|
United States200 Posts
On June 27 2013 08:58 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views.
Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other  I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. And Homo Sapiens are the natural product of Africa, so that is the best place for them. No, that's not a fucking argument. We as humans have bent every bit of nature in the world. You know this thing you're using called a computer? It ain't natural. Language? Not natural. Homosexuality? Natural, because it happens in nature.
You sound pretty angry there. Does your need to describe my argument as "fucking" come from your love for others? Is this how you promote equality? Anyway, homosexuality may be natural, but tell me why that implies children born of a father (sperm) and mother (egg) deserve to be raised by homosexual couples.
|
On June 27 2013 08:49 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 07:52 salle wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:
[quote]
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.”
― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:
[quote]
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.”
― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let's take a look at article 1 point 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. I don't think that leaves much room for what should and shouldn't be a right. Unless you want to try and argue that it semantically means it must be one man and one woman. Something this statement doesn't point out, nor does it point out that it is only 2 people. And what is to say a same sex couple is not a family unit, lesbians can (and do) have biological children. Two men can adopt, just like infertile heterosexual couples can. These laws would help protect those family units better. Something they should be granted by the state, as stated in the previous quote from the UDHR. This article does not address gay marriage. Your view of a family is different from mine. I believe every child deserves a father and mother, and it is those families that I want my government to support.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L7JtyVg.gif)
A strong, moral christian couple with an 8 year old son. The beautiful young woman's husband dies while deployed in Afghanistan. Her child is taken by the government and given to a real family.
On June 27 2013 09:07 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 08:58 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:
[quote]
Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance).
[quote]
From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing?
Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. And Homo Sapiens are the natural product of Africa, so that is the best place for them. No, that's not a fucking argument. We as humans have bent every bit of nature in the world. You know this thing you're using called a computer? It ain't natural. Language? Not natural. Homosexuality? Natural, because it happens in nature. You sound pretty angry there. Does your need to describe my argument as "fucking" come from your love for others? Is this how you promote equality? Anyway, homosexuality may be natural, but tell me why that implies children born of a father (sperm) and mother (egg) deserve to be raised by homosexual couples.
Why should a child born of a father and mother be raised by only a father? Why should a child born of a father and mother be raised by only one mother? Why not two mothers and two fathers?
You're not advocating taking children away from situations where they don't have both a father and a mother. You're not advocating that situations where children would not have a mother and a father should be prevented by law. You're saying that gay people should be excluded because you don't like the idea of them having children. Which is dumb because they already do, their children just don't have the benefit of having married parents.
|
On June 27 2013 09:07 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 08:58 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:
[quote]
Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance).
[quote]
From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing?
Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. And Homo Sapiens are the natural product of Africa, so that is the best place for them. No, that's not a fucking argument. We as humans have bent every bit of nature in the world. You know this thing you're using called a computer? It ain't natural. Language? Not natural. Homosexuality? Natural, because it happens in nature. You sound pretty angry there. Does your need to describe my argument as "fucking" come from your love for others? Is this how you promote equality? Anyway, homosexuality may be natural, but tell me why that implies children born of a father (sperm) and mother (egg) deserve to be raised by homosexual couples.
What's your preferred alternative? They should be raised as orphans in government buildings full of administrators and "caretakers" who need the money to keep living?
Might as well give them parents rather than employees of the State or organisms largely subventioned by the State.
|
United States200 Posts
On June 27 2013 09:00 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views.
Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. Studies show that homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents and the children does not suffer in any way. http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Consensus
Did you ask the children as they were born or before they were adopted how they felt about their particular family arrangement? I am being sarcastic, but my point (which you overlooked in my previous post) is that children do not have say what family they end up in. I believe children are entitled to a mom and a dad, and no study or metric can ever be comprehensive enough to show that children who grow up in homosexual households are as well as off as children who do not.
|
On June 27 2013 09:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:00 Shodaa wrote:On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:
[quote]
Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance).
[quote]
From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing?
Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. Studies show that homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents and the children does not suffer in any way. http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Consensus Did you ask the children as they were born or before they were adopted how they felt about their particular family arrangement? I am being sarcastic, but my point (which you overlooked in my previous post) is that children do not have say what family they end up in. I believe children are entitled to a mom and a dad, and no study or metric can ever be comprehensive enough to show that children who grow up in homosexual households are as well as off as children who do not.
So default @ orphanages or what? We pretty much know orphanage kids don't turn out as well.
|
On June 27 2013 09:07 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 08:58 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:
[quote]
Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance).
[quote]
From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing?
Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. And Homo Sapiens are the natural product of Africa, so that is the best place for them. No, that's not a fucking argument. We as humans have bent every bit of nature in the world. You know this thing you're using called a computer? It ain't natural. Language? Not natural. Homosexuality? Natural, because it happens in nature. You sound pretty angry there. Does your need to describe my argument as "fucking" come from your love for others? Is this how you promote equality? Anyway, homosexuality may be natural, but tell me why that implies children born of a father (sperm) and mother (egg) deserve to be raised by homosexual couples.
I'll tell you why.
Because several fathers and mothers do a shit job raising children. This is something anyone should know by now. Some of them abandon their children, and some of them just don't give a fuck.
I'd rather see a kid being adopted by a homossexual couple and being raised like a normal human with love and care than having him/her have a shitty parents and be raised on the worst possible conditions because of these shitty parents.
Between two well-educated mature males and a 16 yo male/female couple, do you think the kid would be a better person in life being raised by the teens? This is just one single example, there are million others.
|
On June 27 2013 09:07 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 08:58 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:
[quote]
Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance).
[quote]
From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing?
Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. And Homo Sapiens are the natural product of Africa, so that is the best place for them. No, that's not a fucking argument. We as humans have bent every bit of nature in the world. You know this thing you're using called a computer? It ain't natural. Language? Not natural. Homosexuality? Natural, because it happens in nature. You sound pretty angry there. Does your need to describe my argument as "fucking" come from your love for others? Is this how you promote equality? Anyway, homosexuality may be natural, but tell me why that implies children born of a father (sperm) and mother (egg) deserve to be raised by homosexual couples.
Because it is only a problem to you. Homosexual thinks it is fine. Children of homosexual parents think it is fine and said they are healthy, have a good life and everything. They are no way different than children of heterosexual couple.
Do you think children cares that his parents happen to be of the same gender ? No they don't, because they are his parents and he or she loves them. It only become a problem when other people tell them it is "wrong".
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with.
|
On June 27 2013 09:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:00 Shodaa wrote:On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:
[quote]
Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance).
[quote]
From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing?
Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. Studies show that homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents and the children does not suffer in any way. http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Consensus Did you ask the children as they were born or before they were adopted how they felt about their particular family arrangement? I am being sarcastic, but my point (which you overlooked in my previous post) is that children do not have say what family they end up in. I believe children are entitled to a mom and a dad, and no study or metric can ever be comprehensive enough to show that children who grow up in homosexual households are as well as off as children who do not.
I wanted rich parent. Should I sue my parent for being poor because I didn't ask for this and I suffer from discrimination, lack of support and education ?
The kids don't care. They don't give a fucking shit as long as their parent love them and support them.
You know what's the problem ? People like you telling them their family is wrong or immoral.
|
United States200 Posts
On June 27 2013 09:09 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:07 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:58 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not.
Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. And Homo Sapiens are the natural product of Africa, so that is the best place for them. No, that's not a fucking argument. We as humans have bent every bit of nature in the world. You know this thing you're using called a computer? It ain't natural. Language? Not natural. Homosexuality? Natural, because it happens in nature. You sound pretty angry there. Does your need to describe my argument as "fucking" come from your love for others? Is this how you promote equality? Anyway, homosexuality may be natural, but tell me why that implies children born of a father (sperm) and mother (egg) deserve to be raised by homosexual couples. What's your preferred alternative? They should be raised as orphans in government buildings full of administrators and "caretakers" who need the money to keep living? Might as well give them parents rather than employees of the State or organisms largely subventioned by the State.
This is a common argument for adoption, and it implies a "lesser of two evils" scenario. If there are more kids up for adoption than straight families to accept them, our society already has a big problem with parenting. Giving unwanted adoptees to gay couples is one solution, but I would rather see them taken up by churches or other charitable organizations. Since gay people do adopt, I cannot estimate the extent of the effect not having them in the adoption "market' would make.
|
On June 27 2013 09:00 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views.
Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. Studies show that homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents and the children does not suffer in any way. http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Consensus
Not to mention the countless people who grew up in single parent families. There is no best place for someone to grow up. We take what we can get and we make the most of it. That's what makes us different. That is what makes us human.
+ Show Spoiler +I have no idea if that makes sense at all but it sounds really good and I like it.
|
On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:
[quote]
I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally."
This is simply you extrapolating.
But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:
[quote]
I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally."
This is simply you extrapolating.
But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them.
Do you have any evidence to show that having both a male and a female parent is crucial to their development? Do you have any evidence to show that children raised by gay couples turn out any worse for wear? Because the only evidence that you cited is what you believe. Well guess what? I believe that tomorrow night the Protoss are going to drop a colossus into your bedroom and fry your intolerant little brain.
|
United States200 Posts
On June 27 2013 09:13 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:07 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:58 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not.
Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. And Homo Sapiens are the natural product of Africa, so that is the best place for them. No, that's not a fucking argument. We as humans have bent every bit of nature in the world. You know this thing you're using called a computer? It ain't natural. Language? Not natural. Homosexuality? Natural, because it happens in nature. You sound pretty angry there. Does your need to describe my argument as "fucking" come from your love for others? Is this how you promote equality? Anyway, homosexuality may be natural, but tell me why that implies children born of a father (sperm) and mother (egg) deserve to be raised by homosexual couples. I'll tell you why. Because several fathers and mothers do a shit job raising children. This is something anyone should know by now. Some of them abandon their children, and some of them just don't give a fuck. I'd rather see a kid being adopted by a homossexual couple and being raised like a normal human with love and care than having him/her have a shitty parents and be raised on the worst possible conditions because of these shitty parents. Between two well-educated mature males and a 16 yo male/female couple, do you think the kid would be a better person in life being raised by the teens? This is just one single example, there are million others.
I understand your frustration with the problems straight parents display. As a child of divorced parents, as many of us are, problems in my parents defined me from an early age. As a society, we have a huge problem with marriage and family. Gay marriage is not the solution.
|
On June 27 2013 09:26 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:13 Zephirdd wrote:On June 27 2013 09:07 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:58 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:[quote] Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. And Homo Sapiens are the natural product of Africa, so that is the best place for them. No, that's not a fucking argument. We as humans have bent every bit of nature in the world. You know this thing you're using called a computer? It ain't natural. Language? Not natural. Homosexuality? Natural, because it happens in nature. You sound pretty angry there. Does your need to describe my argument as "fucking" come from your love for others? Is this how you promote equality? Anyway, homosexuality may be natural, but tell me why that implies children born of a father (sperm) and mother (egg) deserve to be raised by homosexual couples. I'll tell you why. Because several fathers and mothers do a shit job raising children. This is something anyone should know by now. Some of them abandon their children, and some of them just don't give a fuck. I'd rather see a kid being adopted by a homossexual couple and being raised like a normal human with love and care than having him/her have a shitty parents and be raised on the worst possible conditions because of these shitty parents. Between two well-educated mature males and a 16 yo male/female couple, do you think the kid would be a better person in life being raised by the teens? This is just one single example, there are million others. I understand your frustration with the problems straight parents display. As a child of divorced parents, as many of us are, problems in my parents defined me from an early age. As a society, we have a huge problem with marriage and family. Gay marriage is not the solution.
You do realize that you are being a homophobic bigot, right?
|
This is really really bad. I think it's time for this thread should be closed or something. The first post was a simple recognition of the fact that a developer of this forum and news website added some art to the top banner that suggested (at most) that he supports the cause of a minority group that is seeking equal rights under the law. We've come a long and disgusting way from there.
|
by definition if a homosexual couple wants children, they're going to take care of them. While sometimes a 'normal' couple will have non wanted children
|
United States200 Posts
On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with.
A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context?
|
On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context?
And who the fuck are you ?
You literally have no proof that heterosexual parent are better. Only your opinion.
|
United States200 Posts
On June 27 2013 09:30 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:26 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:13 Zephirdd wrote:On June 27 2013 09:07 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:58 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them. And Homo Sapiens are the natural product of Africa, so that is the best place for them. No, that's not a fucking argument. We as humans have bent every bit of nature in the world. You know this thing you're using called a computer? It ain't natural. Language? Not natural. Homosexuality? Natural, because it happens in nature. You sound pretty angry there. Does your need to describe my argument as "fucking" come from your love for others? Is this how you promote equality? Anyway, homosexuality may be natural, but tell me why that implies children born of a father (sperm) and mother (egg) deserve to be raised by homosexual couples. I'll tell you why. Because several fathers and mothers do a shit job raising children. This is something anyone should know by now. Some of them abandon their children, and some of them just don't give a fuck. I'd rather see a kid being adopted by a homossexual couple and being raised like a normal human with love and care than having him/her have a shitty parents and be raised on the worst possible conditions because of these shitty parents. Between two well-educated mature males and a 16 yo male/female couple, do you think the kid would be a better person in life being raised by the teens? This is just one single example, there are million others. I understand your frustration with the problems straight parents display. As a child of divorced parents, as many of us are, problems in my parents defined me from an early age. As a society, we have a huge problem with marriage and family. Gay marriage is not the solution. You do realize that you are being a homophobic bigot, right?
You realize I am not going to reply to another post from you?
|
On June 27 2013 08:01 jarrydesque wrote:I did this for gay pride 2011. ![[image loading]](http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l523/jarrydesque/Pride2011001.jpg) You can check the rest of the blog here. I demand credit for coming up with the TL rainbow homo <3 logo. Thanks.
Thank you, Kyle!!! Awesome blog and YOUR logo is, as Tasteless would say, SIIIIIIICCCCKKK! You should be proud that it has sparked so much discussion and support from the TL community.
I was very involved in the pursuit of gay rights when many people on this site were still in diapers, I think (I'm 38). At the time it was hard to imagine that there would be a day when gay marriage became a reality let alone that it would receive the support of so many straight people or the President of the US. Yet I've seen so many of my friends become disheartened over the years, and so many young people who were fortunate enough to grow up in a more tolerant world take it for granted. I know most of you reading this are not gay yourselves, or maybe you are and marriage is the farthest thing from your mind right now. Maybe you have a brother, or an aunt, or a friend that is gay. Maybe you don't know anyone who is gay, but you just know that it inequality is wrong. We've come so far in so short a time, and I understand that on days like this it's easy to think that we're almost there, but the truth is it's not time to give up. Today is a day to celebrate, but tomorrow we must continue fighting for equality until every last person on earth is able to live and love freely and openly, free from discrimination or violence because of who they are, what they believe in, and who they love.
Kyle, you are amazing. Keep up the fight and spreading the love in South Africa and TL! FIGHTING!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
