• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162:334]

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lursa said:
It doesnt really matter...you cant change it. As people have already pointed out, there are (and have been) gay families with their natural kids in them, and kids they have thru surrogates, in vitro, etc. That's not going to go away...the govt isnt going to come in and take their kids.

There arent any serious studies that show any issues....and yet
we DO know of the risks in single parent homes, or homes of divorced kids. And there is lots of abuses in the so-called traditional families...I'm pretty sure gays arent going to be dragging down their stats!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
.....
Ah ... so you allow for the risk of problems in single-parent or divorce or traditional homes but despite the very recent (relatively speaking) & statistically thin documentation of any possible effect on a child raised by gay parents, you're ready to declare THAT particular family characteristic to be totally benign.
Pretty hasty conclusion.
I'm assuming it's not agenda driven with you but I betcha it is with many others.
 
Last edited:
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

bubbabgone said:
Ah ... so you allow for the risk of problems in single-parent or divorce or traditional homes but despite the very recent (relatively speaking) & statistically thin documentation of any possible effect on a child raised by gay parents, you're ready to declare THAT particular family characteristic to be totally benign.
Pretty hasty conclusion.
I'm assuming it's not agenda driven with you but I betcha it is with many others.
Click to expand...

It's not totally benign anymore than the families with straight parents...THAT is the point. And the fact that *no greater or lesser harm* has been shown in any reputable studies.

THere are screwed up families no matter what their orientation. Gay couples divorce too. Are you getting it yet? They really ARE NO DIFFERENT....for better or for worse.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Deuce said:
So why do you bring up procreation, anyway? What about it should affect my support for same-sex marriage?
Click to expand...

Good Lord, there are lots of posts with him doing so, Anthony60's just run out of arguments and is going with denial now.

Ignore it....our counterarguments pretty much say it all.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lursa said:
It's not totally benign anymore than the families with straight parents...THAT is the point. And the fact that
*no greater or lesser harm* has been shown in any reputable studies.
Click to expand...
There's that possible agenda driven component I was talking about
THere are screwed up families no matter what their orientation. Gay couples divorce too.
Click to expand...
Ain't the point.
Are you getting it yet?
Click to expand...

One of us isn't.

They really ARE NO DIFFERENT....for better or for worse.
Click to expand...
Oh they're different all right. It's just that the effect hasn't developed enough of a history yet to give it an all-clear.
Click to expand...

.....
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lursa said:
Gay families contain 2 parents...there is plenty of data showing the risks to kids in single parent homes and homes of divorce....but not for kids with gay parents. It's not a 'mish mash'...that just shows your socially damaging disrespect for gay people. The most important things for kids in ANY family are love and security and gays can provide that like anyone else.

It certainly doesnt mean 'more welfare votes' since gays tend to have higher income levels, lol.
Click to expand...

Being misleading must be part of a liberals DNA. I guess you don't like the concept of a mother and a father. First you imply that I have some disrespect for gays, which you need to support by the false implication that I said gays can't love their children. Then followed up nicely by misquoting me on the very same page that contains what I posted.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
Being misleading must be part of a liberals DNA. I guess you don't like the concept of a mother and a father. First you imply that I have some disrespect for gays, which you need to support by the false implication that I said gays can't love their children. Then followed up nicely by misquoting me on the very same page that contains what I posted.
Click to expand...

Feel free to show where I did so. It would be refreshing after all your denials.

Perhaps it would be quicker if you could explain why you keep bringing up procreation and kids in a discussion about legalizing SSM if it's not relevant?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
Being misleading must be part of a liberals DNA. I guess you don't like the concept of a mother and a father. First you imply that I have some disrespect for gays, which you need to support by the false implication that I said gays can't love their children. Then followed up nicely by misquoting me on the very same page that contains what I posted.
Click to expand...

You suggest someone "doesn't like the concept of a mother and a father" and then immediately whine about false implications.

Hypocrite.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

bubbabgone said:
.....
Click to expand...

So you are basing your reticence to accept SSM based on 'what might happen down the line?'

What part arent you getting? Gay families exist and will continue to do so....they wont go away if gay marriage isnt legalized. No 'agenda' is going to stop it. So it's not a rational reason to stop SSM....if anything, it provides more protection for their children under the law: inheritance, custody in a divorce, medical decisions, etc.

So do you actually care about *the kids* or just want to discriminate against gays?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

bubbabgone said:
Try to focus on the point ... the influence of a person's environment on their behavior was the [point.
Click to expand...

You sir are the one missing "the point" Behavior and sexual orientation are not the same thing. That is the point. A gay person may try for years to be straight and marry and engage in straight sex...all the while living a lie. Straight sex doesn't change the fact that they are gay any more than prisoners engaging in gay sex makes them gay. Get it?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lursa said:
Feel free to show where I did so. It would be refreshing after all your denials.

Perhaps it would be quicker if you could explain why you keep bringing up procreation and kids in a discussion about legalizing SSM if it's not relevant?
Click to expand...

You could easily read my posts for any information like that, if you think I "keep bringing up procreation and kids". Something bother you about that? Kids and marriage, what do they have to do with each other??? LOL!

There's a little lesson for you on quoting people. As you can see, what I have in quotes is exactly what you posted. I didn't omit words or change anything around so that it would fit my argument, like you did.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

bubbabgone said:
.....
Ah ... so you allow for the risk of problems in single-parent or divorce or traditional homes but despite the very recent (relatively speaking) & statistically thin documentation of any possible effect on a child raised by gay parents, you're ready to declare THAT particular family characteristic to be totally benign.
Pretty hasty conclusion.
I'm assuming it's not agenda driven with you but I betcha it is with many others.
Click to expand...

And despite problems that may exist with single parenting or divorce couples parenting, we still allow couples to get divorce, we still allow single parents to raise their children, in fact, we even allow single people (in most states) to foster/adopt children. Even the government recognizes that no situation when it comes to raising children is perfect. Because all that really matters is people being willing and able to actually dedicate some time and effort to the children, to raising the children in a loving, nurturing environment.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

bubbabgone said:
.....
Ah ... so you allow for the risk of problems in single-parent or divorce or traditional homes but despite the very recent (relatively speaking) & statistically thin documentation of any possible effect on a child raised by gay parents, you're ready to declare THAT particular family characteristic to be totally benign.
Pretty hasty conclusion.
I'm assuming it's not agenda driven with you but I betcha it is with many others.
Click to expand...

In absence of evidence showing same-sex couples are bad for raising children, how else should I respond? If someone tells me that Catholics shouldn't raise children because it's bad, the burden is on the person suggesting Catholics shouldn't raise children and/or be married. Catholics don't need to prove that it's "benign."
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
You could easily read my posts for any information like that, if you think I "keep bringing up procreation and kids". Something bother you about that? Kids and marriage, what do they have to do with each other??? LOL!

There's a little lesson for you on quoting people. As you can see, what I have in quotes is exactly what you posted. I didn't omit words or change anything around so that it would fit my argument, like you did.
Click to expand...

So no argument, just more defensive bs?

Like I said...deny whatever you want, your quotes are all there (no words omitted, nothing changed around....there for all to see)
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lursa said:
Like I said...deny whatever you want, your quotes are all there (no words omitted, nothing changed around....there for all to see)
Click to expand...

Yes, there for all to see.

What I posted... "As long as it means more welfare and votes for them".

What you quoted... "more welfare votes"

Supporting your claim that "gays tend to have higher income levels, lol." (You making a point that a person with higher income would not vote for welfare.) Not sure that that is true, even with you doctoring the quote.

I don't even know what welfare votes are.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
Yes, there for all to see.

What I posted... "As long as it means more welfare and votes for them".

What you quoted... "more welfare votes"

Supporting your claim that "gays tend to have higher income levels, lol." (You making a point that a person with higher income would not vote for welfare.) Not sure that that is true, even with you doctoring the quote.

I don't even know what welfare votes are.
Click to expand...

Welfare votes would be votes coming from people on welfare that wish to reinforce the availability of welfare. Now that I have added 2+2 for you....need any other clarifications or just wish to continuing to avoid actual discussion.

Or shall we get back to your denial of the relevance of procreation, kids on the legality of marriage. I'm not sure, but I believe you have conceded it does not...altho it is a shift from your earlier claims, at least that's what we gathered from the fact that you kept posting about it.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lursa said:
Welfare votes would be votes coming from people on welfare that wish to reinforce the availability of welfare.
Click to expand...

Really, where did you get that? How do you know it's not Congress voting for welfare? I know how you know, you made it up. And who cares? That was what you got from my post??? Your opinion on what a welfare vote might be? Here let me repost and remove the last line about welfare, so as not to confuse you... as much.
Not too passive aggressive, are we?


What I posted... "As long as it means more welfare and votes for them".

What you quoted... "more welfare votes"

Supporting your claim that "gays tend to have higher income levels, lol." (You making a point that a person with higher income would not vote for welfare.) Not sure that that is true, even with you doctoring the quote.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
Really, where did you get that? How do you know it's not Congress voting for welfare? I know how you know, you made it up. And who cares? That was what you got from my post??? Your opinion on what a welfare vote might be? Here let me repost and remove the last line about welfare, so as not to confuse you... as much.
Not too passive aggressive, are we?


What I posted... "As long as it means more welfare and votes for them".

What you quoted... "more welfare votes"

Supporting your claim that "gays tend to have higher income levels, lol." (You making a point that a person with higher income would not vote for welfare.) Not sure that that is true, even with you doctoring the quote.
Click to expand...


Er, you just repeated yourself...so my response hasnt changed.

Still no ability to defend yourself...you're not even asking any questions...just being defensive.

Please....add content or take your ball and go home.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lursa said:
Er, you just repeated yourself...so my response hasnt (sic) changed.... blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Of course not, why respond to a direct question? How completely asinine. Here is a great example of the irresponsible liberal, holier than thou liberal mind set that is destroying our country. Got you stone cold in misquoting me. Stone cold, in your words, for all to see. Yet, you do not have enough virtue, honesty, or integrity to even address it, let alone own it.

First I thought it was a mistake, you must have misread it. But now, it is obvious that you deliberately lied in order to make your little statement. How small of you. Just like the destroyer in chief. Nope, he never said you could keep your doctor, insurance, or a million other things. Yeah, and you are a jackass if you believe that. All to promote that sickening liberal agenda, unsupportable by fact, but lies will do just fine. What a tool. Thank God I'm not you.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
Of course not, why respond to a direct question? How completely asinine. Here is a great example of the irresponsible liberal, holier than thou liberal mind set that is destroying our country. Got you stone cold in misquoting me. Stone cold, in your words, for all to see. Yet, you do not have enough virtue, honesty, or integrity to even address it, let alone own it.

First I thought it was a mistake, you must have misread it. But now, it is obvious that you deliberately lied in order to make your little statement. How small of you. Just like the destroyer in chief. Nope, he never said you could keep your doctor, insurance, or a million other things. Yeah, and you are a jackass if you believe that. All to promote that sickening liberal agenda, unsupportable by fact, but lies will do just fine. What a tool. Thank God I'm not you.
Click to expand...

Still dont see the misquote, explained it once, even added it up for you...you still couldnt connect the dots...but look at all this other crap you just posted! LOLOLOLOL Now it's Obamacare? Really? You must have had a completely indefensible original point to have to attempt that distraction.

Completely off topic, and still complete denial of the whole procreation/kids/SSM marriage thing, which would actually be topical. No worries, it's been...how many pages now?....and you have continued to struggle to deny it.

Please....feel free to continue, lol
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lursa said:
Still dont see the misquote, explained it once, even added it up for you...you still couldnt connect the dots...but look at all this other crap you just posted! LOLOLOLOL Now it's Obamacare? Really? You must have had a completely indefensible original point to have to attempt that distraction.

Completely off topic, and still complete denial of the whole procreation/kids/SSM marriage thing, which would actually be topical. No worries, it's been...how many pages now?....and you have continued to struggle to deny it.

Please....feel free to continue, lol
Click to expand...

Don't encourage spam.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lursa said:
Still dont see the misquote...
Click to expand...

You can't even find the misquote? That is kind of sad. But, if that's all you've got, that's all you've got.
Don't see any point in discussing a subject if you will be unable to read important parts of it.

I really just wanted to see how far you would go to deny an indisputable truth. Another key ingedient to being on the left in this country, deny reality. You can keep your doctor, period!
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
You can't even find the misquote? That is kind of sad. But, if that's all you've got, that's all you've got.
Don't see any point in discussing a subject if you will be unable to read important parts of it.

I really just wanted to see how far you would go to deny an indisputable truth. Another key ingedient to being on the left in this country, deny reality. You can keep your doctor, period!
Click to expand...

Well, since we are talking about SSM, and you made such a silly overgeneralization, here's one that the right expouses: SSM will change the concept of marriage! It's stupidity like this that demonstrates just how out of touch with reality the right is.

See what happens when you make silly overgeneralizations?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

anomalism said:
there was no social engineering involving gay people. People are just realizing that there is nothing wrong with being gay and happily living your life. These people aren't hurting society, and they do just as much of a good job raising children.
Click to expand...


bs! Bs bs bsbsbsbsbsbsbssb
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
You can't even find the misquote? That is kind of sad. But, if that's all you've got, that's all you've got.
Don't see any point in discussing a subject if you will be unable to read important parts of it.

I really just wanted to see how far you would go to deny an indisputable truth. Another key ingedient to being on the left in this country, deny reality. You can keep your doctor, period!
Click to expand...


LOL you posted it at least twice....I interpreted the way I meant it when I wrote it. You didnt like it. Oh well. Then I dont see any other way to view it and dont see any misquote. I answered you clearly....if you dont want to accept it, dont. I dont care....so how much longer would you like to use this to divert from the fact that you cannot support your earlier statements re: procreation/kids/SSM?

Or you could try the Obamacare dodge again. That was amusing for about 2 seconds.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lursa said:
LOL you posted it at least twice....I interpreted the way I meant it when I wrote it. You didnt like it. Oh well. Then I dont see any other way to view it and dont see any misquote.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see now. You don't know what it is to quote or misquote someone.

I answered you clearly....if you dont want to accept it, dont. I dont care....so how much longer would you like to use this to divert from the fact that you cannot support your earlier statements re: procreation/kids/SSM?
Click to expand...

So you said "I dont (sic) want to answer you clearly....if you accept it, don't."
See how I "quoted" you, but it's not quite what you said? That's what I would call a misquote.

I would ask that you quote me on the stuff about gays not being able to procreate, but who knows what you would put up there, based on your interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom