[Bill Konnoway]

I'm really sorry for those who is brought up in such families... What are they like when grownup?

Article

[Scheherazade]

That doesn't surprise me, since same sex households are ecologically unnatural.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would not bother replying to Bill Konnoway. The user is simply trying to create traffic for the website to which he or she always links.

[Bill Konnoway]

I would not bother replying to Bill Konnoway. The user is simply trying to create traffic for the website to which he or she always links.

[Godstud]

The truth hurts. It's also pretty much not true. It's plain old discrimination and misinformation.

Children growing up with 1 or no parents are worse off, too.

[Scheherazade]

The truth hurts. It's also pretty much not true. It's plain old discrimination and misinformation.

Children growing up with 1 or no parents are worse off, too.

Not likely nearly as worse off, likewise adoption agencies favor male/female couples over individuals anyway.

Discrimination based on good judgment calls is a good thing, not a bad, it's just rational discernment. There's no reason homosexual couples shouldn't be discriminated against, in favor of straight couples which are a much more ecologically natural and time-tested environment for raising children.

[Godstud]

Discrimination based on good judgment calls is a good thing, not a bad, it's just rational discernment. There's no reason homosexual couples shouldn't be discriminated against, in favor of straight couples which are a much more ecologically natural and time-tested environment for raising children.

Discrimination based on anything but FACTS, is discrimination that is BAD. It is no rational discernment without facts to support it.

There is no reason for homosexual couples to be discriminated against, unless you are a homophobe.

Question: Should we disallow single mothers or fathers from raising their children simply because it's not best for the child? I mean, they should go up for adoption "in favor of straight couples which are a much more ecologically natural and time-tested environment for raising children.". Right? That would be just a "rational discernment", correct?

You are OK discriminating against homosexuals, but I am sure when it comes to heterosexuals, you sing a different tune.

Your post just SCREAMS bigotry.

[Scheherazade]

Discrimination based on anything but FACTS, is discrimination that is BAD. It is no rational discernment without facts to support it.

There is no reason for homosexual couples to be discriminated against, unless you are a homophobe.

Question: Should we disallow single mothers or fathers from raising their children simply because it's not best for the child? I mean, they should go up for adoption "in favor of straight couples which are a much more ecologically natural and time-tested environment for raising children.". Right? That would be just a "rational discernment", correct?

You are OK discriminating against homosexuals, but I am sure when it comes to heterosexuals, you sing a different tune.

Your post just SCREAMS bigotry.

Homosexual couples should be discriminated against based on natural law, anything which deviates from the most natural environment is risky and there's no reason to treat it as equal.

[Pants-of-dog]

Oooh! Another thread where Scherezade goes on for pages and pages without providing a singe example of how LGBT people actually cause any harm.

[Godstud]

Homosexuality is not uncommon in nature. Natural law would then allow for homosexuality. Your "natural law' is really just whatever you want it to be, and is therefore bullshit. Humans don't follow natural laws, or we wouldn't be driving cars, using computers, flying in planes, etc. Expecting humans to follow natural laws is totally idiotic, and goes against everything that makes us human.

[Scheherazade]

Oooh! Another thread where Scherezade goes on for pages and pages without providing a singe example of how LGBT people actually cause any harm.

It can be logically argued that it causes harm in and of itself, so no 'emperical evidence' needed. Empericism is junk science anyway and shouldn't be relied on, good logical arguments are much supeiror.

The burden should be on others to prove it doesn't cause harm, since most logically valid arguments would show it to be aberrance, so no reason to believe otherwise.

[Pants-of-dog]

It can be logically argued that it causes harm in and of itself, so no 'empirical evidence' needed. Empiricism is junk science anyway and shouldn't be relied on, good logical arguments are much superior.

Yes, you presented that argument, and I pointed out that you incorrectly think that your subjective views about natural law are somehow objectively true.

But if you want to go the logical root, you are making the logical fallacy of assuming that something is good because it is natural. If so, then cancer would be good. Ao would tooth decay and arsenic. Or cyanide. One of the two is naturally occuring. I always forget which.

Getting back to empiricism, homosexuality is actually natural and occurs among non-human species.

The burden should be on others to prove it doesn't cause harm, since most logically valid arguments would show it to be aberrance, so no reason to believe otherwise.

http://shared.web.emory.edu/emory/news/ ... C0F73RfOhA

Bans on same-sex marriage can be tied to a rise in the rate of HIV infection, a new study by two Emory economists has found.

In the first study of the impact of social tolerance levels toward gays in the United States on the HIV transmission rate, the researchers estimated that a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises the rate by four cases per 100,000 people.

"We found the effects of tolerance for gays on HIV to be statistically significant and robust – they hold up under a range of empirical models," says Hugo Mialon, an assistant professor of economics.

So, now that we have satisfied the burden of showing how tolerance of LGBT people actually reduces harm, I look forward to your support of gay marriage. Thank you.

[Scheherazade]

Yes, you presented that argument, and I pointed out that you incorrectly think that your subjective views about natural law are somehow objectively true.

But if you want to go the logical root, you are making the logical fallacy of assuming that something is good because it is natural. If so, then cancer would be good. Ao would tooth decay and arsenic. Or cyanide. One of the two is naturally occuring. I always forget which.

Getting back to empiricism, homosexuality is actually natural and occurs among non-human species.

Natural law doesn't just refer to the physical world, but higher laws like mathematics, logic, aesthetics.

The burden should be on others to prove it doesn't cause harm, since most logically valid arguments would show it to be aberrance, so no reason to believe otherwise.

http://shared.web.emory.edu/emory/news/ ... C0F73RfOhA

Bans on same-sex marriage can be tied to a rise in the rate of HIV infection, a new study by two Emory economists has found.

In the first study of the impact of social tolerance levels toward gays in the United States on the HIV transmission rate, the researchers estimated that a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises the rate by four cases per 100,000 people.

"We found the effects of tolerance for gays on HIV to be statistically significant and robust – they hold up under a range of empirical models," says Hugo Mialon, an assistant professor of economics.

So, now that we have satisfied the burden of showing how tolerance of LGBT people actually reduces harm, I look forward to your support of gay marriage. Thank you.[/quote]
It doesn't, no one forces them to partake in gay sex. They're free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

[Pants-of-dog]

Natural law doesn't just refer to the physical world, but higher laws like mathematics, logic, aesthetics.

...and no doubt it also supports your subjective notions about homosexual!

What an amazing coincidence!

It doesn't, no one forces them to partake in gay sex. They're free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I fail to see how that is a rebuttal to what I said. Can you please explain?

Now, seeing as you did not respond to my discussions of your logical fallacy, or the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature, can we assume you agree with those points?

[Godstud]

[Scheherazade]

Or the fact that the term 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron.

That's why I don't take political advice from washed=up comedians.

[mikema63]

Gay marriage exists, and no one has died and the sky hasn't fallen.

Be as disgusted as you like in your little corner.

[Scheherazade]

Gay marriage exists, and no one has died and the sky hasn't fallen.

That's a strawman, the hamrful effects on ecology and the children who are victim of those faux-unions.

Be as disgusted as you like in your little corner.

My plan is to work to impose my views of what's disgusting on others, since I believe there's only one correct view of right and wrong, and those who don't agree are on the side of evil. I have no respect for the supposed "autonomy" of others if they go against what something higher than them has ordained.

[Hong Wu]

I think the government shouldn't be paying for kids to mutilate themselves since most of these young people change their minds about the sex change later on. It's also associated with other psychological problems, this instance doesn't seem to be an exception since the kid ran away from home. Although I'm sure the mother is a piece of work.

[mikema63]

That's a strawman, the hamrful effects on ecology and the children who are victim of those faux-unions.

You can't just claim things, you have to provide evidence. The only evidence you have that same sex marriages are evil and destroy children and "ecology" is your own feelings. Which I will continue to ignore because your feelings are irrelevant.

My plan is to work to impose my views of what's disgusting on others, since I believe there's only one correct view of right and wrong, and those who don't agree are on the side of evil. I have no respect for the supposed "autonomy" of others if they go against what something higher than them has ordained.

Theocracy is to be fought tooth and nail. You have taken your personal feelings and beliefs about unprovable things and elevated them to the sacred so that you can hate what disgusts you without feeling like an asshole.