Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Thett's gay marriage argument

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 8:19:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was reading one of thett's debates on gay marriage (see here: http://www.debate.org... ) and his argument was essentially "children from heterosexual marriages turn out better than children from homosexual marriages, thus heterosexual marriages should have marriage while homosexuals get something less, such as civil unions".

I have two objections to this. Firstly, it seems very likely that the reason children from gay couples turn out worse is because of social factors (because there is obviously differences in the social standings of the average gay couple and the average straight couple).

Secondly, couldn't the same thing be applied to black couples? As we all know, kids from black parents are more likely to be criminals and turn out worse than there white counterparts. Does this mean whites should get marriage and blacks should get civil unions?

I would like to know peoples thoughts on this, and especially thett's.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 9:28:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well if gay people want to get married, there's no good reason not to let them. If they want to procreate artificially, there is good reason not to let them. They can't procreate naturally, and in this case, I think that's a sign that they are missing a key component to a family. It's not really fair that a kid would be condemned fatherless or motherless from second zero.

With that said, I am open (as if my opinion matters) to other, creative solutions that satisfy both sides. Most emphatically: adoption. Kids who have no families are only gaining parents through this deal and it's rather senseless to 'protect' orphans from loving parents who want to raise them.

My next idea wouldn't really work in today's individualistic, capitalistic society, but gays and lesbians could create families jointly. If we had a sustainable society already going, where commons and resources were shared, then sharing children between two families who neighbor each other wouldn't be very difficult. A man from a gay couple and a woman from a lesbian couple could create a commitment, after a rigorous vetting process, to agree to raise a child through in vitro (or whatever). The other person in each's relationship would become the god-mother and god-father by default. I don't know - just an idea...
Rob
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 9:54:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
To the OP: it is absolutely not true that kids with gay parents turn out worse off than their peers with heterosexual parents. There are tons of statistics disproving that claim, which can be read in one of my debates (http://www.debate.org...). One of the arguments I used in favor of gay adoption was exactly what you pointed out: that we could easily say kids with such and such parents are likely to be more XYZ than kids with such and such parents. Are kids with gay parents teased? Probably. Are kids with fat parents teased? Probably. Do kids with gay parents face unique challenges? Maybe. Do kids with poor parents face unique challenges? Certainly. So should low-income people, or potentially low-income people (i.e. everyone) not be allowed to have or adopt kids? The argument fails. I'll debate anyone on this at any time. Mirza? Contradiction? Anyone wanna step up to the plate?
President of DDO
Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 4:55:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 8:19:56 AM, seraine wrote:
I was reading one of thett's debates on gay marriage (see here: http://www.debate.org... ) and his argument was essentially "children from heterosexual marriages turn out better than children from homosexual marriages, thus heterosexual marriages should have marriage while homosexuals get something less, such as civil unions".

I have two objections to this. Firstly, it seems very likely that the reason children from gay couples turn out worse is because of social factors (because there is obviously differences in the social standings of the average gay couple and the average straight couple).

Secondly, couldn't the same thing be applied to black couples? As we all know, kids from black parents are more likely to be criminals and turn out worse than there white counterparts. Does this mean whites should get marriage and blacks should get civil unions?
I would favor that.

I would like to know peoples thoughts on this, and especially thett's.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 5:18:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 9:54:27 AM, Danielle wrote:
To the OP: it is absolutely not true that kids with gay parents turn out worse off than their peers with heterosexual parents. There are tons of statistics disproving that claim, which can be read in one of my debates (http://www.debate.org...). One of the arguments I used in favor of gay adoption was exactly what you pointed out: that we could easily say kids with such and such parents are likely to be more XYZ than kids with such and such parents. Are kids with gay parents teased? Probably. Are kids with fat parents teased? Probably. Do kids with gay parents face unique challenges? Maybe. Do kids with poor parents face unique challenges? Certainly. So should low-income people, or potentially low-income people (i.e. everyone) not be allowed to have or adopt kids? The argument fails. I'll debate anyone on this at any time. Mirza? Contradiction? Anyone wanna step up to the plate?

You should challenge thett to a debate on gay marriage.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 5:35:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 8:19:56 AM, seraine wrote:
I was reading one of thett's debates on gay marriage (see here: http://www.debate.org... ) and his argument was essentially "children from heterosexual marriages turn out better than children from homosexual marriages, thus heterosexual marriages should have marriage while homosexuals get something less, such as civil unions".

I have two objections to this. Firstly, it seems very likely that the reason children from gay couples turn out worse is because of social factors (because there is obviously differences in the social standings of the average gay couple and the average straight couple).

Secondly, couldn't the same thing be applied to black couples? As we all know, kids from black parents are more likely to be criminals and turn out worse than there white counterparts. Does this mean whites should get marriage and blacks should get civil unions?

I would like to know peoples thoughts on this, and especially thett's.

It reminds me of a great short story I read about a woman holding up a gameshow because one of the contestants was gay. She shoots at the gay contestant and dislocates her shoulder. She says "see, how can you raise your children in such violent and hateful conditions?"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 5:40:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would argue that, statistically, gay marriage is BETTER for children than heretosexuals.

What is the probability that gay parents are together due to a shotgun marriage or a bad condom?

Which is more likely, that a straight or gay couple are forced together because of an unwanted child?

The very fact that gays have to work to get a child, and can't just stick one doodad into another, screens out a set of potential parents that would be otherwise destruction toward the child's ego and self esteem. The same would apply to all couple seeking some form of in vitro fertilization or adoption.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 6:46:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If we had a sustainable society already going, where commons and resources were shared, then sharing children between two families who neighbor each other wouldn't be very difficult.:

There already are many problems in this arena as it stands now with parents and step parents. This is because individual preferences on how best to raise children are completely independent of economic systems.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 8:24:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 5:40:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
I would argue that, statistically, gay marriage is BETTER for children than heretosexuals.

What is the probability that gay parents are together due to a shotgun marriage or a bad condom?

Which is more likely, that a straight or gay couple are forced together because of an unwanted child?

The very fact that gays have to work to get a child, and can't just stick one doodad into another, screens out a set of potential parents that would be otherwise destruction toward the child's ego and self esteem. The same would apply to all couple seeking some form of in vitro fertilization or adoption.

Thett brought out statistics on the superiority of children of heterosexuals to homosexuals. A few are:

live longer, healthier lives both physically and mentally.
do better in school.
are more likely to graduate and attend college.
are less likely to live in poverty.
are less likely to be in trouble with the law.
are less likely to drink or do drugs.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:29:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 9:54:27 AM, Danielle wrote:
To the OP: it is absolutely not true that kids with gay parents turn out worse off than their peers with heterosexual parents. There are tons of statistics disproving that claim, which can be read in one of my debates (http://www.debate.org...). One of the arguments I used in favor of gay adoption was exactly what you pointed out: that we could easily say kids with such and such parents are likely to be more XYZ than kids with such and such parents. Are kids with gay parents teased? Probably. Are kids with fat parents teased? Probably. Do kids with gay parents face unique challenges? Maybe. Do kids with poor parents face unique challenges? Certainly. So should low-income people, or potentially low-income people (i.e. everyone) not be allowed to have or adopt kids? The argument fails. I'll debate anyone on this at any time. Mirza? Contradiction? Anyone wanna step up to the plate?

Even if someone could prove that children from gay marriages didn't do as well, that still isn't a sufficient reason to deny marriage to a group of people. Poor children and black children don't do as well as rich, white children. So a parallel argument would deny marriage to the poor and to blacks. Or a parallel argument against gay adoption might say blacks then can't adopt white children because they might be "teased."
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 1:35:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 8:24:19 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/26/2011 5:40:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
I would argue that, statistically, gay marriage is BETTER for children than heretosexuals.

What is the probability that gay parents are together due to a shotgun marriage or a bad condom?

Which is more likely, that a straight or gay couple are forced together because of an unwanted child?

The very fact that gays have to work to get a child, and can't just stick one doodad into another, screens out a set of potential parents that would be otherwise destruction toward the child's ego and self esteem. The same would apply to all couple seeking some form of in vitro fertilization or adoption.

Thett brought out statistics on the superiority of children of heterosexuals to homosexuals. A few are:

live longer, healthier lives both physically and mentally.
do better in school.
are more likely to graduate and attend college.
are less likely to live in poverty.
are less likely to be in trouble with the law.
are less likely to drink or do drugs.

Sure. And I bet you $1,000 that statistic would apply just as well to the child of interracial marriages in the 60s and 70s.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:00:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 1:35:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/26/2011 8:24:19 PM, seraine wrote:
Thett brought out statistics on the superiority of children of heterosexuals to homosexuals. A few are:

live longer, healthier lives both physically and mentally.
do better in school.
are more likely to graduate and attend college.
are less likely to live in poverty.
are less likely to be in trouble with the law.
are less likely to drink or do drugs.

Sure. And I bet you $1,000 that statistic would apply just as well to the child of interracial marriages in the 60s and 70s.

?? Don't really get your implication here wnope.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:04:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:00:14 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/27/2011 1:35:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/26/2011 8:24:19 PM, seraine wrote:
Thett brought out statistics on the superiority of children of heterosexuals to homosexuals. A few are:

live longer, healthier lives both physically and mentally.
do better in school.
are more likely to graduate and attend college.
are less likely to live in poverty.
are less likely to be in trouble with the law.
are less likely to drink or do drugs.

Sure. And I bet you $1,000 that statistic would apply just as well to the child of interracial marriages in the 60s and 70s.

?? Don't really get your implication here wnope.

Children of gay parents are going to undergo societal pressures similar if not to worse to those applied to gay children. You'll find that that kind of minority pressure is highly correlated to drug use, petty crime, and, among other things, suicide rates.

The analogy is that children of interracial marriages were treated by whites in the 60s as children of gays would be treated now (probably a bit worse back then).
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:07:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 8:19:56 AM, seraine wrote:
I was reading one of thett's debates on gay marriage (see here: http://www.debate.org... ) and his argument was essentially "children from heterosexual marriages turn out better than children from homosexual marriages, thus heterosexual marriages should have marriage while homosexuals get something less, such as civil unions".

I have two objections to this. Firstly, it seems very likely that the reason children from gay couples turn out worse is because of social factors (because there is obviously differences in the social standings of the average gay couple and the average straight couple).

Secondly, couldn't the same thing be applied to black couples? As we all know, kids from black parents are more likely to be criminals and turn out worse than there white counterparts. Does this mean whites should get marriage and blacks should get civil unions?

I would like to know peoples thoughts on this, and especially thett's.

You could also turn the argument around that children from gay couples turn out worse because their parents aren't married (so have greater financial strain), since children from married parents do better than from unmarried.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 4:01:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 1:35:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/26/2011 8:24:19 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/26/2011 5:40:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
I would argue that, statistically, gay marriage is BETTER for children than heretosexuals.

What is the probability that gay parents are together due to a shotgun marriage or a bad condom?

Which is more likely, that a straight or gay couple are forced together because of an unwanted child?

The very fact that gays have to work to get a child, and can't just stick one doodad into another, screens out a set of potential parents that would be otherwise destruction toward the child's ego and self esteem. The same would apply to all couple seeking some form of in vitro fertilization or adoption.

Thett brought out statistics on the superiority of children of heterosexuals to homosexuals. A few are:

live longer, healthier lives both physically and mentally.
do better in school.
are more likely to graduate and attend college.
are less likely to live in poverty.
are less likely to be in trouble with the law.
are less likely to drink or do drugs.

Sure. And I bet you $1,000 that statistic would apply just as well to the child of interracial marriages in the 60s and 70s.

That's what I said too! We must be meant for each other!

Sorry, it slips sometimes.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 4:02:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:59:23 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Intriguing thought: if everyone were gay, all humanity's problems would eventually be solved.

AKA: 1. Kill everyone. 2 No more war. 3. Yay!!!!!
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 9:27:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"children <from> homosexual marriages" UMMMM ERRR Does not compute.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 10:30:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:04:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
Children of gay parents are going to undergo societal pressures similar if not to worse to those applied to gay children. You'll find that that kind of minority pressure is highly correlated to drug use, petty crime, and, among other things, suicide rates.

The analogy is that children of interracial marriages were treated by whites in the 60s as children of gays would be treated now (probably a bit worse back then).

This is not accurate. First, it ignores my point that just as kids with gay parents will likely be teased, so will children with fat parents. Do those kids who are teased have a higher likelihood of crime and drug use? No. What you're referring to in terms of "minorities" are the fact that racial minorities may tend to have a higher probability of engaging in those things because of their CLASS. Poor black people will have a much higher chance of being involved with those things than rich black people. One's low-income environment is to blame - not characteristics of their parents. Muslims are also highly discriminated against in this country. Should Muslims not have kids because they may be teased at a higher rate? Again, it heavily depends on the environment. In NYC for example a child will be far less likely to be teased for their parents' sexual orientation than in Alabama.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 10:32:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/28/2011 9:27:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
"children <from> homosexual marriages" UMMMM ERRR Does not compute.

Several states allow gay marriage; New York is one. Children from homosexual marriages = children who were conceived either via in vitro fertilization, conceived via heterosexual sex but then one parent married a same-sex partner, or kids who were adopted into gay families. I'm not entirely sure why this is so hard for you to compute but I can't say I'm surprised.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 10:34:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:07:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You could also turn the argument around that children from gay couples turn out worse because their parents aren't married (so have greater financial strain), since children from married parents do better than from unmarried.

1 - Gay marriage exists in several states.

2 - Gay marriage should exist in every state. Besides, what is legally recognized as a marriage does not negate the actual "qualifications" of marriage, which many gay couples experience without the title (meaning these kids are not missing out on the benefits of having 'married' parents).

3 - Should there be rules that only people who are not "financially strained" have kids?

4 - Many unmarried people are not financially strained.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 10:35:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have yet to see one legitimate argument against gays having kids.

Once again, I wish someone would step up to the plate and debate me formally if they think there is a good argument to be made. I'd love to debate Contradiction on this, but while he debates everyone and their mother on the issue of gay marriage, he will not debate me on it. Annoying.
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 3:38:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 9:54:27 AM, Danielle wrote:
To the OP: it is absolutely not true that kids with gay parents turn out worse off than their peers with heterosexual parents. There are tons of statistics disproving that claim, which can be read in one of my debates (http://www.debate.org...). One of the arguments I used in favor of gay adoption was exactly what you pointed out: that we could easily say kids with such and such parents are likely to be more XYZ than kids with such and such parents. Are kids with gay parents teased? Probably. Are kids with fat parents teased? Probably. Do kids with gay parents face unique challenges? Maybe. Do kids with poor parents face unique challenges? Certainly. So should low-income people, or potentially low-income people (i.e. everyone) not be allowed to have or adopt kids? The argument fails. I'll debate anyone on this at any time. Mirza? Contradiction? Anyone wanna step up to the plate?
I'd love to debate such a topic. Unfortunately you do not understand what my views are, hence thanks.

But no thanks.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 4:50:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/28/2011 10:32:20 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/28/2011 9:27:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
"children <from> homosexual marriages" UMMMM ERRR Does not compute.

Several states allow gay marriage; New York is one. Children from homosexual marriages = children who were conceived either via in vitro fertilization, conceived via heterosexual sex but then one parent married a same-sex partner, or kids who were adopted into gay families. I'm not entirely sure why this is so hard for you to compute but I can't say I'm surprised.

"children who were conceived either via in vitro fertilization"

How utterly self absorbed and selfish can one be to have a total disregard for what is best for the child ( A Mother and father) only to satisfy ones own selfish want. Does the child have any say if they want both a mother and father? NO!

"conceived via heterosexual sex but then one parent married a same-sex partner",

Clearly not gay, but bisexual and the same selfish self absorbed attitude.

"or kids who were adopted into gay families".

Do the kids have a say in the matter? NO!

"I'm not entirely sure why this is so hard for you to compute but I can't say I'm surprised."

I am not entirely suprised that you put the selfish self absorbed wants of a tiny miniscule minority of adults before what is best for the children.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 5:49:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/28/2011 4:50:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/28/2011 10:32:20 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/28/2011 9:27:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
"children <from> homosexual marriages" UMMMM ERRR Does not compute.

Several states allow gay marriage; New York is one. Children from homosexual marriages = children who were conceived either via in vitro fertilization, conceived via heterosexual sex but then one parent married a same-sex partner, or kids who were adopted into gay families. I'm not entirely sure why this is so hard for you to compute but I can't say I'm surprised.

"children who were conceived either via in vitro fertilization"

How utterly self absorbed and selfish can one be to have a total disregard for what is best for the child ( A Mother and father) only to satisfy ones own selfish want. Does the child have any say if they want both a mother and father? NO!

You are saying you would rather be not alive than the child of homosexuals. Weird.

"conceived via heterosexual sex but then one parent married a same-sex partner",

Clearly not gay, but bisexual and the same selfish self absorbed attitude.

See above.

"or kids who were adopted into gay families".

Do the kids have a say in the matter? NO!

You would rather be in a adoption center than with two parents? Weird.

"I'm not entirely sure why this is so hard for you to compute but I can't say I'm surprised."

I am not entirely suprised that you put the selfish self absorbed wants of a tiny miniscule minority of adults before what is best for the children.

In addition, all the same arguments could have been applied to children of interracial marriages in the 1960's.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 5:51:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I say we just ban marriage altogether. Problem solved.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 6:37:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/28/2011 5:49:31 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/28/2011 4:50:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/28/2011 10:32:20 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/28/2011 9:27:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
"children <from> homosexual marriages" UMMMM ERRR Does not compute.

Several states allow gay marriage; New York is one. Children from homosexual marriages = children who were conceived either via in vitro fertilization, conceived via heterosexual sex but then one parent married a same-sex partner, or kids who were adopted into gay families. I'm not entirely sure why this is so hard for you to compute but I can't say I'm surprised.

"children who were conceived either via in vitro fertilization"

How utterly self absorbed and selfish can one be to have a total disregard for what is best for the child ( A Mother and father) only to satisfy ones own selfish want. Does the child have any say if they want both a mother and father? NO!

You are saying you would rather be not alive than the child of homosexuals. Weird.

"conceived via heterosexual sex but then one parent married a same-sex partner",

Clearly not gay, but bisexual and the same selfish self absorbed attitude.

See above.

"or kids who were adopted into gay families".

Do the kids have a say in the matter? NO!

You would rather be in a adoption center than with two parents? Weird.

"I'm not entirely sure why this is so hard for you to compute but I can't say I'm surprised."

I am not entirely suprised that you put the selfish self absorbed wants of a tiny miniscule minority of adults before what is best for the children.

In addition, all the same arguments could have been applied to children of interracial marriages in the 1960's.

Plus he fails to calculate how many heterosexual couples have children and are unfit to be parents [smoke crack, abuse children, are serial killers, jobless (because of refusal to work, not economic issues), homeless, and the list goes on] wouldn't it be wise to put children into homes and families of loving and caring adults who have the resources and proper skills [as well as role model characteristics] to take care of them into adulthood even if that family happens to be composed of two individuals of the same gender?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 6:58:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/28/2011 5:51:29 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I say we just ban marriage altogether. Problem solved.

Second. Furthermore, it is imprisonment.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2011 8:42:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/28/2011 6:37:26 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 9/28/2011 5:49:31 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/28/2011 4:50:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/28/2011 10:32:20 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/28/2011 9:27:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
"children <from> homosexual marriages" UMMMM ERRR Does not compute.

Several states allow gay marriage; New York is one. Children from homosexual marriages = children who were conceived either via in vitro fertilization, conceived via heterosexual sex but then one parent married a same-sex partner, or kids who were adopted into gay families. I'm not entirely sure why this is so hard for you to compute but I can't say I'm surprised.

"children who were conceived either via in vitro fertilization"

How utterly self absorbed and selfish can one be to have a total disregard for what is best for the child ( A Mother and father) only to satisfy ones own selfish want. Does the child have any say if they want both a mother and father? NO!

You are saying you would rather be not alive than the child of homosexuals. Weird.

"conceived via heterosexual sex but then one parent married a same-sex partner",

Clearly not gay, but bisexual and the same selfish self absorbed attitude.

See above.

"or kids who were adopted into gay families".

Do the kids have a say in the matter? NO!

You would rather be in a adoption center than with two parents? Weird.

"I'm not entirely sure why this is so hard for you to compute but I can't say I'm surprised."

I am not entirely suprised that you put the selfish self absorbed wants of a tiny miniscule minority of adults before what is best for the children.

In addition, all the same arguments could have been applied to children of interracial marriages in the 1960's.

Plus he fails to calculate how many heterosexual couples have children and are unfit to be parents [smoke crack, abuse children, are serial killers, jobless (because of refusal to work, not economic issues), homeless, and the list goes on] wouldn't it be wise to put children into homes and families of loving and caring adults who have the resources and proper skills [as well as role model characteristics] to take care of them into adulthood even if that family happens to be composed of two individuals of the same gender?

Of course not, they're gay! They're obviously baby raping, crack smoking, sex addicted, satanic, libertarian, demons from another world! Why would you want demons from another world to be able to adopt children? Why are you putting the wants of a disgusting and evil minority above the needs of cute little babies?!
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.