Anti LGBT Mindset: Why are YOU against gay rights? READ MOD WARNING IN OP BEFORE POST

Sad little place to be.

 

You are changing the subject, as you are used to doing.
I have no intentions to answer that questions, because, in my opinion, the problem of adoption by gays and lesbians is that it is supported by people who don't care of children, and the other user has given a clear and undeniable evidence.

 

That is merely your hyperbolic opinion. In the desperate grasping at a single straw you have become what you claim to detest.

You have made children of gay parents into political puppets. They had no choice in the matter, but they are the victim of your existential angst.

 

Did I use children to support my theories? Really? And when, precisely?

 

Your "theories" and I use the term loosely, that children are harmed by having same sex parents are political propaganda with nothing supporting them. You also claimed that gay people are using children to feel more normal. This is hyperbolic and ridiculous. To think it's about you is narcissistic.

So in many ways other than your "theories" you have become what you claim to detest. It's also in your existential angst, your self aggrandizing behavior and narcissism.

We don't care if you think we are normal.

 

This conversation has gone too far. We are done. I don't like hear nonsense talks about by some pathetic Mr Nobody, and I will not do that.

 

When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser- Socrates-

So all you have left is to call me names?

Hum, must mean you have nothing but illogical fallacy for an argument.

I'm sorry that nobody cares what you find to be normal, apparently that was the lynch pin to your argument. Try building on a firmer foundation next time.

 

The only thing I don't have is time to waste with you. And, by the way, I ensure you that, on my side, there are much more people than on your. So don't fell victorious, you aren't.

 

You have ran away from the argument calling me names as you did.

Every argument I've made has stood. Homosexuals, being humans procreate like humans.

You stated repeatedly how homosexuals reproduce differently, yet they are still human and couldn't really reproduce differently.

Then you carried on about how sad this and that was.

So far you are at zero. I'm batting 1000

More people disagreeing with me doesn't matter, right isn't decided upon by majority vote. And when it comes down to it you are going to have to become a killer to get your way. Gay people have stood up against the worst you could through at us.

So tell me how I'm not victorious I could use a good laugh

 

1. Item 1 is 100% intellectual perversion. Not providing benefits does not mean regulating.
2. Item 2 about sterile couple is dumbest, childish and absolutely invalid argument because government has no idea in advance which couple can or cannot procreate. Asking every couple about their ability to reproduce you is an intrusion into privacy appropriate only for totalitarian state.
3. Constitution is irrelevant in this case, government has legitimate interest to regulate relationship between man and woman since such relationship is affecting whole society. Marriage is a logical and positive way to direct chaotic heterosexual activity to structured and organized institution.
4. It used to be that religion was part of the government, not anymore. It is irrelevant to bring that up. Government does not deny heterosexual relationship and marriage to any man or woman. Government can only regulate what it can regulate. And homosexual relationship cannot be regulated, because it is strictly private matter.
Yes, I understand, that gays want benefits and special rights for nothing, but it is not how sane society works.

 

I am not talking about benefits.....I am talking about even the ability to do something. My religion supports the union of two people of the same sex, but my state says that it is illegal to do that. How is that not regulating.

Actually then your argument that marriage benefits are for procreation are invalid.

Now you are just being obtuse.

Not in the United States

Except by saying that rights extended so some are not extended to all with no government interest. That is wrong.

Again a lie. Please note special rights you refer to.

 

Something he doesn't understand is that the procreation argument is an appeal to nature and thus a logical fallacy.

 

Then since rights come from nature and natural law, then wouldn't that make all rights in the BoR as well as Marriage is a right a fallacy as well?

 

Who says rights come from natural law?

 

In respect to homosexuals adopting then I agree, in pretty much everything else I don't

 

Apparently he does . .wrongly of course.

did an interesting little topic on rights, more to do with the right to life but still relevant - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/329575-abortion-violates-unalienable-right-life.html

 

Except that nature does not give rights.

A right is that which confers legitimacy upon an action or a belief. For example, if one has a right to free speech, the act of speaking freely is given legitimacy. This legitimacy derives from whichever authority conferred the right in question.

A right is different from a law of nature because a right is a protected option not a diktat. A right to life does not mean that one will live, it means that one’s life is protected. However, a law of nature is only a law of nature because it is a diktat and is always true. Hence, E cannot have a right to equal mc2 since it always does.

Furthermore, since rights are based on moral value-judgements they cannot be the same as factual scientific laws. Molecules have no morality.

There is nothing natural about "natural" rights.

 

John Locke is one of the earliest to argue this before America was founded.

Ironically, even before the term homosexual was coined.

If you're interested here is an article for you to read.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/

 

That is true only if you define "sex" as "only" procreational. And even that isn't really true considering our medical advances of recent decades. Regardless, the primary purpose of sex is recreation, procreation is only secondary. Over the course of an average human's lifetime they'll have "sex" thousands of times, and only actually procreate during a very small percentage of those encounters, including enjoying sex when they KNOW that procreation is quite literally impossible, either because of age or infertility of some kind.

BTW, by your definition, it means the Clinton wasn't actually lying when he "did... not... have... sex... with... that... woman..." because neither a blow job nor using a cigar as a sex toy (which I found creative) is even hypothetically able to create procreation.

 

Never been to Europe. Maybe one day.

 

This is the philosophy that rights are natural. The concept of natural law is a hard one to pen down. Because people often use their interpretation of how nature intends things to be as natural law. Thus saying something is natural law, is really not part of the philosophy.

 

As I've repeatedly pointed out, some couples (regardless of the gender mix) get a benefit, others a penalty. I used to know a couple who divorced every 12/31, and remarried on 1/1 to avoid said penalty. Your argument is bogus. I haven't done the math, I expect it would require a forensic accountant to figure it out, but my instinct is the marriage "penalty" overall amounts to much more income to Uncle than the "benefit" costs him.

 

Anybody with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows that. I'm not an Obama fan. But I'm also a pragmatist and a realist, and I know full well that ALL politicians must lie from time to time in order to get elected. It's a sad state of affairs, but it is reality.

 

And another big problem is that there are things i nature that are very toxic or dangerous to human beings as well.

 

If you ask me the only things against the law of nature are things that violate it, such as defying gravity.