Huge anti-gay marriage protest march in Paris

Originally posted by stellspalfie
are j.w's able to study at a higher education level?

more irrelevancy, look, this thread is about gay marriage, will a yellow sticky slapped to the forehead suffice to make that clear?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more irrelevancy, look, this thread is about gay marriage, will a yellow sticky slapped to the forehead suffice to make that clear?

are you telling me whats irrelevant or not? what point was i going to make? you must know if you have already decided its irrelevant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
try to make reference to the arguments that were provided Zippy, who knows you may do better, your opinion, if unsubstantiated, is meaningless to me.

it is ok, i don't expect to get through to you. a closed minded fool will never change his mind. i get on this forum simply to show my superior intellect compared to all you fundies. it is shallow of me, yes, it is like bragging to a 5 year old you know more math than him, yes. but it is fun. it is my guilty pleasure while procrastinating at work.

a non-insane person posting what you posted in this forum would have realized by now he is incredibly homophobic and that he has a totally indefensible stance on the subject. you didn't and will not.


anyway, i don't consider this time lost. it is hard to have a debate on this subject with a reasonable person, since most reasonable person tend to either have no strong opinion on the matter or are pro gay marriage.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
are you telling me whats irrelevant or not? what point was i going to make? you must know if you have already decided its irrelevant.

aww, it's adorable how you are humoring him😀

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I couldn't give a hoot whether you think they are meaningless or not, that you would rather see children remain in care than go to a same sex couple is wicked beyond reproach. The evidence for abuse and negligence suffered by children in some sort if foster home is beyond denial. For example -

[quote]In one study in the United Kingdom "foster children ...[text shortened]... e]

And on and on.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care#Abuse_and_negligence

even if there was no abuse cases, it would still be a matter of letting a child stay in a place where he is a work item, a job for someone who doesn't care much about him, versus letting him be in a place where he is loved, wanted, and the most important purpose in life of two human beings who would devote their lives to him/her.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it is ok, i don't expect to get through to you. a closed minded fool will never change his mind. i get on this forum simply to show my superior intellect compared to all you fundies. it is shallow of me, yes, it is like bragging to a 5 year old you know more math than him, yes. but it is fun. it is my guilty pleasure while procrastinating at work.

a no ...[text shortened]... asonable person tend to either have no strong opinion on the matter or are pro gay marriage.

after you insulted me i stopped reading, sorry i just cannot warm to people who insult me.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
are you telling me whats irrelevant or not? what point was i going to make? you must know if you have already decided its irrelevant.

there were ten points that i raised, i even gave them a post all of their own, about the actual subject a hand, that being gay marriage, do me a favour and refer to those points or produce your counter arguments.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I couldn't give a hoot whether you think they are meaningless or not, that you would rather see children remain in care than go to a same sex couple is wicked beyond reproach. The evidence for abuse and negligence suffered by children in some sort if foster home is beyond denial. For example -

[quote]In one study in the United Kingdom "foster children ...[text shortened]... e]

And on and on.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care#Abuse_and_negligence

so you think i am wicked beyond reproach because i believe that the best a child should have is a mother and father, whatever.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you think i am wicked beyond reproach because i believe that the best a child should have is a mother and father, whatever.

You're wicked beyond reproach because you would perpetuate the suffering of vulnerable children rather than have them adopted by a same sex couple.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there were ten points that i raised, i even gave them a post all of their own, about the actual subject a hand, that being gay marriage, do me a favour and refer to those points or produce your counter arguments.

the 10 points you raised were about gay marriage. im not questioning you about gay marriage. im asking you what the negative effects of gay parents are on children.
...................................

now, you have accused me of being irrelevant before i made a point. what point was i going to make?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you think i am wicked beyond reproach because i believe that the best a child should have is a mother and father, whatever.

is misrepresenting what he said the only way you can tackle his point. either you are not intelligent enough to understand a simple point, or you misrepresented his point on purpose.

which is it?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
is misrepresenting what he said the only way you can tackle his point. either you are not intelligent enough to understand a simple point, or you misrepresented his point on purpose.

which is it?

It was such an unbelievable straw-man it was ridiculous.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You're wicked beyond reproach because you would perpetuate the suffering of vulnerable children rather than have them adopted by a same sex couple.

You would think gays were streaming out of their closets to adopt children the way you harp on.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
is misrepresenting what he said the only way you can tackle his point. either you are not intelligent enough to understand a simple point, or you misrepresented his point on purpose.

which is it?

I have given a reference to a study you mau make reference to that but ot seems quite beyond you to refrain from attacking personalities.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have given a reference to a study you mau make reference to that but ot seems quite beyond you to refrain from attacking personalities.

so you can say or misunderstand anything in a debate with out reproach? you totally misrepresented a simple point somebody made and we are not permitted to ask why?
you have also accused me of making irrelevant points, before i even make the point? am i not permitted to question the sudden appearance of your clairvoyance?
you are also unwilling to answer questions about what you think about the study, so i have to figure out if you agree with the whole study, most of the study, the key points or one point.