Originally posted by generalissimothere's nothing wrong with white-black marriage.
there's nothing wrong with white-black marriage.
do you think it would be normal for a kid to have two daddies or two mommies?
Your counterparts thought very differently about that 50 years ago.
do you think it would be normal for a kid to have two daddies or two mommies?
No, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether it would be harmful (enough to warrant a ban).
Originally posted by EladarFirst you try to justify your bigotry by claiming "marriage is a sacred institution created by God as a union between a man and a woman." How "sacred" is it to you if you support divorce? Like I said earlier, you use religion as a weapon to further your bigotry, but are not so rigid when it's something that might affect themselves or those they identify with. How "sacred" is your religion to you if you don't advocate making greed and gluttony illegal? Your position has nothing to do with what is "sacred" or not accepting "evil". You're just a bigot. Just because you have plenty of company doesn't make you any less of one.
[b]What are your views on divorce?
What are your views on greed, gluttony, etc.?
Have these things been traditionally illegal in the US? Sure, you can do what you want in your own bedroom, but that does not mean that Society has to accept evil as something to be accepted as good. Greed, gluttony and such are not institutionalized, while marria ...[text shortened]... liefs is somehow inferior. When it comes to politics, right and wrong is totally irrelevant.[/b]
You claim that "right and wrong is totally irrelevant". It's quite clear that your bigoted position is founded on this claim.
Originally posted by generalissimo
The controversy generally concerns whether or not there will be consequences for the development of children raised by same-sex couples. Specific questions include the potential for gender confusion, biased sexual orientation, or the general well-being of such children.
same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids, because of possible damage to the child.
At what point would you accept the scientific evidence that being raised
in a loving, same-sex home does no harm to the well being of children?
As of yet, there is no evidence to suggest that it causes harm, and some
evidence to suggest that it doesn't cause harm.
To be clear: you may believe it causes harm, but there is nothing to suggest
that it does.
Furthermore, one member of a same-sex couple can be a biological
parent to a child. Would you have that child removed from the home of
its father or mother simply because that parent was in a same-sex relationship?
Lastly, the we're talking about the State-sponsored civil privileges which
have nothing to do with parenting or children. What reason do you have
to oppose granting those privileges?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarWhat is your basis for the claim that a committed relationship between two non-related people that are of age is "immoral"?
[b]First you try to justify your bigotry
I see you don't know immorality when you see it.[/b]
What is "immoral" is using religion as a weapon to further bigotry.
Originally posted by EladarSo what if (you believe that) homosexuality is evil? What does this have
Yes, divorce is evil. But as I also said, it can be the lesser of two evils.
to do with law? Law is not about morality; law is about rights.
Pornography, masturbation, contraception, adultery, divorce -- all of these
things are legal and are of contested moral quality.
The issue here is not whether same-sex unions are moral -- you can
believe whatever you want about them -- but whether denying those
unions the civil privileges to which opposite-sex unions are entitled.
What justification can you offer for doing so? Brute force? Majority 'might-
makes-right' mentality? That's all you've offered so far.
Nemesio
Originally posted by generalissimoI think it's abnormal, yes. Do I think it's intrinsically harmful? No. I
do you think it would be normal for a kid to have two daddies or two mommies?
think it's vastly more harmful for a child to live in a single-parent home,
and I think it's inestimably more harmful for a child to live in a no-parent/
guardian environment.
There's a list as long as the State of Kansas of kids dying to have parents
to love them. What's more normal? A child dying for the love and affection
of a pair of parents and not getting it, or getting it from two men or two
women? What's more harmful?
Nemesio
Originally posted by generalissimoits not normal for a child to be unwanted, and yes 2 moms or dads might raise a child different than "Ward And June" but normal for some M/F couples is alcholism , drug addiction both legal and not, pedophiles are many times married. My point is gender of both parents should not be a factor , unless ofcourse you want to legalize homophobia. Or in other words 'God Screw America' via moralistic religious fanatics.
there's nothing wrong with white-black marriage.
do you think it would be normal for a kid to have two daddies or two mommies?
Originally posted by bluzdogIf you compare the worst example of an heterosexual couple with a gay couple then you'll find that the gay couple will be better with children, however not every heterosexual couple is alcoholic, or drug addict (which I don't see as something bad anyway, I smoke marijuana and I'm still responsible enough to take care of children).
its not normal for a child to be unwanted, and yes 2 moms or dads might raise a child different than "Ward And June" but normal for some M/F couples is alcholism , drug addiction both legal and not, pedophiles are many times married. My point is gender of both parents should not be a factor , unless ofcourse you want to legalize homophobia. Or in other words 'God Screw America' via moralistic religious fanatics.
Even if you have the most loving and careful gay parents, they won't replace a real dad or a real mom.