• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please point out where I said gay and lesbian couples can't be good parents? Please point this out?

I said a child is better off with a mother and a father.

I also support gay couples adopting. If you were not so busy ranting and making personal attacks you mite have seen that.

That's true you said that.

So you won't mind if gay marriage is legal then?
 
Funny, it never comes up in the NEW TESTAMENT...

Christians have to run the Jewish Bible and cherry pick a few lines of scripture for evidence...

No. Jesus speaks about it and supports Genesis specifically...

"In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus appealed to God's will in creation. He builds upon the narrative in Genesis 1:27 and 5:2 where male and female are created together and for one another. Thus Jesus takes a firm stand on the permanence of marriage in the original will of God.

Where there was failure in the marriage, Jesus found husband and wife equally responsible. The two are joined together by God so that "they are no longer two, but one." He brought together two passages from Genesis, reinforcing the basic position on marriage found in Jewish scripture. Thus, he implicitly emphasized that it is God-made ("God has joined together"), "male and female," lifelong ("let no one separate"), and monogamous ("a man...his wife").
"
 
That's true you said that.

So you won't mind if gay marriage is legal then?

Yes I would. That has not changed.

Read the post above.
 
Why? Because a book says so. Great.

Circles again.

You knew what my answer would be? We have been over this more than one time.

So why would you think because I reinforced what I have already said. This would change my view in any way shape or form?

Either you are trying to bait me (not in an against the rules way) or you think my opinion is a joke, and not worth any effort?
 
Last edited:
Told you it was a waste of time, especially when arguing with someone who uses magic as their reason! ;)
 
Told you it was a waste of time, especially when arguing with someone who uses magic as their reason! ;)

Who said anything about magic? :roll:
 
You did!

You said you were against gay marriage because the magic man in the sky told you to be against it.

No I did not. I said because it is a sin. I also said because the Bible says it is a sin.

nothing to do with magic or a man in the sky.

It's impossible to argue against that.

Trying to argue the physical vs the metaphysical is a fools folly, yes. But this thread was about why you feel it is OK and your reasons, not a lets bash religion thread.

Which is all you are doing at this point.

Now unless you have something tangible that is on topic?
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
This warning is probably long overdue, but the baiting and flaming (no pun intended) needs to stop. References to God as "the magic man" is clear baiting and will no longer be tolerated.
 
What does my comment have to do with bad parenting? Nothing. It is a ridicules fallacy argument that has nothing at all to do with what I said.

That is where the context of this discussion began...

The only joke here is you trying to compare an abusive parent to a non-abusive one.

Please either debate or do something else.

I am debating, who in the world would arrive at the conclusion that I am not debating... talk about a joke. I might not be debating the point that you are, and that itself is debatable, but I most certainly am debating. Do we really need to go back to Debating 101 and teach you the basics? Catch up...

Please point out where I said gay and lesbian couples can't be good parents? Please point this out?

I said a child is better off with a mother and a father.

It is the context of where the discussion began.

Originally Posted by digsbe
Yes, and adopted children deserve to be in a stable home with a mother and father, not with two dads or moms.

Originally Posted by Cilogy
Who says? Does Christianity say this too? That's mostly opinion.

Originally Posted by Blackdog
No. It's a fact children do better with a mother and a father.

Originally Posted by BodhiSattva
What a load of junk. Children do best with care givers/parents that love them and set up a structured and nurturing environment. Don't try and pain the mom dad life as rosey. Abusive ****bag parents of any sex or orientation suck and I would say that the majority of these ****bags are heterosexual mom/dad run families...

I was talking to digsbe and you came in with a tangent in-context comment to Cilogy. Digsbe is indicating that same sex parents can't do the job of different sex parents. This is clear, since he says it with the word deserve, indicating that same sex parents cannot be as good as heterosexual parents. You then trotted in with a comment that you want to be benign and matter of fact, well, it isn't. Your comment, since you do not quantify a new context, is taken in the same context as the orignial discussion.

Look, this is pretty simply stuff man. You can try and be as coy or clever as you like, all it is is dodging.

I also support gay couples adopting. If you were not so busy ranting and making personal attacks you mite have seen that.

Classify what I am saying as ranting if it helps you feel better, all I am doing is talking/writing/debating as you are.

Perhaps you can display whatever personal attack you think that I made so that I can better understand how to not do it again, because from where I stand, I did nothing of the sort. If I am being disrespectful, then it is no more than you are... calling my style a joke and telling me to debate twice when I am debating is not polite. *shrugs* But then to claim that I am making personal attacks on top of that? Well, that is just dang silly and makes it a even harder to take you seriously.

If you want to just make a comment that all things being equal, a child is best off with a loving and caring mother and father that promote balance and all that, then I agree... but taken in the context of the original it certainly sounds as if you are implying that same sex parents are not as good/qualified as heterosexual parents are, and that is all that I said in my retort to you anyway. Why you did not just agree and/or clarify is beyond me. Beyond reason in fact.

If this is how you, "debate" then that is fine. It is kinda basic, but that is just how it goes...

Now, that was a slight, but I would not qualify it as an "attack" unless you are paranoid delusional or something...

:lol:
 
Meh, my point still stands:

If you are using religion doctrine as your reason, then it's impossible to debate that. Nothing anyone can say can ever change your mind, no matter how logical, because when having to choose between logic and what your religion tells you, you have to choose the religion or else be punished in some way.
 
Meh, my point still stands:

If you are using religion doctrine as your reason, then it's impossible to debate that. Nothing anyone can say can ever change your mind, no matter how logical, because when having to choose between logic and what your religion tells you, you have to choose the religion or else be punished in some way.

As I said a fools folly. I absolutely agree.

In the context of this thread he asked why? So I and others told him and that is when it all started.
 
That is where the context of this discussion began...

I am debating, who in the world would arrive at the conclusion that I am not debating... talk about a joke. I might not be debating the point that you are, and that itself is debatable, but I most certainly am debating. Do we really need to go back to Debating 101 and teach you the basics? Catch up...

If you call a fallacy argument that has literally nothing to do with what I was talking about debating.

It was not debating. It was a rant vs my position.

I was talking to digsbe and you came in with a tangent in-context comment to Cilogy. Digsbe is indicating that same sex parents can't do the job of different sex parents. This is clear, since he says it with the word deserve, indicating that same sex parents cannot be as good as heterosexual parents. You then trotted in with a comment that you want to be benign and matter of fact, well, it isn't. Your comment, since you do not quantify a new context, is taken in the same context as the orignial discussion.

A mother and a father is the optimal arrangement. It has been so for thousands of years. This in no way reflects on the ability of 2 men or women raising a child.

I never said anything like that or implied it. You assumed incorrectly is all.

Look, this is pretty simply stuff man. You can try and be as coy or clever as you like, all it is is dodging.

Again with personal attacks.

I said what I meant and you misunderstood. Just keep ignoring that it flies in the face of everything else I have said in regards to gays and adoption.

Classify what I am saying as ranting if it helps you feel better, all I am doing is talking/writing/debating as you are.

So far you have not said anything that makes any difference or adds anything for or against my positions or statement.

That's not a debate. It is you giving an unrelated speech to me.

Perhaps you can display whatever personal attack you think that I made so that I can better understand how to not do it again, because from where I stand, I did nothing of the sort.

Telling someone to "shut up" for starters. That is a blatant personal attack. I know, I have been thread banned and or warned for it.

In this responce...

" You can try and be as coy or clever as you like"

Yes you continue.

If I am being disrespectful, then it is no more than you are... calling my style a joke and telling me to debate twice when I am debating is not polite. *shrugs* But then to claim that I am making personal attacks on top of that? Well, that is just dang silly and makes it a even harder to take you seriously.

I don't care if you are polite. But when you are not debating, you are not debating, period.

If you want to just make a comment that all things being equal, a child is best off with a loving and caring mother and father that promote balance and all that, then I agree... but taken in the context of the original it certainly sounds as if you are implying that same sex parents are not as good/qualified as heterosexual parents are, and that is all that I said in my retort to you anyway. Why you did not just agree and/or clarify is beyond me. Beyond reason in fact.

Then why didn't you ask for clarification? Or at least read my other posts on the subject?

It would have been much simpler than the bad parenting speach.

If this is how you, "debate" then that is fine. It is kinda basic, but that is just how it goes...

Now, that was a slight, but I would not qualify it as an "attack" unless you are paranoid delusional or something...

:lol:

At this point you are just speaking louder rather than reinforcing your argument.
 
Either you are trying to bait me (not in an against the rules way) or you think my opinion is a joke, and not worth any effort?

No I don't think your opinion is a joke, I think your opinion is an opinion.

Anyway:

In response to your "children do better with a mother and father."

What I should have said is yes, I agree that's probably true. Now, the reason I brought up the "adoption is a choice" thing a couple pages ago is to point out that gay couples can choose to adopt whomever they want. What I'm saying is that since its a couple's choice, then the question of whether the child does better with a mother and father is irrelevant, because families come in all shapes and sizes.

Cars do better with safer drivers, but almost any kind of person can buy a car.

*buzz* I yield the remainder of my time.
 
Last edited:
That makes no sense. Why must you limit freedom like that?

Because they are abusing the freedom.

What about the possibly thousands of single parents who remarried and created a happy family? You deny them the same rights?

If I were writing the Constitutional Amendment on marriage reform, I would allow applicants with minor children to complete more rigorous pre-marital counseling in order to attain a lisence.
 
No I don't think your opinion is a joke, I think your opinion is an opinion.

Anyway:

In response to your "children do better with a mother and father."

What I should have said is yes, I agree that's probably true. Now, the reason I brought up the "adoption is a choice" thing a couple pages ago is to point out that gay couples can choose to adopt whomever they want. What I'm saying is that since its a couple's choice, then the question of whether the child does better with a mother and father is irrelevant, because families come in all shapes and sizes.

Cars do better with safer drivers, but almost any kind of person can buy a car.

*buzz* I yield the remainder of my time.

I don't think it's irrelevant, but that is really neither here nor there as I pretty much agree.
 
Because they are abusing the freedom.



If I were writing the Constitutional Amendment on marriage reform, I would allow applicants with minor children to complete more rigorous pre-marital counseling in order to attain a lisence.

Wow, that's REALLY narrow-minded.

The last thing I want is fascism in my home.
 
If you call a fallacy argument that has literally nothing to do with what I was talking about debating.

It was not debating. It was a rant vs my position.



A mother and a father is the optimal arrangement. It has been so for thousands of years. This in no way reflects on the ability of 2 men or women raising a child.

I never said anything like that or implied it. You assumed incorrectly is all.



Again with personal attacks.

I said what I meant and you misunderstood. Just keep ignoring that it flies in the face of everything else I have said in regards to gays and adoption.



So far you have not said anything that makes any difference or adds anything for or against my positions or statement.

That's not a debate. It is you giving an unrelated speech to me.



Telling someone to "shut up" for starters. That is a blatant personal attack. I know, I have been thread banned and or warned for it.

In this responce...

" You can try and be as coy or clever as you like"

Yes you continue.



I don't care if you are polite. But when you are not debating, you are not debating, period.



Then why didn't you ask for clarification? Or at least read my other posts on the subject?

It would have been much simpler than the bad parenting speach.



At this point you are just speaking louder rather than reinforcing your argument.

What the hell? :lol: You make so little sense that I can't tell if it is cute or annoying.

What fallacy did I commit? Weak Analogy? It isn't that. It isn't even fallicious. If a person makes a statement and it can be shown to be false by example, then how in the world is that a fallacy? I think you need to do some reading, buddy... at worst, we are miscommunicating since you entered into our discussion without clarifying that you were not piggy backing digbse's position.

I did assume that you were saying something that you weren't it seems, but you still haven't clarified your intent and addressed the concept of context.

What I said clearly had to do with what you said. What is this "literally nothing to do with" garbage? :lol:

My argument has been clear from its inception. Two same sex parents can be as good or as bad as two hetero parents for any number of reasons. Denying same sex marriage and same sex adoption is illogical and fear/hate based position. You haven't debated that position once, other than to make a random comment affirming digsbe's bigoted position. Since you did not distance yourself or change the context, but rather simply affirmed what he was saying, you were alligning yourself with him inadvertantly.

Regarding the rest... You interjected into our debate, why on earth would I go back and read your earlier posts. You and all this silly personal attacks stuff is lame at best, "put up or shut up" is a saying, if you don't know that it doesn't mean "shut up" but rather "make a decent argument" then that certainly is telling.

Sitting back and saying, "you aren't debating" is all well and dandy, but if it isn't true then it is kinda pathetic.

In the end, you are trying to avoid clarifying the context, or you just don't understand it... either way, it seems pretty pointless continuing with you about such stupidity as "you are attacking me" and "you aren't debating" and all this other ridiculous off point crap.
 
What the hell? :lol: You make so little sense that I can't tell if it is cute or annoying.

What fallacy did I commit? Weak Analogy? It isn't that. It isn't even fallicious. If a person makes a statement and it can be shown to be false by example, then how in the world is that a fallacy? I think you need to do some reading, buddy... at worst, we are miscommunicating since you entered into our discussion without clarifying that you were not piggy backing digbse's position.

I did assume that you were saying something that you weren't it seems, but you still haven't clarified your intent and addressed the concept of context.

What I said clearly had to do with what you said. What is this "literally nothing to do with" garbage? :lol:

My argument has been clear from its inception. Two same sex parents can be as good or as bad as two hetero parents for any number of reasons. Denying same sex marriage and same sex adoption is illogical and fear/hate based position. You haven't debated that position once, other than to make a random comment affirming digsbe's bigoted position. Since you did not distance yourself or change the context, but rather simply affirmed what he was saying, you were alligning yourself with him inadvertantly.

Regarding the rest... You interjected into our debate, why on earth would I go back and read your earlier posts. You and all this silly personal attacks stuff is lame at best, "put up or shut up" is a saying, if you don't know that it doesn't mean "shut up" but rather "make a decent argument" then that certainly is telling.

Sitting back and saying, "you aren't debating" is all well and dandy, but if it isn't true then it is kinda pathetic.

In the end, you are trying to avoid clarifying the context, or you just don't understand it... either way, it seems pretty pointless continuing with you about such stupidity as "you are attacking me" and "you aren't debating" and all this other ridiculous off point crap.

Everyone including Ciology, whom I replied to initially knows exactly what I was saying. You are the only one having an issue.

He said...

That's true you said that.

Verifying what I already said as true and accurate in my response to you.

Again you are not adding or rebuffing anything regarding my position, and nothing for me to really respond to that has not already been said.

You can "lol" etc and it means little.
 
Last edited:
Again you are not adding or rebuffing anything regarding my position, and nothing for me to really respond to that has not already been said.

You can "lol" etc and it means little.

Two things:

1. Spell my name right.
2. Leave me out of it. Don't rely on what I said just to prove a point to Bodhisattva. Come up with your own material.
 
Two things:
1. Spell my name right.

Oops! :confused:

2. Leave me out of it. Don't rely on what I said just to prove a point to Bodhisattva. Come up with your own material.

Can't now, you were the person I responded to initially. Somehow you knew exactly what I was saying as did everyone but him.

So like it or not, you are involved buddy. ;)

Besides, you already said what needed to be said.
 
Last edited:
Can't now, you were the person I responded to initially. Somehow you knew exactly what I was saying as did everyone but him.

So like it or not, you are involved buddy. ;)

Besides, you already said what needed to be said.

I wasn't saying that what you said was right, I was just saying that you said it.

:roll:

I take back what I said, your assumption about one mother/one father is better is a wild one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom