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

I don't know what they actually believe and what they know is equine excrement. I just know that they are making damned fools of themselves

 

A straight parent isn't a gay parent now is it?

- - - Updated - - -

I think they want to believe what they say, and they think that if they say it enough it will be true.

 

A single parent isn't

Heterosexual couples have been encouraged to marry because the most common alternative to a child with both their mother and father in the home is a single mother on her own with an absent or unknown fathers.

Homosexuals have not been encouraged to marry because the most common alternative to a child with homosexual parents is a child with their biological mother and father in the home.

 

In honor of the oral arguments next week, here are some quotes from different rulings striking down marriage equality bans that will remind you why love can’t wait. http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/quote...rulings-that-will-remind-you-why-love-cant-wa

 

I hate the way they keep adding new letters every couple of years. Redundant ones, as if the more letters they use, the more people they represent (in fact I do believe that's the point, to trick you into thinking they are growing in numbers). Lesbians ARE gay. They are also queer. Gay=queer. No doubt they'll add an "H" for homosexual next, as if that's something new and different.

 

Yeah typically single parents are straight.

Yeah that it's a wonderful reason to encourage heterosexuals to marry, I don't know why you keep posting this, I am absolutely for heterosexual marriage.

It doesn't really give any good reason to discourage homosexual marriage.

That isn't true, homosexuals won't just marry the biological parent of their child because. Likely they would just spend their lives with their partner and any children wouldn't have the benefit of having their parent and step parent married.

Because homosexual people aren't really interested in a heterosexual relationship, nothing would encourage them to stay with their child's biological parent. That would be bad for the kid also.

 

A "SINGLE" parent is not "parentS" numbering two.

Because it is the distinguishing characteristic of heterosexual couples that differentiate them from any and all other couples be they platonic couples, closely related couples, or any couple of the same sex.

Not sure what isn't true. I made no representation as to why homosexuals wont marry the biological parent of their child.

That's why "Homosexual people" that form a "homosexual couple" don't produce any children. No need for government to be concerned with unmarried mothers with absent or unknown fathers as a result of them joining together. No need to require or encourage them to marry. Just like platonic couples, closely related couples or ANY couple made up of two people of the same sex.

 

Yes, but the study was against the general population, not one single parent. but many single parents, married parents and so forth.

But not a good reason to discriminate against same sex couples. funny how yo edited that out. perhaps because you cant argue against it.

When fallacy fails resort to dishonesty.

the part you edited out explained it, but I'll retype it.

it's not true that making marriage exclusive between two people of the opposite sex encourages people to procreate.

But they do.

We demand it and our government serves our interests not theirs. that is plenty good enough reason.

 

That's what I said. They made a comparison between children with a lesbian couple, "gay parents", and all children from the general population AS OPPOSED TO your claim that

No one claimed it "encourages people to procreate", Im the one who keeps pointing out that marriage inhibits procreation. SOOOO not sure what you think is "not true" other than your next strawman.

??? Nooo, at most one member of a "homosexual couple" and a third party of the opposite sex "produce" children. MOST children with a "homosexual couple" are a product of one member of the "homosexual couple" and a third party of the opposite sex they were previously in a sexual relationship with. A biological parent to the child with all the rights and responsibilities regarding the child that involves, and not a member of the "homosexual" couple.

 

The general population is heterosexual. so my claim is the same as yours.

Marriage doesn't inhibit procreation. Dogs don't get married yet they procreate. So what you are pointing out is wrong.

Well it would be the untrue statements you keep making.

I'm not sure where I misrepresented your argument. You have failed to point it out. but i assume its because you don't know what a straw man fallacy is and you are just repeating what somebody told you to sound intelligent.

No (*)(*)(*)(*).

If the homosexual couple adopts the child the assume all the rights and responsibilities.

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. It still holds no relevant point to the discussion.

 

Well, at least you admit you're a hater - that's a start.

They aren't redundant; you just don't understand what they actually represent, as evidenced below. It has nothing to do with growth in numbers. It's to acknowledge the people who have joined the coalition, according to how they identify.

Because you say so? No. You are not the boss of us, and you aren't in charge of the terminology we use in identifying ourselves. As the saying goes, "It's complicated."

I'm old enough to remember when it was G & L - Gay (men) & Lesbians. The fact that the word 'gay' may also apply to lesbians in some contexts doesn't make this one of those contexts. Then a 'B' was added because bisexuals didn't appreciate being excluded/invisible. Why no distinction between bisexual men versus bisexual women? In the early days, gay men and lesbians didn't necessarily view themselves as part of the same community. It's something of a cliché that the two groups often don't see eye to eye (putting it nicely). There doesn't seem to be an equivalent divide among bisexuals. (Just to be clear, I'm not in the camp of lesbian-hating gay men. I actually tend to get along better with lesbians than I do other gay men. I'm just weird that way.)

Later came the 'T' for transgender, which is actually something of a catchall for many subgroups of gender non-conforming people. If we were to list them all separately, the abbreviation would be even longer.

As for 'queer', it's again a matter of context, and to some extent, a generational divide. I personally detest the word, since I grew up experiencing it as an anti-gay slur. Some younger people use it as their identifying term of choice, rather than labeling themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc. In some ways, it's almost a rebellion against the segmenting of the coalition into separate communities.

Then there's the 'A', which could be either asexuals, or allies of the 'alphabet soup' of other letters representing the coalition.

You might also see an 'I', for those who identify as intersex - another catchall term; this one representing people whose physical makeup sets them apart from the male/female sex binary. There's also some overlap between members of the intersex community, and those who identify as transgender, since an intersex person may not always identify according to the sex they were assigned at birth.

It should also be noted that while there are members from these various groups that support the work of the LGBTetc. coalition, not all want to be identified as part of it. That may be especially true of some within the asexual and intersex communities.

Like I said, it's complicated.

A statement which only serves to display the depth of your ignorance. Gay (or lesbian) are terms of identity related to same-sex orientation. 'Homosexual' is an adjective that has much broader application to anything related to same-sex attraction and behavior. It's also an invented word, cobbling together terms from Greek and Latin. It's use as a clinical term from the days when 'homosexuality' was classified as a mental illness - when gay men and lesbians would find themselves institutionalized against their will and subjected to things like electroshock therapy and aversion therapy - doesn't make it much of a candidate for addition to the group.

There - I've done my best to explain to you just how far your perception is removed from facts. Not that I expect you to stop hating us or accept the truth of the matter. At least I've tried to help you become better informed.

 

No one claimed otherwise and I was the one who pointed out they were comparing children with two lesbian parents in the home who volunteered for the study, to all children in the population. INSTEAD of comparing them to just children with two "straight parents" as you claimed the study concluded. The general population of children includes children with no parents in the home and children with just one. Two parents in the home is usually better than one. Children born to mothers married to the childs father are MANY more times likely to have two parents in the home than children born to mothers who are not married to the childs father. That's why heterosexual couples, for thousands of years have been required or encouraged to marry. More children with two parents in the home and fewer children with one or none. Encouraging homosexual couples to marry does nothing to achieve those ends.

 

You excluded the bisexuals who are also terms of identity related to same-sex orientation.

 

Well they didn't costs them to other gay parents.

A statistical non existent.

Which There is a 99% likelihood that they are heterosexual.

Agreed, that reason alone is a good one to recognize ssm.

And again I haven't once argued against heterosexual marriage.

I don't know why you keep making this irrelevant statements.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). If they are parents it encourages them to stay in the home.

Everything it does for heterosexuals applies to homosexuals. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

It never has.

 

I don't believe Ive mentioned it another time in this thread. At least not on pages 74 to 83 of this thread. And I mention it because most children with one of their biological parents and a gay lover, most "gay couples" with children, cant be adopted by that gay lover. The other biological parents wont surrender their rights. Marrying the gay lover creates no obligations to the child. ON THE OTHER HAND encouraging a mother with child from a previous heterosexual relationship to marry her new heterosexual lover, would benefit any child they might have together.

 

His complaint is stupid. "I don't like what you call yourselves." So? I don't think they picked the name to please people on political boards.

- - - Updated - - -

 

This bit, is what I was referring to.

What is the relevance?

 

??? I said nothing about heterosexual marriage encouraging anybody to stay in the home, so not sure what you think is bull (*)(*)(*)(*). AND encouraging ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS in the home, acting as a parent to the same child, to marry would encourage them to stay in the home. Does nothing for your arguments for "homosexual" couples

 

Utterly false. Dixon is relying on an equivocation of terms, and pulling a statement out of context to pretend something happened that never did. This is misleading and dishonest.

"Same-sex orientation" is understood to mean an orientation primarily directed toward persons of one's own sex, to the near exclusion of the opposite-sex, whereas the term 'bisexual' used in the context of orientation most certainly is not; it refers to an attraction to both sexes, and is therefore not a same-sex orientation, but a both sexes orientation.

In context, I was responding to another poster's comments about the word 'homosexual', which references same sex, not both sexes.

So there was no deliberate attempt to exclude bisexuals; they weren't part of the context being discussed at that point.

Shame on Dixon for trying such a ridiculous ad hominem argument. This is why I generally ignore this person, who almost never makes any attempt at honest discussion of one's points.

 

I made no representation as to what bisexuality "is" other than stating that bisexuality is a term of identity related to same-sex orientation. And since bisexuality includes an attraction to the same sex it most certainly is also one of the "terms of identity related to same-sex orientation". And your definition of homosexuality that includes "the near exclusion of the opposite-sex" is your personal opinion. Most homosexuals have engaged in sexual relations with both sexes and many of them identify as homosexual because they simply prefer the same sex. Just as many who identify as heterosexuals have engaged in sexual relations with both sexes and identify as heterosexual because they prefer the opposite sex. Even though they actually have an attraction to both sexes.
Most lesbians have engaged in sexual relations with men, and of those who have, they have had on average, more male sexual partners than the average heterosexual woman. As well I suspect many with bisexual attractions to both sexes, identify as homosexual if they are in a homosexual relationship and identify as heterosexual if they are in a heterosexual relationship.

 

Post limit thread closure

Shangrila
Moderator