HOME | DD
Nekromanda — Stamp: Straight is not automatically the best.
Published: 2013-03-29 13:18:02 +0000 UTC; Views: 10824; Favourites: 611; Downloads: 17
Redirect to original
Description
In case it goes by a bit quick: "A person's sexuality does not determine their ability to parent."One of the favored arguments of late is the "Well, gay couples could never raise a child to the same quality as a straight couple could" argument. I say that's pretty silly if you ask me.
People using that argument conveniently forget that most kids who are abused have.... wait for it.... straight parents!
Most people who turn out to be criminals had straight parents. Most people who commit murder and genocide... straight parents. Hmmmm.American Psychological Association: "There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children." (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999);
Texture used: 70 Icon textures - 2303 by =Missesglass
This texture made me want to watch Beetlejuice again, haha.....
Related content
Comments: 463
There is no sense of "what's most likely to happen." Statistics only takes a very small sliver of the population. Even if they do an extensive study, there are still vast numbers of extreme outliers. What you're saying here is that most people are just sheep that believe what is given to them instead of doing their own research, which is a fact. Believing dogmas based on what "experts" and "studies" say is the main reason there is such a large amount of discrimination. Unless you've met all of the families with children in the world, you cannot say what is most likely to happen. Even then, there is a really large gray area.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your argument is that you can't make decisions based on empirical evidence. So then how can you make any decision about anything? Your point is absurd, and you only apply it when it suits your point of view.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, that's what you're doing. You've dismissed everyone who doesn't agree with you. If you actually read my previous comment, I basically said that most people just agree with people or they argue until someone gives up and agrees with them, which is what you're trying to do, but it's not working. I have seen cases of crap parenting from single, homosexual, and heterosexual parents. Yet, I have also seen good parenting on all sides. What I'm saying is that all family dynamics have its trash and treasure and you have to be willing to get off your behind, get your nose out of the studies and experience those occurrences for yourself instead of believing what the most of the population believes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I welcome and accept people who disagree with me, and I debate them seriously and respectfully, so that much of what you said just isn't true. Again, we agree that there are cases of successful gay parents. However, the numbers, not to mention proportionally, suggest that straight parents produce and raise more children. Since a society needs children, the state decided to incentivize that practice by institutionalising marriage. Now activists want to radically expand marriage (against the will of the majority of citizens in many cases) to any two people who want to be married based upon a fraction of empirical evidence used to justify institutional marriage to begin with. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First of all, I think the fact that you called *8manderz8 slow is disrespectful, so you are not handling your argument respectfully. Yes, I do read.
Second, sterility is also a proportionately rare case, should states stop sterile people from marrying because they cannot physically produce children? Also, there are many parent-less children, do you think a good number of said children should go without parents just because some law made by the respective states in which the children live says gays shouldn't marry and states are pushing to take their rights to adopt? Sure, there are straight couples that adopt, but they don't significantly lower the number of orphans.
Third, why should I believe empirical evidence when it gets proven wrong, or in many cases lied about, every single day-not every other day, not every week, but every DAY.
Fourth, I didn't say I was creating my own facts. I was stating my observations. Don't put words in my mouth.
Fifth, just because a state institutionalizes something and bans something else does not mean those actions are for the greater good. If the government cared about the will of the citizens, there wouldn't be a death penalty and pedophiles wouldn't be allowed to walk the street.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, lemme take this one at a time.
"Should states allow sterile couples to marry?"
Yes. Compare a sterile male to a fertile male. Now compare a man to a woman. There is an unbridgeable difference, comparatively.
"Do you think gay couples should be able to adopt?"
That depends on what the adoption agency wants.
"Why should I believe empirical evidence?"
Healthy skepticism is good, but selective incredulousness is your problem.
"I was not creating my own facts."
But you refuse to accept facts when they're presented to you, because of your incredulousness.
"State action isn't always good."
We agree there, but if you think you should bypass federalism and democracy, you're basically a dictator. Not sure where you're getting your statistics from. 70% of Americans support the death penalty, and I'm pretty sure a minority support life sentences for pedophiles. Then again, you don't believe empirical evidence, so maybe you're just sampling your friends.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not a dictator and I didn't say that I want to bypass federalism and democracy.
Now you're denying facts. You didn't even respond to what I said about you calling the stamp-maker slow. You chose to ignore that, right? That means you, yourself, are ignoring something I pointed out, just as you accuse me of ignoring what you pointed out, right?
All humans are selectively incredulous. That is why we're having this little debate.
If a person dislikes or is disinterested in something and doesn't want to research it, of course they will be persuaded by anything negative that is said about it because they can use that as a reason to dislike it more. For instance, people hate Homestuck because they were told by many people that it was boring (and it also has many insane fans). However, I heard this, but I actually went and read Homestuck to give it a chance. As a result, I now dislike it because I've experienced how painfully boring it is (painfully, painfully boring), instead of going on what someone else said. The same thing goes for the subject. If a person grows up being taught that homosexuality is wrong, they believe the "heterosexual parents are better" statement. Common sense should tell these people that there are so few homosexual couples that they can't generalize either way, but those statistics are believed because of what has been drilled into them.
Also, I didn't say I sampled anyone, did I? Common sense tells me that with all the protests and rants going against the death penalty, the majority of people in America don't support it. Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's strange that you think you'd have to think "homosexuality is wrong" to believe that heterosexual couples make better parents. I don't think homosexuality is wrong, and I think heterosexual couples on the average make for better parents.
I'm not sure what exactly drives somebody like you to emotionally reject results when it's shown a majority of any given population opposes redefining marriage. I don't know what compels you to either say "Well I don't believe that study is true!" or to adopt a dictator-like mentality and say "Who cares what they believe, we should change marriage anyways against the will of the people!".
Because of a group of people protests something, that makes you think the majority of a country opposes it? That's interesting. Do huge pro-life rallies convince you that we should as a nation oppose abortion?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First of all, that was an example. I did not expressly say that people who oppose gay marriage believe that homosexuality is wrong.
Second, and I will say again, I am NOT a dictator. Plus, there is not just ONE group of people protesting, there are several.
Third, I am disinterested about abortion. What a person decides to do with his or her body is not my business. However, I feel that gay marriage is my business because if you read the Constitution, it says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," which means that no person, whether they are gay or not should be denied any rights that anyone else has unless, say, they are being put in a place where they have no rights. This means that the government is not practicing what its Constitution says. Marriage would fall under the "privileges or immunities" part.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That only applies if there's some sort of inequality, which in this case, there isn't. Any two unmarried adults of opposite gender can marry, regardless of sexual preference. A gay individual simply does not prefer marrying the opposite gender. It does not then fall on the Constitution to forcibly distort state institutions based on somebody's distinct preferences.
Is this honestly your first time hearing this? I'm always surprised when somebody who intellectually curious is somehow ignorant of the other sides arguments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There IS an inequality. What you're basically saying is that if person socially goes against the common thought, then the states should decide whether or not that person has the right to marry whomever he/she wants. That isn't right (on the part of the states, not your part).
This is not my first time hearing this, and I've always respected the fact that there are people who do not want to redefine marriage. I, for one, am appalled at a group of people who got riled up about "Don't ask, Don't tell," being repealed because of the nature of the things they said (the vulgarity was baffling), but that doesn't mean I don't want to hear them out. But I know that the reasons you give are not as strong as you think they are. Even the experts say that their results are not entirely accurate, that is why there is a percentage of error calculated.
I know that if I have a thought, someone out there will have an opposing one. I'm not ignorant of the arguments, just naive and rosy-eyed for the most part. I just want everyone to be able to do what they want (within reason, of course) without a slew of people telling them that it isn't right because [enter noun here] said [enter quote here]. I really just want everyone to live in peace and not have to worry about what other people think of them. I know this will never happen, but I'm optimistic, nonetheless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not sure what you mean by "if person socially goes against the common thought". The definition of marriage is pretty easy to understand. If you go outside that definition, it doesn't apply to you, simple enough. You can then fight to have marriage redefined, but if you're pretending it was what you wanted it to be all along, you're just making things up. There are a lot of good arguments for gay marriage. Claiming it's a right is not one of them.
It's seductive to want to convince yourself that your opinions only come from a happy place of peace of love, but get real with yourself. You have an ideology. The worst thing you can do to yourself is to refuse to acknowledge that. You have positions that can be rationally argued as being fascistic and murderous, so spare me this garbage that you're just a freedom loving peace-nick. You're a liberal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am well aware of the definition of marriage. And I do believe that I have given you good arguments for gay marriage (you know, like there are many gay couples that make good parents, gays have just as much right to get married, here's another couple: anyone who is in love should be able to get married, the definition has already been changed to get rid of the parts about divorce and polygamy). So claiming that it's not right is only a good argument when someone agrees that the definition should be changed? Because there are a lot of people on that side who do just that.
I don't refuse to recognize myself as a liberal. I just happen to be a liberal that believes that people should be able to do what they want (again, within reason). You find that some people may think I'm a fascist from some of the things I've said, but you represented some things that can be seen that way, also. Did I say that I did not have an ideology? No, I did not. Ideologies are like anuses, everyone has one. You just like name-calling and labels because they're easy. And if my thoughts were murderous, I would be using vulgarity, which I am not. So spare me the double-standard bull.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When names apply, I use them. If you support unrestricted abortions, you're allowing the murdering of babies, there's no way around that. But, I won't get into that debate as well. It's good that you acknowledge you have an ideology, but be a little less eager to describe yourself in such sappy self aggrandizing terms, it can be irritating.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wasn't trying to aggrandize myself, all I was saying is that a person's preferences should not lead to picking him or her apart. The fact that I think anyone should be able to do what they want does not mean I'm being sappy. But seeing that I don't have the time or energy to argue anymore, I will leave you with this: A wise person told me that there are 1500 species of animals in this world that display homosexuality, but only one species that has individuals that oppose it harshly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You say that as though I oppose it harshly. We would stand shoulder to shoulder against anyone who acts cruelly to a person just because they're gay. So, again, drop the sense of moral superiority. It's insulting and obnoxious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Put words in my mouth all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you've put down comments that don't agree with your precious statistics. Good day to you, sir.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Common sense is just opinion. Your idea of what is common sense is not my idea of common sense. So you're essentially saying, "either they agree with me or they're wrong".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Common sense is not just opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually it is. Common sense is not fact.
It wasn't long ago that "common sense" said that the universe revolved around the world. Common sense is ever-changing and based only in opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Common sense didn't say that the universe revolved around the world, that was simply a lack of knowledge of astronomy. You don't even know what common sense means. Amazing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then what is it that makes that a "lack of understanding" but not your idea that same-sex parents are "not ideal" because YOUR common sense told you so?
Common sense is defined by Merriam-Webster as, "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts."
Common sense is about perception, opinion, interpretation of FACTS (ie PROVEN ITEMS). You refusing the voices of thousands of leading experts in the fields of child rearing and psychology is by definition not common sense, neither is "anyone who disagrees with me is fundamentally wrong". It seems YOU are the one who doesn't know what common sense is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Except "a simple perception" is not the same as "an opinion". Just stop already, you are awful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
[link]
I think u need this.
Also please continue ignoring my points. You're not being fallacious or anything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Why is it that children of straight parents sometimes turn out gay? Wait, forget that, what about all the straight parents who have STRAIGHT kids?
Your final question was answered by the "so-called" experts that I referred to in my previous question. "The children of same-sex parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in terms of their psychosocial development, their gender development and their gender identity"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Interesting. In either case, it still diffuses the idea that being gay is something you're just born with.
Those studies you cite operate off such a limited data set that it's flat out irresponsible to take them seriously. The conclusions in the research literature typically amount at best to claims that a particular study found "no evidence" of bad effects from child rearing by same-sex couples. Social-science advocacy organizations have promoted the myth that a lack of evidence, so far, of bad effects implies the nonexistence of such effects. This myth is based on conjecture or faith, not science.
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know it's a bit out of the blue, but just out of curiosity, how many gay and lesbian people do you know personally? Have you tried talking to them about whether or not their sexual orientation was something they're born with, or whether they "chose" to be gay. (Also, I'm wondering whether or not you "chose" to be whichever sexual orientation you happen to be.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Great, here goes the "You just don't know any gay people!" accusation. It's like I can map out how these conversations will go in advance. So damn predictable.
I asked you a question, a simple, honest question that should be easy to answer, but since you would have to reexamine your points of view if you tried to answer it, you start trying to build up a case that I somehow hate or don't understand gay people. It's tactics like that, that are the reason this issue has become impossible to even talk about honestly.
Some gay people are born that way, some gay people choose to be gay. Sexual orientation is a combination of societal influences, hormones, and genetics, and at least one of those three factors can have such a big influence as to override the other two. Gay marriage proponents are invested in the lie that sexual orientation is fixed, mostly because it helps them tie their "struggle" to the civil rights movement. After all, you can't choose to be black.
At any rate, you've been an excellent example of how the typical holier than thou, grandstanding, absolutely SHITTY at debating young liberal talks, thinks, and operates. So for that, thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
No, it wasn't an accusation at all. I was asking you honestly. Why shouldn't I be allowed to ask you if you know any gay or lesbian people?
And no, you didn't ask me a question, you just stated that you don't believe in what several psychological and childrens' welfare associations not only in the United States but in other countries like Canada and Australia believe to be most likely.
I'm not trying to be "holier than thou" or anything. I was asking a simple question. You on the other hand are acting like a spoiled little brat who can't handle a simple question.
So if you do know any gay or lesbian people, ask them how they knew they were gay. I'm sure you'll find that they "realized it" rather than "decided it" more often than not. I'm not doubting that some people move along the kinsey scale. I've done it myself. But it wasn't a choice I made, it just happened.
Anyway, you've been an excellent example of how the typical self-important, arrogant, absolutely SHITTY at treating other people decently conservative talks, thinks, and operates. So, thanks for being a complete dickhead throughout this entire process.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually you don't have to build up the case, you just proved it yourself. You don't see being gay as a struggle, you don't think gays should be parents, you don't think gays should marry, you think gayness spreads like a disease ("children with gay parents turn out gay!"). That tells all about what you think of the LGBT.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sure being gay is a struggle for some people. I put "struggle" in quotes because it's nowhere near the same kind of struggle that African Americans faced during slavery and Jim Crow. Words matter to me.
I never said gays shouldn't be parents.
I never even said gays shouldn't marry.
I never said gayness spreads "like a disease"
And you are an absolutely disgusting person to try and demonize anyone who disagrees with you in such a way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You used scare quotes because you don't believe there is a true struggle, which you just admitted to. That's pretty telling of you. You don't know anything of LGBT persons have to face every day across the nation. You don't know anything about our struggle, so you just assume it's no big deal.
Actually, you did. You said that a same-sex couple is "not ideal" because "men and women are fundamentally different" which is "just common sense" and any legitimate scientific institute who says otherwise "is wrong".
When you frame the issue of marital rights in the context of "Gay marriage proponents lie to pretend they are a civil rights movement", you are implying you are against said marital rights.
And yes, you said, "gay parents make gay children", basically, within the context of "gay parents aren't ideal". In other words, you used that as reasoning for WHY they aren't ideal, thus implying you think it spreads like a disease, because you find gayness to be unideal and a bad thing for parents to pass on (if they even passed it on, which they don't).
You're a disgusting person for fighting against my civil and human rights and those of others'.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It must be really empowering to claim I "admitted" things I didn't, just to forward your own narrative. You're just that shitty at debating. Gays do not struggle like blacks struggled. Fact. Period. End of issue. Get off your high horse.
"Not ideal" is not the same as "should not", learn how words work.
I'm "implying" something you want me to imply, again, fucking convenient. If there was a state ballot amendment to approve of same-sex marriage, I would probably vote for it, so shove your implications back up your ass.
Children of gay parents are three times more likely to be gay. That's not conjecture, that's not opinion, that's the result of a study that I've linked to. You're offended by that, so you react by accusing my of being a homophobe. Typical, convenient, and absolutely shitty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I'm sure being gay is a struggle for some people."
This statement's tone is what admitted it. "Oh, I'm SURE it must be SO HARD for SOME people, but it's really nbd for most." It's condescending, erasing, marginalizing, and outright rude. You know nothing of the gay struggle, so don't pretend you do and use scare quotes and say "it only happens to some" and say we don't have a civil and human rights issue on our hands.
There you go with your hate. "It's not ideal!" Which means you're against same-sex parenting. Yes, it is "should not" because you are saying, "Compared to straight parenting, gay parenting should not happen".
You'd "probably" vote for it?
If you don't want me to infer you're against same-sex marriage, you probably shouldn't use scare quotes and claim it's not a civil rights issue.
You have a single study. We have tons. Your article was extremely anti-gay activism, showing clear bias against the LGBT movement. YOUR AUTHOR - of an OPINION ARTICLE I might add - thinks it's a huge conspiracy to give gays special rights. He actually thinks same-sex marriage is THREATENING. It's as if you linked to The Family as a credible source.
Yes, you are a homophobe, because you call gayness "spreadable" and act as if that would be a bad thing if it were even TRUE, because you do not see our struggle as an issue of human and civil rights, because you do not see our struggle as a "proper struggle" at all, because you do not believe same-sex parenting is good enough, because you call the LGBT movement bullshit. That's why you're a homophobe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You were offended, because you chose to be offended. The sort of struggle gay people suffer today is NOTHING compared to slavery and Jim Crow. If you disagree, you're just wrong. End of issue.
Now you're just making shit up, and it's getting really obnoxious. Is your case really that weak that you have to invent monstrous statements and attribute them to me? You're a teenager, aren't you. You can claim that two mothers and two fathers is not ideal compared a mother and father, just as you can claim that one mother or one father is not ideal to a mother and father. Nowhere in those statements is anyone saying a single parent SHOULD NOT raise a child. Just fucking stop, you SUCK AT THIS. YOOOOU SUUUUHHHHK.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LOL "if you disagree you're just wrong!"
What if I said that to you? You'd tout that "liberals r dumb" shit again.
You're right I'm offended at you for making condescending statements about our struggles. Again, you don't know anything about it, so stop pretending you do and stop demeaning it down to "nothing important".
I love that you're claiming I "suck at debate" when you've resorted to calling me a child and a teenager and screaming "U SUK" instead of actually saying anything important. That's called ad hominem.
You have no proof that they are not ideal and your denouncing them as a proper parental couple and saying they are inferior is still homophobia.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh holy shit, this is obnoxious. If you stubbed your toe, and said your struggle was like blacks during slavery, I'd say you're just wrong. Compared to slavery and Jim Crow, stubbing your toe and having to convince people to redefine marriage to suit your particular preferences are basically on the same level of inconvenience.
You're so heavily invested in calling anyone who points out any sort of downside to redefining marriage as a homophobe. It's typical. When you're shitty at debating, you just accuse anyone who tries to debate you as being sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, or bigoted. It's the refuge of the intellectually lazy, and you're exhibiting it MASTERFULLY. So again, thanks for reaffirming my belief that most people on this side of the issue really have no business debating it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Comparing our struggle to stubbing your toe just shows how ignorant you are of how we struggle. And you think our issue is only marriage. Again, you don't know anything. 40% of homeless youth are LGBT, did you know?
And there you go, spitting it out as "redefining marriage for your preferences" and considering it "just inconvenient". And you wonder why I think you're anti-marital rights.
No, I call anyone who actively tries to look for downsides and then perpetuates that there MUST be downsides such as RUINING SOCIETY OMG to stop marriage equality from happening a homophobe. Because that is what they are.
You have no business in LGBT debates at all because you have no idea what you're talking about and you actively grasp for any reason to be against our advancement in equality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're passionate, and that's admirable, but you're being lead by your passion into saying ridiculous, stupid things. The gay marriage issue is about redefining marriage for your preferences. Not opinion, fact. It's no more a "right" than deducting a business expense is a "right". It's about government recognition, any gay people can live and be well together regardless of a state issued certificate, you DO understand that, right? Sure there's logistical issues like hospital visitation, but all of those can be fixed without having to redefine marriage, so it's a simple obfuscation.
You're still in love with this idea that I'm a homophobe. It's like a load-bearing fallacy for you. You must believe anyone who sees a downside to gay marriage must hate gays, or else your entire argument collapses, and you don't see anything wrong with that. It's pathetic. Again, as it happens I've said repeatedly that if there were a state ballot amendment redefining marriage to include members of the same sex, I'd probably vote for it. I also happen to have the intellectual maturity and thirst for knowledge that makes it impossible for me to blindly accept that decision will conceivably have no negative consequences.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We have a right to be treated equally by the government. Marriage is a government issue. We have a right to the equal opportunity to it. That is why it's a rights issue. There are 1,100 federal benefits and responsibilities being denied to same-sex couples, even when the state allows marriage equality. We have a right to equal opportunity and treatment. We do not live fine without a certificate - we have to jump through legal loops and bend over backwards to get the things we need that are otherwise automatically awarded to married couples. Tax responsibilities, insurance coverage, next of kin rights, child custody, and so much more are a constant battle for same-sex couples.
You wonder why I think you're against marriage equality when you call want this "separate but equal" bullshit. Marriage has already been "redefined" in many states, countries, provinces, now and in the past (did you know? the Catholic Church used to bless same-sex marriages!).
Yes, you are a homophobe. You want "separate but equal". You ignore our plight and demean it. You think there MUST BE a downside to equality and actively SEEK IT OUT. You do not regard us as equal to you but as an experiment to be studied and a people pushed around and whose struggles don't matter in the grand scheme.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gay people ARE treated equally by the government. Any gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex, just as much as a straight person can, but they just don't want to. There IS equality. What you're arguing on the other hand is REDEFINING MARRIAGE to include members of the same sex. Again, that's an unavoidable fact, and you're simply either ignorant of the truth, or purposefully lying in order to trump up your political disagreement.
Now you're just coming right out and calling me a homophobe. Absolutely pathetic. You're a rude, stupid, obnoxious asshole.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Gay people don't have the right to marry the person they want.
It's not pathetic that someone calls you a homophobe, because you're one, and you just have to accept that. Or change the way of your thinking. Either of the two, but you can't say and do ignorant and discriminative things and then be all; "I did nothing wrong!!"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Gay people don't have the right to marry the person they want."
Neither do pedophiles, people who love their siblings, or people who are already married. And before you go into the cliche of accusing me of saying being gay is the same as being a pedophile, I'm not, and you're pathetic.
Lovely. "AGREE WITH ME THAT THERE ARE NO DOWNSIDES TO REDEFINING MARRIAGE OR YOU'RE A HOMOPHOBE!" Fuck off, you're shitty, shitty, shitty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Consenting adults should be able to marry. It's their decision, not anyone else's.
Marriage has been redefined countless times honey. You have the right to disagree with same-sex marriage but if you do you are a homophobe, just like a person who disagrees with interracial marriage is a racist. Also, calling me shitty is the best you can do? I'm not shitty for pointing out things that are true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Ok, neat. One question, how awkward are family reunions for you when everyone knows you think brothers and sisters should be able to marry? Pretty awkward, huh.
Don't call me honey. I have said that if there were a state ballot amendment redefining marriage to include members of the same sex, I'd probably vote for it. I also happen to have the intellectual maturity and thirst for knowledge that makes it impossible for me to blindly accept that decision will conceivably have no negative consequences. If you accuse anyone else who thinks that of being a homophobe, you're a disgusting, lazy liar who would rather demonize anyone who dares offer even tepid disagreement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It can be awkward whether they're related or not. Some parents don't like their children's choices no matter what. Frankly it's not for theirs to decide. Also, why do YOU care so much whether it's awkward or not?
You pretty much made it seem like you are against it. If you're not, okay then. You should tell that to the people you're debating with. Could save both of the parties from a lot of trouble.
Though you still said some homophobic things, there's no denying that. It's not the end of the world, but it's good to think before saying certain things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Though you still said some homophobic things, there's no denying that."
You are a liar.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That is not marriage equality and you know it. Marriage equality is treating all adult married couples the same no matter their genital contents. My being unable to marry a woman is me being treated unequally to a man, because he can marry a woman. My being unable to marry my partner is me being treated unequally to a straight person, because they can marry their partner. Don't bullshit me.
Marriage is a word that has been redefined multiple times by multiple people in multiple points in history. Why are you so against evolving for equality?
Marriage is government property. We have a constitutional right to equal treatment. We do not have equal treatment as it stands. That is why we are fighting.
I've been calling you a homophobe from the start and given you several reasons why you are one. All you've really done is call me names and point and laugh at me, without any argument and ignoring everything I've brought to you. That's ad hominem.
And you call me bad at debate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is a brother not being allowed to marry his sister being treated unequally?
You have absolutely no reason to call me a homophobe other than the fevered implications and assumptions made inside your own head. I'm pointing and laughing at you, because that's exactly what people who are shitty at debating do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>