FRC: Comparing the Lifestyles of sexual Couples to Married Couples

[jack sommerset]

Yep. It's not the first time you totally contradicted yourself.

at your denial of something you just posted.

Nope, I don't worry about the gays hooking up. Nor do I care about who wins the Cowboys vs Saints game but I will watch.

[ChumpDumper]

So you admit to twisting people's comments, and putting words in their mouth..?? that's a start CD, that's a start...

No, I guess you are admitting to not understanding anything.

Perhaps... I'm simply explaining that judgement calls are required under certain scenarios... Decisions the State already makes...

No one is asking for special consideration in those scenarios.

You seem to think so only because it invalidates your accusation. The State already cares if heterosexual marriages pose a detriment to the development of their children. But you clearly implied that they have no say so in doing the same for sexuals.

Again with the complete lack of understanding. Your inference here sucks, but that's expected by now.

So now I'm supposed to convey my entire viewpoint every time I post something? That's why the thread exists... go back and read everything in the context of the flow instead of just singling out spot posts here or there... You did that yesterday as well...

Why? Your flow is quite obvious when you voiced your bigoted prejudice about a couple of sexual men raising a child.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope, I don't worry about the gays hooking up. Nor do I care about who wins the Cowboys vs Saints game but I will watch.

Maybe I'm not getting the resulting double negative.

[Supergirl]

I know that you may feel that a person's sexual predilections have no bearing on their psyche... Obviously, the government does care. Otherwise there wouldn't be any concerns over pedophilia or beastiality, or even someone's sexual offense history (exposers, violent sex, mutilators, or those who have raped women). Now before people start suggesting I'm equating sexuals with those in that group; I'm simply explaining why your argument that the state shouldn't care what people do in bed is not completely sound...

Maybe you meant that people shouldn't care about what two consenting adults do in bed... that's probably a better arguement... Children are a third party in that scenario however... Obviously if a child reared under two sexuals also became a sexual why would society consider that a detriment? After all, if sexuality was deemed as perfectly 'normal' behavior why would that child's sexual preference be deemed abnormal? That's the slippery slope no one seems to care about...

Clearly, the sexual orientation of parents has no bearing of the sexual orientation of a child, otherwise all those lgbt people with straight parents wouldn't exist.

The arguments comparing lgbt people to sexual predators is tired. And has been refuted a thousand times, not just on this board.

You are coming off sounding like an ignorant asshole.

[jack sommerset]

Maybe I'm not getting the resulting double negative.

Perhaps. Good night.

[spursncowboys]

Clearly, the sexual orientation of parents has no bearing of the sexual orientation of a child, otherwise all those lgbt people with straight parents wouldn't exist.

The arguments comparing lgbt people to sexual predators is tired. And has been refuted a thousand times, not just on this board.

You are coming off sounding like an ignorant asshole.

So are you saying that there is not gene or DNA that makes someone gay?
What sexual predator argument are you talking about? How was it refuted? I honestly would like to know, if you have the link.
He may not post things that you agree with, but one thing it isn't is ignorant.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not trying to deny a mother the right to bear and raise her children...

But the opposite scenario with two sexual men, where obviously neither can bear children of their own... would you let them raise your children ploto? That contextual environment is kind of disturbing... even if both men are nurturing and/or well-intentioned.

Please explain why you are so disturbed by this scenario.

Let's flesh this out so there is no misunderstanding.

[Phenomanul]

No, I guess you are admitting to not understanding anything.

No one is asking for special consideration in those scenarios.

Again with the complete lack of understanding. Your inference here sucks, but that's expected by now.

Why? Your flow is quite obvious when you voiced your bigoted prejudice about a couple of sexual men raising a child.

No, I understand... I simply expressed my opinion... unless of course you feel that having one is wrong? That's the second time you accuse me of bigotry in this thread... Were that accusation valid, then maybe we should consider you a bigot against Christians?

Why should I forcibly believe that deviant, unnatural sexual behavior be considered normal...?? Are my beliefs not cons utionally protected? I'm not hurting them with my thoughts, am I?

On another note.... You really do hate getting called out don't you? Your arrogance is only dwarfed by your inability to ever concede anything. Apparently every post of yours is mirred with absolute truth... truth that should never questioned or opposed. It's no wonder you always meet dissent with condescension... but that's expected by now.

[Phenomanul]

Clearly, the sexual orientation of parents has no bearing of the sexual orientation of a child, otherwise all those lgbt people with straight parents wouldn't exist.

The arguments comparing lgbt people to sexual predators is tired. And has been refuted a thousand times, not just on this board.

You are coming off sounding like an ignorant asshole.

Ignorance is defined by your inability to converse in a civilized manner... without the use of expletives...

And if you had actually read my post instead of glossing over it... you might have seen that I didn't compare them... I simply said that the State should care, this in response to your suggestion that they shouldn't care at all...

[ChumpDumper]

No, I understand... I simply expressed my opinion... unless of course you feel that having one is wrong? That's the second time you accuse me of bigotry in this thread... Were that accusation valid, then maybe we should consider you a bigot against Christians?

I am strongly prejudiced against idiots.

Why should I forcibly believe that deviant, unnatural sexual behavior be considered normal...?? Are my beliefs not cons utionally protected? I'm not hurting them with my thoughts, am I?

Is anyone forcing you to believe otherwise?

No.

Straw man.

On another note.... You really do hate getting called out don't you? Your arrogance is only dwarfed by your inability to ever concede anything. Apparently every post of yours is mirred with absolute truth... truth that should never questioned or opposed. It's no wonder you always meet dissent with condescension... but that's expected by now.

I just conceded I misread a post.

I have not misread any of yours.

Please explain why you find the raising of a child by a male sexual couple so disturbing.

[Phenomanul]

Please explain why you are so disturbed by this scenario.

Let's flesh this out so there is no misunderstanding.

Two men can't produce babies. They were never intended to.

(Now hurry... extrapolate that comment to some other outrageous, twisted, suggestion.)...

Now If you must... I have to make my leave to finalize tomorrow's Christmas Program... unless that offends you... It's church related... oooooohhhh

[ChumpDumper]

Two men can't produce babies. They were never intended to.

That's it?

That's all?

You act as if men were never meant to raise children at all.

Now If you must... I have to make my leave to finalize tomorrow's Christmas Program... unless that offends you... It's church related... oooooohhhh

I have no objection at all.

Your bigotry amuses me.

[Phenomanul]

I am strongly prejudiced against idiots.

I didn't realize you hated yourself... It's OK man...

But I guess you finally conceded that you are a bigot??? Got it... Unfortunately, I'm no idiot... so target your disdain elsewhere... just not at yourself dude.

Is anyone forcing you to believe otherwise?

No.

Straw man.

By now I've figured out that every argument you deem as a strawman is really an argument you can't argue against...

I just conceded I misread a post.

I have not misread any of yours.

Please explain why you find the raising of a child by a male sexual couple so disturbing.

Read the thread...
Now I really must leave...

Peace.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't realize you hated yourself... It's OK man...

But I guess you finally conceded that you are a bigot??? Got it... Unfortunately, I'm no idiot... so target your disdain elsewhere... just not at yourself dude.

Sure you're an idiot...one that thinks he is smarter than he actually is-- as well as more bigoted.

Now you're flustered and want to play the victim of my alleged anti-Christian oppression. It's cute, but I am pretty far from being anti-Christian. It's just that many of the self-proclaimed Christians her like yourself are idiots and bigots and need to be treated as such.

By now I've figured out that every argument you deem as a strawman is really an argument you can't argue against...

By now I've figured out pretty much every argument you have is a straw man argument.

Read the thread...
Now I really must leave...

Already did. Your reasoning is terribly weak.

[ChumpDumper]

The problem I have with at udes like those expressed above by the less tolerant Christians is that they completely and willfully deny that gay and lesbian couples are raising kids right now, regardless of how they came to be parents.

Why talk in the abstract about a gay couple's lack of a womb when kids have been and are being raised by them?

Let's start talking about what actually is instead of what we might like some theoretical religionland to be if we had our druthers.

[spursncowboys]

The problem I have with at udes like those expressed above by the less tolerant Christians is that they completely and willfully deny that gay and lesbian couples are raising kids right now, regardless of how they came to be parents.

Why talk in the abstract about a gay couple's lack of a womb when kids have been and are being raised by them?

? who did that?

[ChumpDumper]

Two men can't produce babies. They were never intended to.

[ploto]

Part of what annoys me in this conversation is that a number of sexual couples have been willing to adopt chidlren that others would not. The stories abound of gay couples adopting children with AIDS, emotional and physical problems - kids that sat in foster care for years and still would be were it not for loving people willing to adopt them. Now, would one think it better for these kids to bounce from foster home to foster for the rest of their childhood rather than be adopted by some loving people.

I also have this question about my rights as a woman-- if I got pregnant and I wanted to let a gay couple I know adopt my child, shouldn't I be able to choose to do that? And what if I die- don't I have the right to choose the person or persons to whom I want to entrust my child in my will?

[Blake]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...29&postcount=1





Duh.

FRC: Comparing the Lifestyles of sexual Couples to Married Couples

Duh.

[Blake]

I'm not trying to deny a mother the right to bear and raise her children...

But the opposite scenario with two sexual men, where obviously neither can bear children of their own... would you let them raise your children ploto? That contextual environment is kind of disturbing... even if both men are nurturing and/or well-intentioned.

is it not possible at all for two sexual males to raise a child to be a productive member of society?

if you had a vote, since you have made it quite clear that you don't really care if they get marriage rights or not, are you going to vote against it? or are you not going to vote at all?

[Blake]

If the child was his own or a relative's? No.

If the child was adopted simply because the man wanted to raise a child on his own, I'm sure the State would care... or at least investigate.

By that same corrollary, if the child was adopted because two sexual men wanted to do something that they were never intended to do (nature never gave them a womb of their own)... obviously the State should care. And before people start posting red-herring tangents (like the topic of infertile mothers), infertility is not a broad affliction affecting all women... it is an unfortunate consequence of chance.

so are you okay with two lesbians raising kids?

[rjv]

Right because sexuality is a choice. It is a sexual act. there is no heritage s come from or a culture.

i see SnC is back to his "science" argument again.

[Blake]

i see SnC is back to his "science" argument again.

which is a relatively weak argument against marriage to begin with.

[rjv]

which is a relatively weak argument against marriage to begin with.

yes it is. as are is his "only marriages that can populate the earth should be sanctioned" rants.

[FromWayDowntown]

Part of what annoys me in this conversation is that a number of sexual couples have been willing to adopt chidlren that others would not. The stories abound of gay couples adopting children with AIDS, emotional and physical problems - kids that sat in foster care for years and still would be were it not for loving people willing to adopt them. Now, would one think it better for these kids to bounce from foster home to foster for the rest of their childhood rather than be adopted by some loving people.

I also have this question about my rights as a woman-- if I got pregnant and I wanted to let a gay couple I know adopt my child, shouldn't I be able to choose to do that? And what if I die- don't I have the right to choose the person or persons to whom I want to entrust my child in my will?

I think, actually, that a compelling argument in favor of adoption by same sex couples is that they must, of necessity, seek out the opportunity to become parents and must, by governmental fiat, undergo substantial pre-screening just to become parents. A fundamentalist might view the situation as "unnatural," because it involves two men raising a child (or two women), but nobody finds it unnatural for a child to live with his mother and grandmother and no man around, or to live with his father and an uncle with no woman around. Even more crucially, though, we're absolutely certain that the child adopted by a same-sex couple will not be raised in a home where the child is considered a "mistake" or is merely the consequence of irresponsible acts that leave the parties resenting the child. Instead, by forcing those individuals to affirmatively seek out the opportunity to parent a child, society has a relative degree of assurance about the willingness to parent that isn't necessary true of the same-sex couples that gave the child up for adoption or will raise the child in an environment of indifference.

Even if you were absolutely convinced that there is no way in that a same-sex couple could ever loving raise a child who could become a well-adjusted and productive member of society, the ultimate point concerning marriage is that child-rearing is never a mandate for those who wish to marry. Heterosexual couples who might be ty parents aren't obligated to reproduce -- and in at least some cases, they might not. But we don't condition their right to marry upon their willingness (or ability) to reproduce. There's a fundamental disconnect -- to me at least -- in saying that the denying right of one group to marry is predicated (from a social and non-religious standpoint) on their inability to reproduce if an ability to reproduce is not a condition imposed upon heterosexual couples.

Parenting is a really bad argument for opposing same-sex marriages.