The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Damn Yankee said:
Oh look, more attacks on messengers. I would attack your sources if you had any to dispute mine, and if it was a legitimate debate tactic, but neither situation applies.
Click to expand...

OH look, the messenger's so-called sources are truly imbecilic. Plus, the source youre requesting has been provided to you in this thread and in another thread (when we discussed this before)
Here AGAIN start with this-
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

"Jay & Young. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.
This book, published nearly 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer review."




The author(source) has shown how your source(s) and belief about homosexual and pedofiles are bogus.


"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."
 
WinterBorn said:
Still angry that you cannot just throw out the remarks of hate-mongers and have them be accepted?
Click to expand...

he(damn yankee's source and apparent role model) organized a small Ku Klux Klan group in north Georgia - the New Order, Knights of the KKK - and served as its Grand Dragon. He was invited to attend the first national meeting of the nation's largest Klan, the Knights of the KKK, in 1980. That same year he met with European neo-Nazi organizations in England, and in October he and Stoner conferred in Atlanta with leaders of the Belgian neo-Nazi movement.
 
Southern Chicken said:
he(damn yankee's source and apparent role model) organized a small Ku Klux Klan group in north Georgia - the New Order, Knights of the KKK - and served as its Grand Dragon. He was invited to attend the first national meeting of the nation's largest Klan, the Knights of the KKK, in 1980. That same year he met with European neo-Nazi organizations in England, and in October he and Stoner conferred in Atlanta with leaders of the Belgian neo-Nazi movement.
Click to expand...

Wow. I've been called gay, a homophobe, a hater, and now a racist. All because I speak the truth. Awesome. :)
 
Damn Yankee said:
Since Solitary has nothing more to add aside from continued attacks on the messenger...
.
Click to expand...

I enjoy burning your sources. They are worthless.


But here is the thing, you want to use reasons against gays being ableto marry that have never been used to stop straights from marrying. This is called hypocrisy.

You want to talk about all the things that bother you about gays, but those have never been reasons used against straights.



So try and stick with the actual topic, can you?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Wow. I've been called gay, a homophobe, a hater, and now a racist. All because I speak the truth. Awesome. :)
Click to expand...

You love to call your words "truth", but so much of it has been debunked. I am sure you would love to call Cameron a hero and a role model.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....miscegenation laws prohibited cross racial marriages BECAUSE it met the definition of marriage and those that opposed it had to pass laws to prevent it......the opposite is true for gay marriage.......it does NOT meet the definition of marriage and the law need to change the definition before it would be possible.....
Click to expand...
No, it didn't meet the definition of marriage. It met one of the current criteria, that it was one man and one women, but that's like saying all math problems are the same because they involve number. The definition has changed over thousands of years. It will change again.
 
Beware The Battle-Cattle said:
No, it didn't meet the definition of marriage. It met one of the current criteria, that it was one man and one women, but that's like saying all math problems are the same because they involve number. The definition has changed over thousands of years. It will change again.
Click to expand...

of course it met the definition of marriage......one man, one woman.......which has been the definition of marriage since before this country began, as I said.....and the only way it will change is if the change is forced on society by law at the whim of a small group of abnormals........
 
Damn Yankee said:
Since Solitary has nothing more to add aside from continued attacks on the messenger and straw men...
.
Click to expand...

"You want to use reasons against gays being able to marry that have never been used to stop straights from marrying. This is called hypocrisy."

So if you would like to discuss reasons gays should not be married, feel free to do so.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Its one reason. Others are as stated previously.
Click to expand...

It is a reason you want to use. But the fact is, it is not a reason used against straights. Even convicted pedophiles are allowed to marry. So this reason does not stand up to scrutiny, except as proof of hypocrisy.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
of course it met the definition of marriage......one man, one woman.......which has been the definition of marriage since before this country began, as I said.....and the only way it will change is if the change is forced on society by law at the whim of a small group of abnormals........
Click to expand...
No, sorry, you're wrong. It has not been the same definition.
 
Like you know what I want, LOL. Convicted peds are not allowed to adopt kids, and that is the issue here, since gays can't reproduce on their own. Once gays have the legitimacy of marriage it will be difficult to keep them from adoption, even when the evidence shows that kids grow up best with both a mother and a father, and gays are more apt to be child molesters.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Like you know what I want, LOL. Convicted peds are not allowed to adopt kids, and that is the issue here, since gays can't reproduce on their own. Once gays have the legitimacy of marriage it will be difficult to keep them from adoption, even when the evidence shows that kids grow up best with both a mother and a father, and gays are more apt to be child molesters.
Click to expand...

There are numerous studies showing kids raised by gay parents (2 men or 2 women) are no different than kids raised by straight parents.

And I am all for busting, jailing and places serious restrictions on pedophiles. I am all for doing serious background checks and evaluations of adoptive parents.

But I am not in favor of convicting people before they do anything wrong. Your argument might be one for more strenuous checks of gay adoptive parents. But it has no relevance concerning gay marriage itself.
 
Beware The Battle-Cattle said:
No, sorry, you're wrong. It has not been the same definition.
Click to expand...

all right....this is getting annoying....may I ask, just what do you think the definition of marriage is right now, what do you think the definition of marriage was when this country started, and what changes have you seen......because quite frankly, you're looking rather stupid at the moment.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
all right....this is getting annoying....may I ask, just what do you think the definition of marriage is right now, what do you think the definition of marriage was when this country started, and what changes have you seen......because quite frankly, you're looking rather stupid at the moment.....
Click to expand...

When this country started, didn't the definition include "same race"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top