settle down and have children of his own but he isn't aloud to, so he fights just like any other parent would for that right, or a lesbian who gets pregnant and wishes to raise her child with her loving wife, but that child is ripped away from said family (only as a worse case scenario) or back to the gay boy, he can never have a child or be with the one he loves hence breaking his heart. Also what if, like what has happened many times before the gay boy and the lesbian commit suicide breaking the hearts of their family tearing them apart and causing a lot of turmoil stress and sadness? Tell me, what if a black man and a black women got married? they're the same race, so hence it must be wrong, because nothing can be the same. Unless you have some real reason behind why the gay community is a bad thing I don't think you have a solid argument, and no dear friend 'its creepy' is not an argument, and if you say its unnatural, then why is it common in animals? as well as found greatly accepted throughout all of our ancient history? And let me ask you something in closeing, if being gay is an offense and a conscious choice then tell me this. When did you decide to be straight?
My sword is better than a scalpel! XD
Joking aside, here's the points to which I'll defend.
1. I do NOT hate homosexuals nor their orientation. What I do hate is how some lunatics (Yes, President Obama is one of them!) tend to force the homosexual agenda down people's throats!
2. In the hypothetical situation of yours, the gay son/lesbian daughter deserves love, understanding and support from his family and not bigotry nor hatred.
3. Using your example of interracial marriage as a strawman argument does not help your argument against mine. In fact, that can easily prove that your argument is trying to provoke mine and your attempt failed. It's because you used a non sequiturial argument against mine. Not a good tactic to defeat me nor my argument.
4. A lot of psychiatrists have done their research behind homosexual relationships. In various studies, they have concluded that people in homosexual relationships are much more prone to abuse than a heterosexual couple. Note that in both cases, the couples are cohabiting. There's also research done on same-sex "marriages" done by psychiatrists and the the amount of abuse done by both partners exceeds way more than what a real marriage has in terms of spousal abuse.
5. We are human beings and as such, we have free wills and reason. We are made in the image of God. Animals do not have free will nor reason. Comparing us to animals further proves that your argument is weak.
6. Homosexual behavior has been accepted in some cultures although many would frown at it.
7. Same-sex attraction is neither inborn (proving Lady Gaga's song "Born this Way to be dead wrong) nor a choice. It is a special type of cross made by God so as to bring people to Him.lol nice, and no i was not trying to offend but point out I was offended, when you make comments like that it is better to explain your point a little more, I don't shove my beliefs down peoples throats, you don't have to like us, you just have to accept we are here and we will not be leaving for a long time, I agree with his agenda though. Some countries people die because of who they love, and its alot more then just suicide. And I do not retract my comment about animals, animals DO have free will, and we ARE animals. It is a simple point of intelligence, I will not put my views out on your reference to 'drawing people to or away from god' because I know THAT will explode XDD But I don't believe it is a choice, and I think it may be something your born as, but its one of those things that we don't know to much about and well have a lot better things to do with our time then wonder why it is that 'little billy down the street wears his mommies dresses'. I respect that you gave me a proper reply and that we don't agree. Also one last note, Obama is trying, He is just one man that has been worked up to be something no single human could ever be by the rest of the world. Like I've already stated, you try running a country of angry people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:37 pm
Jessabeth19 Emperor Angelo XXV Military analogy aside, here's my counterattack against your argument.
1. Homosexual behavior is not as widely acceptable in world cultures as you may claim.
2. Homosexuals do not wreck families. Using a strawman? Very well. Now, promoting same-sex marriage does wreck a lot of families in the same way as cohabitation or spousal abuse does.
3. Being homosexual or heterosexual for that matter is not a choice nor is something you're born with.
4. And I'm pro-life. Calling yourself "pro-choice" is misleading. Then again, it's a liberal term and liberal terms are always meant to be vague and confusing.
5. Doing a wrong (abortion) to fix another wrong (rape) is plain idiotic.
6. It's not just her body that's in danger but also the body of the child.
7. Oh, but he can since he's leader of a superpower and he can impose his will in the UN since the U.S. is one of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Asides from that, a superpower's influence is strong enough to sway public opinion in other countries using media and his (President Obama's) powers of persuasion.
8. Equal rights for homosexuals is not equal to the homosexual agenda. In fact, it is diametrically opposite because homosexual rights respects human rights whereas the homosexual agenda does not. What exactly is this "agenda" you keep referring to? Allowing homosexuals to get married does NOT damage families. And as someone with a background in psychology, I would really love to see you linking some proof of these researches (and mind you, they need to be free from bias, so you cannot be using religious materials, as they have an obvious slant). Also, it's not a straw man to say that homosexuals do not wreck families. I in no way built something up to tear it down in order to make my argument seem more valid. Yes, I too actually know logical fallacies. Regarding world cultures, have you been around the world then? I have actually traveled and seen with my own eyes that there are other cultures that do not judge people because they are homosexual. If homosexuality is neither a choice nor something you are born with, what exactly would it be then? Also, pro-choice is neither misleading nor an incorrect term. Simply adding your ultra conservative slant to something doesn't change the term. I am for the choice of women to be able to save their own lives or forgo emotional torture of carrying a rapist's child. And if the mother's life is in danger, it doesn't really matter if the fetus' is as well. Without it's mother, it's not going to survive either way. I fully believe that in those situations, the mother's life is more important. Regarding the UN matter, you do realize that he only has one chair in the UN, out of what is it, 15? There are 5 countries that hold veto power, China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US. That's 4 other countries that could automatically say no to any policy the US would want. Care to prove how homosexual rights would take away from human rights? Or perhaps you don't actually know what human rights are? That is the only way I could see how you seem to think that statement would hold true. By definition, human rights are the rights that ALL humans are entitled to. If one human receives these rights then, (such as you as a [and I'm assuming here] white, working, middle class, man) every single other human deserves them too. Though you may check the Constitution, the actual idea of human rights can be traced back to ancient Greek culture (though they didn't believe slaves had rights, they did believe that everyone else had rights). Also, I think this is another instance in where separation of Church and state is ignored. It is not the place of the Church to influence the way the government decides what laws should be passed. I do feel that each church should have it's rights in saying whether or not they decide to marry homosexual couples, but they should not have the right to say that they cannot get married at all.
1. This agenda is the destruction of the family. You say that same-sex "marriage" does not destroy families, but it truly does. A child needs a mother and a father. Remove one from the other and you'll have problems. If a child has two dads or two moms, then the child's emotional development would be sketchy at best and blown up at worst. Same-sex "marriage" promotes marriage only for the homosexual couple, not for the child. In fact, they treat adoption as a legitimizing tool.
You asked for proof, and you shall receive.
Evidence 1
If you want more, just ask. biggrin
2. You used race as a strawman in order to compare interracial marriage with same-sex "marriage". You just cannot equate the two situations. It's borderline racist and it's offensive to those who suffered under the anti-miscegenation laws.
3. I have studied various world cultures. A lot of them do accept homosexuals but they are not that accepting of homosexual acts.
4. Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.
5. I'm not being ultra conservative. Quit putting words into my mouth.
6. As for what I said about liberals and their use of terminology, I'm right about that. Liberal-progressives always use such terms in order to confuse and ultimately defeat and control their opposition. Their arguments appeal to emotion, not reason.
7. Using the "emotional torture" argument only proves to be problematic. As I said, doing a wrong to fix another wrong is not a good idea. Regardless of the circumstances of how the child came to be, he/she is still a child. When it comes to the health of both mother and child, both the mother and the child must not die.
8. True, the U.N. Security Council can veto him, but I'm unsure about the veto power. We are dealing with a superpower, after all.
9. It does take away human rights from people who have a different opinions from them. For example, just debating about homosexuality in the public arena would be dicy because the debater/s on the side opposing homosexuality can be arrested for hate crimes. Just disagreeing with a homosexual is already grounds for a hate crime, sadly.
10. The idea of "separation between church (meaning religion) from state" has been the product of the Enlightenment (read: the great era of darkness). Not giving religious communities any level of participation in what happens in a democracy undermines democracy. In the issue of same-sex marriage, it is not a smart idea to pass it regardless of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:57 pm
Emperor Angelo XXV Okay, I'll answer your arguments individually.
1. This agenda is the destruction of the family. You say that same-sex "marriage" does not destroy families, but it truly does. A child needs a mother and a father. Remove one from the other and you'll have problems. If a child has two dads or two moms, then the child's emotional development would be sketchy at best and blown up at worst. Same-sex "marriage" promotes marriage only for the homosexual couple, not for the child. In fact, they treat adoption as a legitimizing tool.
Pick an argument or don't argue at all. One, in a homosexual relationship a child can have what it needs just like in any other caring loving relationship, and do you know what that is? Unconditional love and acceptance from their parents, male or female. Even in a hetero sexual relationship that is what is needed. What your saying is that every single mother or father should 'desperately' search for a 'mate' so the child will not be traumatized for life? Once again referring to the animal kingdom, many animals are raised by only one parent. The gender doesn't matter, I accepted your argument at first but now I am legitimately angry, and beyond offended. If a child can no survive without a mother and a father then how about we rip every child away from every single parent family. Also just so you know, gender has NOTHING to do with how a child is raised, its thoughts, its what you teach them and how you treat them. Homosexuals have the right to be parents, you know why? Because when they adopt that baby, they are not adopting to be in a 'fad'. And if they are, I don't care if their straight gay or anything else, they're trash. That baby is a gift, and they know it, that child no matter how old it is when they bring it into their home, is a little gift of life. Oh sure, it doesn't share they're DNA sure, maybe one of them doesn't have a v****a, or a p***s, but if they know anything, if they have any sense at all no matter who or what they are, that baby will be loved, and brought up just as it should, no parent is perfect, and you can hardly expect a parent to be perfect when the world is breathing down their neck judging them every second of the day. You saying that children grow up with emotional issues because of their parents being gay is bull s**t. Its not WHAT they are, ok? Its not how or who they have sex with. Its what they do, are they honest? are they kind? Can they love. You are obviously to ignorant and not mature enough to realize this and for that I pity you, I pity you greatly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:12 pm
Fires of Hope Emperor Angelo XXV Fires of Hope Emperor Angelo XXV Jessabeth19 Emperor Angelo XXV President Obama is not a very good president. He promotes agendas that wreck families and human lives. Care to elaborate on that? I'd like to know in what ways Obama is promoting agendas that wreck families and/or human lives. *achem* Hi there, I'm a lesbian biggrin Might I ask something? Lets say you had a happy family, and a mother and a father and a son, now lets say that son discovers that he is gay, and when he wants to get married, settle down and have children of his own but he isn't aloud to, so he fights just like any other parent would for that right, or a lesbian who gets pregnant and wishes to raise her child with her loving wife, but that child is ripped away from said family (only as a worse case scenario) or back to the gay boy, he can never have a child or be with the one he loves hence breaking his heart. Also what if, like what has happened many times before the gay boy and the lesbian commit suicide breaking the hearts of their family tearing them apart and causing a lot of turmoil stress and sadness? Tell me, what if a black man and a black women got married? they're the same race, so hence it must be wrong, because nothing can be the same. Unless you have some real reason behind why the gay community is a bad thing I don't think you have a solid argument, and no dear friend 'its creepy' is not an argument, and if you say its unnatural, then why is it common in animals? as well as found greatly accepted throughout all of our ancient history? And let me ask you something in closeing, if being gay is an offense and a conscious choice then tell me this. When did you decide to be straight?
My sword is better than a scalpel! XD
Joking aside, here's the points to which I'll defend.
1. I do NOT hate homosexuals nor their orientation. What I do hate is how some lunatics (Yes, President Obama is one of them!) tend to force the homosexual agenda down people's throats!
2. In the hypothetical situation of yours, the gay son/lesbian daughter deserves love, understanding and support from his family and not bigotry nor hatred.
3. Using your example of interracial marriage as a strawman argument does not help your argument against mine. In fact, that can easily prove that your argument is trying to provoke mine and your attempt failed. It's because you used a non sequiturial argument against mine. Not a good tactic to defeat me nor my argument.
4. A lot of psychiatrists have done their research behind homosexual relationships. In various studies, they have concluded that people in homosexual relationships are much more prone to abuse than a heterosexual couple. Note that in both cases, the couples are cohabiting. There's also research done on same-sex "marriages" done by psychiatrists and the the amount of abuse done by both partners exceeds way more than what a real marriage has in terms of spousal abuse.
5. We are human beings and as such, we have free wills and reason. We are made in the image of God. Animals do not have free will nor reason. Comparing us to animals further proves that your argument is weak.
6. Homosexual behavior has been accepted in some cultures although many would frown at it.
7. Same-sex attraction is neither inborn (proving Lady Gaga's song "Born this Way to be dead wrong) nor a choice. It is a special type of cross made by God so as to bring people to Him.lol nice, and no i was not trying to offend but point out I was offended, when you make comments like that it is better to explain your point a little more, I don't shove my beliefs down peoples throats, you don't have to like us, you just have to accept we are here and we will not be leaving for a long time, I agree with his agenda though. Some countries people die because of who they love, and its alot more then just suicide. And I do not retract my comment about animals, animals DO have free will, and we ARE animals. It is a simple point of intelligence, I will not put my views out on your reference to 'drawing people to or away from god' because I know THAT will explode XDD But I don't believe it is a choice, and I think it may be something your born as, but its one of those things that we don't know to much about and well have a lot better things to do with our time then wonder why it is that 'little billy down the street wears his mommies dresses'. I respect that you gave me a proper reply and that we don't agree. Also one last note, Obama is trying, He is just one man that has been worked up to be something no single human could ever be by the rest of the world. Like I've already stated, you try running a country of angry people.
My style aside, I'll enumerate my counterattacks against your arguments.
1. It's good you're not insane. I'm happy that you do not force your beliefs down people's throats. biggrin I do accept that GLBTs are here and I'm happy about it.
2. That overshadows how many in the homosexual agenda persecute those who are against them! A tooth for a tooth would remove all our teeth now, would it?
3. If we're animals, then we're animals with dogma. Forgive me for somewhat paraphrasing the great G.K. Chesterton, but it applies. We are the only ones in creation that both believe in something, uses reason and has free will. What animals have are instincts. Some animals have intellect whereas some other animals don't have it.
4. The origins of same-sex attraction are still unknown. But according to the latest scientific research, it's not something one is born with nor is a simple choice.
5. I'm happy to give a good reply. biggrin
6. President Obama is one man, and so is Dubya before him. Both have done really stupid things and thus requires criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:30 pm
Emperor Angelo XXV Okay, I'll answer your arguments individually.
1. This agenda is the destruction of the family. You say that same-sex "marriage" does not destroy families, but it truly does. A child needs a mother and a father. Remove one from the other and you'll have problems. If a child has two dads or two moms, then the child's emotional development would be sketchy at best and blown up at worst. Same-sex "marriage" promotes marriage only for the homosexual couple, not for the child. In fact, they treat adoption as a legitimizing tool.
You asked for proof, and you shall receive.
Evidence 1
If you want more, just ask. biggrin
2. You used race as a strawman in order to compare interracial marriage with same-sex "marriage". You just cannot equate the two situations. It's borderline racist and it's offensive to those who suffered under the anti-miscegenation laws.
3. I have studied various world cultures. A lot of them do accept homosexuals but they are not that accepting of homosexual acts.
4. Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.
5. I'm not being ultra conservative. Quit putting words into my mouth.
6. As for what I said about liberals and their use of terminology, I'm right about that. Liberal-progressives always use such terms in order to confuse and ultimately defeat and control their opposition. Their arguments appeal to emotion, not reason.
7. Using the "emotional torture" argument only proves to be problematic. As I said, doing a wrong to fix another wrong is not a good idea. Regardless of the circumstances of how the child came to be, he/she is still a child. When it comes to the health of both mother and child, both the mother and the child must not die.
8. True, the U.N. Security Council can veto him, but I'm unsure about the veto power. We are dealing with a superpower, after all.
9. It does take away human rights from people who have a different opinions from them. For example, just debating about homosexuality in the public arena would be dicy because the debater/s on the side opposing homosexuality can be arrested for hate crimes. Just disagreeing with a homosexual is already grounds for a hate crime, sadly.
10. The idea of "separation between church (meaning religion) from state" has been the product of the Enlightenment (read: the great era of darkness). Not giving religious communities any level of participation in what happens in a democracy undermines democracy. In the issue of same-sex marriage, it is not a smart idea to pass it regardless of religion. 1.Again, as a person with a degree in psychology I'm going to have to disagree with you. I also challenged you to find proof outside of religious research as I said, that is not free from bias. Would you like proof against what you said? I have it, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378 http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/11/09/children-of-gay-parents/ http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-16/news/17828578_1_same-sex-marriage-heterosexual-parents-lesbian-parents http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm 2. Um, I believe you confused me with another, as I did not use race at all... 3. You say that they accept homosexuals but do not accept their acts? In what way do you mean? They don't approve of them having gay sex (the very thing that defines being gay) but accept them being gay? See how that doesn't make any sense? I hope so. 4. Not really anything to argue there... You simply state that homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex. Well yeah. lol 5. Alright, well your views tend to fall under the ultra-conservative and you sure aren't liberal. wink If you'd rather I'll just call you more conservative than a basic conservative. lol 6. You are wrong in saying that pro-choice is misleading. Doesn't matter how you spin it, that's what those who are pro-choice are for. The CHOICE to be there in case, God forbid, an abortion is needed. 7. Well according to the law, the fetus doesn't have any rights, so by law, the mother is more important. And I understand that as you are male, you are not at all likely to ever understand how it makes a person feel, and for that, be thankful. Until you have experienced it or someone close to you have, reserve your comments of "It doesn't matter how terrible it is". 8. Veto power is there, regardless of how much of a superpower Obama is and the US is. They can, and will use it if the feel it's necessary or that they are being forced into something they disagree with. 9. Um, that is absolutely false. In the US, you CANNOT be arrested for debating an issue. Try reading up on your law. Having a civil debate in which you are not using derogatory terms or threatening homosexual individuals will in no way get you arrested. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat3.htm 10. Actually, by giving preference to one religious group, ie Christianity, would undermine democracy rather than leaving them separate. Christianity is not the only religion in the US nor should it receive preferential treatment because to do so would be to isolate many US citizens. I am a Christian myself, but I do not believe in undermining the freedom of religion. By demanding that Christianity has its say in government, you MUST, in order to keep equality, give every religion of US citizens a say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:50 pm
Jessabeth19 Emperor Angelo XXV Okay, I'll answer your arguments individually.
1. This agenda is the destruction of the family. You say that same-sex "marriage" does not destroy families, but it truly does. A child needs a mother and a father. Remove one from the other and you'll have problems. If a child has two dads or two moms, then the child's emotional development would be sketchy at best and blown up at worst. Same-sex "marriage" promotes marriage only for the homosexual couple, not for the child. In fact, they treat adoption as a legitimizing tool.
You asked for proof, and you shall receive.
Evidence 1
If you want more, just ask. biggrin
2. You used race as a strawman in order to compare interracial marriage with same-sex "marriage". You just cannot equate the two situations. It's borderline racist and it's offensive to those who suffered under the anti-miscegenation laws.
3. I have studied various world cultures. A lot of them do accept homosexuals but they are not that accepting of homosexual acts.
4. Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.
5. I'm not being ultra conservative. Quit putting words into my mouth.
6. As for what I said about liberals and their use of terminology, I'm right about that. Liberal-progressives always use such terms in order to confuse and ultimately defeat and control their opposition. Their arguments appeal to emotion, not reason.
7. Using the "emotional torture" argument only proves to be problematic. As I said, doing a wrong to fix another wrong is not a good idea. Regardless of the circumstances of how the child came to be, he/she is still a child. When it comes to the health of both mother and child, both the mother and the child must not die.
8. True, the U.N. Security Council can veto him, but I'm unsure about the veto power. We are dealing with a superpower, after all.
9. It does take away human rights from people who have a different opinions from them. For example, just debating about homosexuality in the public arena would be dicy because the debater/s on the side opposing homosexuality can be arrested for hate crimes. Just disagreeing with a homosexual is already grounds for a hate crime, sadly.
10. The idea of "separation between church (meaning religion) from state" has been the product of the Enlightenment (read: the great era of darkness). Not giving religious communities any level of participation in what happens in a democracy undermines democracy. In the issue of same-sex marriage, it is not a smart idea to pass it regardless of religion. 1.Again, as a person with a degree in psychology I'm going to have to disagree with you. I also challenged you to find proof outside of religious research as I said, that is not free from bias. Would you like proof against what you said? I have it, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378 http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/11/09/children-of-gay-parents/ http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-16/news/17828578_1_same-sex-marriage-heterosexual-parents-lesbian-parents http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm 2. Um, I believe you confused me with another, as I did not use race at all... 3. You say that they accept homosexuals but do not accept their acts? In what way do you mean? They don't approve of them having gay sex (the very thing that defines being gay) but accept them being gay? See how that doesn't make any sense? I hope so. 4. Not really anything to argue there... You simply state that homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex. Well yeah. lol 5. Alright, well your views tend to fall under the ultra-conservative and you sure aren't liberal. wink If you'd rather I'll just call you more conservative than a basic conservative. lol 6. You are wrong in saying that pro-choice is misleading. Doesn't matter how you spin it, that's what those who are pro-choice are for. The CHOICE to be there in case, God forbid, an abortion is needed. 7. Well according to the law, the fetus doesn't have any rights, so by law, the mother is more important. And I understand that as you are male, you are not at all likely to ever understand how it makes a person feel, and for that, be thankful. Until you have experienced it or someone close to you have, reserve your comments of "It doesn't matter how terrible it is". 8. Veto power is there, regardless of how much of a superpower Obama is and the US is. They can, and will use it if the feel it's necessary or that they are being forced into something they disagree with. 9. Um, that is absolutely false. In the US, you CANNOT be arrested for debating an issue. Try reading up on your law. Having a civil debate in which you are not using derogatory terms or threatening homosexual individuals will in no way get you arrested. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat3.htm 10. Actually, by giving preference to one religious group, ie Christianity, would undermine democracy rather than leaving them separate. Christianity is not the only religion in the US nor should it receive preferential treatment because to do so would be to isolate many US citizens. I am a Christian myself, but I do not believe in undermining the freedom of religion. By demanding that Christianity has its say in government, you MUST, in order to keep equality, give every religion of US citizens a say.
1. Wow, what I gave you earlier was also the tip of the iceberg.
Sadly, some of your proofs have a secular bias.
Webpage Title
2. Sorry, wrong post. sweatdrop
3. As long as it's gay sex, it's unacceptable. It's because it treats sex as something for pleasure and thus deviates from what sex is truly meant for which is procreation.
4. You asked, and I answered.
5. Apparently, I'm Catholic and not some simple conservative. But, I'm not ultra-conservative either.
6. Well, it's not her body which is gonna be harmed by abortion but the body of the child. Just saying since you're using the pro-choice card.
7. Really? A human fetus is just as human as you and I. Also, I'm a dude but I perfectly understand the pain the rape victim is in.
8. Yes, and it's also easy for anyone to circumvent it.
9. Really? I'm not counting on it. After all, if the "victim" sues and wins the case, then justice has been perverted.
10. This is not about preference to a certain group. The homosexual community is also another group and they do not deserve preferential treatment either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:14 pm
Emperor Angelo XXV Jessabeth19 Emperor Angelo XXV Okay, I'll answer your arguments individually.
1. This agenda is the destruction of the family. You say that same-sex "marriage" does not destroy families, but it truly does. A child needs a mother and a father. Remove one from the other and you'll have problems. If a child has two dads or two moms, then the child's emotional development would be sketchy at best and blown up at worst. Same-sex "marriage" promotes marriage only for the homosexual couple, not for the child. In fact, they treat adoption as a legitimizing tool.
You asked for proof, and you shall receive.
Evidence 1
If you want more, just ask. biggrin
2. You used race as a strawman in order to compare interracial marriage with same-sex "marriage". You just cannot equate the two situations. It's borderline racist and it's offensive to those who suffered under the anti-miscegenation laws.
3. I have studied various world cultures. A lot of them do accept homosexuals but they are not that accepting of homosexual acts.
4. Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.
5. I'm not being ultra conservative. Quit putting words into my mouth.
6. As for what I said about liberals and their use of terminology, I'm right about that. Liberal-progressives always use such terms in order to confuse and ultimately defeat and control their opposition. Their arguments appeal to emotion, not reason.
7. Using the "emotional torture" argument only proves to be problematic. As I said, doing a wrong to fix another wrong is not a good idea. Regardless of the circumstances of how the child came to be, he/she is still a child. When it comes to the health of both mother and child, both the mother and the child must not die.
8. True, the U.N. Security Council can veto him, but I'm unsure about the veto power. We are dealing with a superpower, after all.
9. It does take away human rights from people who have a different opinions from them. For example, just debating about homosexuality in the public arena would be dicy because the debater/s on the side opposing homosexuality can be arrested for hate crimes. Just disagreeing with a homosexual is already grounds for a hate crime, sadly.
10. The idea of "separation between church (meaning religion) from state" has been the product of the Enlightenment (read: the great era of darkness). Not giving religious communities any level of participation in what happens in a democracy undermines democracy. In the issue of same-sex marriage, it is not a smart idea to pass it regardless of religion. 1.Again, as a person with a degree in psychology I'm going to have to disagree with you. I also challenged you to find proof outside of religious research as I said, that is not free from bias. Would you like proof against what you said? I have it, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378 http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/11/09/children-of-gay-parents/ http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-16/news/17828578_1_same-sex-marriage-heterosexual-parents-lesbian-parents http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm 2. Um, I believe you confused me with another, as I did not use race at all... 3. You say that they accept homosexuals but do not accept their acts? In what way do you mean? They don't approve of them having gay sex (the very thing that defines being gay) but accept them being gay? See how that doesn't make any sense? I hope so. 4. Not really anything to argue there... You simply state that homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex. Well yeah. lol 5. Alright, well your views tend to fall under the ultra-conservative and you sure aren't liberal. wink If you'd rather I'll just call you more conservative than a basic conservative. lol 6. You are wrong in saying that pro-choice is misleading. Doesn't matter how you spin it, that's what those who are pro-choice are for. The CHOICE to be there in case, God forbid, an abortion is needed. 7. Well according to the law, the fetus doesn't have any rights, so by law, the mother is more important. And I understand that as you are male, you are not at all likely to ever understand how it makes a person feel, and for that, be thankful. Until you have experienced it or someone close to you have, reserve your comments of "It doesn't matter how terrible it is". 8. Veto power is there, regardless of how much of a superpower Obama is and the US is. They can, and will use it if the feel it's necessary or that they are being forced into something they disagree with. 9. Um, that is absolutely false. In the US, you CANNOT be arrested for debating an issue. Try reading up on your law. Having a civil debate in which you are not using derogatory terms or threatening homosexual individuals will in no way get you arrested. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat3.htm 10. Actually, by giving preference to one religious group, ie Christianity, would undermine democracy rather than leaving them separate. Christianity is not the only religion in the US nor should it receive preferential treatment because to do so would be to isolate many US citizens. I am a Christian myself, but I do not believe in undermining the freedom of religion. By demanding that Christianity has its say in government, you MUST, in order to keep equality, give every religion of US citizens a say.
1. Wow, what I gave you earlier was also the tip of the iceberg.
Sadly, some of your proofs have a secular bias.
Webpage Title
2. Sorry, wrong post. sweatdrop
3. As long as it's gay sex, it's unacceptable. It's because it treats sex as something for pleasure and thus deviates from what sex is truly meant for which is procreation.
4. You asked, and I answered.
5. Apparently, I'm Catholic and not some simple conservative. But, I'm not ultra-conservative either.
6. Well, it's not her body which is gonna be harmed by abortion but the body of the child. Just saying since you're using the pro-choice card.
7. Really? A human fetus is just as human as you and I. Also, I'm a dude but I perfectly understand the pain the rape victim is in.
8. Yes, and it's also easy for anyone to circumvent it.
9. Really? I'm not counting on it. After all, if the "victim" sues and wins the case, then justice has been perverted.
10. This is not about preference to a certain group. The homosexual community is also another group and they do not deserve preferential treatment either.1. Again, you are posting slanted research. You're going to need to add research that is NOT funded by Catholics. lol. They would have an obvious desire to find certain things to be the way they preach. I added many types of sources. That way you could see the lack of bias. smile 2. No problem, I imagine it's hard being the only person defending your side. biggrin 3. Question then if sex is merely for procreation, should an infertile couple married couple not be allowed to make love simply because they cannot have children? If your answer is no, that they can have sex, then how is that different? I'm actually curious on that one. 4. I think you misunderstood. I was saying that if one is not born gay nor choose it, then what is it? If someone is not born a certain way nor chooses it, then why are they that way? 5. Let's just say that you are more conservative than most of the Catholics I know. lol 6. In the instance of the mother's life being in danger, it would be her body harmed if she didn't have an abortion. The fact of the matter is, it's still about the choice being there. That's what pro-choice fights for. It's not about baby-murdering. Most pro-choice individuals would rather abortion not happen, but can understand situation in which it may be necessary. 7. I'm sorry, but no it's not. Until it can live outside of the mother's body without help, a fetus is no more than a parasite. Parasites are living creatures too. The fetus has no more reasoning skill than a parasite does. It is not yet of the same stature that a baby which can survive outside of the womb is. And I'll have to disagree with you. You cannot possibly put yourself into that mentality. I would even venture to say that most women could not either until they have actually experienced. It's a very complex psychological state. 8. No it's not. In this instance, you are simply stating information without being fully informed on what you are speaking of. If you did have this information, you would understand that the UN is not like the US Congress. It is not easy to pull the wool over their eyes and do as you please. Not to mention it would be stupid to attempt to do so as these are the countries that the US deals with and NEEDS to continue to be the "superpower" that it is today. 9. Seriously? You're going to put victim in quotes? It's times like these when I want to just facepalm. Simply debating something has NEVER put anyone in jail. Not if they were having a civil conversation in which people refrained from being obtuse and obnoxious. Having a civil conversation will not get you arrested. End of story. 10. Giving homosexuals the SAME rights that everyone else has is not preferential treatment. In fact, keeping those rights from them should be illegal as essentially you are saying that they are less than every other human. Another question because I'm curious, since part of your argument is that homosexual marriage will ruin marriages for all, do you think that divorce should be illegal? What about people getting married after 24 hours of knowing each other? People getting married on reality tv? I would say that the last two are destroying marriage more than homosexuality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:32 pm
Jessabeth19 Emperor Angelo XXV Jessabeth19 Emperor Angelo XXV Okay, I'll answer your arguments individually.
1. This agenda is the destruction of the family. You say that same-sex "marriage" does not destroy families, but it truly does. A child needs a mother and a father. Remove one from the other and you'll have problems. If a child has two dads or two moms, then the child's emotional development would be sketchy at best and blown up at worst. Same-sex "marriage" promotes marriage only for the homosexual couple, not for the child. In fact, they treat adoption as a legitimizing tool.
You asked for proof, and you shall receive.
Evidence 1
If you want more, just ask. biggrin
2. You used race as a strawman in order to compare interracial marriage with same-sex "marriage". You just cannot equate the two situations. It's borderline racist and it's offensive to those who suffered under the anti-miscegenation laws.
3. I have studied various world cultures. A lot of them do accept homosexuals but they are not that accepting of homosexual acts.
4. Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.
5. I'm not being ultra conservative. Quit putting words into my mouth.
6. As for what I said about liberals and their use of terminology, I'm right about that. Liberal-progressives always use such terms in order to confuse and ultimately defeat and control their opposition. Their arguments appeal to emotion, not reason.
7. Using the "emotional torture" argument only proves to be problematic. As I said, doing a wrong to fix another wrong is not a good idea. Regardless of the circumstances of how the child came to be, he/she is still a child. When it comes to the health of both mother and child, both the mother and the child must not die.
8. True, the U.N. Security Council can veto him, but I'm unsure about the veto power. We are dealing with a superpower, after all.
9. It does take away human rights from people who have a different opinions from them. For example, just debating about homosexuality in the public arena would be dicy because the debater/s on the side opposing homosexuality can be arrested for hate crimes. Just disagreeing with a homosexual is already grounds for a hate crime, sadly.
10. The idea of "separation between church (meaning religion) from state" has been the product of the Enlightenment (read: the great era of darkness). Not giving religious communities any level of participation in what happens in a democracy undermines democracy. In the issue of same-sex marriage, it is not a smart idea to pass it regardless of religion. 1.Again, as a person with a degree in psychology I'm going to have to disagree with you. I also challenged you to find proof outside of religious research as I said, that is not free from bias. Would you like proof against what you said? I have it, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378 http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/11/09/children-of-gay-parents/ http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-16/news/17828578_1_same-sex-marriage-heterosexual-parents-lesbian-parents http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm 2. Um, I believe you confused me with another, as I did not use race at all... 3. You say that they accept homosexuals but do not accept their acts? In what way do you mean? They don't approve of them having gay sex (the very thing that defines being gay) but accept them being gay? See how that doesn't make any sense? I hope so. 4. Not really anything to argue there... You simply state that homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex. Well yeah. lol 5. Alright, well your views tend to fall under the ultra-conservative and you sure aren't liberal. wink If you'd rather I'll just call you more conservative than a basic conservative. lol 6. You are wrong in saying that pro-choice is misleading. Doesn't matter how you spin it, that's what those who are pro-choice are for. The CHOICE to be there in case, God forbid, an abortion is needed. 7. Well according to the law, the fetus doesn't have any rights, so by law, the mother is more important. And I understand that as you are male, you are not at all likely to ever understand how it makes a person feel, and for that, be thankful. Until you have experienced it or someone close to you have, reserve your comments of "It doesn't matter how terrible it is". 8. Veto power is there, regardless of how much of a superpower Obama is and the US is. They can, and will use it if the feel it's necessary or that they are being forced into something they disagree with. 9. Um, that is absolutely false. In the US, you CANNOT be arrested for debating an issue. Try reading up on your law. Having a civil debate in which you are not using derogatory terms or threatening homosexual individuals will in no way get you arrested. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat3.htm 10. Actually, by giving preference to one religious group, ie Christianity, would undermine democracy rather than leaving them separate. Christianity is not the only religion in the US nor should it receive preferential treatment because to do so would be to isolate many US citizens. I am a Christian myself, but I do not believe in undermining the freedom of religion. By demanding that Christianity has its say in government, you MUST, in order to keep equality, give every religion of US citizens a say.
1. Wow, what I gave you earlier was also the tip of the iceberg.
Sadly, some of your proofs have a secular bias.
Webpage Title
2. Sorry, wrong post. sweatdrop
3. As long as it's gay sex, it's unacceptable. It's because it treats sex as something for pleasure and thus deviates from what sex is truly meant for which is procreation.
4. You asked, and I answered.
5. Apparently, I'm Catholic and not some simple conservative. But, I'm not ultra-conservative either.
6. Well, it's not her body which is gonna be harmed by abortion but the body of the child. Just saying since you're using the pro-choice card.
7. Really? A human fetus is just as human as you and I. Also, I'm a dude but I perfectly understand the pain the rape victim is in.
8. Yes, and it's also easy for anyone to circumvent it.
9. Really? I'm not counting on it. After all, if the "victim" sues and wins the case, then justice has been perverted.
10. This is not about preference to a certain group. The homosexual community is also another group and they do not deserve preferential treatment either.1. Again, you are posting slanted research. You're going to need to add research that is NOT funded by Catholics. lol. They would have an obvious desire to find certain things to be the way they preach. I did add the religious tolerance site as it had research done by others, not themselves. smile 2. No problem, I imagine it's hard being the only person defending your side. biggrin 3. Question then if sex is merely for procreation, should an infertile couple married couple not be allowed to make love simply because they cannot have children? If your answer is no, that they can have sex, then how is that different? I'm actually curious on that one. 4. I think you misunderstood. I was saying that if one is not born gay nor choose it, then what is it? If someone is not born a certain way nor chooses it, then why are they that way? 5. Let's just say that you are more conservative than most of the Catholics I know. lol 6. In the instance of the mother's life being in danger, it would be her body harmed if she didn't have an abortion. The fact of the matter is, it's still about the choice being there. That's what pro-choice fights for. It's not about baby-murdering. Most pro-choice individuals would rather abortion not happen, but can understand situation in which it may be necessary. 7. I'm sorry, but no it's not. Until it can live outside of the mother's body without help, a fetus is no more than a parasite. Parasites are living creatures too. The fetus has no more reasoning skill than a parasite does. It is not yet of the same stature that a baby which can survive outside of the womb is. And I'll have to disagree with you. You cannot possibly put yourself into that mentality. I would even venture to say that most women could not either until they have actually experienced. It's a very complex psychological state. 8. No it's not. In this instance, you are simply stating information without being fully informed on what you are speaking of. If you did have this information, you would understand that the UN is not like the US Congress. It is not easy to pull the wool over their eyes and do as you please. Not to mention it would be stupid to attempt to do so as these are the countries that the US deals with and NEEDS to continue to be the "superpower" that it is today. 9. Seriously? You're going to put victim in quotes? It's times like these when I want to just facepalm. Simply debating something has NEVER put anyone in jail. Not if they were having a civil conversation in which people refrained from being obtuse and obnoxious. Having a civil conversation will not get you arrested. End of story. 10. Giving homosexuals the SAME rights that everyone else has is not preferential treatment. In fact, keeping those rights from them should be illegal as essentially you are saying that they are less than every other human. Another question because I'm curious, since part of your argument is that homosexual marriage will ruin marriages for all, do you think that divorce should be illegal? What about people getting married after 24 hours of knowing each other? People getting married on reality tv? I would say that the last two are destroying marriage more than homosexuality.
2. I'm not afraid.
3. Turning an exception into a rule? Not a good idea.
4. As I said, its origins are still unknown.
5. Then I'm one of the more orthodox Catholics. Pope Benedict XVI is also very orthodox. biggrin
6. If a medical procedure is carried out which is deemed by competent medical professionals to be vital to the survival of the mother which may possibly or definitely will result in an abortion, then this is not a sin provided that the abortion of the child is not an expressly desired result.
7. Actually, a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. When does a person cease to be a clump of cells?
Also, I have put myself into their shoes and understood their pain. Yes, it's complex. But, they need understanding.
8. I know it's tricky, but it can. Look at the Gulf War, Operation Enduring Freedom (the one in Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In all 3, the United States dragged its allies in it including France and England.
9. But criticizing someone (especially homosexuals) can land the critic in the slammer. I just hope that the United States would not have the human rights courts in Canada.
10. In reality, it's those critical of the homosexual lifestyle that have their rights reduced.
I am against divorce. A lot of people are playing at what marriage means, and thus they deserve an annulment which is different from a divorce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:43 pm
Fires of Hope Emperor Angelo XXV Okay, I'll answer your arguments individually.
1. This agenda is the destruction of the family. You say that same-sex "marriage" does not destroy families, but it truly does. A child needs a mother and a father. Remove one from the other and you'll have problems. If a child has two dads or two moms, then the child's emotional development would be sketchy at best and blown up at worst. Same-sex "marriage" promotes marriage only for the homosexual couple, not for the child. In fact, they treat adoption as a legitimizing tool. Pick an argument or don't argue at all. One, in a homosexual relationship a child can have what it needs just like in any other caring loving relationship, and do you know what that is? Unconditional love and acceptance from their parents, male or female. Even in a hetero sexual relationship that is what is needed. What your saying is that every single mother or father should 'desperately' search for a 'mate' so the child will not be traumatized for life? Once again referring to the animal kingdom, many animals are raised by only one parent. The gender doesn't matter, I accepted your argument at first but now I am legitimately angry, and beyond offended. If a child can no survive without a mother and a father then how about we rip every child away from every single parent family. Also just so you know, gender has NOTHING to do with how a child is raised, its thoughts, its what you teach them and how you treat them. Homosexuals have the right to be parents, you know why? Because when they adopt that baby, they are not adopting to be in a 'fad'. And if they are, I don't care if their straight gay or anything else, they're trash. That baby is a gift, and they know it, that child no matter how old it is when they bring it into their home, is a little gift of life. Oh sure, it doesn't share they're DNA sure, maybe one of them doesn't have a v****a, or a p***s, but if they know anything, if they have any sense at all no matter who or what they are, that baby will be loved, and brought up just as it should, no parent is perfect, and you can hardly expect a parent to be perfect when the world is breathing down their neck judging them every second of the day. You saying that children grow up with emotional issues because of their parents being gay is bull s**t. Its not WHAT they are, ok? Its not how or who they have sex with. Its what they do, are they honest? are they kind? Can they love. You are obviously to ignorant and not mature enough to realize this and for that I pity you, I pity you greatly.
Debating style aside, I'll counter your latest counterarguments.
1. Really? Emotionally, it's not even true. Sure, they can provide for the child materially. But, it doesn't suffice. I'm not a perfectionist when it comes to it, but I'm pointing at the facts. The child needs both the emotional support from the father and the mother. Mothers and fathers have different and contrasting verbals styles but both are important. If it's just both mothers or both fathers, it's not effective no matter how hard they try.
2. Also, I'm not saying that they should go seek a mate. Please quit putting words in my mouth. Single parents have had more difficulties in raising children, mind you.
3. I'm not even referring to the animal kingdom. I'm referring on how human parenting works. Of course, there are exceptions such as single parenting and children being raised by relatives, but those are exceptions and not the rule. Turning exceptions into rules nullifies both the rules and the exceptions.
4. It kinda does, really.
5. Forgive me for angering you, but what you said regarding parenting angers me. I'm just calm about it. Showing excessive anger in a debate doesn't help. Do not let your anger cloud your judgment.
6. Ripping a child from his/her parent/s would only give him/her a lot of emotional trauma.
7. I am not into dictatorial/draconian methods in regards to parenting. Trying to imply that I am into such barbaric methods prove that you're trying to appeal to emotion in this debate.
8. It has a factor in determining how a child grows up emotionally.
9. I'm not saying that it's a fad. I'm just saying that some do use adoption as a way for them to look legitimate. It's hard for the child to grow up in such a relationship to know that he/she had been used.
10. Actually, it's true. Unconditional love and acceptance are also needed. In fact, those are vital and I agree with you there. 3nodding
11. Yes, children are a gift and I do not oppose adoption as long as it is done with good intentions, adherence to the legal requirements regarding adoption and raising the child with unconditional love and acceptance. biggrin
12. I'm ignorant and immature? Hmm, both are lies. As much as I am angry with what you said about parenting, I do respect you. To put pity on me just because of a disagreement is not helping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
