Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 247
  1. #201
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,445
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Of course it is. Over the course of three days I have had input from almost every Christian position; some still in flight as the particulars but nevertheless, 100% of the arguments have been religious. Yours is the only neutral position for what seems to be a simple decision as to whether the religiously conservative have the legal basis for applying their religiously inspired laws onto others of other faiths, of no faiths and even fellow Christians that do not share their specific interpretations or priorities. The answer is simply no.


    Consider it withdrawn then.


    Nope, mine is correct. A nuclear family includes same sex couples. Recall Al Franken tearing one of the anti-gay lawyers for attempting to hide that fact (src). I understand you don't want to continue further - I only want to establish where modern thinking is.


    Fair enough, it sounded like a generic comment.
    Well, if this helps.
    a. I am not Christian.
    b. I do not tend to posit Christian-based arguments.

    The next time I listen to what Al Franken says will be the first time. I take that back. I loved his Stewart Smalley character.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. #202
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Well, if this helps.
    a. I am not Christian.
    b. I do not tend to posit Christian-based arguments.

    The next time I listen to what Al Franken says will be the first time. I take that back. I loved his Stewart Smalley character.
    Well, then I have no idea why this is so difficult a topic to hold a definitive position on. This is unusual for you.

  3. #203
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,445
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Well, then I have no idea why this is so difficult a topic to hold a definitive position on. This is unusual for you.
    Again, you claim you want to understand, but nothing you actually write gives me that same impression.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  4. #204
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, you claim you want to understand, but nothing you actually write gives me that same impression.
    Well, I certainly have strongly held positions, backed up by facts and the last few days of discussions from all possible angles gives me more confidence. But don't mistaken my confidence that differing opinions can't be put forward or heard.

    I haven't summarily dismissed anyone's position so far, only challenged them. I'm certainly not going to accept an opposing view on face value!

  5. #205
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,445
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Well, I certainly have strongly held positions, backed up by facts and the last few days of discussions from all possible angles gives me more confidence. But don't mistaken my confidence that differing opinions can't be put forward or heard.

    I haven't summarily dismissed anyone's position so far, only challenged them. I'm certainly not going to accept an opposing view on face value!

    I'd say your version of "facts" is questionable.

    Example of a JJ factoid:
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    A nuclear family includes same sex couples
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...clear%20family
    a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children

    Now, we can disagree over the definition, but claiming you are stating an undeniable fact is absurd on its face. At worst you are flat-out wrong and, at best, your statement is not a fact. Yet, your "confidence" is based upon your belief that your facts are beyond reproach.

    Whether you have discussed this issue from "all possible angles" is also a highly questionable statement. After all, I apparently have approached this topic in a manner you have not witnessed thus far. Furthermore, you have stated that
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    100% of the arguments have been religious
    implying that there are absolutely no secular arguments against same-sex marriage.

    Finally, while you claim you have not summarily dismissed anyone's position, the truth is that you are always dismissive of opposing arguments based upon your perception of the author's ideology. It is impossible to take you seriously when you lump every argument with some sort of insult towards those who are religious, who are conservative, or just Republican.

    Now, go ahead and spin this all away.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #206
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I'd say your version of "facts" is questionable.

    Example of a JJ factoid:


    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...clear%20family
    a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children

    Now, we can disagree over the definition, but claiming you are stating an undeniable fact is absurd on its face. At worst you are flat-out wrong and, at best, your statement is not a fact. Yet, your "confidence" is based upon your belief that your facts are beyond reproach.
    We cannot disagree over definition because the term nuclear family as used in social studies does include same sex couples. You are using a definition that is no longer relevant or accurate in substantive discussions about same sex child rearing. It's what Franken exposed as being one of the smuggled premises by the anti-gay arguments. So it's important to remain current with these definitions.

    A quick recap:

    Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) took on a Focus on the Family executive at hearing on same-sex marriage Wednesday, challenging the validity of the witness’ testimony.

    “I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways,” Franken told Thomas Minnery of Focus on the Family, the conservative Colorado-based group that opposes same-sex marriage.

    The study in question, published by a division of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department in 2010, found better health outcomes among children in nuclear families – a point Minnery, senior vice president for public policy, said means children are better off with straight, married parents.

    But Franken pointed out that the study’s definition of “nuclear family” does not specify the gender of the parents in such families, suggesting a lack of evidence that same-sex couples’ kids are less healthy than the children of straight couples.

    “Sen. Franken is right,” the lead author of the study told POLITICO. The survey did not exclude same-sex couples, said Debra L. Blackwell, Ph.D., nor did it exclude them from the “nuclear family” category provided their family met the study’s definition.

    The study’s definition of nuclear family is: “one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents of all the children in the family.”

    Here, Minnery of Focus on the Family, is attempting to use a study that does not exclude same-sex couples in its explicit definition of a nuclear family, as if it did. So if we go by your definition, then Minnery would be right, the study does indeed show that heterosexual couples provide for a better family. However, the paper defines a nuclear family as including same-sex parents, and that is the modern understanding of the term. So in that case, you would be wrong.

    So which definition are going to continue using?

    Whether you have discussed this issue from "all possible angles" is also a highly questionable statement. After all, I apparently have approached this topic in a manner you have not witnessed thus far.
    You have refused to engage and appear to be undecided. That could mean you just haven't thought about it enough. It could mean you have some insight that hadn't yet surfaced. Who knows?

    Furthermore, you have stated that
    implying that there are absolutely no secular arguments against same-sex marriage.
    I think I can stand by that statement though I'd qualify it by saying there are no valid arguments!

    There are plenty of invalid secular seeming ones such CS's and LC's Regnerus studies but they're flawed and irrelevant to the points they are trying to make with them. CS's 'proper biological' blah blah ended up being a religious view in the end. And Eye's social study turned out that way too. So other than saying gay sex is icky, I don't think there is much left. Certainly none that could be considered valid.

    Finally, while you claim you have not summarily dismissed anyone's position, the truth is that you are always dismissive of opposing arguments based upon your perception of the author's ideology.
    No, I'm not. I'm only dismissive if people lie or spread falsehoods or are dishonest.

    However, in this specific case, if the reasoning is religious, then I can skip the rest of the arguments since we do not live in a theocracy. That's not an outright dismissal, it is just simply not constitutional.

    It is impossible to take you seriously when you lump every argument with some sort of insult towards those who are religious, who are conservative, or just Republican.
    I'm having a very reasoned debate on the Christian aspect of it right now and none of it has been insulting at all so you're wrong there. All my other recent arguments this week have been specifically target at flaws in everyone's arguments, including people on the same side. So whilst we have had our differences, you're the one currently being insulting and dismissive.

    On the use of the other terms, I have yet to be challenged that they are not accurate. It's what people call themselves and I am accurate in how as an aggregate they are voting. So I don't see the problem here.

    People may not like being criticized but I am open about what they are being criticized for so I can be corrected.

    And if you stand by silent while people post that gay marriage is not real marriage and gay sex is not proper then I suggest that your rage is a little misdirected. I will not stand by idly while this happens on a public forum.

    Now, go ahead and spin this all away.
    See? This kind of language is unnecessary. If someguy and I can draw a truce on that kind of language I think we can too.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; March 27th, 2014 at 04:42 PM.

  7. #207
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,445
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    We cannot disagree over definition because the term nuclear family as used in social studies does include same sex couples. You are using a definition that is no longer relevant or accurate in substantive discussions about same sex child rearing. It's what Franken exposed as being one of the smuggled premises by the anti-gay arguments. So it's important to remain current with these definitions.

    A quick recap:

    Here, Minnery of Focus on the Family, is attempting to use a study that does not exclude same-sex couples in its explicit definition of a nuclear family, as if it did. So if we go by your definition, then Minnery would be right, the study does indeed show that heterosexual couples provide for a better family. However, the paper defines a nuclear family as including same-sex parents, and that is the modern understanding of the term. So in that case, you would be wrong.

    So which definition are going to continue using?
    Again... we can disagree on the definition. The point is that your definition is, by definition, not a fact. It is your opinion. You do understand the difference between facts and opinions, right? You have chosen a single study to base your opinion and then declared it is the universal definition used in social studies. That is absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    You have refused to engage and appear to be undecided. That could mean you just haven't thought about it enough. It could mean you have some insight that hadn't yet surfaced. Who knows?
    Indeed. Who knows? I am simply pointing out you have clearly not heard EVERY argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I think I can stand by that statement though I'd qualify it by saying there are no valid arguments!
    Well... there you go. The leopard sheds its spots. This is why you are a blight on this website.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    There are plenty of invalid secular seeming ones such CS's and LC's Regnerus studies but they're flawed and irrelevant to the points they are trying to make with them. CS's 'proper biological' blah blah ended up being a religious view in the end. And Eye's social study turned out that way too. So other than saying gay sex is icky, I don't think there is much left. Certainly none that could be considered valid.
    Yup, you've read and heard them all... lol, you are a parody of yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    No, I'm not. I'm only dismissive if people lie or spread falsehoods or are dishonest.
    Of course, you are the sole judge in determining whether someone has lied, is spreading falsehoods, or is dishonest. You are a regular walking, typing, kangaroo court.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    However, in this specific case, if the reasoning is religious, then I can skip the rest of the arguments since we do not live in a theocracy. That's not an outright dismissal, it is just simply not constitutional.
    Oh, and you're a Constitutional lawyer as well. My, my, aren't we special?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I'm having a very reasoned debate on the Christian aspect of it right now and none of it has been insulting at all so you're wrong there. All my other recent arguments this week have been specifically target at flaws in everyone's arguments, including people on the same side. So whilst we have had our differences, you're the one currently being insulting and dismissive.
    Are you even reading what you write? You have dismissed, out of hand, any and all arguments which oppose your own views. Nothing you are saying is remotely reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    On the use of the other terms, I have yet to be challenged that they are not accurate. It's what people call themselves and I am accurate in how as an aggregate they are voting. So I don't see the problem here.
    This is a load of crap. You have frequently been challenged for use of these stereotypes. I know, I for one, have called you out for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    People may not like being criticized but I am open about what they are being criticized for so I can be corrected.
    This is a debate website. Everyone on here expects to have their opinions and views opposed. The farce is that you believe you are actually correcting people. No one is paying attention to your arguments. I stopped paying attention weeks ago. Your argumentation is just a series of ideological rants based on false premises and faulty conclusions. Just look at the poor assumptions you've made in the last few posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    And if you stand by silent while people post that gay marriage is not real marriage and gay sex is not proper then I suggest that your rage is a little misdirected. I will not stand by idly while this happens on a public forum.
    So, again, you are not here to debate anything in particular. You're just here to put people in their proper place. I am anything but rageful. I am laughing at you. There is no rage. None. I don't get offended by people trying to argue their points on a debate website. If I find a topic interesting, I'll address it. Twice now, though, my attempts to engage in a reasonable and rational discussion with Gemini have been sidetracked by your vanity and self-importance.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    See? This kind of language is unnecessary. If someguy and I can draw a truce on that kind of language I think we can too.
    What's wrong? You cannot handle the critique? You cannot handle being corrected? I don't get it.... lol. This is priceless. Go ahead and have the last word. If you cannot read your posts and realize how ridiculous you sound, then there is nothing more for me to do.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. #208
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again... we can disagree on the definition. The point is that your definition is, by definition, not a fact. It is your opinion. You do understand the difference between facts and opinions, right? You have chosen a single study to base your opinion and then declared it is the universal definition used in social studies. That is absurd.
    OK, you're right, we can disagree on the definition, but yours is wrong. And it is not opinion that the definition has moved on, it is actual fact.

    If you do a simple google "define nuclear family":

    The first definition is " couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit." and does not mention gender.
    Then we have:
    Wikipedia, that mentions that the term has moved on "The term nuclear family first appeared in the early twentieth century. Alternative definitions have evolved to include family units headed by same-sex parents,"
    Dictionary.com: "asocialunitcomposedoftwoparentsandoneormorechildren." also does not mention gender.
    Encyclopedia.com: "the definition of the nuclear family has expanded with the advent of same-sex marriage."
    LoveToKnow.com: "today's definition often includes two-parent families with same sex parents raising the biological children of one parent or the children that both have adopted."

    You get the picture. I'm not arguing that there aren't alternative definitions (only you are) and I'm not saying that the paper was the proof (there are others) and I'm not saying it is 'universal' either - clearly there are older definitions and incorrect uses, I have already said 'modern' and shown a clear example of how the term is being deliberately misused.

    What I am saying is that you appear to have ignored at least 5 of the top 20 hits and chose to find argument where there needn't be. Especially, since the context of the term is clear, as we're talking about children in same-sex marriages, which should narrow the meaning we should choose. So you are wrong on every single count except in the specifically narrow case where you decide to take what I wrote out of context of this thread and into the 1950's that same-sex marriage opponents use. That's absurd.


    Indeed. Who knows? I am simply pointing out you have clearly not heard EVERY argument.
    Ah, you are indeed correct, I haven't heard every single combination of the English language (nor others, mind) that enumerates the case for the other side. However, I do have data points across multiple axes that allows me to interpolate the various responses possible. And the range of responses are sufficient for me to not be surprised by new arguments. Are you Mr. Robot that can only read things literally to win a point?

    JJ: I think I can stand by that statement though I'd qualify it by saying there are no valid arguments!
    Well... there you go. The leopard sheds its spots. This is why you are a blight on this website.
    Hmm, considering some of what has been written recently, I'd consider that compliment.

    Of course, you are the sole judge in determining whether someone has lied, is spreading falsehoods, or is dishonest. You are a regular walking, typing, kangaroo court.
    Sure, if relaying the actual facts and pointing flaws in arguments makes me a 'judge' then so be it.

    Oh, and you're a Constitutional lawyer as well. My, my, aren't we special?
    I don't think you even have to be a lawyer of any kind on this case.

    Are you even reading what you write? You have dismissed, out of hand, any and all arguments which oppose your own views. Nothing you are saying is remotely reasonable.
    No, again, read: I have offered counter arguments that bring down the opposing side, that's called debating. If there is a counter to my points then they can be offered. So there really aren't any final 'decisions' nor dismissals' that cannot be countered. So I have no idea what you really mean here.

    This is a load of crap. You have frequently been challenged for use of these stereotypes. I know, I for one, have called you out for it.
    Yes, and I have responded back with facts and evidence that these are accurate descriptions and depictions. You can keep saying it is inaccurate that it is a right-wing political platform to oppose gay marriage all day. And you can even show evidence (which you still haven't, of course but in fact, I have) to show that there exists Republican politicians and gay groups. Yet, they are the minority and often drowned out by the social conservative religious arm of the party. So as a party, a caucus, my depiction is correct. That many Republicans have given up the fight and left the party and described it as bigoted in that aspect also proves my point.

    So you continue to call me out but that's all you really do: call out in your little voice what the problem is but fail to provide any basis or facts to counter it. When you do, you'll have something substantive to offer but whining on a regular basis does little to really help. I started up another thread where you can properly challenge the 'right-wing use of marriage' but since you have little to offer than insults since that's easier than doing some work on the matter, I doubt you would.


    This is a debate website. Everyone on here expects to have their opinions and views opposed. The farce is that you believe you are actually correcting people. No one is paying attention to your arguments. I stopped paying attention weeks ago. Your argumentation is just a series of ideological rants based on false premises and faulty conclusions. Just look at the poor assumptions you've made in the last few posts.
    Yawn, I think you're starting to repeat yourself and running out of arguments because all you're doing is whining and not offering any facts. Again.

    So, again, you are not here to debate anything in particular. You're just here to put people in their proper place. I am anything but rageful. I am laughing at you. There is no rage. None. I don't get offended by people trying to argue their points on a debate website. If I find a topic interesting, I'll address it. Twice now, though, my attempts to engage in a reasonable and rational discussion with Gemini have been sidetracked by your vanity and self-importance.
    I'm here to quickly correct facts - that's not putting people in their place. Perhaps too quick, and perhaps sometimes unwelcome, but I can't help that; it's OCD. Look at Eye's post, which initially looked fine until I looked into it and exposed its underlying bigotry. I don't expect thanks but at least that line of argument needs to find better support.

    So it's not about putting people in their place, it's about getting people to put forward better evidence for the positions they are purporting to hold. If they cannot defend it on those terms then the evidence can removed and the point remains unproven. It's that simple!

    What's wrong? You cannot handle the critique? You cannot handle being corrected? I don't get it.... lol. This is priceless. Go ahead and have the last word. If you cannot read your posts and realize how ridiculous you sound, then there is nothing more for me to do.
    Hmm, carry on then. Your regular foot stomping is fun to respond to - it's brain candy, of little substance, little use and has little effect.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; March 28th, 2014 at 09:46 AM.

  9. #209
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Belief-wise, it is wholly atheists on the pro-gay side and the religious on the anti-gay side.
    There you go again, making assumptions.

    First let’s start with “it is wholly atheists on pro-gay side": That is incorrect.

    Around 20 percent of self-identified atheists and agnostics don’t support same-sex marriage:
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...n_gay_marriage

    The iron fist in the velvet glove of gay marriage
    Brendan O’Neill, atheistic libertarian, humanist; journalist

    Following the publication yesterday of the Lib-Con government’s proposals for introducing gay marriage, there has been a frenetic debate about whether religious freedom will be harmed by allowing homosexuals to get hitched. The government has given assurances that religious institutions will not be forced to carry out same-sex weddings (and has actually banned the Church of England from doing so), yet still the eye of this stormy debate has focused on whether religious groups’ rights to uphold and celebrate only traditional marriage will be dented by the government’s fervent promotion of same-sex marriage.

    What a massive red herring. What an enormous distraction from the real authoritarian instinct motoring the Conservative Party’s and others’ conversion to the cause of gay marriage. The central problem with the gay marriage agenda is not that at some point in the future an unwilling man of the cloth might be strongarmed into giving his blessing to a gay union, but rather that it allows the state to do something that was traditionally considered beyond its purview: to redefine the meaning of marriage and, by extension, the meaning of the marital home, the family, and our most intimate relationships. Some have sought to depict the drive for gay marriage as a continuation of the struggle for civil rights that exploded in the mid-twentieth century; it’s better understood as a continuation, and intensification, of the modern state’s desire to get a foot in the door of our private lives and to assume sovereignty over our relationships.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...4#.UzaHYoWa9ns


    Next there’s homosexuals against gay marriage:

    The gay people against gay marriage
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22758434

    "It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage - the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same."

    Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn't fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage. But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.

    "We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.

    Until the federal government recognises and codifies the same rights for same-sex couples as straight ones, equality is the goal so why get hung up on a word, he asks.
    "I'm not going to walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn wearing white in a church and throw a bouquet and do the first dance," adds Soroff, columnist for the Improper Boston.

    'It's undeniable that marriage has historically also discriminated against same-sex couples," Card says.

    As a result, she thinks the issue of marriage is a distraction.

    Gay activists should instead put their energies into environmental issues like climate change, because there's a chance to make a morally more defensible and more urgent difference."

    Others in the "No" camp oppose marriage more broadly because, they say, it denies benefits to people who are unmarried, or because they say it simply doesn't work.

    Legba Carrefour, who describes himself as "radical queer", calls it a "destructive way of life" that produces broken families.


    I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

    I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.

    The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
    Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.

    I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.

    I’m gay, and I oppose gay marriage

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/im-...e-gay-marriage

    Genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness, which suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had same-sex marriages in mind as they penned their magnificent giant leap forward for humanity. While this situation is highly unlikely, those who selfishly seek additional “rights” for themselves have found their justification in the penumbra they now sense surrounding legitimate civil rights.

    Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.

    This isn’t the first time our society has undefined marriage. No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time. Its unintended consequence was that it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.
    Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over

    Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.

    Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?

    Homosexuals Against Gay Marriage
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8N2nGavCKA


    Then there’s the kids of gays who oppose same-sex marriage

    Queer Kids of Queer Parents Against Gay Marriage
    http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/

    It’s hard for us to believe what we’re hearing these days. Thousands are losing their homes, and gays want a day named after Harvey Milk. The U.S. military is continuing its path of destruction, and gays want to be allowed to fight. Cops are still killing unarmed black men and bashing queers, and gays want more policing. More and more Americans are suffering and dying because they can’t get decent health care, and gays want weddings. What happened to us? Where have our communities gone? Did gays really sell out that easily?

    As young queer people raised in queer families and communities, we reject the liberal gay agenda that gives top priority to the fight for marriage equality. The queer families and communities we are proud to have been raised in are nothing like the ones transformed by marriage equality. This agenda fractures our communities, pits us against natural allies, supports unequal power structures, obscures urgent queer concerns, abandons struggle for mutual sustainability inside queer communities and disregards our awesomely fabulous queer history.


    Then there’s Christian gays -- some of whom do not support gay-marriage

    Love that Does Not Count the Cost
    https://www.gaychristian.net/rons_view.php

    At the end of the book of Eccelsiastes, Solomon concluded that, “Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:12-14). And here I, too, could end, for “much study is a weariness of the flesh” and I have already put much study into this paper. “Keep the commandments” would not be a bad ending, but it would not do full justice to the Good News of the Gospel.

    The negative side of things which I have been describing here was really not what moved my heart most strongly to embrace celibacy. It was a powerful force, and without this negative belief that the gay marriage route was closed off, I would have put a great deal more energy into pursuing that kind of relationship with another guy. But the Scripture whose rich depths offer far more than the negative prescriptions of the commandments, and the fear of God that they engender, had another driving force waiting in the wings.

    I’m here to quickly correct facts
    That may be a lofty goal, however, if you want to be a fact checker, I won’t recommend that you quit your day job .. yet.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  10. #210
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    There you go again, making assumptions.
    Actually, if you read this, in the context of my reply back to you, I was talking about ODN and this and the other couple of threads discussing similar issues!

    To wit, I begin with:

    "Yet, all the reasons here and in other recent threads boil down to a religious belief that a 'marriag ...."

    The continue with, "We have all seen the full range religious arguments. " then enumerate the 5 or 6 threads I have participated in on this specific matter.

    And then:
    "Belief-wise, it is wholly atheists on the pro-gay side and the religious on the anti-gay side. So if we're not talking about religion, or to be more accurate the religious right's attempt at becoming a theocracy, whilst trying very hard (though not hard enough) to mask that fact, then what are we talking about? And why be evasive about it?"

    Which is clearly continuing the theme of talking about ODN. Also, it should be clear that I'm talking about US politics since in the UK (as I'm sure you know since you keep quoting from there) now supports gay marriage.

    So context is important, but more importantly, I live in the same world you do and have access to the same facts:

    First let’s start with “it is wholly atheists on pro-gay side": That is incorrect.
    First of all, culturally, I would imagine there are a ton of Asian people that are against gay marriage. So it couldn't possibly be true in the real world. That's why the context is US politics.

    Next there’s homosexuals against gay marriage:
    Of course, there are, they're called Republicans (half-joking!). I've already pointed out that there are plenty of Republican politicians that have famously voted or campaigned on anti-gay messages and then turned out to be gay themselves. Or some of those people that claim to be cured of 'The Gay' are another group that are probably suppressing or not choosing to express their natural-born homosexuality. Michelle Bachmann's husband, not gay but does an incredible good impression of someone who is, is famous for running a clinic for such a cure.

    Then there’s the kids of gays who oppose same-sex marriage
    Not a surprise this would exist.

    Then there’s Christian gays -- some of whom do not support gay-marriage
    Yes, it's called the Catholic Church!

    So while your points here are actually great for another debate since there may be a couple of reasons in there that don't have a religious source or just aren't bigoted or ignorant - especially my own about the Asian cultural reasons against homosexuality. That's not for this specific thread, which has been derailed enough already (guilty!)

    JJ:I’m here to quickly correct facts
    That may be a lofty goal, however, if you want to be a fact checker, I won’t recommend that you quit your day job .. yet.
    Yes, and neither should you take words out of context into an area to show contradictions with knowledge you should know and I have and have proven I have.

  11. #211
    AlienCranium
    Guest

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    As far as same-sex marriage being a bad thing for children, in my own opinion, it is but a wonderful thing for children.
    When we go back to looking at why marriage was important before now, it was important do to one main thing. Reflecting back to the 15-1600's we see that young women got no say in whom they married. It was left up to the father of the bride to be and usually, this female was 15 or younger when married off. So really, the male took the choice as to who they wanted to marry and offered an amount of money and the father then decided if he would or wouldn't allow his daughter to marry based upon the price he could practically sell her for.

    Women wear white in weddings for the main purpose that white represents purity and that the female should be a virgin. Again reflecting back to the 15-1600's we see that if the daughter was in fact not a virgin or not "pure" the parents would then put her to death by either burying her alive or stoning her to death. The father walks his daughter down the isle, because he is giving her away and still this is a daily thing but in the 15-1600's he was literally giving her away. The male then could do whatever he'd like with his new bride. As you can see I have not mentioned the mother's choice because, she had no say.

    I have reflected back enough to state my point that marriage was not about 'love' like it is today. The concept of marriage has changed a great deal and we can see that now by looking at daily marriages all around. Women now get married in their 20's and older, mostly. It is a rare occasion that the female will get married any younger than 18. The male now asks the female rather than asking her father. The male no longer pays the father so that he may marry. The woman now has a decision as to whether she will or will not marry this man. Most females lose their virginity in their teens so they are no longer what is known as 'pure' and yet, the parents do not stone their children anymore or bury them alive because, that's now illegal.

    Anyhow, you can now see that the concept of 'love' is what rules marriages today and it would be ridiculous to think that one cannot love another of the same gender. Marriage has evolved slowly over time, 1000's of years in fact. But same gender marriages are not promoting children to think that they will want to be with someone of the same gender, it is letting them know that it is okay to be with someone of the same gender. Again, marriage is based upon love today and if this child learns that it is okay to be with someone of the same gender, they then can learn to love someone of the same gender, leading to marrying someone of the same gender and forming a stable foundation with a stable marriage of their own. Either way, it is the choice of another human being and if we're going to focus entirely on same gender marriage, can we focus on people getting tattoo's of bible quotes when Leviticus 19:28 says plainly "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourself. For I am the Lord." But these things are so common and so well accepted by society that I suppose that does not matter and instead of preaching these things we preach that one cannot love another.

    We do not preach that men should not clip the edges of their beards or that women should not cut their hair yet, we have men without beards walking all around and women without hair just sitting in a cafe or reading a book because, they are normal people and so well accepted by society that it does not matter what one says. Do we not stop to think that this is a bad influence on a child? More people care about their appearance rather than who they will grow to love. In fact, they work on their appearance try so hard so that they can capture the attention of someone they want to be with. Do we not teach the young to not clip their beards or cut their hair? It's proved to be normal now, in modern time, yet loving someone isn't.

    The problem with religion is that people interpret it differently.

    For instance, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

    On one side people take this very literally. Saying that a man shouldn't lay with another man as a man lays with a woman. However, when you take this figuratively Paul could have mean't that men should not mate with other men of different social classes. If one must use Leviticus literally than one should remember these laws that most Christian do not follow today:
    1) One should not eat fallen fruits
    2) One should not eat shellfish
    3) Ancient Israelite are forbidden to eat pork
    4) One may not wear fabrics made of different threads
    5) You can't eat from crops that have been planted on the same ground as different crop before it

    We should teach children to be loving and accept all that they can. We should raise children with an open mind. We need to let them mold themselves and be who they are meant to become. We shouldn't base their being upon a book so misinterpreted to fit the needs of others. They're eventually going to make their own decision either way. Whether you read the bible to them daily or not at all, they will be on their own one day and when that day comes, they're going to find out just what they want and just who they are. There's no stopping. So why not teach them to have an open mind when they're young and teach them how to love and accept when they're young. Save them trouble in the future.

  12. #212
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I was talking about ODN ...Yes, and neither should you take words out of context
    Clarity is always a good a idea. So since we've cleared that up that some atheists do not support gay marriage, and some gay Christians do not support gay marriage, and some gay people do not support gay marriage, if your comment “Belief-wise, it is wholly atheists on the pro-gay side and the religious on the anti-gay side” was only referencing ODN members, how do you know the position of all ODN members? Have you debated with all ODN members or do you have some type of psychic ability that you can support with data into the personal views of all ODN member's position on gay marriage?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  13. #213
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Clarity is always a good a idea.
    Seemed pretty clear to me when I wrote it - I was surprised you'd totally take that out of context. It was only 6 sentences if that! How do you even come up with what you did with an honest reading?

    So since we've cleared that up that some atheists do not support gay marriage, and some gay Christians do not support gay marriage, and some gay people do not support gay marriage,
    There was nothing to be cleared up other than your misreading.

    if your comment “Belief-wise, it is wholly atheists on the pro-gay side and the religious on the anti-gay side” was only referencing ODN members, how do you know the position of all ODN members?
    How about 'thusfar wholly' if you want to go down to the pedantic route? The point was that it was odd that only religious people spoke against gay marriage even though there are, or must be Christians who would vote for gay marriage. It's just a little surprisingly down political lines.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; March 29th, 2014 at 11:06 PM.

  14. #214
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by AlienCranium View Post
    As far as same-sex marriage being a bad thing for children, in my own opinion, it is but a wonderful thing for children.
    Welcome to ODN debating. I hope you find your stay here a profitable one. Now to the business of debate:

    So, you've stated your position clearly, which is a good start. Now comes the hard part: supporting it with evidence...

    Quote Originally Posted by AlienCranium
    When we go back to looking at why marriage was important before now, it was important do to one main thing. Reflecting back to the 15-1600's we see that young women got no say in whom they married. It was left up to the father of the bride to be and usually, this female was 15 or younger when married off. So really, the male took the choice as to who they wanted to marry and offered an amount of money and the father then decided if he would or wouldn't allow his daughter to marry based upon the price he could practically sell her for.
    You're obviously speaking of arranged marriages. Wasn't it generally the case with arranged marriages that both the father of the bride and the father of the groom arranged the marriage? In any case, I don't see why arranged marriages are so "important" to the question for debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by AC
    Women wear white in weddings for the main purpose that white represents purity and that the female should be a virgin. Again reflecting back to the 15-1600's we see that if the daughter was in fact not a virgin or not "pure" the parents would then put her to death by either burying her alive or stoning her to death.
    I am not aware that in every culture worldwide non-virgin brides were generally buried alive or stoned to death, nor is that claim self-evidently true, nor do I believe it to be true as stated, so please provide some evidence that it is true as stated, re-state it with a qualifying adjective or adjectival phrase that renders it true, or drop it.

    Quote Originally Posted by AC
    The father walks his daughter down the isle, because he is giving her away and still this is a daily thing but in the 15-1600's he was literally giving her away.
    Now you've just contradicted yourself, as above you claimed he sold her. You can't sell what you're "literally giving...away". If you could, then charitable organizations in the US would be some of the richest organizations in the world!

    Quote Originally Posted by AC
    The male then could do whatever he'd like with his new bride. As you can see I have not mentioned the mother's choice because, she had no say.
    You have also not mentioned any evidence for the truth of any of this. Specifically, you have not forwarded any evidence for your claim above that in times past it was generally true a husband "could do whatever he liked with his new bride", nor for your claim mothers "had no say" in the marriage arrangements.

    Quote Originally Posted by AC
    I have reflected back enough to state my point that marriage was not about 'love' like it is today.
    You don't need to "reflect back" to state your opinion. But when you have an obligation to support your opinion that same sex marriage "...is but a wonderful thing for children", as you do in this debate, simply explaining how you personally see marriages of the past as not being "about 'love' like it is today" does not "support" that opinion, as would be the case if you had any actual evidence for the things you believe to be true about marriages in "the 15-1600s".

    Furthermore, even assuming what you believe to be the facts about arranged marriages is true, and I don't, it doesn't follow that husbands and wives in the "15-1600s" didn't love one another. For all you've said here, they very well may have loved one another with a better quality of love than most husbands and wives do today!

    Quote Originally Posted by AC
    The concept of marriage has changed a great deal and we can see that now by looking at daily marriages all around. Women now get married in their 20's and older, mostly. It is a rare occasion that the female will get married any younger than 18.
    Again, if you're going to state something like this as fact, and if you're going to use it in your argument as a "premise", because it's not self-evidently true, you need to provide some evidence or evidential argument for it's truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by AC
    The male now asks the female rather than asking her father.
    In some countries. But if you want to say in all countries, or in most countries, then you need to support which of these claims you're actually making.

    Quote Originally Posted by AC
    The male no longer pays the father so that he may marry.
    This is yet another in what has by this point become nothing but a string of unsupported, and to my mind in most instances, false claims about the world. As evidence, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica (note the preceding text is a different color signifying it constitutes a url link to the a webpage on the website "Encyclopedia Britannica", which, if you mouse click on the blue colored text, it will take you there):

    "bridewealth, also called bride-price or marriage payment, payment made by a groom or his kin to the kin of the bride in order to ratify a marriage. In such cultures, a marriage is not reckoned to have ended until the return of bridewealth has been acknowledged, signifying divorce..."

    "The practice is common in all parts of the globe in one form or another but, as an instrument for the legitimation of a marriage, is most highly developed in Africa. In many traditional African societies the husband could not assume full rights to the sexual, economic, or procreative powers of his wife until a standard portion of the bridewealth had been transferred."

    So while I'm sure you'd be correct were your claim less sweeping than the universal truth you've cast it as by the way in which you've stated it, it is not true as you've stated it, at least not according to the authority of the Encyclopedia Britannica (EB). Therefore, you now have three basic choices. You can a) provide a source that is clearly more authoritative than the EB, and contradicts it, or you can properly qualify your claim from the universal truth it is as stated, to something more in line with reality, or you can drop the claim altogether. One of these three things is required by the ODN rule to "support or retract" when a debating opponent "challenges" a claim you've made by providing something that tends to call into question its truth value, as I've just done for your claim that the "male no longer pays the father so that he may marry".

    Furthermore, if you've made a claim that isn't common knowledge or self-evidently true, and with which your opponent explicitly disagrees, without providing any sort of support for it at all, beyond simply stating it, then your debating opponents don't even need to provide a reason to doubt it before explicitly challenging it, thereby instantiating the requirement that you provide some sort of authoritative support for it.

    Now, I'm going to stop here, because I've got to assume what you've done to this point in your post has an important bearing on anything in your post that follows, and since what you've provided to this point in your post is at best completely unsupported, and at worst also false, it really doesn't matter what follows. So you need to go back, re-work the above into something that a) will support your basic contention that same-sex marriage, "...is but a wonderful thing for children", and b) that you can defend against your opponents' defeater arguments if or when they present them to you.

    And I'm sorry if this all sounds "preachy". I'm trying to help you get your feet on the ground, so to speak. I hope to soon witness you kicking butt and taking names with your contributions to the debates here, and in a manner consistent with the rules of ODN, and, again, welcome.

  15. #215
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    @eye:

    I can't help but be curious as to why you're more bothered by my understating the position on the anti-gay side but not over-stating of the pro-gay side. Your research only extended as far as defending the anti-gay position but didn't also look into how there are many Christians (or more relevant, American Christians) who are voting for gay marriage (and there is also the Libertarian arm which I believe support gay marriage too). Just an observation but your meticulousness to prove me wrong was a little unbalanced.

    Also, why have you not responded to anyone regarding the list of social ills caused by The Gay, including, strangely, not 'lowering marital decline'! You know, the one where you had to be prodded to reveal that the authors of the list didn't think that gay marriages weren't really marriages? Is there any chance that you could formally withdraw that post? It doesn't appear to add to the anti-gay-marriage side of things and indeed exposes its underlying bigotry. Can you defend or withdraw the list, as a formal challenge?

  16. #216
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Seemed pretty clear to me when I wrote it
    This would have been clear:

    “I realize that not all atheist members on ODN have weighed in on the subject of gay marriage, but from the few members who have weighed in on this thread regarding “children/ parenting and gay marriage” here is what I have observed from some members of this forum regarding atheistic views on the subject of children and gay marriage ....... though I realize that this may not reflect all atheists views on ODN or nationally regarding children and gay marriage.”

    Also, why have you not responded to anyone regarding the list of social ills caused by The Gay
    The subject of this thread is children and gay marriage. As I pointed out before, I responded to Mican’s statement to point out there were additional arguments to the issue besides what he posted.

    Also, personally, I'm not all that interested in the subject but I am interested in accurate information on social issues in general.

    research only extended as far as defending the anti-gay position but didn't also look into how there are many Christians (or more relevant, American Christians)
    If you would like to start a thread on "Christian views and gay marriage" you are welcome to do so. As Gemini noted, this thread is not about religion.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  17. #217
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    This would have been clear:

    “I realize that not all atheist members on ODN have weighed in on the subject of gay marriage, but from the few members who have weighed in on this thread regarding “children/ parenting and gay marriage” here is what I have observed from some members of this forum regarding atheistic views on the subject of children and gay marriage ....... though I realize that this may not reflect all atheists views on ODN or nationally regarding children and gay marriage.”
    Actually, I was also looking for Christian perspectives too.

    The subject of this thread is children and gay marriage. As I pointed out before, I responded to Mican’s statement to point out there were additional arguments to the issue besides what he posted.

    Also, personally, I'm not all that interested in the subject but I am interested in accurate information on social issues in general.
    Yes, but what you posted didn't seem particularly valid to be honest, much like the Regnerud studies that have also been forwarded. So whilst I applaud and welcome additional arguments, I'd expect there to be some level of truth to them. This one didn't seem particularly honest. So are you really going to stand by the list of reasons that are egregiously flawed? An article that begs the question with 'gay marriage is not really marriage'?


    If you would like to start a thread on "Christian views and gay marriage" you are welcome to do so. As Gemini noted, this thread is not about religion.
    I already have two separate very good and honest ones on this topic. And learning a great deal too, I might add. Also, Gemini, as admitted that the reasons are largely religious as this thread as attested to. And in not addressing that directly, is to not have an honest discussion IMHO.

  18. #218
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Yes, but what you posted didn't seem particularly valid to be honest,
    That's your opinion. If you don’t like the evidence of the study I cited about the societal consequences of same sex marriage primarily in Europe that was presented to the House of Commons in London, and if you’re really interested in the study and think its data is faulty, you are free to start a thread on the subject of “Same sex marriage societal consequences” and show why this study's data is faulty.

    When Mican causally pointed out that there were primarily two arguments against same sex marriage, I could have causally just responded with, “No, Mican there are also other arguments” or as should be done in debate, I stated there is another argument to the issue and showed some support for it. The fact that you don’t happen to like that support (study) is your choice and you are free to prove this study faulty in a thread on the subject of "Societal consequences of same sex marriage." The subject of this thread is "children and same sex marriage."
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  19. #219
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    That's your opinion. If you don’t like the evidence of the study I cited about the societal consequences of same sex marriage primarily in Europe that was presented to the House of Commons in London, and if you’re really interested in the study and think its data is faulty, you are free to start a thread on the subject of “Same sex marriage societal consequences” and show why this study's data is faulty.
    First, it's not a study. Let's get that mischaracterization out of the way before we continue.

    Secondly, the smuggling of the premise, that 'gay marriages are not really marriages', is not only offensive considering the nature of the topic; but clearly shows religious motivations underlying the reasons for the opposing side.

    Thirdly, the list is full of nonsense such as 'that same-sex marriage prevents marital decline' or 'does not prevent homosexual couples from breaking up more frequently than married heterosexual couples.'. Are these what you consider valid arguments?

    When Mican causally pointed out that there were primarily two arguments against same sex marriage, I could have causally just responded with, “No, Mican there are also other arguments” or as should be done in debate, I stated there is another argument to the issue and showed some support for it. The fact that you don’t happen to like that support and study is your choice and you are free to prove this study faulty in a thread on the subject of "Societal consequences of same sex marriage." The subject of this thread is children and same sex marriage.
    My challenge, which still stands, is to have this study removed from the thread. I understand that you're showing there is another argument but this does not qualify for the reasons specified above. Indeed, it just clarifies that the opposing side really doesn't have an argument at all since none of the points have any relevancy to same sex marriage.

    You are responsible for choosing evidence to support your claim that other valid arguments exist. You have not yet shown that.

    If you're OK with that all you are demonstrating is that poor reasons exist against gay marriage, then just admit it but don't throw spaghetti and the wall to see what sticks.

  20. #220
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    First, it's not a study. Let's get that mischaracterization out of the way before we continue.
    That's right, more specifically it was a paper, that was submitted to London's House of Commons.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ist-warns.html

    Thirdly, the list is full of nonsense
    That's your opinion and you are free not to accept the support for my statement that there are societal consequences to same-sex marriage.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

 

 
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 116
    Last Post: January 26th, 2013, 05:38 PM
  2. Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 17th, 2011, 06:43 AM
  3. Marriage better for children
    By chadn737 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: July 5th, 2009, 05:19 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 1st, 2007, 08:27 PM
  5. Do you have, or want children?
    By Jamie in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 24th, 2005, 06:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •