Opposing Gay marriage and lifestyle?

Dixon just beggars belief, don't think I have ever seen so many obfuscating comments made by a single person in all my years of debating via the internet.

his arguments are like a headless chicken, running around in circles not even realizing that they are already dead.

 

LOL. "Finally". If it makes you feel better that you somehow "changed" my mind on things. It doesn't matter that I've felt that way long before pressing the "join" button on politicalforum.com. I can claim that all I want, but because I say it now (even though it has no bearing on any f***ing thing ever), I said it only after you addressed it. Therefore you can pat yourself on the back and say, "Another victory had. Let's toast to my success."

Here's the thing. This is the gay and lesbian rights forum. That's where my comments pertain to. I also have not said whether or not I advocate for interracial marriage either. Guess I must be against that right? And if you question me on it, and I finally reveal that I am for interracial marriages, I guess you can claim victory there as well. Doesn't matter that I've always felt that way or that I'm even in fact in an interracial marriage right now.

Yay for you

 

P.S. Someone help me out. I'm not up on my debate terms. What is the error called when you assume that if someone doesn't acknowledge whether they support another thing, no matter how related, that somehow proves them wrong?

 

I'm going to say "straw man" combined with "argument from silence"

 

No. Like Rahl you just finally admitted what you knew all along.

 

Sec, I admire your persistence, but no matter how much you repeat your silly theory that sexuality is limited entirely to whom you have sex with, you're never going to convince thinking people that it really works that way.

Mostly because it doesn't.

 

To admire the persistence in pursuit of folly, is to admire a lemming for trying to migrate across the pacific ocean. By the way, there was a short story written about that very topic (the lemming mentality) called "The Marching Morons" by Cyril M. Kornbluth which comes to mind. Its a good read on the theme of persistence.

 

kindly stay on topic and don't discuss forum members

 

would you care to discuss my post where I state

It's not same sex marriage that you seek, because how do you fee about father/son or mother/daughter?

 

you don't need a piece of paper to prevent infidelity.... try again.


I oppose gay marraige for economic reasons. Tax breaks, insurance subsidies for spouses.... all affect me. Yes, my marraige tax breaks affect you the same way as gay would affect me. I would rather govt get out of the business of handing out tax breaks for marraige. We are a broke country

Insurance companies who end up offering a spouse rate to a gay person now has to cover the costs normally associated with 2 gays, at a price of 1 1/2 the price. Insurance doesn't eat the cost and everyone else's premiums go up to cover the increased risk.

I understand, those who don't understand economics will just come on and disagree, then insist they proved it doesn't increase costs.... and then just call me a homophobe. But I use the exact same argument against polygomy and incestuous marriages ....

 

Which is?

 

But this "get government out of marriage" argument didn't start being popular until nonheterosexual relationships wanted to get in on the fun.

You want to make that argument, that's fine. But until we go through a complete overhaul of changing the marriage system to fit the desires of the conservative libertarians, gays, polygamists, and relatives want to get in on the action, and there really is no argument that stands up to stopping that from happening. What's your argument? That the country is broke? Oh, so as long as that's the case the "for all" part of the "freedom and justice for all" thing's just gonna have to get put on hold I take it?

 

Same way you would feel about mother son marriages.

 

Am insurance company can give spousal benefits to a same sex couple regardless of their legal marital status. My husband and I have spousal benefits even though I live in Texas. It's a private industry they can do what they wish.

 

.........

 

It wasnt popular when marriage was an institution to improve the well being of children that only heterosexual couples produce. And only became an issue when marriage was declared to be unrelated to procreation and is instead an institution to win respect and dignity for gays. Improving the well being of children is seen by many as a legitimate governmental interest. Promoting homosexuality for the benefit of homosexuals is not.

 

Not sure what you think I admitted. I keep pointing out you keep quoting yourself saying what you pretend you didn't. It's hilarious.

- - - Updated - - -

This was debunked he first time you tried it.

 

Strawman and proven lie

 

That has never been the only function of marriage.

And why aren't the well being of children being raised by homosexuals equally important?

 

Then would you be okay if we started eliminating marriage benefits by group?

For instance- to save money- we could eliminate all marriage benefits to Jews first.

And then eliminate them for Mormons.

All as a transition to eventually eliminating marriage breaks?

 

Because the improvement to the wellbeing of the children is achieved by them having the benefit of both their mother and father in the home. Children with a homosexual couple requires separating the child from either the mother, father or both.

 

Yet heterosexual couples are the very ones who separate the child from either the mother, father or both.

The reality is that homosexual couples are raising children- children who often have been abandoned by their heterosexual parents, and whom heterosexuals have left to languish in foster care for years at at time.

So once again- why aren't the well being of children being raised by homosexuals equally important?

 

???? Because the improvement to the wellbeing of the children is achieved by them having the benefit of both their mother and father in the home. Children with a homosexual couple requires seperating the child from either the mother, father or both.

 

Do you mean separating the child from its biological mother, father, or both?

 

At any one time in America there are 100,000 children in foster care eligible for adoption. These children have all in one way or another been abandoned by their mother and father.

Among the hundreds of thousands of children being raised by homosexual couples are those children- abandoned by their 'caring' heterosexual mother and father.

So once again- why aren't the well being of children being raised by homosexuals equally important?