Gay Marriage

[THE ENFORCER]

http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthread.php?t=91
That's what we call "fact", homey.

Yea im sure everyone responds truthfully on that, and also you dont have everyones age on that...

[THE ENFORCER]

In reference to the US, there are many... a waning legitimacy for the attack on Iraq, declining job rates, persistent infractions on civil liberties and privacy, a continuing recession, etc. The list goes on and on, and all are much more relevant than who should be able to get a marriage license.

Are you gonna vote for the democrats because of thier move to decrease cost-push inflation which would stimulate the economy?
or Republicans which thier move is to use fiscal policy to stimulate the economy? Cause its a hard desicion to make

[Troll King]

Yea im sure everyone responds truthfully on that, and also you dont have everyones age on that...

If anything, people would be more likely to lie about their age by claiming to be older than they are. That would mean that people are more likely to be younger than that page indicates.

And no, it doesn't have everyone's age, but Conc didn't say that EVERYONE was that age. That post is a good enough sample.

[Verthanthi]

Are you gonna vote for the democrats because of thier move to decrease cost-push inflation which would stimulate the economy?
or Republicans which thier move is to use fiscal policy to stimulate the economy? Cause its a hard desicion to make

You know there are more than two parties, right?

[Sarien]

OMG what the fuck is wrong with you, your whole point of the story was that the parents were abusive! quote: "blah blah blah" what the hell is wrong with you, your like getting mixed up with your stories, if your gonna have an argument at least get your facts straight you should be ashamed for not getting the simplest things in a forum correct!

I'm not getting mixed up with anything, dunderhead.
I do agree that it might have been a bit ambiguous, though.
So let me try rephrasing:
What kind of jerk actually believes it's better for a kid to be in foster care, or in a home with natural parents like that, than in a home with adopted parents, gay or not, as long as they are good parents? Like I said, you should have to tell the kid that to his/her face. You should have to say "No Jimmy, I'm sorry, you have to stay in foster care and have to work that much harder to try to succeed in life, simply because it bothers me to think of you living with people who live differently than me. And no, I won't adopt you either."

And as for the bashing bit of your message, nincompoop:
I dare say that with posts like demanding that doublesquadding be legal, you're a bit further down on the forum idiot ladder, than myself. Someone should ship you off to an island where you'll be cut off from society and remain an outcast... oh... damn... too late. =)

And before Aussie gets upset, I don't really feel that way about Oz.
Though you guys really should vote him off the island or something. =)

[Bigwig]

Let me first say i've read most of the thread but not all of it.(first 2 pages, last 3 pages)

I'd like to address all the people that seem to think the future effect of allowing gay couples to marry may have horrible outcomes. Or at the very least "we don't know what will happen". A little over 2200 years ago is the first instance i can think of with a culture and society that accepted gay couples. The spartans of greece encouraged male relationships between soldiers, usually between young and older men. These were usually informal lovers, but it was accepted and well known. What effect did the acceptance of homosexuality in sparta have on later societies? On the rest of Greece? uh, none. The romans, rich ones anyway, were very sexually free, and while homosexuality wasn't prominent, it happened, did it have some detrimental effect on the roman empire? no. Homosexuality isn't some new fangled fad, its been around a while, usually forced underground where it went undocumented. Its even in the bible, obviously, where it pissed some guy off (who was probably gay to begin with and terribly heart broken) to the point where he said, homosexuality is wrong. (where is it in the bible? i'm not really familiar with it)
I'm pretty sure we can say for certain that if homosexual marriage is legitimized there will be no dire consequences.

Clearly, if there is a seperation of religion and state in the country in which you live, there is zero basis for an argument to prevent gay marriage.

yes i realize that not all of my information is dead on but you get the point.

[Jason]

Preface: I haven't read anything beyond the first page of this thread.

My thoughts: We are who we are. Let a homosexual couple do what they wish. You can't argue otherwise without bringing some form of bias (be it religious, personal perspective, whatever) into the picture.

[THE ENFORCER]

I'm not getting mixed up with anything, dunderhead.
I do agree that it might have been a bit ambiguous, though.
So let me try rephrasing:
What kind of jerk actually believes it's better for a kid to be in foster care, or in a home with natural parents like that, than in a home with adopted parents, gay or not, as long as they are good parents? Like I said, you should have to tell the kid that to his/her face. You should have to say "No Jimmy, I'm sorry, you have to stay in foster care and have to work that much harder to try to succeed in life, simply because it bothers me to think of you living with people who live differently than me. And no, I won't adopt you either."

And as for the bashing bit of your message, nincompoop:
I dare say that with posts like demanding that doublesquadding be legal, you're a bit further down on the forum idiot ladder, than myself. Someone should ship you off to an island where you'll be cut off from society and remain an outcast... oh... damn... too late. =)

And before Aussie gets upset, I don't really feel that way about Oz.
Though you guys really should vote him off the island or something. =)

Man you really dont get it, you completely missed the point!!!!!!!!!
If a kid is being abused they should be placed in foster care (which means adopted parents idiot) and not with the family that is abusive i mean is quite self explantory? maybe you should try fixing yourself on this argument then worrying about past arguments.I really do not understand how you can not get this.And i wasnt demanding that double squadding be legal (agian you missed the point) i was just providing an argument for it because people didnt seem to realize the benefits (im serious now if you make one more inconsistentcy or comment that has nothing to do with what i said and having me to reply to you AGIAN to clear it up for you, im just going to ignore you cause its just getting really really pathetic and annoying, everyone else seems to get it so why dont you?)

The fact is all adoptiong agencies dont allow gays to adopt, because of society's values and only when they change will it be acceptable. The fact is its unfair to put a child through added stress, which can only be deterimetal.

[THE ENFORCER]

You know there are more than two parties, right?

ummm Im refering to America if you didnt realize.

[THE ENFORCER]

If anything, people would be more likely to lie about their age by claiming to be older than they are. That would mean that people are more likely to be younger than that page indicates.

And no, it doesn't have everyone's age, but Conc didn't say that EVERYONE was that age. That post is a good enough sample.

Err did you actually read the forum cause like 5 people actually responded with an age and the only people that actually contributed to this forum and the other are Fallen Angel (19.5), Azhran (20) and thats it, thats hardly a good enough sample and furthermore they both are above 18. So i really dont know what you are talking about. Unless your talking about that you have to be above 21 which i think is unfair because the brain is mature enough at 16-18 to make informed desicions anyway. So really unless your age is above 16 which i think many on this forum are, your opinion should count and weigh as much as others over 21.

[sTuPiD-gErBiL]

last time i checked, american voting age was 18.

[Fallen Angel]

Err did you actually read the forum cause like 5 people actually responded with an age and the only people that actually contributed to this forum and the other are Fallen Angel (19.5), Azhran (20) and thats it, thats hardly a good enough sample and furthermore they both are above 18. So i really dont know what you are talking about. Unless your talking about that you have to be above 21 which i think is unfair because the brain is mature enough at 16-18 to make informed desicions anyway. So really unless your age is above 16 which i think many on this forum are, your opinion should count and weigh as much as others over 21.

Turning 21 next sunday.
Ancient thread

[THE ENFORCER]

Turning 21 next sunday.
Ancient thread

Nice...

[THE ENFORCER]

last time i checked, american voting age was 18.

Well i thought that but i wasnt 100% sure. thx for clearing it up

[Subjugation]

Man you really dont get it, you completely missed the point!!!!!!!!!
If a kid is being abused they should be placed in foster care (which means adopted parents idiot)

foster care and adoption are two entirely different things.

ummm Im refering to America if you didnt realize.

so was verthanthi. currently there are three parties involved in the campaigning process for the presidential race 2004: Democrat, Repug, and Green. same as last election for president. and if you expand the criteria beyond the parties actually involved in the presidential election, there are many more parties than those three in the US.

Like i said before (studies*) dont mean shit, they can be made to prove the sky is green if done right. Its common sense...

(*i edited "surveys" to "studies" because that was the original word in sarien's post you quoted, and it makes a relevant difference.) funny that you would rather have no information, than some information. what is even funnier is that you disregard the concept of studies entirely instead of reading the study, evaluating the controls, researching who sponsored it, and making a personal evaluation based on (to coin your favorite phrase) common sense to decide if it's biased or not. way to be proud of ignorance.

btw, the more you resort to name calling, the more you undermine your own position. and when you combine that with a few examples of your fallacies i included above, it suggests that you have a difficult time understanding complex social issues.