Posted by tecwrg on 4/1/2013 8:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 4/1/2013 7:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/1/2013 7:45:00 PM (view original):
A man and a woman in Montana may have a child.  That child may discover a way to keep people alive well into their hundreds.   Any chance two men have a child that might do that?

What if they adopt the child and provide a nourishing upbringing that allows it to flourish and create that fountain of youth?

Are you arguing that a child adopted and raised by a homosexual couple will have as well-rounded of an upbringing as a child adopted by a heterosexual couple.

1. Irrelevant. The argument is gay marriage, not gay parenting.
2. Every major study shows that two parents (instead of one) are what makes the difference. The gender of the parents doesn't matter.

Allowing gay parents to marry strengthens their family in the same way that heterosexual parents marrying strengthens their family.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/1/2013 8:27:00 PM (view original):
Yes. And yes.

Give me the reasons why I'm wrong. If you're going to say "sanctity of marriage" or something, dive deeper for me.

It's been my observation from my own experiences, both thinking back to when I was a child and now as a parent, that men (fathers) and women (mothers) both bring something different and unique to the family and parenting experience.  That leads to a more rounded upbringing for children.  That's the traditional family unit (a mother, a father, one or more children).  I don't believe that homosexual couples (two fathers or two mothers), in general, can bring that same kind of upbringing to a child.

That's not to say that they can't be good parents in their own right.  But I believe that a child up for adoption, in the long run, would be better served in a heterosexual parent family than in a homosexual parent family, so that they can get a more well rounded upbringing.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/1/2013 8:00:00 PM (view original):
Yes.

Are you implying that homosexuals who can't get married also shouldn't raise children? Since they're not married.

Didn't we already agree that gay couples, who aren't married, can adopt?

Anyone that thinks the earth is 10,000 years old, that atheism is a religion, that Tom Brady is just an average QB, and that being gay is a choice, is a nut job.

Translation: Whenever anyone who doesn't agree with your majority viewpoints presents an argument you can't refute, you'll dismiss them as a "nutjob".

Don't even bother trying to argue with me again, because you'll just pull this stunt like you always have every time I own you in a debate - and this time I owned you in a far more decisive manner than I had before.

Don't even bother to say you weren't owned unless you address the points I made, because I will ignore your pointless BS.

It doesn't change the fact that allowing gay marriage doesn't impact your life.

Actually it CAN have an impact on people's lives. As someone else said, an increasingly liberal society is a slippery slope that can lead to ever-increasing changes that have an overall effect that not everyone will desire. That's why I'm concerned with it.

Every major study shows that two parents (instead of one) are what makes the difference. The gender of the parents doesn't matter.

Every single person who isn't an idiot will realize that two people of the same gender cannot create a child of their own biologically.

Even you atheists who tout evolution should admit that according to evolution, homosexuality should have died out thousands of years ago, because homosexuals can't reproduce. So either evolution is BS (possible) and/or homosexuality is the one of those things that defies the theory and lives on despite all the rules.

Seems to me the entire argument for gay marriage is based on "equality" or "It doesn't affect you so why should you care?"

So I'll ask again.   If I'm allowed to not care about gay marriage because it doesn't directly affect me, why can't I be allowed to not care about equality in this particular instance?

Because that's not politically correct, and you will be ostracized by the Thought Police.

Posted by The Taint on 4/2/2013 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 8:57:00 AM (view original):
Seems to me the entire argument for gay marriage is based on "equality" or "It doesn't affect you so why should you care?"

So I'll ask again.   If I'm allowed to not care about gay marriage because it doesn't directly affect me, why can't I be allowed to not care about equality in this particular instance?

It's easy not to worry about equality when noone is discriminating against fat truck drivers who took roids to improve their slow pitch softball game.

Seems like dumbshit barkeeps with no education wouldn't be all that worried about equality either.

Now, with proper insults thrown, try to answer the question.    Or find someone who completed HS to explain it to you and then answer the question.

You can not worry about it all you want, or not care. Intolerance has been around forever, and unless acted upon, is not against the law. Would you hire a gay truck driver who was married to another man?

FWIW, I don't want women fighting on the front lines unless they can pass the same physical tests as the men.   Guess I just like to **** all over equality.

Posted by The Taint on 4/2/2013 9:24:00 AM (view original):
You can not worry about it all you want, or not care. Intolerance has been around forever, and unless acted upon, is not against the law. Would you hire a gay truck driver who was married to another man?

You seem to be under the impression that I'm against gay marriage.  I actually don't care.   I just don't like the reasoning behind why it should be allowed.

I'll hire anyone who is capable of doing the job and isn't a criminal.

I have/had no impressions from you about gay marriage. Nor do I care.


Then you're golden.