soulofdarwin

Does anyone happen to know what the bride wore?

abe smith

Brides usually wear a veil of illusion.

Dr Rick

Gurdur

Not completely correct, since law often takes common-law --- or what is unwritten tradition and social custom ---- into account.

Legalizing homosexual partnerships would be much like legalizing common-law (hetero) partnerships as de facto marriages--- which has already happened in places such as the UK.

Spifmeister

yguy

Now you make some grandiose claims on why a gay marriage would destroy the fabric of society.

Now in the secular world one should always backup ones opinion with evidence (especially when asked.). What most people have been asking, but you have not given is clarification and/or more importantly the evidence that would support your claims.
What proof do you have? Were is this proof?

We (as in the Atheists, most Agnostics and some Theists) are unwilling to accept your claims without citing evidence. This means giving us your sources.

Godot has asked you what sources are you using that supports your claims?

We do not have the time to look for proof that supports your claims, which you obvious have found. Give us your sources, I know it is a pain but that is how we do it in the secular world.

Copy what scigirl did, she gave you links that supported her conclusions, or debased yours. All we have to go on is your word, which may do in a religious environment but this forum is secular and we do not have blind faith that yo or something is right. Which means when asked for proof, one gives it by linking it or at lest telling us were you found it (quotes are good too).

So far what has transpired is you making a claim that gay marriage is wrong

you then go on to support this claim with

Now first you MUST provide evidence to us that gender confusion is caused by homosexuality by citing at lest a source, before we can begin to have a intelligent conversation.

Then you go onto say,

Here you also need to provide evidence that this is true, this sounds like you have found evidence but unwilling to give it to us. GIVE US THE SOURCE TO THIS... FACT until you do, this is an unfound, unsupported opinion.

Now this is like saying all Christians support bombing of abortion clinics, or that all Christians support the United States. Now it is true that Muslims are more likely to sympathize with other Muslims more so then with a Christian... but wait a second!!! How does this support or your premise let alone stay on topic.

There seems to be many parts that need to be proven, but you cannot even start on this until you give supporting evidence that gay marriage beget gender confusion in children.
Then you need to prove that homosexuals are more selfish than heterosexuals in sexual relationships. Or all relationships for that matter
Then you can go on to prove that gay marriages that beget gender confusion, creates an environment that is hostile to children.
Then you can go onto prove that an environment that is hostile to children decreases birthrates. Now I know that you can tell us were you got all this evidence to make such a claim. The last to should be easy, let alone that lower birthrates will force the government to increase immigration. Now you do not need to prove that immigrants are evil, since that is beyond why gay marriages are wrong.

Though you should be able to point to at lest a news paper (and date), this does not help you defend your argument. Nor need you have stated this to get your point across. it looks like you are trying to change the subject. If this has some baring on why gay marriages are wrong please elaborate.

Okay, prove that relationships outside of traditional marriage are more selfish then those in traditional marriage. cite sources please!

Please provide evidence that children CAN NOT hold homosexual parents in esteem, cite source, though I would be happy if you were just say that this is a personal opinion that is not based on any facts known to me. Then prove that acceptance of homosexuality makes a culture fundamentally flawed.

You need to provide some source that their is a corrosive effect on a societies moral foundation, when they approve a unions of nontraditional marriages.

Provide evidence that homosexual activity is perversion, and that it is bad. Also prove that they (who are they?) are trying to psychologically intimidate those that think it is a perversion. This should be easy for you. Sources please! If you cannot provide any, please concede that this a opinion of yours that is not based in fact!

Now this weaken your case more then it helped. This statement was a waste of your time, as it does not provide any evidence, nor strengthen your case. It also goes off topic. Stick to gay marriages destroy the fabric of society

Now this is weak, their are many people who have been married for 25+ years without children or wanting them ether. It is know that children sometimes (not all the time.) are the reason for the breakup of the marriage. You should provide evidence that marriages based around children are better, and stronger then those that are not.

If marriage Is the manual, why do people have manuals for a manual.
Ether you do not know what a manual, or I do not understand what you are saying here, clarify please.
If marriage is the manual, i want pic for there most be one on the net.

scigirl shot this one out of the water, and your response seems to agree with hers. So this is a bunch of Dingo Kidneys

Since you found out about this secret of theirs, you must have all sorts of sources and links to prove this point.

WOW, this came out of left field. HOW IS PEDOPHILE CONNECTED TO HOMOSEXUALITY!!!! Sources, links please!
How does this relate to your case that gay marriages destroy the moral fabric of society or nation.

Now this seems to be an important issue to you. Ether you are blowing off steam (in which case you can do this on more sympathetic forums, ether that or you are a troll.) or you want to convince us that you are right. If you are here to convince us that you are right then provide sources. The only other case, since you have been on the thread for a long time is that you are a troll. I do not think you are a troll, but until you start giving evidence to convince us, that is what people are going to think of you.

Treat it like a court case, bring your evidence with you. For nothing is obvious or true until shown proof in the siltiest degree. If you have, it has been done poorly in which case you will need to do so again. Until you are willing to defend your stronger points with evidence. You have a unfounded opinion based on blind faith, in which case you are in the wrong part of the net. Also since negatives are easier to prove than positives (in most cases.), it should be easy for you to find evidance and to tell us were WE can find this evidence. Until then, you are just as bad as one who does not provide evdence to the claim that Christianity destroys the moral fabric of our society.
--Spiff

Vylo

There is nothing immoral about homosexuality, and the moral infastructure can adjust so as to accept these people.

miscorrelation. Look into more sociological studies and it is actually the gender revolution and the dual working class family that has produced role confusion pertaining to gender.

soulofdarwin

Yes, and unveiling that illusion is such great fun!

yguy

Actually, I've tried to clarify dozens of times, only to have people distort my clarifications to the point where they are unrecognizable.

Then I guess you're talking to the wrong guy.

If you have not the time to look within yourselves, I can't help you.

I didn't say gender confusion was caused by homosexuality. If anything, it would be the reverse.

It is patent that "homosexual marriage" robs the child of one gender role model. It is intuitively obvious to me, at least,that such deprivation encourages gender confusion. No one here has substantially challenged this, preferring instead to essentially claim that gender confusion isn't a problem.

NO, it's like saying not all Christians support bombing of abortion clinics, but that they can be expected to be disproportionately supportive of such acts.

That quote is too old for me to even remember what I meant it to relate to, and I'm not gonna plow through the previous pages to try to reconstruct my logic, so you figure it out.

Having read this far, it is odiously evident to me that you're not worth the effort. Toodles.

PandaJoe

You've got this wrong. You're the one talking to the wrong people. You said that you came here to debate the reasons people don't beleive in god. But how can you do that when you don't even accept the standards of evidence we use, and refuse to use them when you debate? You won't convince anyone here of anything, so why bother trying?

yguy

Why is that your concern?