[PatrickMahoney]

Further, intentionally misspelling "human" isn't cute, it's childish.

If you go to my introduction thread, you'll see why I have chosen to spell the word this way.

But attacking the way I have chosen to spell a word, or even a minor type isn't a very high form of argument. This is part of the "American Delusion," or to put it another way, the "my way or the highway" philsophy or mentality. People know, but turn a blind eye and want to be fed some excuse not to examine their behavior and bigotry (i.e. denying rights to others).

Why do your waste your time trying to discredit? These simplistic responses regarding minute details pale in comparison to the real discrimination that gays face in America and in other places. Do you really want to be on the same side as Iran on this issue?

[DanDaMan]

If the lesbians have equal rights the child has no rights to what nature intended.
Is that best for the child?

It is of your opinion that gay parents cannot properly raise children. Care to back this up with evidence?

I think they can.
Can you now competently answer my question with a yes or no?

[Dave]

If you go to my introduction thread, you'll see why I have chosen to spell the word this way.

It's pathetic. Give it up.

But attacking the way I have chosen to spell a word, or even a minor type isn't a very high form of argument. This is part of the "American Delusion," or to put it another way, the "my way or the highway" philsophy or mentality. People know, but turn a blind eye and want to be fed some excuse not to examine their behavior and bigotry (i.e. denying rights to others).

Bigotry is originally defined as being intolerant of opposing ideas, not denying "rights" to others. Many of us upon examining the issues conclude that certain "rights" need to be reserved or denied based on group affiliation.

[Lightman]

You avoided my point.
Who is doing the majority of spreading if lesbians rarely pass it?
is it the women or is it the men?

The man, primarily. How is this relevant?

If you go to my introduction thread, you'll see why I have chosen to spell the word this way.

Which is an idiotic justification. "Man" was originally a gender-neutral word, with "wer" being the term for human males.

But attacking the way I have chosen to spell a word, or even a minor type isn't a very high form of argument. This is part of the "American Delusion," or to put it another way, the "my way or the highway" philsophy or mentality. People know, but turn a blind eye and want to be fed some excuse not to examine their behavior and bigotry (i.e. denying rights to others).

I'm in agreement with your conclusions, I merely refuse to abide by such stylistic oddities and do not tolerate false premises. I am no more fond of people whom I agree with making fools of themselves than people whom I disagree with making fools of themselves.

Why do your waste your time trying to discredit? These simplistic responses regarding minute details pale in comparison to the real discrimination that gays face in America and in other places. Do you really want to be on the same side as Iran on this issue?

I am very much in favor of gay rights, transexual rights, etc. I am not in favor of bad argumentation, bad style, and logical fallacies. This one paragraph contains a false dichotomy (you are either with us or with Iran).

[DanDaMan]

You avoided my point.
Who is doing the majority of spreading if lesbians rarely pass it?
is it the women or is it the men?

The man, primarily. How is this relevant?

Who then catches diseases spread by boys/men sodomizing each other when schools teach sodomy between the same sex is no longer taboo?

[Lightman]

It's certainly possible that at some point in time HIV spread to women through a man who had had gay sex; possible, but unproven. This is irrelevant; the vast majority of HIV spread in the world is today attributable to straight sex.

[DanDaMan]

It's certainly possible that at some point in time HIV spread to women through a man who had had gay sex; possible, but unproven. This is irrelevant; the vast majority of HIV spread in the world is today attributable to straight sex.

If that is irrelevant how come American and British blood banks ban men that have sex with men form donating?
Could it be that gay men are at the most risk for getting infected?

[Lightman]

Several organizations who are intimately involved with blood banks are not opposed to gay men giving blood.

[DanDaMan]

Several organizations who are intimately involved with blood banks are not opposed to gay men giving blood.

That's because they neither care about the high cost of rejecting unacceptable blood after testing or the pain and suffering it will cause those catching the newest deadly disease that hedonistic group is more likely to spread.


Men that have sex with men are justifiably banned from donating blood..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 116288.ece
They are also more prone to spreading MRSA.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/MNI5UE0L8.DTL

(01-14) 14:11 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A new variety of staph bacteria, highly resistant to antibiotics and possibly transmitted by sexual contact, is spreading among gay men in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles, researchers reported Monday.

[Icon]

That's not an answer.

Uh, yes it is. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not an answer.

Let's say I want to hire you to place children and I want to see how competent you are at looking out for a child's rights. I tell you a childs first right is to a normal family and that fathers ARE relevant to raising them.

Show me how competent you are at making decisions based on the facts given above.
Who gets the child.... the lesbians or the married man and woman?

I'd give the child to whichever pair of parents is in a stable, loving relationship and has the income necessary to take care of a child. And I'd get you fired for trying to impose a baseless, nonsensical restriction that is in the way of me doing what is best for the children I'm trying to arrange adoptions for.

Of course, in the real world, it doesn't even work that way. In reality, there are 20 kids that need parents, but only 5 couples looking to adopt. Let's say one of those couples is gay. Now if I told you that you needed to make decisions on what is best for those 20 children and those 5 couples, and having parents is better than not having parents, you would be insane to not let the gay couple adopt.

Does a child have a right to a mother and father or do lesbians have the same equal rights to a child as a competing heterosexual couple?

Um, since when have children even had a right to parents, of any gender? There is no such principle in US law or in the laws of any country I'm familiar with.

If that is irrelevant how come American and British blood banks ban men that have sex with men form donating?
Could it be that gay men are at the most risk for getting infected?

Because of baseless misconceptions like the ones you are actively trying to propagate in this thread.

[DanDaMan]

Let's say I want to hire you to place children and I want to see how competent you are at looking out for a child's rights. I tell you a childs first right is to a normal family and that fathers ARE relevant to raising them.

Show me how competent you are at making decisions based on the facts given above.
Who gets the child.... the lesbians or the married man and woman?

I'd give the child to whichever pair of parents is in a stable, loving relationship and has the income necessary to take care of a child. And I'd get you fired for trying to impose a baseless, nonsensical restriction that is in the way of me doing what is best for the children I'm trying to arrange adoptions for.

That's not a decision.
Ergo you are not competent enough for me to hire you since you failed to work with the facts given.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Lightman]

Ah, Dan, it is so good to know that you do not work with children.

Now that I think about it, I have no idea why I even engaged you in your last round of petty attacks. I am living proof that being raised to believe that homosexuality is acceptable does not result in homosexuality. I don't know about you, but learning that gays exist and should be tolerated does not result in me being turned on by naked men; if such education would result in that feeling in you, you have some serious soul-searching to do, my friend. The idea of being with a man is very unappetizing to me; nonetheless, I believe with all my heart that there is no good reason to object to such acts. The vast majority of those I know who are pro-gay rights are themselves straight. In fact, in a community I have had the privilege to be a part of which I would dare to allege is one of the most accepting of homosexuality and such in the world, the incidence of homosexuality/bisexuality/etc. among males did not increase; what was statistically to be expected occurred within males. The incidence of bisexuality in females, however, was very high. Your arguments are contrary to fact.

I cannot give myself a decent rational for continuing to debate you. There is no possible way that I can persuade you through logic of anything, and I am simply degrading myself in the my eyes and the eyes of others by engaging you. If I want to debate the topic, I'll debate with respectable opponents, such as Dave or perhaps even Hunster.

Good day, sir.

[DanDaMan]

Ah, Dan, it is so good to know that you do not work with children.

Now that I think about it, I have no idea why I even engaged you in your last round of petty attacks. I am living proof that being raised to believe that homosexuality is acceptable does not result in homosexuality. I don't know about you, but learning that gays exist and should be tolerated does not result in me being turned on by naked men; if such education would result in that feeling in you, you have some serious soul-searching to do, my friend. The idea of being with a man is very unappetizing to me; nonetheless, I believe with all my heart that there is no good reason to object to such acts. The vast majority of those I know who are pro-gay rights are themselves straight. In fact, in a community I have had the privilege to be a part of which I would dare to allege is one of the most accepting of homosexuality and such in the world, the incidence of homosexuality/bisexuality/etc. among males did not increase; what was statistically to be expected occurred within males. The incidence of bisexuality in females, however, was very high. Your arguments are contrary to fact.

I cannot give myself a decent rational for continuing to debate you. There is no possible way that I can persuade you through logic of anything, and I am simply degrading myself in the my eyes and the eyes of others by engaging you. If I want to debate the topic, I'll debate with respectable opponents, such as Dave or perhaps even Hunster.

Good day, sir.

Since that reply never addressed my last post question... Good day to you too.

[Quercus Robur]

the question is obviously not why should gays be allowed to marry, but why shouldn't they. Marriage is not generally viewed as a special social service that you have to be privileged to attain, although it is made the condition upon which people recieve some such benefits, but as a thing people can do. That is the beginning of a liberal interest in gay people being able to be married.

anyway the two main reasons for prohibition are (a) it shows official disapproval of a bad lifestyle and (b) marriage is either unsuitable for gay unions in principle or for some social reason. Reasons under (a) should be automatically attacked in liberal societies as people should be free to make up their minds about which lifestyles they dislike, while (b) makes more sense as an argument to prohibit something specific like marriage but arguably only points of principle should be accepted. I've heard very little said by anti gay marriage people specifically against gays marrying, instead they argue that generally they are against gay people and for a great number of reasons don't want them to be encouraged, especially to raise kids. It's difficult to argue against all these vaguely related things, and to be honest the idea of defending a lifestyle is basically ridiculous. Gay people should however take note of these issues, especially when adopting.

[PBVBROOK]

Remember lightman that Dandaman and his ilk could care less about a logical thought process though they lay claim to it like a birthright. He and his buds are just here to hear themselfs bluff and posture. If I heard opinions like his from someone I just met on the street I would dismiss them as just a bit confused about their own sexualtiy. No big thing. People come to grips with it eventually. Or not.

I spent a lot of time in the worlds most macho organization. I can assure you the subject of man-talk rarely ran to issues like gay marriage and gays in the military. Most real men I have met either could not care less or they were for leaving others to find their own bliss. Real men are not bullys. It does not make them feel powerful to put others down. They are already powerful. It has been my experience that the ones who act out their macho fantasies the most are the weakest.

You must admit that it is comical that the conservatives have to resort to such rediculous arguments as gay marriage and the like to find any allies at all. I think American conservatism is on the ropes. Neo-conservatives are all done.

[Stormsmith]

here, here!! This guy just likes to waste peoples time. I'd rather have another night out with intellegent men. Up for a Friday night out on the howl, Brook?

[Dave]

the question is obviously not why should gays be allowed to marry, but why shouldn't they.

This is completely illogical. It is the organized homosexual lobby seeking change an established law (or body of laws, rather), therefore they must justify themselves.

Marriage is not generally viewed as a special social service that you have to be privileged to attain, although it is made the condition upon which people recieve some such benefits, but as a thing people can do.

Marriage is not a social service in the first place.

That is the beginning of a liberal interest in gay people being able to be married.

Nonsense, liberals are interested in homosexuals because they worship weakness and are obsessed with promoting outgroups.

anyway the two main reasons for prohibition are (a) it shows official disapproval of a bad lifestyle and (b) marriage is either unsuitable for gay unions in principle or for some social reason. Reasons under (a) should be automatically attacked in liberal societies as people should be free to make up their minds about which lifestyles they dislike, while (b) makes more sense as an argument to prohibit something specific like marriage but arguably only points of principle should be accepted. I've heard very little said by anti gay marriage people specifically against gays marrying, instead they argue that generally they are against gay people and for a great number of reasons don't want them to be encouraged, especially to raise kids. It's difficult to argue against all these vaguely related things, and to be honest the idea of defending a lifestyle is basically ridiculous. Gay people should however take note of these issues, especially when adopting.

Societies should not be liberal and liberalism should be destroyed, so reasons like (a) are in fact perfectly valid. As for (b), it is very puzzling that only points of principle should be accepted. And lastly, you raise exactly why homosexual marriage must not come to pass: adoption. Homosexual marriage is of course a trojan horse for homosexual adoption, and children of homosexual parents will be more tolerant, which means more liberals when our aim should be the elimination of liberalism.

You must admit that it is comical that the conservatives have to resort to such rediculous arguments as gay marriage and the like to find any allies at all. I think American conservatism is on the ropes. Neo-conservatives are all done.

Neoconservatism is not conservatism, but a Jewish movement just like left liberalism which seeks the destruction of our nation. The only thing they're interested in conserving is Israel.

[PBVBROOK]

I'd rather have another night out with intellegent men. Up for a Friday night out on the howl, Brook?

Absolutely. As long as we don't go to a libertarian bar.

[Stormsmith]

Deal!!

[Quercus Robur]

This is completely illogical. It is the organized homosexual lobby seeking change an established law (or body of laws, rather), therefore they must justify themselves.

not in principle. The default position is that people do things and the law interferes when it is reasonable and ethical for it to do so.

As to the rest of your post your objection is really more against liberalism than gays marrying. About adoption: of course technically this can occur outside marriage and very much does - I've heard some wonderful stories of gay 'parenting' in the 80s in Britain when gayness wasn't bolstered by official acceptance; however, I take your point as marriage is linked to family and the issues mentioned in this thread do have some limited bearing on that. It is however, a minor point in my eyes as it does not justify restricting gay marriage but promoting successful family models or at the most limiting gay adoption.