I am simply trying to get him to clarify for me...my Favorite people in the World are "Gay".
I KNOW what their values are and I love them for everything they are....and I love them for their relationship to thier children.
There are MANY screwed up people trying to "stay" in marriages that are shams.
Then you need to show that "same sex" marriages do NOT "promote" family....
So what? Anecdotal evidence means little. I mean I could say I also lived in Santa Rosa CA. which has a huge gay community as well and than we partied in the bay area. Now I will also say I saw the exact opposite of what you are trying to say.
Now what?
It's quite simple: If having 2 loving parents always promotes the family, why do they divorce half the time? You would have to believe that divorcing is an act of promoting the family, which doesn't follow.
Take off your blinders buddy and you will see...and did you live in Santa Rosa? We lived in Sebastopol for a time and also up in the hills almost to Calistoga.
This has nothing to do with my statement to you, but I will bite.
I does not by it's very nature. 2 homosexuals cannot breed, so no family. Now my statement does not take into account modern science or gays who come from marriages with children, but at it's root in nature etc, no family.
Edit: what it does appear to promote is hedonism and a free sexual life style, not all, but to an outsider looking in this is far to common. Trying to say it promotes family as I said before is very recent and a ploy to get people to accept gay marriage.
But you are also implying that everything is absolute, it isn't.
Would you "feel" better if I had said "in my experience"?
Goes to Jerry's arguement, we must multi-task here.
That's my position, which is why I challenged your absolute statement in your post 202.
uummmm WHAT!? Am I in an alternate "bizarro" reality?
What in the hell does divorce have to do with parents loving their children?
Nothing, it has to do with the pair not loving each other, or being able to live with one another for various reasons.
I know that in my divorce which just happened, we loved each other and both love our daughters immensely, but she has borderline personality disorder and that completely ruined our marriage.
Divorce is an act of destabilizing families and nothing to do with same sex marriage. Why don't you introduce something equally irrelevant like monkeys killing other monkeys or something... seriously, get off the irrelevant divorce thing.
Sorry, you rely on a definition of "Family" that comforts you.
You also rely on a misperception that "gay" people have sex with anything that moves, not true.
No. It would however make you look like you are not trying to make baseless blanket statements and appeals to emotion.
Then you should mention that or point it out in some way as I have no idea what you and Jerry are debating.
I go by the same definition that we as a society follow to this day. Has nothing to do with comfort at all.
Now you need to direct your answers to refuting what I said rather than fallacy arguments.
No. I rely on the truth of the situation and the role gays have played in our society and it's development. Now stop making assumptions, adding in some hyperbole and address my statements.
I go by the same definition that we as a society follow to this day. Has nothing to do with comfort at all.
Now you need to direct your answers to refuting what I said rather than fallacy arguments.
No. I rely on the truth of the situation and the role gays have played in our society and it's development. Now stop making assumptions, adding in some hyperbole and address my statements.
Emotion is not my forte, logic is...and logic is NOT relegated to emotional appeal.
You responded to a conversation that Jerry and I were having, it is YOUR job to figure that out....no ONE statement can be separated out and attacked from it's context.
If this is the best argument you can offer, we are probably done here.
I'm not sure why Bodhisattva is arguing with you as he clearly agrees with that position on moral relativity and subjective definitions....Nope, sorry.
Your statements rely on definitions YOU are comfortable with.
I, and millions like me do not ascribe to your "definitions".
We also know that NONE of this black and white....sorry.
....we are granted the ability to think for ourselves and interpret our own meanings of love and compassion.
No blinders my friend, just fact. I mean don't get me wrong, I know plenty of fine gay people and monogamous couples, but they are the minority by far.
Wow Sevastopol, have not heard that name in years. I worked at a Taco Bell there in 87, lol. Don't know where Calistoga is?
Seeya.
I understand that you need to deflect from truth, it makes you uncomfy with reality.
Personal truth relies on whatever definitions we decide we agree with....some are strict and narrow...and some aren't.
IN MY EXPERIENCE the single greatest thing that promotes "Family" is Love.
Love that is unconditional and umcompromising...period.
We are simply debating opinion...and you NEED yours to be right....take your ego out of it.
I always thought so, but that's besides the point :mrgreen:
Nothing at all.
It does have to do with "promoting the family", though
I never stated the contrary. It's because you're going off on something no one said which is why I think you're in an "alternate "bizarro" reality".
I feel your pain.
Amazed said "Two loving,caring, nurturing parents will always promote "family"."
Always.
If that were true, then since we all agree that divorce undermines the family, two loving,caring, nurturing parents would never divorce.
Blinders was a joke... Calistoga is in the very top portion of Napa Valley. Loved living in the mountains up there...
I know, that's why I said "my friend" to clarify I understood.
Ahhh no wonder I don't know it. I only got up into wine country maybe twice in the 3 years I was there.
It is fun to visit, but I don't want to live there...
Ahhh... divorce does not promote family, but it also does not negate the love given to children...
Hopefully you are just empathizing... nobody should have to go through what I went through.
Redress is an example of how pro-SSM wants to claim they're pro family, but don't ever do anything to promote the family. When pressed they try to defend themselves, but if you leave them alone they use just whatever argument they think will get them access to money.
... Pro-SSM uses the family argument as a means to an end, not the end itself. You're one of those people who react with "yeah but the bible also bans shellfish and mixed fabrics"...and then crums when an anti-SSM says "what about polygamy, then". Your arguments are equivocation top-to-bottom.
GLBT is all about Equality®, not family.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?