- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 18,536
- Reaction score
- 2,438
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It would be nowhere near the confusion and embarrassment a child who was raised by you would feel.
And that sir, is a FACT.
And that is baseless.
It would be nowhere near the confusion and embarrassment a child who was raised by you would feel.
And that sir, is a FACT.
Its and undenialable fact of life my left wing friend. There are millions of 2 sex families raising their children the right way. I pity a child who is being raised by 2 men. Imagine the confusion in his life and the embarrasssment when his friends find out........
And that is baseless.
not saying you are right or wrong but it has equally as much base as the same subject that Navy Pride originally claimed.
And that is baseless.
Navy Pride's statement is biased, as well as the biased statements pointed at him. However, the statements against the person alon, NP, is baseless because people really don't know him. NP's beliefs should be refutred with evidence, if any.
It has considerably greater base than what he was arguing.
I know his education level, how informed he is, and how honest he is from simply reading his posts. By contrast, he knows jack about same sex parents.
Wake, Navy's statements aren't simply biased, they are completely made up. And anyone with half a brain would know that.
It's the equivalent of saying.
WAKE IS A RAPIST!
Refute that with evidence...
Of course that statement is wildly outlandish and I have no basis for it whatsoever.
And neither has he for 95% of what he says on the subject of homosexuality or gay marriage.
And we know that well because some of us have seen him talk about this subject for years.
The "objectivity" you're trying to have right now is really idiotic.
There is no need to attack him personally. That's my point.
NP should elaborate/provide evidence for his pov. When he does, refute it. If he claims that homosexuals are bad parents, don't then say he's a bad parent. Instead, either after he's explained his pov or not, detroy it with logic and evidence.
I guess you can say it's getting a little old how 10+ members start dog-piling/attacking one member, when logic'll do better.
Navy Pride's statement is biased, as well as the biased statements pointed at him. However, the statements against the person alon, NP, is baseless because people really don't know him. NP's beliefs should be refutred with evidence, if any.
If you have concerns about personal attacks let the mods deal with it.
YOU DON'T SEEM TO BE GETTING THE MESSAGE.
Wake... we have talked about this subject with NavyPride for years, evidence, facts have been provided for him on this subject that could fill the library of congress and he refuses to acknowledge it at all. It's like how the Long form birth certificate didn't stop Orly Taitz from continuing her birther rampage.
NavyPride isn't a bad person, and if there are personal attacks the mods will deal with it. But he's just really old school, brought up in a different time with a different outlook. He will likely never come to accept homosexuality in any form whatsoever. He's made that pretty clear.
You're not looking like an objective person in this case Wake. Pick your battles better.
Yet at worse they still have equal base at best the comments against him have MORE.
These aren't battles. While he's opinionated, I don't like seeing him get personally attacked.
Though, your points, besides the "pick your battles/don't seem to get the message[though I perfectly understand it]," I understand.
I don't see how they have more base against him. He seems to think homosexuals don't make good parents. That doesn't mean his child would be embarrassed and confused about him. Obviously your beliefs differ, so refute his claim [beat this dead horse even deader] with logic.
I don't see how they have more base against him. He seems to think homosexuals don't make good parents. That doesn't mean his child would be embarrassed and confused about him. Obviously your beliefs differ, so refute his claim [beat this dead horse even deader] with logic.
There is no need to attack him personally. That's my point.
"Whose" is an irrelevant question.simple question, who's definition of marriage are YOU using?
Again, "whose" is irrelevant.and whos definition will the courts use?
It is understandable that you think that:I think you erroneously think your OPINION of that definition is the only/right one. :shrug:
That is why, sometime in the late 1960s/early 1970s, gay leaders began bombarding the media with oxymoronic (and thus intrinsically false) phrases like "SSM", "same sex marriage", "gay marriage", and the like. The purpose of doing so was to effect a form of mind-control such that after a couple of generations a greater segment of the population would not only be more comfortable hearing these oxymoronic statements, but that a sufficient number of people would actually erroneously think that "marriage" means other than in addition to "a man and a woman as husband and wife".
"Whose" is an irrelevant question.
There is one and only one accurate definition of marriage.
Naturally, that's the definition I used.
Again, "whose" is irrelevant.
If judges have succumbed to sufficient brainwashing, they could use an erroneous definition of marriage.
Hopefully they won't.
It is understandable that you think that:
Your question has been answered; there is no other correct answer than this: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/118583-court-ca-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-42.html#post1060195803.LMAO this is EXACTLY what I thought you would do :laughat:
whos is VERY relevant, now instead of dodging the question please man up and answer.
who's is EVERYTHING and your own answer will shoot huge holes in you post. Its probably why you choose not to answer. :shrug: either way doesnt matter to me the fact is your original post I quoted is currently erroneous
I ask you CC did your mother bring anything to the table that a gay man could not bring and I am not talking about a gay man pretending to be a mother.
It has considerably greater base than what he was arguing.
I know his education level, how informed he is, and how honest he is from simply reading his posts. By contrast, he knows jack about same sex parents.
Moderator's Warning: |
The topic is about GM, NOT individual posters. Cease this behavior. |
Your question has been answered; there is no other correct answer than this: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/118583-court-ca-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-42.html#post1060195803.
That you think there is another answer, well, that speaks to the answer I gave.
And, of course, completely irrelevant to Prop 8.Having a vagina or a penis between your legs has nothing to do with how good of a parent you are. The whole notion that kids require opposite sex parents in order to grow into a stable adult is completely ridiculous.
And, of course, completely irrelevant to Prop 8.
Prop 8 is about marriage, not parenthood.
And, of course, completely irrelevant to Prop 8
That defense of Prop 8 is not what Prop 8 is about.The defense for Prop 8 was that designating marriage for heterosexual cuoples was for the purpose of promoting procreation and optimal parenting.
Having a vagina or a penis between your legs has nothing to do with how good of a parent you are. The whole notion that kids require opposite sex parents in order to grow into a stable adult is completely ridiculous.