Homosexuality & Censorship

[Solaris]

Man, Mecha is exceedingly good at this. Mecha, do you do something related to this for a living? Or are you just exceedingly good at shutting idiots down without being remotely rude? Whatever it is, you have my admiration

He's 16.

 

[Sulkdodds]

He's in university you noob. I'M the one who's 16!

Man, Mecha is exceedingly good at this. Mecha, do you do something related to this for a living? Or are you just exceedingly good at shutting idiots down without being remotely rude? Whatever it is, you have my admiration

It's because he's a twelve story robotic mutant dinosaur. Obviously.

 

[phantomdesign]

Sorry about not keeping up . . . initially I was overrun by flamers (lol) and then the topic exploded out of control. I hate politics, so I should have known better than to start this, but it seems everyone is having fun.

My original post was in response to a topic on CGTalk.com where they were making Batwoman a lesbian & I thought it was a bastardization of the Batman world.

EDIT: I think the irony of all this is people still make fun of gays & use the term gay as an insult, but then pretend to be morally superior by saying we should give gays anything

 

[Solaris]

He's in university you noob. I'M the one who's 16!

It's because he's a twelve story robotic mutant dinosaur. Obviously.

Mecha Lied to me ;(
Or did he merely tell a different truth?:|

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Lesbian Batgirl > Alicia Silverstone

I win.

Your post still made absolutely no sense at all.


Danny says:
Your 1
Danny says:
16* Sorry my 6 key is broken
Danny says:
me too, I thought you were like 20 something

Mecha says:
hospital
Mecha says:
harbour
Mecha says:
police box

 

[JNightshade]

Originally Posted by The Dodds of Sulk
It's because he's a twelve story robotic mutant dinosaur. Obviously.

Haha, I'm sure that's why. Of course, Sulky, you also appear to be unnaturally good at it, but I'll chalk that up to your being a gifted writer and all that

 

[Solaris]

Lesbian Batgirl > Alicia Silverstone

I win.

Your post still made absolutely no sense at all.


Danny says:
Your 1
Danny says:
16* Sorry my 6 key is broken
Danny says:
me too, I thought you were like 20 something

Mecha says:
hospital
Mecha says:
harbour
Mecha says:
police box

That's becuase I saw you say so in a post, And seriously wtf is up with that? Do you all keep records of your convs with me and collaberate with news ideas to confuse poor solaris.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Please relax. You have nothing to F3AR.

 

[FieryGoose]

Gay marriage has not yet been proven harmful in any way.

Ok only the way that i stated nearly 10 times, the children don't deserve that type of life, the life of constant switching of homes. I think you all agree and have education enough to know that children out of 2 parent heterosexual homes have a fuller/better understanding of relationship, Kids out of single parent homes or homosexual homes will not know the first place to start when i comes to keeping a relationship going unless they seek education in the matter. I think we all agree that it is better to learn things at a young age, proof of this is in learning multiple languages, So give the kids the right to live under the more stable households. Do they not have the right to pursue happyness also?

Who gets to define marriage?

 

[JNightshade]

Originally Posted by Foxhound888
Who gets to define marriage?

You have NO idea how hilarious that is, coming from you

 

[Reaktor4]

So give the kids the right to live under the more stable households.

theyre not more stable.

 

[FieryGoose]

theyre not more stable.

I don't understand how you could think that single parent homes and homes with people switch partners is more stable than one family living under the same roof.
My proof:

"Three- and 4-year-olds growing up with their own married parents are three times less likely than those in any other family structure to experience emotional or behavioral problems such as attention deficit disorder.

Overall, children living with their own married parents have fewer behavioral problems compared to children whose parents are living together but not married. Differences in the area of physical health also exist. Young children in single-parent families are less healthy overall than are children in all other family types.

Moreover, children living with their own married parents are more likely to be involved in activities that help them learn to read than are children from single-parent homes. These differences at such a young age can establish behavior patterns in education that persist in later educational levels, the study warned."

Info found off of the Zenit News Agency, It observations were from a study of social behaviour of children born in single parent homes vs. homes with mothers and fathers.

Burden of proof.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"Ok only the way that i stated nearly 10 times, the children don't deserve that type of life, the life of constant switching of homes."

BURDEN OF PROOF.
You have no reason to think homosexuals switch homes "constantly". Is this a new stereotype that you've invented?
RED HERRING.
Heterosexual families move all the time. Their marriages are still allowed.
You cannot logically ban one and not the other for this "reason".

"I think you all agree and have education enough to know that children out of 2 parent heterosexual homes have a fuller/better understanding of relationship,"

BURDEN OF PROOF. Please provide your sources. You cannot be educated from books that don't exist.
REIFICATION.
"Understanding of Relationship" is an undefined nonsense term.

"Kids out of single parent homes or homosexual homes will not know the first place to start when i comes to keeping a relationship going unless they seek education in the matter."

BURDEN OF PROOF.
Same as above.
RED HERRING.
The purpose of a marriage is not to provide sex education.
Sex-education is not a qulification in any marriage.
RED HERRING.
"..unless they seek education in the matter."
Problem solved! All they need to do is seek education - just like everyone else in the world.

"I think we all agree that it is better to learn things at a young age, proof of this is in learning multiple languages,"

RED HERRING.
Sex education is not a mandatory part of marriage.
INACCURACY.
It is generally agreed that extremely young children should not be taught about sex.

"So give the kids the right to live under the more stable households. Do they not have the right to pursue happyness also?"

BURDEN OF PROOF.
Prove that children are/will be unhappy.
BURDEN OF PROOF.
Prove that homosexual parents lead to unstable households.
BURDEN OF PROOF.
Prove that, even if unhappiness results (which it doesn't), that the mild annoyance of children is worth sacrificing the Constitution over.
REIFICATION.
"Unstable"is undefined.

"Who gets to define marriage?"

People who are capable of making at least a single rational point get to.
Can you provide a single logical reason to ban gay marriage?
I'll pay you $500 if you can.

Remember: you know the fallacies.
This should be easy!



Edit:

"I don't understand how you could think that single parent homes and homes with people switch partners is more stable than one family living under the same roof. Burden of proof."

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.
That fact that you cannot understand something does not prove it wrong.
You need to prove substantial harm.
We do not need to prove any benefit.

The burden of proof is on you alone.
We do not need to disprove claims you pulled out of the air.

 

[JNightshade]

Hardly. Living with a single parent and living with same-sex parents are completely different situations. You haven't provided a shred of evidence that supports the allegations you make- that homosexuals are, essentially, swingers. Furthermore, the "evidence" that shows that homosexuals make bad parents are COMPLETELY wrong. I've seen it- it's all based on children living with one parent, NOT gay parents. Besides, even IF this were the case, surely you could agree that allowing gays to marry would be a great way to remedy it!

YOU have the burden of proof, not Reaktor.


EDIT: shit, Mecha beat me to it

 

[CptStern]

"Three- and 4-year-olds growing up with their own married parents are three times less likely than those in any other family structure to experience emotional or behavioral problems such as attention deficit disorder.

Overall, children living with their own married parents have fewer behavioral problems compared to children whose parents are living together but not married. Differences in the area of physical health also exist. Young children in single-parent families are less healthy overall than are children in all other family types.

what? that's not what it's saying at all ..it's comparing single and dual parent families ..not:

Overall, children living with their own married parents have fewer behavioral problems compared to children whose parents are living together but not married

that's completely ludicrous ..children at the age of 3-4 do not understand what marriage is ..my son wouldnt know the difference between common law and a slip of paper saying I'm officially married ..come on man learn to read what's there and stop pulling things out of the thin air

Moreover, children living with their own married parents are more likely to be involved in activities that help them learn to read than are children from single-parent homes. These differences at such a young age can establish behavior patterns in education that persist in later educational levels, the study warned.

what exactly are you trying to prove here? children of single parents have a rougher time of it? well no shit sherlock ....exactly how does this relate to same sex marriage?

Info found off of the Zenit News Agency, It observations were from a study of social behaviour of children born in single parent homes vs. homes with mothers and fathers.

Burden of proof.

are you serious? you proved nothing except your own poor reading comprehension skills ..learn to distinguish the difference between "single parent" and "same sex marriage" ..I can assure you they're not the same thing

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

EDIT:
Beleted on second thoughts. I'm goin to bed.

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

If a gay couple want to adopt a child together, they are obviously in a stable enough relationship that they arent going to be having the hundreds of different partners that your propaganda claims they do.

 

[FieryGoose]

I was making a reference that states the problems that children in single parent homes face and how it is simular to the same things that i believe gay parent homes will endure more so, and yes i have proof for how gay couples switch partners over 100 times, ITS NOT A STEREOTYPE ITS JUST A PROVEN STUDY!!

I'm not pulling stuff out of thin air i'm stating my arguement then providen proof therefore there is no burden of proof, i'm not using my arguements as proof, if you knew basic writing skills you would understand that proof is stating in or after the arguement is stated.

Proof source 1: Citizen Link

Argument in context: "The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand — children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going."

I've already posted this if you would have read you probably would not have given me so many burding of proofs. Nevermind you would have since i'm a gay hater, lol. If i don't support it i must hate it right, since when is hate not a powerfull word?

Proof source 2: Zenit News Agency

"Three- and 4-year-olds growing up with their own married parents are three times less likely than those in any other family structure to experience emotional or behavioral problems such as attention deficit disorder.

Overall, children living with their own married parents have fewer behavioral problems compared to children whose parents are living together but not married. Differences in the area of physical health also exist. Young children in single-parent families are less healthy overall than are children in all other family types.

Moreover, children living with their own married parents are more likely to be involved in activities that help them learn to read than are children from single-parent homes. These differences at such a young age can establish behavior patterns in education that persist in later educational levels, the study warned."

This is very simular because just how in single parent homes, moms get new boyfriends etc... i know this from personal exprerience, gays will also get new boyfriends, which has proven that it has no place in a childs life at such a young age.

Also I made no mention to giving kids of a young age sex education. I only said that lasting relationships should be promoted rather than unsupported.

The gay agenda is rather contradictory, they want a lasting relationship but at the same time they want over 100 partners. For some reason that just doesn't seem to click:dork:...

Last thing, as a whole the members of this community seem to support freedom without question. Many have used the constitution as support agianst me, but look at it this way and before you make a desision try and see it from one of my many prospectives. I want to pusue my happyness and in that when i get married i don't want the meaning of marriage to go out the window, infact that would be infringing on my right to happyness according to your guys' believe system so whats up with that. Also i would appreciate it if anyone who responds to this answers my questions rather than tear appart my questions, the reason i wrote them is to get answers, honest ones, not to get stomped on.

"People who are capable of making at least a single rational point get to."

What are you talking about? There's no truth at all in what you said, here in america we the people choose, me and you, not just you.

Also all of the arguements i've herd thus-far have been Arguments from Ignorance You guys claim that gay marriage doesn't hurt anymore but you cant logically make that Hastey generalization Saying that its a fact just because it hasn't been proven wrong yet, it hasn't been proven that gay marriages hurt anyone therefore they must not right?

If a gay couple want to adopt a child together, they are obviously in a stable enough relationship that they arent going to be having the hundreds of different partners that your propaganda claims they do.

If a girlfriend and boyfriend want to have sex and are willing to accept the outcome of a child they must be ready for it and be in a stable relationship right? Thats basically what your saying because there's not much of a difference between partners and boyfriends/girlfriends if any. Burden of Proof Since when is this assumption obvious? Since when do unmarried couples have stable enough relationships to have kids? Show me where you found this proof.

Proof:
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=82782
and
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032429.cfm

 

[FieryGoose]

Edit sorry ment to edit double post.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I also know from personal experience the life of living with a single parent. What problems exactly are you talking about? My dad has a girlfriend every once in awhile. My mom goes on dates. How exactly does this compare to being similar to gay parents? Are you suggesting the gay mothers/fathers are going to be having multiple orgies while their son/daughter is home, watching television?

 

[JNightshade]

Ok, I'm sorry, I'm trying to be reasonable, but you're just a f*cking bigot. This shit is too much.

My dear friend Andy is gay. He's one of the nicest people I've ever met, he's been with the same boyfriend for three years, and he's never done anything to you or your kin. And yet you mercilessly paint him as this partner-swapping slutbag, this unfit-for-parenthood harlot. He's a damn good man- better than you are, and it's offensive that you STILL have not linked a SINGLE STUDY. That you say nothing but awful things towards him and others like him. So you know what? F*CK YOU. No matter how much you actually accuse US of being ignorant, or how much you rip off Mecha and put your "powerful" (what a laugh ) points in bold, you will NEVER turn me.

And you know what else? You can't win. This sort of battle has been going on for YEARS. Think of racism in the '20's. Scientists had proof- proof!- that Africans were "inferior" to whites. They ignored situations, and background, and a billion other factors, and made their own idiotic conclusions. And now what do we think of those scientists, and that research? They're racist idiots. No, in 50 years, we'll look back at people like you,


and LAUGH.

 

[Raeven0]

ITS NOT A STEREOTYPE ITS JUST A PROVEN STUDY!!

If you can't furnish verification of the study, then this is anecdotal evidence --> invalid

I'm not pulling stuff out of thin air i'm stating my arguement then providen proof therefore there is no burden of proof

I take it you only minimally understand what The Burden of Proof is

i'm not using my arguements as proof

If your "arguments" aren't proof, and you can't provide any proof, then I guess you have no case

Argument in context:

Unsourced, and what you are presenting is called "evidence"
Proof is something different entirely

Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand

I can make up statistics too, but that doesn't make them right

If i don't support it i must hate it right

I would definitely call you a racist if you said blacks shouldn't vote
This is no different

Three- and 4-year-olds growing up with their own married parents are three times less likely than those in any other family structure to experience emotional or behavioral problems such as attention deficit disorder.

I can make up statistics too, but that doesn't make them true

Overall, children living with their own married parents have fewer behavioral problems compared to children whose parents are living together but not married.

Ding, ding! Here comes the clue train!
You have just presented an argument FOR letting gays marry
But, again, these statistics seem made up

moms get new boyfriends etc... i know this from personal exprerience, gays will also get new boyfriends

Make divorce illegal and you won't have any problems with single mothers
If the husband dies, his brother must take the wife instead
And if there's no brother, well, we have to stone her
Pity.

I only said that lasting relationships should be promoted rather than unsupported.

Another argument for letting gay people marry

The gay agenda is rather contradictory, they want a lasting relationship but at the same time they want over 100 partners.

False pretenses; see above

I want to pusue my happyness and in that when i get married i don't want the meaning of marriage to go out the window

I don't think gays are your primary problem

Also i would appreciate it if anyone who responds to this answers my questions rather than tear appart my questions

As you will, my dear homophobe

 

[FieryGoose]

Ok, I'm sorry, I'm trying to be reasonable, but you're just a f*cking bigot. This shit is too much.

My dear friend Andy is gay. He's one of the nicest people I've ever met, he's been with the same boyfriend for three years, and he's never done anything to you or your kin. And yet you mercilessly paint him as this partner-swapping slutbag, this unfit-for-parenthood harlot. He's a damn good man- better than you are, and it's offensive that you STILL have not linked a SINGLE STUDY. That you say nothing but awful things towards him and others like him. So you know what? F*CK YOU. No matter how much you actually accuse US of being ignorant, or how much you rip off Mecha and put your "powerful" (what a laugh ) points in bold, you will NEVER turn me.

And you know what else? You can't win. This sort of battle has been going on for YEARS. Think of racism in the '20's. Scientists had proof- proof!- that Africans were "inferior" to whites. They ignored situations, and background, and a billion other factors, and made their own idiotic conclusions. And now what do we think of those scientists, and that research? They're racist idiots. No, in 50 years, we'll look back at people like you,


and LAUGH.

OMG, what did i do, present my reasons for my side, well let me tell you my friend that you that once someones mind is made up its made up for good when it comes to stuff like this. I never said anything derogatory towards your friend Andy, in fact the studies that i posted don't even say anything about the partners having sex, I mean be reasonable and don't take my arguements to a personal level. Please i never meant for any hard feeling man, i apologize for offending you, but i swear to you it was not my intent.

I'm not the only one making conclusions...Go ahead call me a biggot but maybe if you knew me in real life and stopped judging me off my political views you would stop being such a shallow minded human.

Also what justification do you have for cussing me out? Did i deserve such hatered, it's ok i forgive you, love ya man.:thumbs:

I edited my last post with the links so there yea go have a shot at them.

 

[CptStern]

this is the most idiotic statement I've heard all week

The gay agenda is rather contradictory, they want a lasting relationship but at the same time they want over 100 partners. For some reason that just doesn't seem to click:dork:...

source? has it been measured against gay couples? gay singles? married same sex couples? married same sex couples seeking adoption? was that true for one member of the couple and not the other who had a modest 98 partners?

what year was this?



who did the study? <---- here's the important part

ah I see ..it's one of these sources

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=82782

or

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032429.cfm



let's see there's Zenit.org:

"Our mission is to provide objective coverage of events, documents and issues emanating from or concerning the Catholic Church."

opinion not fact ...NEXT!!!


then there's Family.org:

"Focus on the Family began in 1977 in response to Dr. James Dobson's increasing concern for the American family"

opinion not fact ...NEXT!!!

 

[JNightshade]

Yeah, errr... sorry for snapping. Tbh, I was already in a bad mood, and I ended up taking it out on you.

And while it's good to see the links, I couldn't help but noticing that one seemed to cover only Catholic news, and the other was Focus on the Family, an anti-gay-marriage establishment. It'd be much easier to take seriously if you were using less slanted sources... :/

still, I'm sorry for before.

 

[Raeven0]

let's see there's Zenit.org:

"Our mission is to provide objective coverage of events, documents and issues emanating from or concerning the Catholic Church."

opinion not fact ...NEXT!!!


then there's Family.org:

"Focus on the Family began in 1977 in response to Dr. James Dobson's increasing concern for the American family"

opinion not fact ...NEXT!!!

The Catholic Church and James Dobson: your #1 sources for unbiased information on gay lifestyles!

 

[99.vikram]

It's a well known fact that people hate to change their world view, and that includes all of us. But saying that homosexual couples are unstable or lousy parents is just ludicrous.

And at the "sources".

 

[FieryGoose]

Yeah, errr... sorry for snapping. Tbh, I was already in a bad mood, and I ended up taking it out on you.

And while it's good to see the links, I couldn't help but noticing that one seemed to cover only Catholic news, and the other was Focus on the Family, an anti-gay-marriage establishment. It'd be much easier to take seriously if you were using less slanted sources... :/

still, I'm sorry for before.

Hey man it's cool, I don't have anything agianst you or homosexuals, I just don't agree with what they are fighting for at this moment, anyways i'm done here (HL2.net wins, I loose), Its hard to get anything conservative across in the forums let me tell ya, ok, good discussion.:|

 

[DeusExMachina]

You're not going to get anything by using sources supported by the Catholic Church or James Dobson :|.

 

[Raeven0]

Its hard to get anything conservative across in the forums let me tell ya

It would be easier if you picked a side whose justifications made sense.

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

or stopped believing all gay people were crazed sex addicts who go through over 1000 partners every couple of years. seriously wtf? how does anyone actually believe that? i hope he comes back, this thread was fun.

 

[99.vikram]

or stopped believing all gay people were crazed sex addicts who go through over 1000 partners every couple of years. seriously wtf? how does anyone actually believe that? i hope he comes back, this thread was fun.

Don't worry, there will always be others.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Seriously. You would have gotten $500 American Dollars just for one statement that wasn't a nonsensical lie.

There is no rule against getting an adult to help you complete this activity.
Ask your friends or your neighbours, even.
Find a single intelligent person who supports your views with logic, and the $500 is yours to share at your discretion.

The offer never ends.


In the meantime though, you have fully and repeatedly acknowledged that your idea of "law" is to punish no crime and to persecute those you have "nothing against".

I strongly suggest that you rethink your desire to destroy the moral foundation of America on a whim.

 

[phantomdesign]

If one chooses to be homosexual, then the laws of nature deem them unfit to have children. Why does anyone think they should be given the privilege of raising a child?

 

[phantomdesign]

It's a well known fact that people hate to change their world view, and that includes all of us. But saying that homosexual couples are unstable or lousy parents is just ludicrous.

And at the "sources".

Where are the contradictory studies?

 

[Reaktor4]

well let me tell you my friend that you that once someones mind is made up its made up for good when it comes to stuff like this.

thats called believing what you want to believe.

If one chooses to be homosexual, then the laws of nature deem them unfit to have children. Why does anyone think they should be given the privilege of raising a child?

youre gay. just admit it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"If one chooses to be homosexual, then the laws of nature deem them unfit to have children. Why does anyone think they should be given the privilege of raising a child?"

BURDEN OF PROOF.
Prove homosexuality is a choice.

RED HERRING.
Even if it is a choice (which it isn't), that has absolutely no relevance to human rights.
That is like saying that since some people choose to be jewish, we can revoke thier citizenship or something.

NATURALISTIC FALLACY.
America does not follow the "laws of nature".
It has what is called a "government".

REIFICATION.
Which "laws of nature" are you talking about?
Gravity? Thermodynamics?
Homosexuals are not supernatural beings.

RED HERRING.
Raising a child is a liberty. Not a privilege.
Please stop calling liberties "privileges".
That is a fatal misunderstanding of how America works.

America is not a benevolent dictatorship.
Our rights are inalienable. They are not dished out in portions to be used and then thrown away.
You cannot bar a person from having children for no substantial, logical reason.

You will get $500 for one logical reason to ban gay marriage in America.
What about "please make sense" is difficult to understand?

 

[Sulkdodds]

In addition:

RED HERRING.
Marriage =/= raising kids.

Where are the contradictory studies?

Right here, baby!
America Psychological Association concludes that "the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth".
Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, claims that "Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids".
Gasp!
"Stacey and Biblarz point out that the differences they found should not be considered deficits. "They either favor the children with lesbigay parents, are secondary effects of social prejudice, or represent 'just a difference' of the sort democratic societies should respect and protect." They go on to stress that categorizing parents as gay or heterosexual "erroneously impl[ies] that a parent's sexual orientation is the decisive characteristic of his or her parenting." They suggest that sexual orientation only matters because homophobia and discrimination say it matters."

Fangyerverymuch.

Ok only the way that i stated nearly 10 times, the children don't deserve that type of life, the life of constant switching of homes. I think you all agree and have education enough to know that children out of 2 parent heterosexual homes have a fuller/better understanding of relationship, Kids out of single parent homes or homosexual homes will not know the first place to start when i comes to keeping a relationship going unless they seek education in the matter. I think we all agree that it is better to learn things at a young age, proof of this is in learning multiple languages, So give the kids the right to live under the more stable households. Do they not have the right to pursue happyness also?

1. What are you talking about?
2. Gay marriage does not automatically mean gay adoption (which is, in fact, already legal).
3. Gay parents are not necessarily going to switch homes. Just because a biased article claims that studies say that they have this many 'partners' (without actually backing it up by linking to the study itself) this doesn't mean that they're right or that this applies to all homosexuals. It also doesn't mean anything pertaining to marriage. The term 'partners' remains undefined; it is unclear whether he means 'serious boyfriends' (in which case the numbers are completely implausible) or 'one night stands' (in which case, it's irrelevant to marriage - plenty of people, gay or straight, sleep around before they settle down). It also ignores the possibility that, with the opportunity to marry, promiscuous gays would become less so.
4. Single parent home =/= homosexual parent home.
5. Heterosexual parents often lead households full of strife and conflict. There is often infidelity in heterosexual marriages. Divorce rates are rather high. If you want to defend the happiness of children, you might want to consider that first.
6. The Zenit study actually supports gay marriage with one claim:

Overall, children living with their own married parents have fewer behavioral problems compared to children whose parents are living together but not married.

This might well be true. In which case, it'll be best for the kids if homosexuals can marry and adopt.

The gay agenda is rather contradictory, they want a lasting relationship but at the same time they want over 100 partners. For some reason that just doesn't seem to click...

There is no 'gay agenda' bar wanting to be equal with the rest of the population. See earlier post. Also, please show us evidence that the overwhelming majority of gay men or women 'want over 100 partner's. Also, a lasting relationship and 'over 100 partners' are not mutually exclusive. A man could have 99 partners then settle down forever with the last one.

Last thing, as a whole the members of this community seem to support freedom without question. Many have used the constitution as support agianst me, but look at it this way and before you make a desision try and see it from one of my many prospectives. I want to pusue my happyness and in that when i get married i don't want the meaning of marriage to go out the window, infact that would be infringing on my right to happyness according to your guys' believe system so whats up with that. Also i would appreciate it if anyone who responds to this answers my questions rather than tear appart my questions, the reason i wrote them is to get answers, honest ones, not to get stomped on.

Everybody is responding perfectly honestly and well to your arguments. However, there is no point "answering your questions" if your questions are completely irrelevant and invalid. You're also making statements more often than 'asking questions'.

You must also prove that "the meaning of marriage going out the window" is actually doing you harm. You may not like it but it is not affecting you in any way bar an emotional one. You may be offended by many things, but that is your prerogative.

What are you talking about? There's no truth at all in what you said, here in america we the people choose, me and you, not just you.

The people's choice is invalid when a substantial portion of them are denied certain rights.

 

[ríomhaire]

I was making a reference that states the problems that children in single parent homes face and how it is simular to the same things that i believe gay parent homes will endure more so,

A child to a gay couple will have 2 parent, how is this similar to a single parent senario?

and yes i have proof for how gay couples switch partners over 100 times, ITS NOT A STEREOTYPE ITS JUST A PROVEN STUDY!!

And what the **** does that have to do with marriage?

I'm not pulling stuff out of thin air i'm stating my arguement then providen proof therefore there is no burden of proof,

Your arguement:
Children who are raised under a gay marriage will suffer similar emotional problems to children raised by a single parent
Your proof:
Gay people have over 100 sexual partners in their lives

Not only does your proof have nothing to do with your arguement but you forget that marriage =!= children

The gay agenda is rather contradictory, they want a lasting relationship but at the same time they want over 100 partners. For some reason that just doesn't seem to click:dork:...

Gayness isn't a political party, different gays want different things.

You guys claim that gay marriage doesn't hurt anymore but you cant logically make that

Nothing should be illegal until it is proven that it does hurt someone.

 

[TheSomeone]

The gay agenda is rather contradictory, they want a lasting relationship but at the same time they want over 100 partners. For some reason that just doesn't seem to click:dork:...

Yo dude, watever ur smokin send it my way, thx.