thehomer:

I see. You really had no argument or thoughts to contribute just demonstrating your outrage by ranting. As a lawyer, you should have learned how to present an argument and evidence supporting your case rather than just shouting and raging.

I'm still here whenever you choose to try to think and contribute to the discussion.

What possible response could I have for the repugnance of that which you espouse?

Tell me, what? I can only inform you that my shock and distaste for your stance has to do with only one issue and one issue only- the rights of orphaned and un-spoken-for children and infants who are subjects for adoption. I see no point in arguing that solitary point with you. . . Since you hold that no morality whatsoever should exist and that all morality is strictly subjective (and yes, this is the implication of your arguments on moral subjectivity).

You are despicably more concerned about the right of a h.omose.xual couple to pervert all notion of home and family than you are about the rights of the unspoken for infant who will have no say in being thrust into such an upbringing in circumstances markedly unnatural and perverse of a normal mother - father home with the unspeakable psycological and social damage attendant thereto, not to speak of damage to se.xual psycology. People as morally bankrupt and hypocritical as you will condemn heterose.xual parents for something like exposing their na.kedness to their yound children, and argue feverishly that same young children suffer no damage from seeing Daddy and Daddy kissing around the house during their impressionable years.

What do you want me to say to you? I have zilch against g.ay rights... I fully support the notion that they must be treated fairly and are free to engage their de.viant lusts. In fact, for me they are free to live together, have thwir relationahips and all. I draw the line at marriage only because of its legal implications on the matter of adoption. And anybody, like you, and the hideous pervert and moral slime wiegraf, who cannot fathom the grave evil done to an infant by entrenching him, choiceless, into such a forced perverse upbringing, is and remains the most despicable low and filthy.

NativeBoy:

1. One of the erroneous arguments is equating lifestyle with the the struggle to seen as human. Is anyone saying homosexuals aren't human? No. But black people were viewed as sub-human, three-fourths human to be exact. As such they could not have the rights of "full" humans. They can't use the same bathroom as whites, can't go to school, etc. Even after the Emancipation Proclamation, this idea still permeated society. This isn't the same climate the homosexuals find themselves in. Ask yourself this question: did the black man have to fight to be viewed as a human in Africa? Or the Asian in Asia? No. You have human rights simply by being a human and by others recognizing you as such. Now is marriage? Marriage is an institution that by its definition exists to bring the opposite sexes together for the purpose of procreation and child nurturing. For every child a father and mother. This is what the marriage institution is. Please read up on anthropology and sociology if you don't believe me. This argument about marriage being a private personal relationship between two people is a new one that has just become popular and cool to say. It suffers from many flaws and isn't accurate anthropologically or sociologically.

No black people weren't viewed as three-fourths human and during the Civil Rights Movement, it isn't that they were viewed as sub-human, but that people wanted the races to be segregated. It would also have prevented inter-racial marriage. Shouldn't people of different races be able to marry?

Where did you get this definition of marriage that you're using? Who are you to declare what the purpose of marriage is? Is a marriage between people who don't want children or who cannot have children therefore invalid or useless?

You read up on anthropology and sociology and let me know the sources of your claims. You would also do well to realize that anthropology and sociology differ with different cultures.

NativeBoy:
2. How should witches be treated? Well, it depends on the actions of the witch. Treating homosexuals with respect and dignity in no way means that they can marry since implicit in the definition of the marriage institution is the standard of opposite sexes coming together to procreate and raise offspring. The marriage institution is blind to lifestyle choices/orientation.

No it isn't implicit in marriage that they have to be opposite sexes. You merely say so because you want the status quo to remain. If the institution is blind to sexual orientation, then there is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to get married.

NativeBoy:
3. I really don't know how you concluded that there is no good or bad in Christianity. You'll have to explain that further. If the definition is allowed to be changed, then nothing stops me from marrying my sister(s), etc. After all i'm in a personal and private relationship with them. Biologically and sociologically, it is an error. And what if we agreed to not bear children?

If genocide is acceptable as being a good command in Christianity, then I think one can reasonably conclude that Christianity isn't a good source of differentiating between good and evil.
What stops you right now from marrying your sister if you can marry another woman? After all, you're in a personal and private relationship with them.

Deep Sight:

What possible response could I have for the repugnance of that which you espouse?

Another childish emotional outburst. Try to grow up a bit.

Deep Sight:
Tell me, what? I can only inform you that my shock and distaste for your stance has to do with only one issue and one issue only- the rights of orphaned and un-spoken-for children and infants who are subjects for adoption. I see no point in arguing that solitary point with you. . . Since you hold that no morality whatsoever should exist and that all morality is strictly subjective (and yes, this is the implication of your arguments on moral subjectivity).

Another glaring absence of an argument. Rather than trying to put words and ideas into my mouth, try to actually form an argument and watch me address it.

Deep Sight:
You are despicably more concerned about the right of a h.omose.xual couple to pervert all notion of home and family than you are about the rights of the unspoken for infant who will have no say in being thrust into such an upbringing in circumstances markedly unnatural and perverse of a normal mother - father home with the unspeakable psycological and social damage attendant thereto, not to speak of damage to se.xual psycology. People as morally bankrupt and hypocritical as you will condemn heterose.xual parents for something like exposing their na.kedness to their yound children, and argue feverishly that same young children suffer no damage from seeing Daddy and Daddy kissing around the house during their impressionable years.

Another unintelligent paragraph. What was the right of the infant born to a drug addicted mother? Or the infant born into crushing poverty? You really need to work on identifying your emotional reaction and realizing that it is causing you here to form arguments so childish that I think you should be embarrassed to be spouting them as someone with more than a week's post Law School experience in the law.

Deep Sight:
What do you want me to say to you? I have zilch against g.ay rights... I fully support the notion that they must be treated fairly and are free to engage their de.viant lusts. In fact, for me they are free to live together, have thwir relationahips and all. I draw the line at marriage only because of its legal implications on the matter of adoption. And anybody, like you, and the hideous pervert and moral slime wiegraf, who cannot fathom the grave evil done to an infant by entrenching him, choiceless, into such a forced perverse upbringing, is and remains the most despicable low and filthy.

According to you, those children who were born into families and were abused till they died would be better off than children adopted by a loving homosexual couple. How about a situation where one of the biological parents was homosexual and decided to live openly as a homosexual? The inanity of your response is just baffling and I feel embarrassed for you.

Of course I feel more embarrased at your posts. Enjoy.

Some sickening fallacies and assumptions up there. ... as though those without a sufficient means of livelihood are allowed to adopt ...thats on the s.illy point on poverty....and also assumptions that a normal couple could be abusive and a h.omose.xual one loving. Who assumes this kind of nonsense. Who can tell? Lol, as though thats even the discussion.

Anyway, I have no stomach to engage such filth as you on a proper discussion on this matter. Let me just go away because if I dont I may just commit suicide from disgust at myself for even belonging to the same species as you and your ilk.

thehomer:

No black people weren't viewed as three-fourths human and during the Civil Rights Movement, it isn't that they were viewed as sub-human, but that people wanted the races to be segregated. It would also have prevented inter-racial marriage. Shouldn't people of different races be able to marry?

Where did you get this definition of marriage that you're using? Who are you to declare what the purpose of marriage is? Is a marriage between people who don't want children or who cannot have children therefore invalid or useless?

You read up on anthropology and sociology and let me know the sources of your claims. You would also do well to realize that anthropology and sociology differ with different cultures.



No it isn't implicit in marriage that they have to be opposite sexes. You merely say so because you want the status quo to remain. If the institution is blind to sexual orientation, then there is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to get married.



If genocide is acceptable as being a good command in Christianity, then I think one can reasonably conclude that Christianity isn't a good source of differentiating between good and evil.
What stops you right now from marrying your sister if you can marry another woman? After all, you're in a personal and private relationship with them.

Blacks were viewed as chattel prior to the emancipation and afterward they were still viewed as an inferior race. As a result, blacks could not possess the human rights that whites had. I'm sure you'll agree that this isn't the same issue with ssm.

Of course people of different races can marry because the institution of marriage is blind to race. It isn't blind to gender since marriage is concerned particularly with sex and producing offspring. It is implicit in the institution. It isn't about "Who am I to say what marriage is...". Marriage is what it has been since the beginning of time. It is an anthropological and sociological truth. Couples unable to conceive are the exception that shows that the rule exists. Their marriage is not nullified since the desire is there. For those who don't want children, the potential is still there.

SSM cannot produce offspring and thus do not fit into the institution of marriage that mandates a father and mother for every child since they came together to make that child. A child only gets the potential for a father and mother through heterosexual union. Otherwise you have to argue that neither a mother or father is necessary for the development of a child. A tough task indeed since there is no where in the world where people don't bemoan a child that has an absent parent.

This is one if the great wonders of life on earth: that the understanding of the marriage institution, it's purpose is universal. Only now are we trying to change it.

Genocide isn't considered good in the bible. Nevertheless, there must be judgment. God judges and indeed it is ugly but there must be judgment. However, it is the last thing God does. Before judgment he shows mercy and provides a way of repentance. It's like being in class. Getting a failing score isn't considered good by the teacher and the teacher isn't a bad person for giving out a failing score. Receiving a failing score depends entirely on the student.

^^^ Leave it. FYI, he holds that all morality is subjective. His cohort, the atheist wiegraf, argues with substantial support from other atheists that even mass murder is not instrinsically evil or wrong. With that, think twice before wasting your energy arguing on something as little as ho.mose.xuality.

Deep Sight:
You are despicably more concerned about the right of a h.omose.xual couple to pervert all notion of home and family than you are about the rights of the unspoken for infant who will have no say in being thrust into such an upbringing in circumstances markedly unnatural and perverse of a normal mother - father home with the unspeakable psycological and social damage attendant thereto, not to speak of damage to se.xual psycology. People as morally bankrupt and hypocritical as you will condemn heterose.xual parents for something like exposing their na.kedness to their yound children, and argue feverishly that same young children suffer no damage from seeing Daddy and Daddy kissing around the house during their impressionable years.

Let me fix that for you

ds:
You are despicably more concerned about the right of a h.omose.xual couple to pervert all YOUR notion of home and family than you are about the rights of the unspoken for infant who will have no say in being thrust into such an upbringing in circumstances markedly (TO YOU) unnatural and perverse of a normal mother - father home with the unspeakable psycological and social damage attendant thereto, not to speak of damage to se.xual psycology. (<- Evidence of this, where??)

But of course, what is right for ds is 'natural' and the rest of us must comply. Because SHIKENA!!!

What effect does growing up with gay parents have on kids?

wiki:
Scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[2][3][4] According to scientific literature reviews published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals and statements of mainstream professional associations, there is no evidence to the contrary.[5][6][7][8][9] The American Psychological Association reports that some studies suggest parenting skills of gays and lesbians might be "superior." [10] Biblarz and Stacey state that while research has found that families headed by (at least) two parents are generally best for children, outcomes of more than two parents (as in some cooperative stepfamilies, intergenerational families, and coparenting alliances among lesbians and gay men) have not yet been studied.[7]

And

wiki:

Consensus

[b]
The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.[5][6][22][23] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[24] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[25][/b]

Here, in case looking up the sources is problematic for you

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20%281%29.pdf

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/full

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

So, good ser, exactly what are you on about? But everyone else is wrong, and you are right, because you say so. You get to decide for all what is natural, what marriage is, and who's happy and who's not. All those very happy kids that grew up/are growing up in homosexual families aren't happy, because you know better.

Your bigoted fairy tale land.... na wa....

ds:
People as morally bankrupt and hypocritical as you will condemn heterose.xual parents for something like exposing their na.kedness to their yound children, and argue feverishly that same young children suffer no damage from seeing Daddy and Daddy kissing around the house during their impressionable years.

Wow, how inane. (What do I personally think of that? Nothing. So long as it wasn't predatory or sexual, obviously)

Anyways, the irony of someone claiming hypocrisy here is well.....

Here, let's play a game. Tell me which of these are anti-gay and which are anti-racial marriage

GO!!:


1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

2. This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3. State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4. “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9. "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

And lemme guess, you're pro interracial marriages? Amirite?

Not to mention, the myriad little things one would object to which another would find repulsive. MYRIAD. Eg, some insist their kids call them dad, others could care less about blind respect to superiority. Some would never feed their kids meat, others ask "why not?". Some would never hit their kids, others will claim it's a necessity. Some will drag their kids to church, insisting they become xtian or satanist, others consider that abuse. Some won't let their kids play with barbie dolls, others could care less. Blah blha blah blah blah......

That's how it works, as see, morality is subjective. In fact, not so very long ago, marriage more or else meant women were the property of the husband. Actually, one could argue it's still so (or at least partially so) in many societies, eg Islamic. So, what exactly happened to this notion in the west? I mean, you think those who held this view did not go around bandying it as objective and natural? After all, men are naturally stronger than women, can defend the household and can bring home the meat, not so? Women are also more naturally attuned to staying in the kitchen and gossip, no?

And by the way, it's a kids right to be 'offended', and even as adults remain so, and it happens all the time. Hetero, gay, poly and what not, all the time. Many kids grow up receiving something they would consider as abusive, physically or emotionally, from one or both of their parents. With many kids even wondering if they were adopted because for a variety of reasons, and assuming their parents love them not (and that adopted parents necessarily do not love their kids as much as natural parents. Well, kids are kids, see?). And guess what, said behavior need in no way be regarded as abuse by mainstream society, eg, all I list above (vegetarianism, discipline, prudes etc). Then again, you're not here whining about 'damage' from these during their impressionable years, why not? I mean, what of the gay children that have to watch their hetero parents kiss, or even just the prudish ones, etc etc? ~~Icky~~

ds:
What do you want me to say to you? I have zilch against g.ay rights... I fully support the notion that they must be treated fairly and are free to engage their de.viant lusts.

Deviant? Anyways, you obviously don't know the meaning of 'fair'....

ds:
In fact, for me they are free to live together, have thwir relationahips and all. I draw the line at marriage only because of its legal implications on the matter of adoption. And anybody, like you, and the hideous pervert and moral slime wiegraf, who cannot fathom the grave evil done to an infant by entrenching him, choiceless, into such a forced perverse upbringing, is and remains the most despicable low and filthy.

Thanks for this. Imagine how proud you'd be if a slaver called you a "hideous pervert and moral slime"

Thank you......


And btw, the answers to the above quizz

bigots sundry:

1. ANTI-INTERRACIAL State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

2. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

3. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

4. ANTI-GAY Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), 2011: “It not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Bob Jones University, (1998!!!): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

9. ANTI-GAY Family Research Council publication, 2002: "A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."

10. ANTI-INTERRACIAL From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

^^^ Lol. Enjoy your sleep. I can't be bothered with the nonsense up there, none of which is news to me. Fart away, hideous sickening man-ars.e-hole-craving perv.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Leave it. FYI, he holds that all morality is subjective. His cohort, the atheist wiegraf, argues with substantial support from other atheists that even mass murder is not instrinsically evil or wrong. With that, think twice before wasting your energy arguing on something as little as ho.mose.xuality.

Lol. The worldwide atheist super conspiracy to rule the world....

Deep Sight: ^^^ Lol. Enjoy your sleep. I can't be bothered with the nonsense up there, none of which is news to me. Fart away, hideous sickening man-ars.e-hole-craving perv.

No, bros. You have no case, but enjoy your delusions. In most ways it's a free world after all

NativeBoy:
Where's the harm? The harm comes from understanding that same-sex marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists along-side other institutions. But the real threat is that permitting same-sex marriage contributes to the deinstitutionalization of marriage which essentially weakens the role of fatherhood as necessary for a child's well-being and also then removes barriers to other potential marriage arrangements. For example, what if a bisexual person wants to marry a man and a woman and then children get involved. Who are the parents of that child? What happens in the case of divorce? There are many issues to think about that operate in tandem with ssm.

I dont get why people say it weakens heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage remains completely unchanged.
We have children being raised in every circumstance known to man. Single parents, in orphanage, even with both biological parents in a highly volatile/dysfunctional marriage. Two loving women or men can raise a child better than any of those environments. Most of these couple are adopting abandoned /orphaned children anyway.

Your second point is a bit confused. Bisexuality is about being attracted to both sexes. ie you could end up with any person, just as a hetero man could end up with any woman. Not about marrying both at the same time. You don't need to be bisexual to marry 2 people. Heterosexuals do it as well. ie Polygamy. Thats a different debate. Authorised in some places (mostly north africa, middle east) and outlawed in most of the west. We are social beings so we are likely to seek companionship. Most with opposite sex, some with the same sex. I feel the state should facilitate the union with one person - your companion (gay or straight), beyond that you are on your own. But thats just my opinion and I don't have any real moral objection to polygamy.

NativeBoy:
3. I really don't know how you concluded that there is no good or bad in Christianity. You'll have to explain that further. If the definition is allowed to be changed, then nothing stops me from marrying my sister(s), etc. After all i'm in a personal and private relationship with them. Biologically and sociologically, it is an error. And what if we agreed to not bear children?

This is a very interesting point. Inc.est. It is really the only argument against homosexuality that makes me think.
I said before In.cest cannot be tolerated because of the possibility for abuse by those with authority over others (dad/daughter) and also because of the genetic defects of any offspring. I would have to concede in the case of two consenting adults / as in siblings in which there is no possibility of offspring, from a moral point of view it is completely disgusting, but from a philosophical point of view it is acceptable to me as there is no harm caused to anyone. Let them do what they want. From a legal point of view how do you enforce it (to ensure no abuse and no possibility of offspring). its a huge can of worms. In any case I see no such dilemma in homosexuality so its besides the point.

Redlyn:

I dont get why people say it weakens heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage remains completely unchanged.
We have children being raised in every circumstance known to man. Single parents, in orphanage, even with both biological parents in a highly volatile/dysfunctional marriage. Two loving women or men can raise a child better than any of those environments. Most of these couple are adopting abandoned /orphaned children anyway.

Your second point is a bit confused. Bisexuality is about being attracted to both sexes. ie you could end up with any person, just as a hetero man could end up with any woman. Not about marrying both at the same time. You don't need to be bisexual to marry 2 people. Heterosexuals do it as well. ie Polygamy. Thats a different debate. Authorised in some places (mostly north africa, middle east) and outlawed in most of the west. We are social beings so we are likely to seek companionship. Most with opposite sex, some with the same sex. I feel the state should facilitate the union with one person - your companion (gay or straight), beyond that you are on your own. But thats just my opinion and I don't have any real moral objection to polygamy.


This is a very interesting point. Inc.est. It is really the only argument against homosexuality that makes me think.
I said before In.cest cannot be tolerated because of the possibility for abuse by those with authority over others (dad/daughter) and also because of the genetic defects of any offspring. I would have to concede in the case of two consenting adults / as in siblings in which there is no possibility of offspring, from a moral point of view it is completely disgusting, but from a philosophical point of view it is acceptable to me as there is no harm caused to anyone. Let them do what they want. From a legal point of view how do you enforce it (to ensure no abuse and no possibility of offspring). its a huge can of worms. In any case I see no such dilemma in homosexuality so its besides the point.

The point I'm making is that it weakens marriage by continuing its further deinstitutionalization. Countless studies on marriage have revealed that pretty much all cultures know that marriage is about sex and procreation and that it is important for every child to have a father and a mother. Many other studies have shown that the best scenario for a child's development is when the child has a father and mother. It's best for the child, the family, and therefore for society. Only marriage produces this best scenario and that is why each society bemoans single parenthood, high divorce rates, and high cohabitation rates. These, just like SSM devalue marriage since it forces us to redefine marriage as close personal relationships and therefore leaves it up to each individual couple to define marriage.

For example, a bisexual person could marry a person of their own sex AND another from the opposite sex because that is the kind of marriage they want and no one has the right to tell them otherwise. Now, if a child is born out of such an arrangement, who are the child's parents? In the case of divorce, who gets to claim parenthood?

I will say that I see the good that is done when SS unions adopt children and give them a home. After all, it is better than life in an orphanage or on the streets. But what it really underscores for me is the great wisdom of scripture in teaching against fornication, adultery, and divorce excepting infidelity. In such a world, only in the case of the death of both parents would a child lack parents.

This is an issue I think about seriously and though I take my position on a religious basis, I do so also on a sociological one since I recognize that SSM doesn't exist in a vacuum. To permit it means you have no basis to prohibit any other kind of marriage arrangements people can concoct. I believe that will have a destructive impact on children, family, and society.

The ever increasing moral relativism is going to undo us.

^^^ You try. But I have told you not to waste your time. You are speaking to folk whose filth is as incomprehensible as eternity. Again, let me emphasize that I speak only for the rights of the unspoken for infant who is up for adoption. These horrifying recidivist maggots will conjure any argument to abuse such children. You have already seen one of the most perverse souls on earth up there, wiegraf, suggest that it must be traumatic for a h.omose.xual child to grow up in a home where heterose.xual affection is expressed between the parents. Don't waste your time buddy. I could very well have bothered myself with academic arguments on this issue.... but I know the discussants and their dispositions too well. That is why I am content to spit on them and move on. Because I know very well by experience that not even the greatest schorlarship or most reasoned points will dissuade them. One of them even contended in a previous thread that he will not discipline his child for stealing because all morality is subjective. Seriously. Very seriously. Now tell me what lenghts such a person will not go to justify the absurd. Arguing anything on morality with such a person rather makes us the f.ools.

Where in the name of Jesus have I been
How can I miss this?

Deep Sight: ^^^ You try. But I have told you not to waste your time. You are speaking to folk whose filth is as incomprehensible as eternity. Again, let me emphasize that I speak only for the rights of the unspoken for infant who is up for adoption. These horrifying recidivist maggots will conjure any argument to abuse such children. You have already seen one of the most perverse souls on earth up there, wiegraf, suggest that it must be traumatic for a h.omose.xual child to grow up in a home where heterose.xual affection is expressed between the parents. Don't waste your time buddy. I could very well have bothered myself with academic arguments on this issue.... but I know the discussants and their dispositions too well. That is why I am content to spit on them and move on. Because I know very well by experience that not even the greatest schorlarship or most reasoned points will dissuade them. One of them even contended in a previous thread that he will not discipline his child for stealing because all morality is subjective. Seriously. Very seriously. Now tell me what lenghts such a person will not go to justify the absurd. Arguing anything on morality with such a person rather makes us the f.ools.

I do believe I've made final point and I'm content to let this thread end.

As the saying goes, "When there is no God, everything is permissible". This is the point that many serious atheists cannot help but recognize. That ultimately there is no moral standard without an objective source. If man gets to define what his good or evil, what happens when another man disagrees? If one society sees something as good or evil, what happens when another society disagrees?

Even Richard Dawkins (hero to many atheists) had to concede that when you have a true atheist mindset, there is no such thing as good and evil. Here's an excerpt from his book, "River Out of Eden"

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

Deep Sight: ^^^ You try. But I have told you not to waste your time. You are speaking to folk whose filth is as incomprehensible as eternity. Again, let me emphasize that I speak only for the rights of the unspoken for infant who is up for adoption. These horrifying recidivist maggots will conjure any argument to abuse such children. You have already seen one of the most perverse souls on earth up there, wiegraf, suggest that it must be traumatic for a h.omose.xual child to grow up in a home where heterose.xual affection is expressed between the parents. Don't waste your time buddy. I could very well have bothered myself with academic arguments on this issue.... but I know the discussants and their dispositions too well. That is why I am content to spit on them and move on. Because I know very well by experience that not even the greatest schorlarship or most reasoned points will dissuade them. One of them even contended in a previous thread that he will not discipline his child for stealing because all morality is subjective. Seriously. Very seriously. Now tell me what lenghts such a person will not go to justify the absurd. Arguing anything on morality with such a person rather makes us the f.ools.

I do believe I've made final point and I'm content to let this thread end.

As the saying goes, "When there is no God, everything is permissible". This is the point that many serious atheists cannot help but recognize. That ultimately there is no moral standard without an objective source. If man gets to define what his good or evil, what happens when another man disagrees? If one society sees something as good or evil, what happens when another society disagrees?

Even Richard Dawkins (hero to many atheists) had to concede that when you have a true atheist mindset, there is no such thing as good and evil. Here's an excerpt from his book, "River Out of Eden"

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

NativeBoy:
I do believe I've made final point and I'm content to let this thread end.
As the saying goes, "When there is no God, everything is permissible". This is the point that many serious atheists cannot help but recognize. That ultimately there is no moral standard without an objective source. If man gets to define what his good or evil, what happens when another man disagrees? If one society sees something as good or evil, what happens when another society disagrees?
Even Richard Dawkins (hero to many atheists) had to concede that when you have a true atheist mindset, there is no such thing as good and evil. Here's an excerpt from his book, "River Out of Eden"
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

Even if your god existed, morality remains subjective. You would simply be calling his own subjective code objective. Same way people call whatever society's code they live in 'objectively' good. False, it simply is that society's code.

This applies to all living things, any type of god included, let alone yahweh that has people stoned to death for wearing different fabrics and punishes children for the sins of the ancestors....

Like I already said, marriage has already been redefined in the west, women are no longer property, so exactly what is the problem here?

Deep Sight:

Of course I feel more embarrased at your posts. Enjoy.

Another evidence of a lack of an argument and an inability to think up a rebuttal.

Deep Sight:
Some sickening fallacies and assumptions up there. ... as though those without a sufficient means of livelihood are allowed to adopt ...thats on the s.illy point on poverty....and also assumptions that a normal couple could be abusive and a h.omose.xual one loving. Who assumes this kind of nonsense. Who can tell? Lol, as though thats even the discussion.

In your ignorant rambling, you've forgotten that poor people are allowed to have children. That is the point on poverty and on abusive relationships. The fact that you're stupidly ignorant doesn't help you.

Deep Sight:
Anyway, I have no stomach to engage such filth as you on a proper discussion on this matter. Let me just go away because if I dont I may just commit suicide from disgust at myself for even belonging to the same species as you and your ilk.

Aww another sign that you have no serious arguments just you foolishly thinking that as a lawyer, your emotional outbursts help you make a serious argument.

What is this? Pablum in order to build up strawmen? Like earlier's

ds:
Since you hold that no morality whatsoever should exist and that all morality is strictly subjective.

Bros, how can morality not exist yet remain subjective?

Deep Sight: ^^^ You try. But I have told you not to waste your time. You are speaking to folk whose filth is as incomprehensible as eternity. Again, let me emphasize that I speak only for the rights of the unspoken for infant who is up for adoption. These horrifying recidivist maggots will conjure any argument to abuse such children. You have already seen one of the most perverse souls on earth up there, wiegraf, suggest that it must be traumatic for a h.omose.xual child to grow up in a home where heterose.xual affection is expressed between the parents. Don't waste your time buddy. I could very well have bothered myself with academic arguments on this issue.... but I know the discussants and their dispositions too well. That is why I am content to spit on them and move on. Because I know very well by experience that not even the greatest schorlarship or most reasoned points will dissuade them. One of them even contended in a previous thread that he will not discipline his child for stealing because all morality is subjective. Seriously. Very seriously. Now tell me what lenghts such a person will not go to justify the absurd. Arguing anything on morality with such a person rather makes us the f.ools.

Over here we're seeking to abuse children despite advocating for children being raised in loving homes? You whine because of a trivial ~~icky~~ of yours? You may need some perspective. (this is ignoring those who have their own biological children, mind you. You'd separate those families because??)

Also, correction, though I can see what you're trying to do here, I said murder, not theft. But I'd do so for theft as well, tbf. And I really don't need any help besmirching my good name amongst the sheeple populace, I manage that just fine on my own, but thanks again. And lol at 'perverse soul'

NativeBoy:

Blacks were viewed as chattel prior to the emancipation and afterward they were still viewed as an inferior race. As a result, blacks could not possess the human rights that whites had. I'm sure you'll agree that this isn't the same issue with ssm.

Still wrong. Viewing someone as being inferior doesn't deny them human rights. It is what you do based on that view that is the denial. And it in fact is the same issue with same sex marriage. If they aren't being viewed as inferior, why are they being denied the right to marry another adult they choose?

NativeBoy:
Of course people of different races can marry because the institution of marriage is blind to race. It isn't blind to gender since marriage is concerned particularly with sex and producing offspring. It is implicit in the institution. It isn't about "Who am I to say what marriage is...". Marriage is what it has been since the beginning of time. It is an anthropological and sociological truth. Couples unable to conceive are the exception that shows that the rule exists. Their marriage is not nullified since the desire is there. For those who don't want children, the potential is still there.

Marriage wasn't always blind to race. That is my point. You declare that the aim of marriage is sex and producing offspring and I disagree with that assertion. People marry for many other reasons other than sex or producing offspring besides, people don't have to be married to have sex or produce offspring. This of course means that it isn't implicit in the institution. It is about who you are to declare the aim of marriage because marriage hasn't been since the beginning of time. It isn't an anthropological or sociological truth.

What rule are you talking about? If the marriage isn't nullified due to the presence of a desire for children, then same-sex marriage too can be the exception that according to you, proves the rule. How can the biological potential be there in a couple where both parties have been sterilized?

NativeBoy:
SSM cannot produce offspring and thus do not fit into the institution of marriage that mandates a father and mother for every child since they came together to make that child. A child only gets the potential for a father and mother through heterosexual union. Otherwise you have to argue that neither a mother or father is necessary for the development of a child. A tough task indeed since there is no where in the world where people don't bemoan a child that has an absent parent.

It looks like you're just making things up now. Where does this mandate come from? Who says a widow or widower cannot raise a child? Having an absent parent is different from having two parents that are present.

NativeBoy:
This is one if the great wonders of life on earth: that the understanding of the marriage institution, it's purpose is universal. Only now are we trying to change it.

Looks to me like you're merely making things up to suit your preconceived notions.

NativeBoy:
Genocide isn't considered good in the bible. Nevertheless, there must be judgment. God judges and indeed it is ugly but there must be judgment. However, it is the last thing God does. Before judgment he shows mercy and provides a way of repentance. It's like being in class. Getting a failing score isn't considered good by the teacher and the teacher isn't a bad person for giving out a failing score. Receiving a failing score depends entirely on the student.

Are you seriously comparing a genocide to someone failing a class test?

I said according to the Bible, God's command that people commit genocide was good. You're trying to justify it as being a good judgement. I'm willing to show you that it isn't a good judgement for an omnipotent and omniscient God to make. If genocide is sometimes justifiable, then how do you know that any other genocide committed today can't be justified using that same argument?

Deep Sight: ^^^ Leave it. FYI, he holds that all morality is subjective. His cohort, the atheist wiegraf, argues with substantial support from other atheists that even mass murder is not instrinsically evil or wrong. With that, think twice before wasting your energy arguing on something as little as ho.mose.xuality.

Mr. man please go to sleep. Take some sleeping pills if you find it difficult to sleep at night because some people you dislike can get married.

NativeBoy:

I do believe I've made final point and I'm content to let this thread end.

As the saying goes, "When there is no God, everything is permissible". This is the point that many serious atheists cannot help but recognize. That ultimately there is no moral standard without an objective source. If man gets to define what his good or evil, what happens when another man disagrees? If one society sees something as good or evil, what happens when another society disagrees?

Actually, when there is a God, everything is permissible. That is why you think genocide and commanding genocide is sometimes permissible even when you allow for an omnipotent and omniscient God. Just so you know, man evaluates what is good, evil or neutral. That is why we have laws when we come together in large groups and social mores when we're small tribes.

If God sees something as good or evil, what happens when my society disagrees?

NativeBoy:
Even Richard Dawkins (hero to many atheists) had to concede that when you have a true atheist mindset, there is no such thing as good and evil. Here's an excerpt from his book, "River Out of Eden"

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

This is why context and attention is important. From the perspective of the universe, he is right. But as I'm sure you'll admit, humans don't operate from the perspective of the universe.

wiegraf:
Bros, how can morality not exist yet remain subjective?

That is the direct implication: in the case of morality - rendering subjective is rendering it non existent - but of course we both know discussing or debating this point is a complete waste of anyone's time. So enjoy. TGIF.

thehomer:

In your ignorant rambling, you've forgotten that poor people are allowed to have children.

Because they naturally can. If however they sought to adopt a child, the social officers would inquire after their means of livelihood. But your h.omo.se.xual would-be parents naturally could not - - -> unless so empowered by the laws that you seek to advocate. And of course, your position is that if you were an adoption officer, refusing to give a child to a g.ay couple will amount to trampling on their rights, but would not amount to trampling on the rights of the child to a natural home with a natural parental setting.

I forget, of course, that according to you, husband and husband is a perfectly natural parental setting. You do not know, or will pretend not to know, the fact that men and women bring different parental attributes to holistic parenting. You would of course pretend not to know the importance of the mother figure as distinct from the father figure, in a child's psychology

What is sad is your PATHETIC indifference to the rights of infants, simply on account of your desperation for the rights of the ho.mose.xual to impose his perversion even on the innocent and those without a choice: like infants.

You should do a survey of people over 18, and ask them if they had a choice at birth, to be born to and raised by Dad and Dad or Dad and Mum, what choice they would have made. If the survey returns overwhelmingly in favor of the latter, then you should know that you are doing some injustice to infants and their futures - at a point and time when they could not speak or choose for themselves. What nature has NOT chosen to make possible - 2 men having a child, you impose on them. But no matter. It's all subjective. The rights of the men must be protected, but not the natural rights of the child, abi?

This, the right of infants, is the sole reason for my unmitigated disgust at you.

Aww another sign that you have no serious arguments just you foolishly thinking that as a lawyer, your emotional outbursts help you make a serious argument.

I am not going to take up a proper academic discussion with you or the reprehensibly disgusting pervert wiegraf on this matter: just leave it. I have expressed my disgust and will do nothing more: live with it - after all, my opinion cannot conceivably be important to you, can it?

And o, when will you be tired of "lawyer this, lawyer that"? Grow up already. I have not ever anywhere stated that I am correct on an issue or that I am making a logical point simply because of my professional calling.

Deep Sight:

Because they naturally can. If however they sought to adopt a child, the social officers would inquire after their means of livelihood. But your h.omo.se.xual would-be parents naturally could not - - -> unless so empowered by the laws that you seek to advocate. And of course, your position is that if you were an adoption officer, refusing to give a child to a g.ay couple will amount to trampling on their rights, but would not amount to trampling on the rights of the child to a natural home with a natural parental setting.

Ooh a beautiful example of the naturalistic fallacy. The fact that something occurs in nature doesn't mean it is good. And I see that you're determined to miss a point even after it has been presented to you on a platter. Why should the fact that two people can have children by sexual intercourse mean that it is a good idea to do so? After all, 12 year old girls can have intercourse and get pregnant. Does this mean it is a good idea? After all the intercourse was "natural". That is the question you need to answer. If a heterosexual couple that cannot have children can be allowed to adopt, then a homosexual couple should also be allowed to do so. Secondly, are you aware that there are homosexual people who divorce their heterosexual partners in order to live with their homosexual partner? What do you think should happen to the children in such a setting?

Deep Sight:
I forget, of course, that according to you, husband and husband is a perfectly natural parental setting. You do not know, or will pretend not to know, the fact that men and women bring different parental attributes to holistic parenting. You would of course pretend not to know the
importance of the mother figure as distinct from the father figure, in a child's psychology

When Mr. Deep Sight gets his degree in human psychology, then I will be willing to consider his opinion on this issue. Till then, you're welcome to provide proper scientific evidence for these opinions of yours.

Deep Sight:
What is sad is your PATHETIC indifference to the rights of infants, simply on account of your desperation for the rights of the ho.mose.xual to impose his perversion even on the innocent and those without a choice: like infants.

What is sad is your pathetic indifference to the rights of parents on account of your desperation to deny humans their rights. Looks like this perversion is in the eye of the beholder. Last time I checked, infants of poor people are also innocent and have no choice to be born to poor parents. Why should these parents be allowed to inflict such problems on their infants. Maybe you should advocate for sterilizing poor people.

Deep Sight:
You should do a survey of people over 18, and ask them if they had a choice at birth, to be born to and raised by Dad and Dad or Dad and Mum, what choice they would have made. If the survey returns overwhelmingly in favor of the latter, then you should know that you are doing some injustice to infants and their futures - at a point and time when they could not speak or choose for themselves. What nature has NOT chosen to make possible - 2 men having a child, you impose on them. But no matter. It's all subjective. The rights of the men must be protected, but not the natural rights of the child, abi?

Human rights aren't determined by surveys of people over 18. Secondly, your results would still be invalid because no one actually has enough information to be able to make such a decision. Hell, I can tell you now that many people would rather be raised by a same sex couple than by no one in a orphanage.

Deep Sight:
This, the right of infants, is the sole reason for my unmitigated disgust at you.

Aww the emotional "think about the children" argument. It still won't work because you're obviously not thinking about these infants. What makes you think that a middle class same sex couple aren't the better option for an orphan than remaining in an orphanage or being adopted by a heterosexual couple that would abuse them?

Deep Sight:
I am not going to take up a proper academic discussion with you or the reprehensibly disgusting pervert wiegraf on this matter: just leave it. I have expressed my disgust and will do nothing more: live with it - after all, my opinion cannot conceivably be important to you, can it?

You won't because you're intellectually incapable of it. Your ignorant stupidity knows no bounds and it is your main stumbling block. Though I see that you've tried to present a serious argument above but as my responses show, you've failed once again.

Deep Sight:
And o, when will you be tired of "lawyer this, lawyer that"? Grow up already. I have not ever anywhere stated that I am correct on an issue or that I am making a logical point simply because of my professional calling.

I probably won't get tired of it because you're trying to make a logical point while ignoring your professional calling. It is like a banker trying to make a logical point of money disappearing from the bank vault due to voodoo. You're the one who needs to actually sit back and take a look at the implications of what you're saying rather than simply wailing and gnashing your teeth at me that you're disgusted.

thehomer:

Still wrong. Viewing someone as being inferior doesn't deny them human rights. It is what you do based on that view that is the denial. And it in fact is the same issue with same sex marriage. If they aren't being viewed as inferior, why are they being denied the right to marry another adult they choose?



Marriage wasn't always blind to race. That is my point. You declare that the aim of marriage is sex and producing offspring and I disagree with that assertion. People marry for many other reasons other than sex or producing offspring besides, people don't have to be married to have sex or produce offspring. This of course means that it isn't implicit in the institution. It is about who you are to declare the aim of marriage because marriage hasn't been since the beginning of time. It isn't an anthropological or sociological truth.

What rule are you talking about? If the marriage isn't nullified due to the presence of a desire for children, then same-sex marriage too can be the exception that according to you, proves the rule. How can the biological potential be there in a couple where both parties have been sterilized?



It looks like you're just making things up now. Where does this mandate come from? Who says a widow or widower cannot raise a child? Having an absent parent is different from having two parents that are present.



Looks to me like you're merely making things up to suit your preconceived notions.



Are you seriously comparing a genocide to someone failing a class test?

I said according to the Bible, God's command that people commit genocide was good. You're trying to justify it as being a good judgement. I'm willing to show you that it isn't a good judgement for an omnipotent and omniscient God to make. If genocide is sometimes justifiable, then how do you know that any other genocide committed today can't be justified using that same argument?

Again, please read up on the anthropological and sociological understanding of marriage. I didn't invent the institution. It is what it is and has been essentially universally understood by countless generations in countless civilizations. In our time, we are simply trying to redefine it.

You appear to have misread by analogy about genocide and the class. Please reread it. I think it's quite clear.

Well, you have successfully tempted me. Later.

They're discussing about us. hehe.

Hezzy..I'm sure you saw what happened to your other thread. My time on NL is about coming to an end. Not much fun anymore.







_{sorry for derailing}

masonkz: They're discussing about us. hehe.

Hezzy..I'm sure you saw what happened to your other thread. My time on NL is about coming to an end. Not much fun anymore.







_{sorry for derailing}

I remember bro,our work here is done,time for greater thingz jare.

Enjoy homophobia while its still legal@AllHaterz.