SCOTUS and Gay Marriage

[Conga3]

I thought his point was rather clear -- and it must just be the position/angle I view this topic -- but sd'sker's logic jump that implies RedTooth must mean they should feel bad for thinking they want to feel better isn't a thought process I very much respect.

 

A logical person will conclude that the sentence can be read either way. You're projecting.

 

 

 

EDIT - and, since it's (apparently) important to you, no, I did not +1 that post, as you can see here. I could, but then he'd have two, and that would (apparently?) be an even bigger concern...

 

That's so obviously Photoshop'd Knapplc. Just admit you +1'd it and forged a screenshot to show the +1 button.

 

--

 

Inference & projecting...we are getting off topic.

[knapplc]

I have Paint on this computer. Not shopped at all. But since it was an issue, I went back and gave that post a +1. Someone else did, too. Now it's up to +3, so you're losing the debate even worse now.

[sd'sker]

The easiest way for the redefinition of marriage crowd to debate the topic is to make it about religion. But it's really not about religion (there are plenty of atheists who support marriage). And it's not about rights (if it was, the fight would be about civil union recognition, not about redefining marriage). It's about making people who deviate from the norm feel good about themselves.

are you saying gays should feel bad about themselves?

How do you now understand his point? Disappoint.

i understood his point, i even agreed with it until the last part. honestly, i was just trying to get a clarification. it was ambiguously stated and seemed derisive.

[Conga3]

I have Paint on this computer. Not shopped at all. But since it was an issue, I went back and gave that post a +1. Someone else did, too. Now it's up to +3, so you're losing the debate even worse now.

I was just joking about the screenshot... just trying to bring some levity and the end to an absurdly serious and irrelevant sidebar in this thread.

 

I'm a firm believer that the ::: icon should never be used unless you're being ironic -- but you should never be ironic about sarcasm cause you just look like a jerk.

 

I was so sure the 'tongue' smiley would accurately present my post... You failed me 'tongue' smiley.

 

--

 

I agree - it is now very clear I'm losing the debate about sd'skers reply due to +1's. Damn you anonymous rep votes!

 

More importantly I'm getting bored.

[Conga3]

The easiest way for the redefinition of marriage crowd to debate the topic is to make it about religion. But it's really not about religion (there are plenty of atheists who support marriage). And it's not about rights (if it was, the fight would be about civil union recognition, not about redefining marriage). It's about making people who deviate from the norm feel good about themselves.

are you saying gays should feel bad about themselves?

How do you now understand his point? Disappoint.

i understood his point, i even agreed with it until the last part. honestly,i was just trying to get a clarification. it was ambiguously stated and seemed derisive.

Agreed. I get ya... and that's what spawned my post.

 

But those lemmings who +1'd ya thought you were being derisive back and got in a good counter jab into a bigot...which if that was the intent -- also disappoint...cause as you said, his post was rather ambiguous, and we should all assume everyone is sugar and candies, until they prove otherwise. Then we should rain shame down on them in the most extreme forms possible. (without violating board rules)

[sd'sker]

my statement did have a punch to it, but it was asked in earnest. it is pretty dismissive to view this rather large issue as nothing more than trying to help people feel better about themselves. i did not like how it was worded, but was curious for further elaboration.

[Junior]

I have Paint on this computer. Not shopped at all. But since it was an issue, I went back and gave that post a +1. Someone else did, too. Now it's up to +3, so you're losing the debate even worse now.

 

I gave it a +1 just for funsies.

[sd'sker]

I have Paint on this computer. Not shopped at all. But since it was an issue, I went back and gave that post a +1. Someone else did, too. Now it's up to +3, so you're losing the debate even worse now.

 

I gave it a +1 just for funsies.

is that not the whole point of +1's? they are just fun.

[carlfense]

I have Paint on this computer. Not shopped at all. But since it was an issue, I went back and gave that post a +1. Someone else did, too. Now it's up to +3, so you're losing the debate even worse now.

 

I gave it a +1 just for funsies.

is that not the whole point of +1's? they are just fun.

We can't use them for airline miles or anything?

[Conga3]

Curious about your thoughts...

 

You are a child placement officer at an adoption agency.

 

Your job is to screen potential couples for adoption, and place children with the most deserving couple who present the best opportunity for the child.

 

---

 

A gay couple applies April 1st.

A heterosexual couple applies April 2nd.

 

All things being EQUAL in terms of what you are supposed to look at (income, stability, home environment, etc...)

 

... do you consider it justifiable prejudice to give the heterosexual couple preference/priority over the gay couple and place them with a child first on the grounds they win the tie-breaker because they present both a male and female role-model?

 

---

 

I ask this because one of the major reasons I'm for allowing gay marriage is adoption and my belief in stable relationships and dual parent family structures in society.

 

When considering the above example though, I find myself comfortable saying - all things equal, I'd give preference to the heterosexual couple over the gay couple.

 

This obviously means I feel gay couples are in some way inferior to heterosexual couples due to a lack of gender role-model variety.

 

I often contemplate the weight I would give it - if it were a scoring system - because it's never the case all things are equal.

 

I think it's important enough factor to not be negligible but certainly not a top priority.

 

---

[Landlord]

Curious about your thoughts...

 

You are a child placement officer at an adoption agency.

 

Your job is to screen potential couples for adoption, and place children with the most deserving couple who present the best opportunity for the child.

 

---

 

A gay couple applies April 1st.

A heterosexual couple applies April 2nd.

 

All things being EQUAL in terms of what you are supposed to look at (income, stability, home environment, etc...)

 

... do you consider it justifiable prejudice to give the heterosexual couple preference/priority over the gay couple and place them with a child first on the grounds they win the tie-breaker because they present both a male and female role-model?

 

---

 

I ask this because one of the major reasons I'm for allowing gay marriage is adoption and my belief in stable relationships and dual parent family structures in society.

 

When considering the above example though, I find myself comfortable saying - all things equal, I'd give preference to the heterosexual couple over the gay couple.

 

This obviously means I feel gay couples are in some way inferior to heterosexual couples due to a lack of gender role-model variety.

 

I often contemplate the weight I would give it - if it were a scoring system - because it's never the case all things are equal.

 

I think it's important enough factor to not be negligible but certainly not a top priority.

 

---

 

 

 

I would absolutely without any question give preference to the heterosexual couple.

 

Men and women are different. It's just true. Equal, but different. I don't think there's any getting around the truth that both roles are incredibly important in raising children to be self-aware and confident and secure in their identity.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Curious about your thoughts...

 

You are a child placement officer at an adoption agency.

 

Your job is to screen potential couples for adoption, and place children with the most deserving couple who present the best opportunity for the child.

 

---

 

A gay couple applies April 1st.

A heterosexual couple applies April 2nd.

 

All things being EQUAL in terms of what you are supposed to look at (income, stability, home environment, etc...)

 

... do you consider it justifiable prejudice to give the heterosexual couple preference/priority over the gay couple and place them with a child first on the grounds they win the tie-breaker because they present both a male and female role-model?

 

---

 

I ask this because one of the major reasons I'm for allowing gay marriage is adoption and my belief in stable relationships and dual parent family structures in society.

 

When considering the above example though, I find myself comfortable saying - all things equal, I'd give preference to the heterosexual couple over the gay couple.

 

This obviously means I feel gay couples are in some way inferior to heterosexual couples due to a lack of gender role-model variety.

 

I often contemplate the weight I would give it - if it were a scoring system - because it's never the case all things are equal.

 

I think it's important enough factor to not be negligible but certainly not a top priority.

 

---

 

 

 

I would absolutely without any question give preference to the heterosexual couple.

 

Men and women are different. It's just true. Equal, but different. I don't think there's any getting around the truth that both roles are incredibly important in raising children to be self-aware and confident and secure in their identity.

 

Research time!

[Junior]

I have Paint on this computer. Not shopped at all. But since it was an issue, I went back and gave that post a +1. Someone else did, too. Now it's up to +3, so you're losing the debate even worse now.

 

I gave it a +1 just for funsies.

is that not the whole point of +1's? they are just fun.

 

Good point, +1 for you, good sir.

 

I amend my statement. I gave it a +1 to annoy the person whining about people who +1-ed your other post!

[carlfense]

Men and women are different. It's just true. Equal, but different.

Separate but equal.

[Conga3]

Men and women are different. It's just true. Equal, but different.

Separate but equal.

Equal under human's laws.

Different under nature's laws.

 

 

... and not always separate.

 

 

Hermaphrodites!!!!