Gay marriage - 'shameful'?

[esme]

Why are you continuing to argue with Harvey?...

That's worth a thread in it's own right.

 

Why do we argue with people who espouse intolerance or injustice providing little more justification for these views than "because that's the way it has always been" ?

 

Because publicly expressed views which condone or support intolerance or injustice need to be rebutted publicly.

 

Otherwise if there is no rebuttal then these viewpoints stand alone and may serve to convince others they are correct because no one argues against them.

 

We explore these viewpoints by debating and attempt to show the reasoning behind them to be false.

 

So I know there is no chance of ever changing harveys mind, that isn't why I argue with him or with anyone else, I argue so that other people can make their own minds up which is the more compelling side of the argument from the exchange.

[Jessica23]

That's worth a thread in it's own right.

 

Why do we argue with people who espouse intolerance or injustice providing little more justification for these views than "because that's the way it has always been" ?

 

Because publicly expressed views which condone or support intolerance or injustice need to be rebutted publicly.

 

Otherwise if there is no rebuttal then these viewpoints stand alone and may serve to convince others they are correct because no one argues against them.

 

We explore these viewpoints by debating and attempt to show the reasoning behind them to be false.

 

So I know there is no chance of ever changing harveys mind, that isn't why I argue with him or with anyone else, I argue so that other people can make their own minds up which is the more compelling side of the argument from the exchange.

 

This. Precisely this.

 

The one and only reason that I continue to get involved in threads to do with gender and sexuality on this forum is that it makes me feel everso slightly sick to think that otherwise thousands of people might potentially read the uneducated, bigoted, narrow-minded crap that constitutes a lot of the contribution on here on those topics and accept them as unchallenged fact.

[ronthenekred]

I think I have answered all questions put to me in a logical reasonable way and not ducked any.

The debate is repeating itself and so becoming circular and boring so it's probably time for me to leave.

Sometimes we have to agree to differ but may all couples of whatever sex and whatever union they enter into have happy lives together without prejudice or envy.

 

:huh:All very well but how do you achieve this considering your bigotry? Please don't answer with "I've already answered" because it's quite clear you haven't. How do you juggle "without prejudice" with prejudice?

[Halibut]

Yes, ONE of them. So we have established that same sex couples do not create life - male/female couplings do.

 

No we haven't. Same sex couples can and do bring life into being. That they might do so through means other than sexual intercourse (although some do by having said intercourse with a third party) is of course true.

 

Many sensible people will say that this does not diminish the value of the couples who have children in these circumstances, nor does it diminish the amount of love, care and nurture that the children born to them receive.

 

 

Others - I suspect you're one of them - will seek to diminish and slight those who chose to conceive children in these unconventional ways and to suggest that children of same sex parents are somehow missing out or destined to be dysfunctional or, God forbid, gay themselves. The outdated notion that children born to gay parents are more likely to be gay themselves has been solidly disproven and if you think that one's sexual preferences are the most important factor in what constitutes good parenting you're very wide of the mark.

[ronthenekred]

 

 

Others - I suspect you're one of them

 

 

Far to kind.

[Plain Talker]

The outdated notion that children born to gay parents are more likely to be gay themselves has been solidly disproven and if you think that one's sexual preferences are the most important factor in what constitutes good parenting you're very wide of the mark.

 

your comment is bang on the button, Halibut. If having gay parents is a factor in producing children who grow up to be gay, then how come straight parents can produce gay kids, and not kids who are totally straight?

[Cyclone]

That's worth a thread in it's own right.

 

Why do we argue with people who espouse intolerance or injustice providing little more justification for these views than "because that's the way it has always been" ?

 

Because publicly expressed views which condone or support intolerance or injustice need to be rebutted publicly.

 

Otherwise if there is no rebuttal then these viewpoints stand alone and may serve to convince others they are correct because no one argues against them.

 

We explore these viewpoints by debating and attempt to show the reasoning behind them to be false.

 

So I know there is no chance of ever changing harveys mind, that isn't why I argue with him or with anyone else, I argue so that other people can make their own minds up which is the more compelling side of the argument from the exchange.

 

Well said, it's a good enough reason to keep discussing something even when the opposite party just repeats themselves and their illogic.

[harvey19]

I have given logical reasoned arguments based on fact.

Maybe if some posters stood back and viewed the arguments objectively they would realise this.

[HeadingNorth]

I have given logical reasoned arguments based on fact.

 

In which posts? Could you link directly to them, since the thread is now ridiculously long and it's unfeasible to go and look?

 

Any example of an argument which is not circular will suffice to prove Karis wrong.

[barleycorn]

I have given logical reasoned arguments based on fact.

Maybe if some posters stood back and viewed the arguments objectively they would realise this.

 

Really? I must have blinked and missed it.

 

jb