Fuck this stupid fucking political forum bullshit. I am sick and fucking tired of justifying my family structure to people who don't understand and don't care. I don't need this shit. I have a good job and good neighbors. I am going to try to go back to spending more of my free time doing web design! It doesn't piss me off as much.

I don't know what has happened, but I hope you're okay.

Me too.

Whatever family structure - shouldn't matter on a political forum - off topic and no one's business.

It was a discussion on another forum....

I hope this isn't Hardcore - I didn't see anything, but I'm a mod, so let me know if there were personal attacks there.

It was on W.E.B.'s forum, I think....

No, I haven't been to WEB's in months. It was HOP. I just had a shitty weekend and I snapped.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpo ... stcount=49

I just need a break I guess.

Ahh---those darn 3 letter abbreviations...

Why, Segep, did you choose to argue with inbred morons? That was your first mistake. That's about as pointless playing firsbee with a log.

I don't see what's wrong with your lifestyle.

I will go through the arguments. Feel free to use them as rebuttals there if you want.

A. They act as if marriage cannot happen between gays simply because they can't naturally reproduce. This is the argument from natural reproduction. Given that homosexuality precludes having children "naturally" they assume they can't get married. The problem with that argument is that its assumed premises are objectionable.

1. It assumes marriage is strictly for having and raising children. This premise is false. Its not even observed in practice, given we allow people unable to breed to marry. Given the logic that gays can't marry because the function of marriage is children implies you must have children, and if, for some reason, you won't, you shouldn't get married. Functionally, there's no difference between the "kid possibility status" of a two gays and two sterile parents. Yet we allow sterile parents to get married.

2. They also talk about a "right" of a child to be with a nuclear family. That makes no sense. There is no such right. Have them demonstrate what law conveys this right. If they can't find it, dismiss it. If they continue, point out that there are many non-nuclear families. Are they also violating the right to a nuclear family they arbitrarily defined into existence? If they use that argument only against gays, point out their logical inconsistency. Dismiss their argument until they can make something coherent and consistent.

3. For shits and giggles, simply point out that there are, to date, no credible psychological studies (developmental or social psychology) which indicate that homosexual families produce either homosexual children or harm them either physically or psychologically. It is the burden of those who claim X causes harm to indicate, objectively, X does. In the absence of evidence, you may dismiss the argument from harm. Given that gay marriage doesn't cause harm to children (it doesn't even logically imply children will be created anyway), there can be no argument dealing with harm.

If they want to continue the jihad against gay marriage along that lines, point out that children born in the homes of families who smoke are more than 2x as likely to develop smoking, which is objectively harmful. Yet we don't ban fat people or smokers from having children. They are again thus logically inconsistent...largely because the argument has nothing to do with protecting children and all to do with discriminating against homosexuals.

Bullshit defeated.

So,,,,,,
Do you think those kids rosie odonnall has adopted will turn out Homo or hetro?

I think there's a 90% chance they'll turn out hetero.

And 95% chance they will be mean spirited!

Most likely true, for sure.

An almost 100% chance they will use emotion instead of logic to make points.

Yes, most assuredly.