Almost Smart  

Go Back   Almost Smart > The Lounge > Debate & Politics

Debate & Politics Fight! Fight! Fight! Keep your arguments clean, and be constructive about getting your point across.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 1 Week Ago   #1
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,744
Rep Power: 57
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Australia, Please Do the Right Thing On the Marriage Issue

Two women can be good mothers, but no woman can be a great loving father like a man can. Two men can be great fathers, but no man can be a great loving mother than a woman can. If two women or two men are willing to deliberately and intentionally deny any child the chance at being raised by a loving father or a loving mother, one could easily and rightfully argue that, even with good intentions, they are not so great and not so loving as parents after all.

You don’t see a problem with two male same sex couples using a woman’s womb and DNA to have a baby or two women using a man for his sperm and DNA to have a baby. As long as the child is loved by the same sex couple right? Love is love? Same sex couples can be excellent parents, right?
Ok then… well seeing as biology is insignificant, and maternal love is replaceable and paternal love is replaceable, which of YOUR parents don’t YOU need? Shall we deliberately and intentionally remove your mother or father from YOUR life?

WHICH ONE? You must choose. And it shouldn’t matter given you’re endorsing fatherless and motherless parenting arrangements for other people. Which of your parents shall we snuff out? Your mother or your father? Go on. Which one?

And if you say that your father was a jerk, so you’d snuff him out, well you’re proving the point. And if you say you’d snuff your mother out, because she was awful or abandoned you, you’re proving the point. You missed that maternal and paternal love that is inbuilt in us as human beings. It is natural. It is essential. If you hate your parents for hurting you and you’d choose for one or both to not exist, it’s because you’re hurting. You KNOW, deep down that a mother is a nurturer and you know that a father is a protector.

The pain is from rejection. So why are you supporting something that deliberately deprives other kids of something so essential and so precious to the human experience?

Here are the most common objections from same sex “marriage” advocates and homosexual activists whenever you make a case for family structure equality, which is inherent in one man-one woman marriage.
They are variations of the same argument…

“My dad abused or neglected me, so children don’t need a mother or a father.”

“My mom abused or neglected me, so children don’t need a mother or a father.”

“My husband abused or neglected our children, so children don’t need a mother or a father.”

“My wife abused or neglected our children, so children don’t need a mother or a father.”

(These arguments usually include name-calling and ad hominem attacks directed toward natural marriage proponents).

So they are comparing (and trying to justify) same sex parenting to losses and shortcomings that happen (and often don’t happen intentionally) within the natural nuclear family.

Their argument is essentially this: “My father or mother abused or neglected me (or my husband or wife abused or neglected my children) therefore I think it is okay that other children be deliberately and intentionally denied any chance at the experiencing of being raised by both a loving mother and a loving father.”

Essentially they're saying that a man and a woman who marry go into it with the intention of divorcing after they have children so they can deliberately deny their child of being raised and loved by one or the other? So you are also saying that there like with same sex couples, there is never the chance in the context of single parent homes that an opposite sex partner can come into the relationship and help raise and love the child? Are we having a problem recognizing the distinction and difference between the meaning of the word accidental and deliberate or intentional? Last buyt not least, as the point was made earlier, the loss and the heartache of losing one or both parents only illustrates why we shouldn't promote the idea that doing so intentionally is a positive good, so why not thing twice before engaging in a "two wrongs make it a right" argument?

They seem to have a difficult time understanding the difference between situations that are ACCIDENTAL and situations that are INTENTIONAL/DELIBERATE, which shows lack of common sense and complete ignorance. Or, they do not want to acknowledge the difference, which shows them to be disingenuous and full of malice toward other children for the hurt and loss they themselves experienced. In other words, they suffered as children or have seen children suffer these accidental losses (e.g. single parents, infertility, foster homes, adoption via death or divorce or abandonment), so it doesn’t really matter if we promote family structure inequalities where other children by design (e.g. same sex parenting, sperm donorship and commercial surrogacy, abortion) suffer the same kind of losses.

Also consider the following…

(1.) The biological definition of marriage treats everybody equally. Every adult already has the opportunity and the chance to marry another adult of the opposite sex, whether they choose to or want to or not for whatever reason.

(2.) There has never been a law that prevented two adult people of the same sex to have a commitment ceremony and reception. (There has always been plenty of heretical/apostate churches and ministers, pastors, deacons, priests, etc to chose from).

(3.) There has never been a law preventing two adults of the same sex to draw up and agree to a legal contract sharing wills, estates, hospital visitation, retirement pensions, etc. (How many attorneys in the country are there?). As a matter of fact, in Australia, these are all the benefits same sex couples already get in Australia via "civil unions," so we should ask ourselves why do they still want to change the definition of marriage, which will legally remove biological roots and connections from children and their parents?...

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsib...-relationships.

(4.) The federal government does not and has never issued marriage licenses to anybody. Equality of people within the institution of marriage would always include both sexes (male and female), not all kinds of (sexual and romantic) behaviors.

Same sex relationships and so-called same sex “marriage” excludes one sex or the other. That is not equality. There is absolutely nothing equal about that. As a matter of fact, it’s actually promoting a form of segregation. Same sex “marriage” is actually comparable to the promotion of a form of marriage that excludes one race with another (interracial marriage ban that is advocated by racists).

Promoting the exclusion of one race or one biological sex are both promoting segregation, regardless of whether or not men and women can still marry each other.

It is not a good thing to have a law that promotes segregation as just as good or the same as inclusion of both sexes. Just like the ban of interracial marriages that promoted segregation by race within the institution of marriage as a positive good, same sex “marriage” promotes segregation of the sexes within the institution of marriage as a positive good.

Same sex “marriage” really means, “gender-neutral marriage,” and gender neutral “marriage” means that we must erase the concept of biological connections within the legal code. This was actually the same way they treated black slaves within the legal code during the time of slavery. Same sex partner custody disputes are handled the same way they treated family members and children of slaves; (1.) The government can give a child to somebody who is not related to the child by blood or adoption, (2.) the natural parent did not consent to an adoption (adoption requires consent or being found unfit), (3.) the natural parent was never found unfit or even accused of being a bad parent– the natural parent wanted the child. We don’t see all of these features in custody disputes involving only a father and a mother. Why are same sex partner custody disputes as a result of the legalization of same sex “marriage” triggering an experience that resembles slavery?

Whether they know it or not, advocates of same sex “marriage,” at least in their reasoning, have more in common with racists who were/are against interracial marriages.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 1 Week Ago at 06:32 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
australia, biology, children's rights, family, marriage


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stop the American Community Survey!! Madre Debate & Politics 21 05-16-2012 11:49 PM
Proposition 8 foxyphoenix Front Page 160 12-24-2008 06:12 PM
Same Sex Marriage Debate Dill Doe Debate & Politics 298 05-19-2008 01:34 PM
australia pictures! RubberDucky55 The Blog 9 08-14-2006 04:09 PM
Gay Marriage hai Jay Debate & Politics 322 06-16-2004 11:19 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2000 - 2006, Almost Smart