[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
I have attributed comments you were likely to say By all means correct me if I was wrong to think you would say those or something similar.

I'm glad you can't follow a simple debate, as you have posted comments and I have questioned them, I also anticipated what you may say and addressed them. This in no way tilts the arguments to my side but rather expresses those that which I have most commonly encountered by those with similar views to your own. This is basic reasoning here.

I also don't recall being angry, much less infuriated. I think amused is a better word, as you enter into the debate forum and then expect to just post and not be questioned? Its just rather....silly. See in a debate when you say something you back it up. So kindly don't mind the rest of us as we ignore you until you do so

I know how to debate, thanks. On this occasion, I was just looking for a rise from people. I love how passionate people get when you go against the groove. I'd rather not be a mindless sheep, though.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
I know how to debate, thanks. On this occasion, I was just looking for a rise from people. I love how passionate people get when you go against the groove. I'd rather not be a mindless sheep, though.

Says the one who hasn't backed up their stance.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Says the one who hasn't backed up their stance.

Which, as we all know, must mean that I don't have reasons for my belief. I have reached a conclusion, somehow, without any reason for it. Great logic.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Which, as we all know, must mean that I don't have reasons for my belief. I have reached a conclusion, somehow, without any reason for it. Great logic.

Now who is putting words into people's mouths?

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Now who is putting words into people's mouths?

Who is?

Mine was a speculative comment aimed at mocking any inferences you had made. Sorry, I forgot subtlety doesn't appear in your skill set.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Who is?

Mine was a speculative comment aimed at mocking any inferences you had made. Sorry, I forgot subtlety doesn't appear in your skill set.

inferences I had made? What did I infer? Merely that you were acting like the thing you claim others to be. Mindless sheep don't give reasoning. You decided that I meant that you didn't have any.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
inferences I had made? What did I infer? Merely that you were acting like the thing you claim others to be. Mindless sheep don't give reasoning. You decided that I meant that you didn't have any.

Erm, okay...

Mindless sheep, to me, equals someone who doesn't know why they have the belief they do. The only reason they espouse the belief is because everyone else does. Hence, mindless + sheep.

Not giving a reason is not the same as not having a reason. You have conflated the two.

In conclusion, my response was warranted.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Erm, okay...

Mindless sheep, to me, equals someone who doesn't know why they have the belief they do. The only reason they espouse the belief is because everyone else does. Hence, mindless + sheep.

Not giving a reason is not the same as not having a reason. You have conflated the two.

In conclusion, my response was warranted.

A mindless sheep does not give reasons for their beliefs. You are acting like a mindless sheep by not giving reasoning for your beliefs. I never claimed you were a mindless sheep. As I said I inferred that you were acting like one I haven't conflated anything. You seem not understand the difference between acting like something and being something.

EDIT: Anyway this is all off topic, and completely irrelevant. If you aren't going to provide reasoning we will ignore you. End of.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
A mindless sheep does not give reasons for their beliefs. You are acting like a mindless sheep by not giving reasoning for your beliefs. I never claimed you were a mindless sheep. As I said I inferred that you were acting like one I haven't conflated anything. You seem not understand the difference between acting like something and being something.

EDIT: Anyway this is all off topic, and completely irrelevant. If you aren't going to provide reasoning we will ignore you. End of.

Erm, you obviously don't understand definitions.

I will not be bullied into giving a reason.

Well done, you have again managed to make up some points and then dissect them. You even included the 'rolleyes' smilies. Bravo.

[Skyelight]

I find it interesting watching these debates as they quite quickly relapse into point gaining and cheap shots at someone you don't even know.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by Sheldor)
So you're saying gay people shouldn't marry because they can't have kids?What about heterosexual sterile couples? Heterosexual Couples that don't want children? Should they be prevented from marrying? Gay couples can have a family/children, through surrogates and adoption of children who would otherwise spend their loves in the care system. Family will not be destroyed as it has precisely no impact on your life. It might change the life of a foster kid, or 2 women/men that love each other, but society and it's social fabric will remain the same. Except, maybe with a few more wedding rings.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

No i'm not saying that sterile couples shouldn't marry, why? well because they can take other routes to have kids, and the family unit stays intact.

A family unit consists of a Mother and Father and their kids. Gay couples do not have this concept.
And yes you may say "what about people who have no mum or no dad, does that mean they don't have the ideal family unit?" Well at least there was the idea in the kids mind of a mother and father. And yes i do have friends who have no parents, so i know what i'm talking about.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
People don't push for 'gay marriage' for the sake of just progression. (maybe some do) but most people push for it because it is discrimination that has no rational basis. There is no logical reason that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry each other. It has nothing to do with whether it was taboo or not. It just happens that it was. They are being denied the right to marry and many feel they shouldn't be denied this.

Care to explain how gay married couples destroy the idea of family if as you say, "The main reason for being married is because couples have the intention to start a family." Homosexuals can adopt, and can create families, and many want to do so...so logically they should be allowed to marry by that reasoning. Of course that reasoning is also flawed in that not everyone who marries has to intend to have or create a family. There are plenty of people who just get married and never have children or start a 'family'. You seem to think that a family can only be when there is a mother and father and children...what do you call married couples without children? They are family. What about single moms (or dads) with children? They are a family too. What about when two parents separate and share custody and one of the parents is homosexual? That is still a family too. Your definition is far too limited to be applicable.

The idea of a family as having a mum and dad, you see because a female and male can reproduce and create a family. Granted, sometimes some can't but they can take other routes.
Within a gay couple who are married there is no mum or dad. There are 2 dads or 2 mums. That means a child who has been adopted into a gay family grows up without one type of parent on purpose. Even if the parents were divorced a child would still know that they have both a mum AND dad. Where as a child who has 2 dads who are married will never have the concept of a mother. So that is denied to the child.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
As I said earlier, you can't compare a consensual relationship between two adults that harms nobody to a relationship that is very hard to determine if it is consensual or not that causes harm to future children.
It's not to do with acceptability, it's to do with the fact that they aren't the same.



So, people who don't want kids can't get married because they destroy the idea of family. People who are infertile destroy the idea of family. Women can't get married post-menopause because it destroys the idea of family.
But, gay people can have kids if they want to, with help from the sperm/eggs of someone from outside the couple; so they actually would be allowed to marry by your own definition.

And having kids isn't the purpose of marriage, and you don't have to have kids to be a family.

No, sterile couples can have children by another route, but at least this provides the children with both a mother and a father. If a childs parents are divorced at least they have still have a mother and father. Whereas if a homosexual couple adopts then the idea of a mother/father is denied as they have only one type of parent i.e. 2 dads or 2 mums.
Even if a kid knows their mum, then they would have 2 dads and 1 mum, ponder for a moment the effect on the childs mind growing up, thinking that to make a baby they need 2 dads and 1 mum, or that it's normal to have 2 dads.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
The idea of a family as having a mum and dad, you see because a female and male can reproduce and create a family. Granted, sometimes some can't but they can take other routes.
Within a gay couple who are married there is no mum or dad. There are 2 dads or 2 mums. That means a child who has been adopted into a gay family grows up without one type of parent on purpose. Even if the parents were divorced a child would still know that they have both a mum AND dad. Where as a child who has 2 dads who are married will never have the concept of a mother. So that is denied to the child.

Funny you should say that, as homosexuals can take the same routes.

And as far as being 'denied' a mother or father, children don't have a right to a mother or father, or a mother and father. I don't really understand what your point is. A child who has two gay males as parents will still have a concept of what a mother is, and may even have a mother figure (an egg is in fact needed to create a child) so, your point is completely null. And besides all this studies have shown that children raised by homosexual couples are generally not significantly different than children from heterosexual families (there are some differences but nothing that is relevant to what is being discussed)

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Funny you should say that, as homosexuals can take the same routes.

And as far as being 'denied' a mother or father, children don't have a right to a mother or father, or a mother and father. I don't really understand what your point is. A child who has two gay males as parents will still have a concept of what a mother is, and may even have a mother figure (an egg is in fact needed to create a child) so, your point is completely null. And besides all this studies have shown that children raised by homosexual couples are generally not significantly different than children from heterosexual families (there are some differences but nothing that is relevant to what is being discussed)

A mother figure can never replace an actual mother. What do you mean children don't have a right to a mother and father?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
A mother figure can never replace an actual mother. What do you mean children don't have a right to a mother and father?

I mean exactly that. You say they are being denied something as if they have a right to have both a mother and father...but that is not the case. Biologically they will still have a mother so they aren't being denied having a mother (biological) so..if anything they are being denied a mother in a family but that isn't something children need or have a right to. There are plenty of single fathers and the children come out fine, nor are they being 'denied' anything that is...unacceptable.

And when I said mother figure, it could even be the biological mother. Not all couples separate completely from the surrogate parent or adoptive parents.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
It causes harm to society.

No it doesn't. Prove it.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
No it doesn't. Prove it.

Don't have to. You can't force me to. How does that make you feel?

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Don't have to. You can't force me to. How does that make you feel?

Of course I can't, but if you can't back up your points then they are rendered wrong and illogical. Unless you can prove it, it is assumed to be wrong within a debate. By all means, don't reply, but it only proves my point.

[Wangers]

(Original post by The Mr Z)
There was a time, just over half a century ago now, when marriage was defined as a union between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman, but never a white man and a black woman or black man and white woman.

There was a time before that when it was just between a white man and white woman.

And when it was a white, Christian man and white, Christian woman.

A white, Roman Catholic man and white, Roman Catholic woman.

One of these days it will be a union between a human and a human. One day we may even drop that restriction, and it will be between two sentient beings. The sooner we accept this and embrace it the better. There will always be intolerance and fear of change, but our greatness as a species is defined by our ability to overcome that, to move beyond it and transcend it.

Zefram Cochrane can't come quickly enough.