Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
/sigh
DeMaria, I'm done arguing with you.
That is your problem Synnen. Your view continues to be that everyone must agree with you or they are being offensive. I wasn't arguing, just expressing my views.
Quote:
I'd have to tear apart YOUR post the way you did mine, and frankly, I agree with others that it's long, annoying, whatever.
If you could, you would.
Quote:
A couple of very loud thoughts, I had though:
If only "natural" parents could love a child unconditionally--are you saying that no adoptive parent (regardless sexual orientation) ever loved a child the way a birth parent does?
Did you read that in my message? Where?
Quote:
Frankly, I'm incredulous that you'd think that, or that you'd think adoption was an "unnatural" way for a couple to have a child.
An adoption by a heterosexual couple is a natural way of raising a child as they provide father and mother. What is unnatural is a homosexual union and therefore, by extension, it is unnatural for a homosexual couple to raise a child as father and father or mother and mother.
Quote:
I never said "God" anywhere in the post I made.
Not with a capital G no.
Quote:
I said that marriage was, as a general rule, a commitment that you made to--among others--"your god".
My God is God with a capital G.
Quote:
MY personal god has no problem with homosexuality, so a gay person of my religion would have no upset god/goddess because it was "unnatural" and "couldn't conceive children".
Are you dragging this back into a religious discussion? As for me, homosexuality is condemned as a sin in my religion.
Quote:
As far as kids not seeing any sexual behaviour--that's not a religious more on my part. That's common sense, the way I see it.
Ok. It's a belief based on nothing more than opinion. I can understand that. As for me, I agree but for religious reasons. My religious reasons seem to correspond to your common sense.
Quote:
Small children are not able to understand sexual behaviour as it exists in the adult world. Deliberately exposing them to sexual behaviour, of any sort, is a Very Bad Idea. But, hey!
Oh, oh! I recognize that 'but hey!" You're getting ready to twist my words.
Quote:
If YOU want to have sex in front of your kids, my religion isn't going to stop you.
Please show me where I said that I wanted to have sex in front of ANY children, let alone my own. Pleeasse. Otherwise, accept that you are simply making a derisive comment because, well I don't really know why you behave like this. Perhaps this is how your religion teaches you to behave.
Quote:
The STATE probably will, but that's kind of the point of this---the rights of the state to determine what constitutes a legal union over the religious right screaming that it's unnatural. As far as the media goes on this subject, well... I don't have kids. But *I* don't watch TV, seldom go to movies, and the worst media in my house is probably a Glamour magazine. Since I'm not exposing myself to that sort of media, I wouldn't be exposing any kids I would have to it. And in several posts over the last 1.5 years, I think I've made it clear what I think about the media driving the sexuality of this country---and what I think of parents who do not take the personal responsibility to shelter their kids from it, including and especially Disney movies---but that's another thread. I'm basically pointing out that personal responsibility trumps the media, and that as long as a lifestyle choice is not HARMING someone, then there should be no law against it.
I happen to agree. But go ahead twist my words and insult me again. That is the way you apparently discuss things with people with whom you don't agree 100%.
Quote:
For someone who accuses people on a regular basis of twisting your words,
I don't accuse. I prove that people twist my words by quoting whatever they attribute to me and comparing it to what I actually said.
Quote:
you sure did a great job twisting mine there.
Where? Since you didn't quote me I don't know what you are talking about. Should I simply go through my entire message and try to figure out where I twisted your words? That's too much work. If you feel I twisted your words, prove it.
But wait, I quote everything that people say and I address each idea point by point. So I couldn't have twisted your words. Maybe you mean that I didn't understand what you meant, is that it?
Quote:
Where is your evidence, then, that children are HARMED by growing up in a homosexual environment?
Did I say they were harmed? I asked you if you meant that they were harmed? Read my words again:
First you said:
I know people with gay parents (yes, two moms or two dads) and they're completely straight.
And the last part of my response reads:
But it is strange that you would mention this. Do you mean that the children were not "harmed" by the experience?
In other words, why did you mention that they turned out "straight"? Staight is another word for "fine" or "healthy" correct. After all, the alternative to straight is bent or deformed. Or is there another alternative of which I'm not aware?
Quote:
Because what this still comes down to, for me, is that as long as it is not HARMING anyone, what is the problem with homosexual marriages?
I've already listed my opinions. And I've tried to substantiate them with current data on the matter.
So, since you have stated that you are through addressing me, then perhaps we can agree to disagree.
Bye,
Sincerely,
De Maria
