If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[Phatscotty]

You are implying theres a negative rationale for why people become gay.

It's not "I dont like men". It's "I like woman".

There is no converse negative implication involved. Do you like treat other men negatively because you dont want to sleep with them?

well, I'm not sure about that, but you realize you are changing the subject. Or does that just mean you are satisfied with my answer and we are moving onto the way my answer sounded?

Re: male role models being important: Yes they most certainly are, for children of both genders. I don't, however, think that being raised in a lesbian environment will result in meaningful negative consequences for the child (because of lack of male role models) - theres plenty of places for male role models in the world.

There are plenty of places sure, everywhere except where it matters most (in the home). Could you at least agree that for a boy raised in a married lesbian household, the boy is far less likely to get the male perspective?

[Phatscotty]

Why did you ask Lootifer the question? Couldn't you look it up yourself?

If you are against federal recognition of gay marriage, you should provide reasons why. Nothing you've provided in this thread are reasons why you are against federal recognition of gay marriage. You appear to be against gay proms, gay adoption, any gays raising children, and the move of U.S. culture towards acceptance of gays. These are certainly related to gay marriage, but are points used by those that are not desirous of freedom of choice for gays.

You mention studies saying that being gay may not be genetic. Why does that matter? What does genetic disposition have to do with gay marriage? What does genteic disposition have to do with anything at all?

I'm just going to post this again because I think it got lost in the shuffle. The important questions are in the last paragraph really.

I answered the first one "because I wanted Lootifer opinion on something, based on something Lootifer said, related to a previous post we were talking about. I don't mind other people coming into conversations, so long as it's constructive.

I've provided reasons why, numerous times. Federal government recognizes whatever the state says marriage is, not the other way around. Overall, it's just not a Federal issue, because it IS a state issue. (unless it's your opinion that the Federal government should take over marriage from the states, which would be an interesting discussion that I would love to hear)

I am not against any of that. My main drive is that the true discussion is being prevented, the discussion should be about everything that redefining marriage will impact. Tragically, unfortunately, the debate has been an emotional manipulation. People think this will only impact marriage, and that is the end of the story. I have tried to show how something as seemly simple as "letting love win" means changes in thousands of other areas, other areas which are shouted down when brought up. If this were truly only about marriage, I would probably support it. But it's not.

For example: we just redefined marriage in my state a couple weeks ago. Both local newspapers went with the headline "Love wins" and all my friends on facebook are talking about how love won. But if love won, why is it we are kicking out values based/religious orphanages? Is it really "hateful" to suggest a child should have both a mother and a father? Can't you see that something is missing there? Sure, gays can marry. But how does that go from them getting married to the state closing down Catholic orphanages?

The genetic argument matters to those who say they are born that way, even to those who disagree. Even more specifically related to the discussion about the 8 year old boy that Lootifer and I were having. It doesn't have anything to do with you, so you don't have to worry about it. Maybe you want to read it to gain knowledge for yourself and talk about the results. Is that not a good enough reason? Or do you just think another thread should be made?

Anyways: I have noticed you have repeatedly called me a dodger. I asked you to bring up anything you think I dodged and I would deal with it. But on the other hand, I do not consider myself a dodger, and think it's possible you just call me a dodger so you can force me to answer your questions on your terms and allow you to move the discussion to whatever area you want, and you think I will deal with it for fear of dodging something. So if I am going to keep my word and deal with all these posts that you misinterpret or make your business or even have a legitimate case that I didn't deal with it, I still hold it just got buried or trolled out of existence. But I do wonder if, even after I deal with all this, you will still be calling me a dodger? I wonder if this will solve whatever problem you have?

And I only wish that you gave 1% of a crap about the people who straight up ruin this forum and ruin discussion. While you may have from time to time, I didn't notice you calling out Pimpdave, I even remember you going along with it. Why is that?

[Woodruff]

I am not against any of that. My main drive is that the true discussion is being prevented, the discussion should be about everything that redefining marriage will impact.

In order to have true discussion, you're going to have to stop lying about the idea that this is "redefining marriage", as it is not.

Tragically, unfortunately, the debate has been an emotional manipulation. People think this will only impact marriage, and that is the end of the story.

Almost nobody believes that, actually.

I have tried to show how something as seemly simple as "letting love win" means changes in thousands of other areas, other areas which are shouted down when brought up. If this were truly only about marriage, I would probably support it. But it's not.

So far, you have failed to show how these vague other areas are a problem.

For example: we just redefined marriage in my state a couple weeks ago. Both local newspapers went with the headline "Love wins" and all my friends on facebook are talking about how love won. But if love won, why is it we are kicking out values based/religious orphanages?

1. That isn't about homosexual marriage, it is about homosexual adoption.

2. Because they're being bigoted rather than loving. Love did win. Bigotry lost. If that "values based/religious organization" isn't willing to follow the law, then they should be disbanded, it's that simple.

3. Or is this another idiotic "Christians are persecuted in America" thing?

Is it really "hateful" to suggest a child should have both a mother and a father?

Is it hateful to suggest that thing? No, not particularly. Is it hateful to REQUIRE IT? Yes, I would say that it is. I can't imagine anything BUT hate being behind it.

Can't you see that something is missing there?

Yes, actually caring about the children on the part of the "values based/religious organizations" rather than some power trip. Some "values".

Sure, gays can marry. But how does that go from them getting married to the state closing down Catholic orphanages?

It goes there because folks make the logical recognition that there is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt children just as heterosexuals can. It goes there because folks make the logical recognition that homosexuals can provide just as loving of a home to raise children in as heterosexuals can. This isn't necessarily a homosexual marriage issue however...frankly, it should have been the case whether homosexual marriage were allowed or not.

The genetic argument matters to those who say they are born that way, even to those who disagree. Even more specifically related to the discussion about the 8 year old boy that Lootifer and I were having. It doesn't have anything to do with you, so you don't have to worry about it.

I thought you were ok with other people becoming involved in your discussions as long as they're being productive? That sure didn't last long, did it?

Maybe you want to read it to gain knowledge for yourself and talk about the results. Is that not a good enough reason? Or do you just think another thread should be made?

What does it have to do with homosexual marriage?

Anyways: I have noticed you have repeatedly called me a dodger. I asked you to bring up anything you think I dodged and I would deal with it.

We've been down that road before. Many times, in fact. All you do is continue to claim you're not dodging while blithely ignoring the things that were pointed out as having dodged. There's no point in going to the trouble again, when you've proven too many times that you aren't serious about correcting it.

But on the other hand, I do not consider myself a dodger, and think it's possible you just call me a dodger so you can force me to answer your questions on your terms and allow you to move the discussion to whatever area you want, and you think I will deal with it for fear of dodging something.

This doesn't even make basic sense. If you're not dodging his questions, then there is no "on his terms" as far as you answering...you'll simply answer it. As to you answering because you fear looking like a dodger...it's patently clear that's not effective anyway.

So if I am going to keep my word and deal with all these posts that you misinterpret or make your business or even have a legitimate case that I didn't deal with it, I still hold it just got buried or trolled out of existence.

If that were true, you would have answered so many numerous posts in the past. But you never do. They just go...unanswered. Die off, just as you intend.

But I do wonder if, even after I deal with all this, you will still be calling me a dodger? I wonder if this will solve whatever problem you have?

One instance does not a pattern break. You're an addict, Phatscotty. Come clean. It will be hard at first, but believe in yourself and you can do it.

And I only wish that you gave 1% of a crap about the people who straight up ruin this forum and ruin discussion.

But he is talking about you.

[Lootifer]

You are implying theres a negative rationale for why people become gay.

It's not "I dont like men". It's "I like woman".

There is no converse negative implication involved. Do you like treat other men negatively because you dont want to sleep with them?

well, I'm not sure about that, but you realize you are changing the subject. Or does that just mean you are satisfied with my answer and we are moving onto the way my answer sounded?

Re: male role models being important: Yes they most certainly are, for children of both genders. I don't, however, think that being raised in a lesbian environment will result in meaningful negative consequences for the child (because of lack of male role models) - theres plenty of places for male role models in the world.

There are plenty of places sure, everywhere except where it matters most (in the home). Could you at least agree that for a boy raised in a married lesbian household, the boy is far less likely to get the male perspective?

I agree to your statement as soon as you show me a peer reviewed piece of research that backs up the underlined.

[Phatscotty]

You are implying theres a negative rationale for why people become gay.

It's not "I dont like men". It's "I like woman".

There is no converse negative implication involved. Do you like treat other men negatively because you dont want to sleep with them?

well, I'm not sure about that, but you realize you are changing the subject. Or does that just mean you are satisfied with my answer and we are moving onto the way my answer sounded?

Re: male role models being important: Yes they most certainly are, for children of both genders. I don't, however, think that being raised in a lesbian environment will result in meaningful negative consequences for the child (because of lack of male role models) - theres plenty of places for male role models in the world.

There are plenty of places sure, everywhere except where it matters most (in the home). Could you at least agree that for a boy raised in a married lesbian household, the boy is far less likely to get the male perspective?

I agree to your statement as soon as you show me a peer reviewed piece of research that backs up the underlined.

you want a peer reviewed piece of research that says there is no father/father figure when there are 2 mothers?

[Woodruff]

You are implying theres a negative rationale for why people become gay.

It's not "I dont like men". It's "I like woman".

There is no converse negative implication involved. Do you like treat other men negatively because you dont want to sleep with them?

well, I'm not sure about that, but you realize you are changing the subject. Or does that just mean you are satisfied with my answer and we are moving onto the way my answer sounded?

Re: male role models being important: Yes they most certainly are, for children of both genders. I don't, however, think that being raised in a lesbian environment will result in meaningful negative consequences for the child (because of lack of male role models) - theres plenty of places for male role models in the world.

There are plenty of places sure, everywhere except where it matters most (in the home). Could you at least agree that for a boy raised in a married lesbian household, the boy is far less likely to get the male perspective?

I agree to your statement as soon as you show me a peer reviewed piece of research that backs up the underlined.

you want a peer reviewed piece of research that says there is no father/father figure when there are 2 mothers?

Why do you always distract with inanity?

[Lootifer]

You are implying theres a negative rationale for why people become gay.

It's not "I dont like men". It's "I like woman".

There is no converse negative implication involved. Do you like treat other men negatively because you dont want to sleep with them?

well, I'm not sure about that, but you realize you are changing the subject. Or does that just mean you are satisfied with my answer and we are moving onto the way my answer sounded?

Re: male role models being important: Yes they most certainly are, for children of both genders. I don't, however, think that being raised in a lesbian environment will result in meaningful negative consequences for the child (because of lack of male role models) - theres plenty of places for male role models in the world.

There are plenty of places sure, everywhere except where it matters most (in the home). Could you at least agree that for a boy raised in a married lesbian household, the boy is far less likely to get the male perspective?

I agree to your statement as soon as you show me a peer reviewed piece of research that backs up the underlined.

you want a peer reviewed piece of research that says there is no father/father figure when there are 2 mothers?

Is that what it says in the underlined bit?! (i.e. no, that's not what I want, I want you to show me evidence that anything other than having two loving parents within the household matters one iota to how the kid turns out - generally; however if you want to be more specific and show me evidence of how children who have male role models outside the household are in any way negatively impacted - when controlling for other factors - compared to those with male role models within the household, then by all means...).

[Phatscotty]

well, I'm not sure about that, but you realize you are changing the subject. Or does that just mean you are satisfied with my answer and we are moving onto the way my answer sounded?

Re: male role models being important: Yes they most certainly are, for children of both genders. I don't, however, think that being raised in a lesbian environment will result in meaningful negative consequences for the child (because of lack of male role models) - theres plenty of places for male role models in the world.

There are plenty of places sure, everywhere except where it matters most (in the home). Could you at least agree that for a boy raised in a married lesbian household, the boy is far less likely to get the male perspective?

I agree to your statement as soon as you show me a peer reviewed piece of research that backs up the underlined.

you want a peer reviewed piece of research that says there is no father/father figure when there are 2 mothers?

Is that what it says in the underlined bit?! (i.e. no, that's not what I want, I want you to show me evidence that anything other than two loving parents within the household matters one iota to how the kid turns out).

I didn't say the parents didn't love each other. I said that they are both females, and there is no male.

If it doesn't matter one iota if a child has a father or not to how the kid turns out, then should we stop encouraging fathers to stick with the family and raise their children altogether? Should we stop saying that is the right thing for a father to do? It doesn't matter one iota anyways, right?

[Woodruff]

Re: male role models being important: Yes they most certainly are, for children of both genders. I don't, however, think that being raised in a lesbian environment will result in meaningful negative consequences for the child (because of lack of male role models) - theres plenty of places for male role models in the world.

There are plenty of places sure, everywhere except where it matters most (in the home). Could you at least agree that for a boy raised in a married lesbian household, the boy is far less likely to get the male perspective?

I agree to your statement as soon as you show me a peer reviewed piece of research that backs up the underlined.

you want a peer reviewed piece of research that says there is no father/father figure when there are 2 mothers?

Is that what it says in the underlined bit?! (i.e. no, that's not what I want, I want you to show me evidence that anything other than two loving parents within the household matters one iota to how the kid turns out).

I didn't say the parents didn't love each other. I said that they are both females, and there is no male.

Phatscotty, this is such utter horseshit. I don't know what else to call it. You SPECIFICALLY EDITED OUT the portion of Lootifer's statement that corresponds to what you said here, and then went ahead and responded as if he didn't. Jesus, you're a dishonest f*ck.

If it doesn't matter one iota if a child has a father or not to how the kid turns out, then should we stop encouraging fathers to stick with the family and raise their children altogether? Should we stop saying that is the right thing for a father to do? It doesn't matter one iota anyways, right?

So what you're saying is that you don't have the evidence that Lootifer asked for...

[Phatscotty]

however if you want to be more specific and show me evidence of how children who have male role models outside the household are in any way negatively impacted - when controlling for other factors - compared to those with male role models within the household, then by all means...).

Aren't you assuming though that the boy was exposed to male role models? Like I said a few pages ago, we can't know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that male role models are not the same as a father. Now of course, this doesn't mean that kids can't grow up normal who didn't have their mother/father (just look at me! ), it only means that children who do not have a male presence in the home do not get as much (if any) learning or experience from a male in the home, if they even see one. Same for women with no female presence in the home.

That's what I asked you to acknowledge in general, and I already granted you that there are exceptions, such as you have named and more.

[Woodruff]

however if you want to be more specific and show me evidence of how children who have male role models outside the household are in any way negatively impacted - when controlling for other factors - compared to those with male role models within the household, then by all means...).

Aren't you assuming though that the boy was exposed to male role models? Like I said a few pages ago, we can't know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that male role models are not the same as a father. Now of course, this doesn't mean that kids can't grow up normal who didn't have their mother/father (just look at me! ), it only means that children who do not have a male presence in the home do not get as much (if any) learning or experience from a male in the home, if they even see one. Same for women with no female presence in the home.

That's what I asked you to acknowledge in general, and I already granted you that there are exceptions, such as you have named and more.

What does this have to do with homosexual marriage, other than fear-mongering?

[Lootifer]

I didn't say the parents didn't love each other. I said that they are both females, and there is no male.

If it doesn't matter one iota if a child has a father or not to how the kid turns out, then should we stop encouraging fathers to stick with the family and raise their children altogether? Should we stop saying that is the right thing for a father to do? It doesn't matter one iota anyways, right?

You are missing my point.

I have never claimed that the family unit isnt of vital importance. 2 parents is usually the minimum in which to effectively raise children [properly]; mainly because of financial constraints (you typically need at least one full time earner to support a family). A father pissing off and leaving the mother to raise the kids by herself is... well fairly obviously different that the ideal situation I would have thought...?

My point is two loving (as in they love each other and their children) parents is generally all you need to raise children effectively.

[Lootifer]

however if you want to be more specific and show me evidence of how children who have male role models outside the household are in any way negatively impacted - when controlling for other factors - compared to those with male role models within the household, then by all means...).

Aren't you assuming though that the boy was exposed to male role models? Like I said a few pages ago, we can't know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that male role models are not the same as a father. Now of course, this doesn't mean that kids can't grow up normal who didn't have their mother/father (just look at me! ), it only means that children who do not have a male presence in the home do not get as much (if any) learning or experience from a male in the home, if they even see one. Same for women with no female presence in the home.

That's what I asked you to acknowledge in general, and I already granted you that there are exceptions, such as you have named and more.

To put it simply: Ill show I care [about the underlined] when you show me it matters.

If you want me to say: When kids have a male adult living with them, then they see more of male adults. Then yes you can assume that as a given.

[AndyDufresne]

however if you want to be more specific and show me evidence of how children who have male role models outside the household are in any way negatively impacted - when controlling for other factors - compared to those with male role models within the household, then by all means...).

Aren't you assuming though that the boy was exposed to male role models? Like I said a few pages ago, we can't know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that male role models are not the same as a father. Now of course, this doesn't mean that kids can't grow up normal who didn't have their mother/father (just look at me! ), it only means that children who do not have a male presence in the home do not get as much (if any) learning or experience from a male in the home, if they even see one. Same for women with no female presence in the home.

That's what I asked you to acknowledge in general, and I already granted you that there are exceptions, such as you have named and more.

To put it simply: Ill show I care [about the underlined] when you show me it matters.

If you want me to say: When kids have a male adult living with them, then they see more of male adults. Then yes you can assume that as a given.

Is there a strange analogous argument regarding families with only one child? We must get Timmy a brother or sister. He will not understand the camaraderie of what it means to be a human with an inferior non-nuclear family unit!


--Andy

[Woodruff]

I didn't say the parents didn't love each other. I said that they are both females, and there is no male.

If it doesn't matter one iota if a child has a father or not to how the kid turns out, then should we stop encouraging fathers to stick with the family and raise their children altogether? Should we stop saying that is the right thing for a father to do? It doesn't matter one iota anyways, right?

You are missing my point.

You're not really that naive.

[Lootifer]

however if you want to be more specific and show me evidence of how children who have male role models outside the household are in any way negatively impacted - when controlling for other factors - compared to those with male role models within the household, then by all means...).

Aren't you assuming though that the boy was exposed to male role models? Like I said a few pages ago, we can't know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that male role models are not the same as a father. Now of course, this doesn't mean that kids can't grow up normal who didn't have their mother/father (just look at me! ), it only means that children who do not have a male presence in the home do not get as much (if any) learning or experience from a male in the home, if they even see one. Same for women with no female presence in the home.

That's what I asked you to acknowledge in general, and I already granted you that there are exceptions, such as you have named and more.

To put it simply: Ill show I care [about the underlined] when you show me it matters.

If you want me to say: When kids have a male adult living with them, then they see more of male adults. Then yes you can assume that as a given.

Is there a strange analogous argument regarding families with only one child? We must get Timmy a brother or sister. He will not understand the camaraderie of what it means to be a human with an inferior non-nuclear family unit!


--Andy

Haha, incidently my gut tells me that is actually more of a robust argument than the same-sex parenting on (it probably isnt, my gut is often wrong ). This is 'cause, anecdotedly, I know a few only-childs and theyre all toilets heads

(note this is tongue n cheek, my only-child buddies are all well rounded individuals where it matters, they do, however, share some personality traits).

[Woodruff]

Is there a strange analogous argument regarding families with only one child? We must get Timmy a brother or sister. He will not understand the camaraderie of what it means to be a human with an inferior non-nuclear family unit!

Haha, incidently my gut tells me that is actually more of a robust argument than the same-sex parenting on (it probably isnt, my gut is often wrong ). This is 'cause, anecdotedly, I know a few only-childs and theyre all toilets heads

My anecdotal evidence supports your anecdotal evidence.

(note this is tongue n cheek, my only-child buddies are all well rounded individuals where it matters, they do, however, share some personality traits).

That ain't just whistling dixie (or whatever).

[thegreekdog]

Why did you ask Lootifer the question? Couldn't you look it up yourself?

If you are against federal recognition of gay marriage, you should provide reasons why. Nothing you've provided in this thread are reasons why you are against federal recognition of gay marriage. You appear to be against gay proms, gay adoption, any gays raising children, and the move of U.S. culture towards acceptance of gays. These are certainly related to gay marriage, but are points used by those that are not desirous of freedom of choice for gays.

You mention studies saying that being gay may not be genetic. Why does that matter? What does genetic disposition have to do with gay marriage? What does genteic disposition have to do with anything at all?

I'm just going to post this again because I think it got lost in the shuffle. The important questions are in the last paragraph really.

I answered the first one "because I wanted Lootifer opinion on something, based on something Lootifer said, related to a previous post we were talking about. I don't mind other people coming into conversations, so long as it's constructive.

I've provided reasons why, numerous times. Federal government recognizes whatever the state says marriage is, not the other way around. Overall, it's just not a Federal issue, because it IS a state issue. (unless it's your opinion that the Federal government should take over marriage from the states, which would be an interesting discussion that I would love to hear)

I am not against any of that. My main drive is that the true discussion is being prevented, the discussion should be about everything that redefining marriage will impact. Tragically, unfortunately, the debate has been an emotional manipulation. People think this will only impact marriage, and that is the end of the story. I have tried to show how something as seemly simple as "letting love win" means changes in thousands of other areas, other areas which are shouted down when brought up. If this were truly only about marriage, I would probably support it. But it's not.

For example: we just redefined marriage in my state a couple weeks ago. Both local newspapers went with the headline "Love wins" and all my friends on facebook are talking about how love won. But if love won, why is it we are kicking out values based/religious orphanages? Is it really "hateful" to suggest a child should have both a mother and a father? Can't you see that something is missing there? Sure, gays can marry. But how does that go from them getting married to the state closing down Catholic orphanages?

The genetic argument matters to those who say they are born that way, even to those who disagree. Even more specifically related to the discussion about the 8 year old boy that Lootifer and I were having. It doesn't have anything to do with you, so you don't have to worry about it. Maybe you want to read it to gain knowledge for yourself and talk about the results. Is that not a good enough reason? Or do you just think another thread should be made?

I'm not sure if you don't understand my point or if you are willfully ignoring my point. The cultural battle over gays is already over and the gays won. Again, all of the items you mention as reasons why you are against gay marriage have nothing to do with gay marriage.

With respect to your actual reason to be against the federal recognition of gay marriage (the second paragraph in the quoted post above), I would normally agree with you except that there is an equal protection amendment which provides for the equal protection of people under the law. This should, in my somewhat expert estimation, apply to marriage benefits/regulations. So long as the federal government provides for certain benefits and protections for married couples, the equal protection clause should apply to all couples, including gay couples. So that would be my argument.

[Anyways: I have noticed you have repeatedly called me a dodger. I asked you to bring up anything you think I dodged and I would deal with it. But on the other hand, I do not consider myself a dodger, and think it's possible you just call me a dodger so you can force me to answer your questions on your terms and allow you to move the discussion to whatever area you want, and you think I will deal with it for fear of dodging something. So if I am going to keep my word and deal with all these posts that you misinterpret or make your business or even have a legitimate case that I didn't deal with it, I still hold it just got buried or trolled out of existence. But I do wonder if, even after I deal with all this, you will still be calling me a dodger? I wonder if this will solve whatever problem you have?

And I only wish that you gave 1% of a crap about the people who straight up ruin this forum and ruin discussion. While you may have from time to time, I didn't notice you calling out Pimpdave, I even remember you going along with it. Why is that?

I actually never called you a dodger (or at least I don't remember calling you a dodger). I just repost stuff because you and Woodruff keep typing reams and reams and pages and pages of bullshit so my posts get lost in the shuffle.

I do care about people who ruin this forum (right now, in my estimation, that's you and Woodruff). I cared about pimpdave back when he actually posted stuff and my ultimate reaction to him was to ignore his threads. If I recall, I repeatedly told you and Night Strike and others to ignore his threads with the idea that he would go away. And lo, he did. I'm also fairly certain, although cannot prove it obviously, that his threads and posts are not serious. Thus, why would I take his posts seriously? I take your posts seriously because you seem to be serious. Perhaps you're not and I should ignore them, but I haven't found any evidence that you're not being serious. If you start posting about Liberal Death Squads, maybe I'll treat your posts the same way I treat pimpdave's posts (namely ignoring them). Until then, I will continue to have these discussions with you (at least the substantive discussions).

Which ultimately brings me to the last point. You keep trying to make our discussions something about how I have a problem with you (personally) and that this is some kind of "thing." It's really not. I'm trying to have a discussion with you. Now, part of that discussion is trying to keep you consistent, which perhaps you've determined is something other than a discussion. I really and truly wish that you would keep the discussions we have about issues to the issues themselves and not accuse me of making this personal, because I'm most assuredly not. There are few instances in this forum where I've made a discussion personal and my interaction with you on this and other issues is not one of them. I think this will probably be the last time I address this type of thing with you because it really just wastes time and space.

[Phatscotty]

And how about now Greekdog? Now maybe it's time to ask yourself why it was you did not take my posts serious, when just a short year later many things have already come to pass?
Serious debates on repealing Incestuous marriage laws? check
serious expert support for pedophilia being a sexual orientation? check
Men beating the shit out of women in the female MMA division? Check
Male teenagers being granted permission to use girls locker rooms in junior high school because they feel like a female, even though they are heterosexual and have a girlfriend? check
government ordering pastors to marry gays against their will? check
government subpeona's of religious sermons as well as all text messages, phone calls and emails relating to opposing a policy that cloaked itself in anti-discrimination laws? check
businesses closing based on the premise that whatever government runs, there can no longer be any religious views tolerated? check
the sudden realization that government is soon gonna have to take over everything, therefore there can be no religious views? check

Congrats, in exchange for all your hard work, your and your religion can now go lock yourselves in the closet, they'll hold the key? cool? oh, no choice now? Well, hey, at least you now have some direct causation or at least correlation to go on, but of course, you can't do anything about it now, as we've already decided gender doesn't matter, and that all that matters is who you love, and it doesn't matter whether you could see it or not, you keep your Bible in the closet, and when you are ordered to do something that goes against your religion, you do it, or you stay locked in the closet. And when celebrating your new views in the public streets in parades paid for with public money and official government endorsements that go past closed businesses and abandoned churches, do not pretend it's a bad thing to have genitals rubbed in your face. At the same time remember, no matter what, DO NOT say 'Merry Christmas' this holiday season, or any holiday season after, because it might offend someone Got it? Good

Pscotty, why do you care?

Because gender matters. To say gender doesn't matter when it comes to something that has always been a bond between opposite sexes is to say the bond doesn't matter.

Anywhere difference between gender is obliterated in marriage, other things follow. Fore example boy scouts and girl scouts, boy's bathrooms and girl's bathrooms/locker rooms, boys basketball and girls basketball.

Gender matters

By this logic, to cut down a tree means the destruction of an entire forest.

Tell us the real reason your Phatness.

Your logic holds, Men aren't joining the women's MMA fighting matches..oh, they are? And they are giving women concussions and beating them in 24 seconds. Oh, that's cool, equality!

The awareness of the bathroom issue is so prevalent now South Park has dedicated an entire episode to it. I'm glad the creators of South Park see it exactly the same way I have and do.

I want you to remember that, to remind you to stay out of my way. In all the years to come, in all your most private moments, I want you to remember my hand at your throat.

I can see from the point of view in the picture. But I dont call people bigots or anything if they dont believe in gay rights, I just try to convince them that it really is okay if someone is like that.

I commend you for this. They are way out of line calling people that just for disagreeing. I mean, it's not like history is on their side, it's on ours. Of course some people really are bigots, but really I think it's all on the other side.

They don't realize this is strictly in "creed" territory, and they are discriminating based on creed big time. I think abusing the word bigot and using it so often without reason is a form of hatred and certainly intolerance and bullying. I don't want to really convince anyone, as I know most people's minds are made up, and for most it's as simple as "I know someone who is gay" and that's the end of it. I only wish to have an actual discussion, to introduce the points clearly, outside of the closet, to look at the intended consequences, explore some of the unintended consequences etc. It's a lot harder than it sounds.

In France, they are trying to ban the words "mother" and "father". In Massachussets, Catholic Orphanages were forced to close their doors for refusing to give orphans to same sex couples. In Denmark, the Church is forced to marry gay people in church. In Ontario, transgenders can choose whatever bathroom and locker room they want (transgender only means you "feel" like the opposite sex/means boys can go in girls bathrooms. In California, girls can wear tuxedos and boys can wear dresses to formal dances. It might turn out incest is okay in Massachussets. I could go on. Of course this isn't what most people who just want it to be about love have intended, but it is they who refused to use their minds, and only use their hearts. The formula of feeling your way through an issue, without any thought, is a recipe for disaster

Personally, I think there is a national brainwash on the issue underway, and it start in kindergartens of public schools all across the USA. That's why the kids keep saying "just wait until we are older and in control. gay marriage is just a matter of time" because, of course, children know everything about marriage.....it's a textbook indoctrination

Good post, PS. Edmund Burke is deemed the father of conservativism--properly understood, and he insisted on prudence when carrying out reform or any kind of legislative or even violent changes which would conflict with tradition, custom, etc. He sought a balance between liberty and the stability from tradition. If prudence requires us to examine the potential (un)intended consequences and the motives, then so be it. That is what the discussion ITT should be about.

I can see from the point of view in the picture. But I dont call people bigots or anything if they dont believe in gay rights, I just try to convince them that it really is okay if someone is like that.

of course it's okays. I love gays.

But remember they are only 1-3% of the population, and polls suggest that only about 10% of those want to get married. That's not an argument point, but are we really going to fundamentally transform something like marriage based on some kind of marriage fantasy that is being denied? (I understand the monetary benefits aspect, just wish people were more honest about it)

And also, this isn't just about gay marriage. This is about recognizing the differences in gender. Many people think it's just LBGT. Well, it isn't anymore. It's LBGTtQUNAAPX, with a recent ruling out of California that pedophilia is a gender, and another case in Massachusetts where incest is being defended with "it's all about who you love" and if you think consent wasn't there, it was, and I don't even like talking about NAMBLA and what they are hoping for in all this.

Well why were we fighting earlier if we agree on my main point . Im going to bed XD. I can see why you wouldnt necessarily want (per say) this particular bill to be passed if all those other groups were on the list, as you dont agree with some of them and theres some that I dont really agree with on there. We have common ground is what Im trying to say.

Though Facebook offers an astounding 50 choices for gender identity, the real question is: is it “transphobic” to only offer 50? What if that doesn’t get the job done? Why not 6,412? Or, better yet, should we not offer an unlimited amount of choices by offering a fill-in-the-blank? What if someone identifies as a Grizzly Bear and there is no such choice to select?

Of course, such a statement is ridiculous- and that’s the point. In this age of absurd relativism where nothing is good or bad, where nothing is simply one thing or another, so-called “progressives” have yielded to the never-ending demands of people wishing to deconstruct our very foundations of identity.

Whereas once we, as a society, refused to validate the delusions of others, now we rid ourselves of our own understandings of the world to make room for the endless transformative nonsense that pervades politically-correct culture.

If I dress as a Grizzly Bear and begin behaving as a bear- tipping over trashcans, stealing picnic baskets and whatnot- I sincerely hope someone would sit me down and explain that though I may look, feel and identify as a Grizzly Bear, I am not.

In fact I would bet it's more likely someone would sit him down and explain that because, he looks, feels and identifies as a Grizzly Bear, he is a victim, and together we will demand society recognize him as such!

Oh how I miss the wisdom of Bones and the year 2013

This thread is now about wet hills.

Pscotty, why do you care?

For the same reason he disagrees with hamsters now being able to vote once we started letting those women vote.

Unfortunately for Bones, the word 'Women' is gender specific and therefore offensive and shunned by society. Is that what happened to Bones? Didn't take long for the tables to turn back around on ya eh?

School Told to Call Kids ‘Purple Penguins’ Because ‘Boys and Girls’ Is Not Inclusive to Transgender
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -inclusive


Here is a partial list of this year new gender options, and no pedophiles were not granted sexual orientations status despite a major boost in support based on 'being born this way' as well as many experts have 'progressed' and now agree pedophilia is in fact a sexual orientation. Better luck next year gang. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... ngout.html

I wonder what and how many it will be next year?

Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans*
Trans Female
Trans* Female
Trans Male
Trans* Male
Trans Man
Trans* Man
Trans Person
Trans* Person
Trans Woman
Trans* Woman
Transfeminine
Transgender
Transgender Man
Transgender Person
Transgender Woman
Transmasculine
Transsexual
Transsexual Man
Transsexual Person
Transsexual Woman
Two-Spirit

[AndyDufresne]

Here is a partial list of this year new gender options, and no pedophiles were not granted sexual orientations status despite a major boost in support based on 'being born this way' as well as many experts have 'progressed' and now agree pedophilia is in fact a sexual orientation. Better luck next year gang. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... ngout.html

Better luck next year, PS. We're all rootin' for ya.


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

Here is a partial list of this year new gender options, and no pedophiles were not granted sexual orientations status despite a major boost in support based on 'being born this way' as well as many experts have 'progressed' and now agree pedophilia is in fact a sexual orientation. Better luck next year gang. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... ngout.html

Better luck next year, PS. We're all rootin' for ya.


--Andy

It is cute watching PS realize that the world is not as simple as he once thought. Back in his day, of course, you were either a white straight male, or you were not even a person.

[crispybits]

Here is a partial list of this year new gender options, and no pedophiles were not granted sexual orientations status despite a major boost in support based on 'being born this way' as well as many experts have 'progressed' and now agree pedophilia is in fact a sexual orientation. Better luck next year gang. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... ngout.html

Better luck next year, PS. We're all rootin' for ya.


--Andy

It is cute watching PS realize that the world is not as simple as he once thought. Back in his day, of course, you were either a white straight christian male, or you were not even a person.

Fixed that for you

[nietzsche]

What is this obsession of controlling what people can do with their orifices?

[crispybits]

Idd - especially from those that claim to value freedom above pretty much all else. (Freedom to live they way they approve of of course)

[thegreekdog]

And how about now Greekdog? Now maybe it's time to ask yourself why it was you did not take my posts serious, when just a short year later many things have already come to pass?
Serious debates on repealing Incestuous marriage laws? check
serious expert support for pedophilia being a sexual orientation? check
Men beating the shit out of women in the female MMA division? Check
Male teenagers being granted permission to use girls locker rooms in junior high school because they feel like a female, even though they are heterosexual and have a girlfriend? check
government ordering pastors to marry gays against their will? check
government subpeona's of religious sermons as well as all text messages, phone calls and emails relating to opposing a policy that cloaked itself in anti-discrimination laws? check
businesses closing based on the premise that whatever government runs, there can no longer be any religious views tolerated? check
the sudden realization that government is soon gonna have to take over everything, therefore there can be no religious views? check

I'm impressed you dredged up a thread this old to respond to a user who was gone for 6 months (and who, to your knowledge, wasn't coming back).

I'm not familiar with any of these "checks" you make above, mostly because I haven't been paying attention. In any event, it's a weird and disturbing list so I will choose to ignore it until someone without an agenda informs me that these items are true.