Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

[Syriusly]

Incest is sex between blood relatives
Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
Both are acts

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.

No- the one being willfully dishonest is of course you.

As I said-
Incest is sex between blood relatives
Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
Both are acts

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.

Sexual attraction is different from sexual actions.

The desire to engage in sexual behavior with someone of the same sex as yourself may be an “orientation”, but actually doing it is an action. Just like a father having sex with his daughter..

Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.

Silhouette wants to equate actions- incest and polygamy- with sexual orientation- homosexuality and heterosexuality.

And they are not the same.

 

[Syriusly]

Incest is sex between blood relatives
Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
Both are acts

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.

No- the one being willfully dishonest is of course you.

As I said-
Incest is sex between blood relatives
Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
Both are acts

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.

Sexual attraction is different from sexual actions.

Again, you're being willfully dishonest, trying to argue that homosexuality is different than incest,.

Once again you are being dishonest
Homosexuality and heterosexuality both are defined by attractions to a specific gender- not by any action

Incest is an action- that is illegal. It is not an sexual orientation.

It is like saying greed is the same thing as theft.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.

Both are equally immoral and deviant. That the law recognizes one as “acceptable” and the other as not, only shows how inconsistent and irrational the law can sometimes be. And if present trends continue, toward normalizing and accepting sexual immorality, then surely we will see the time when incest will be just as legal, and just as normalized, as homosexuality.

 

[Skylar]

Incest is sex between blood relatives
Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
Both are acts

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.

That you cannot tell the difference between a man having sex with his daughter- and 21 year old man being attracted to other men- is both disgusting- and not surprising.

You're being willfully dishonest, creating a distinction that doesn't exist.

All of these are deviant desires, on which one may be tempted to act.

If by one, you mean the *same* one, generally speaking folks pick a favorite.

There is no meaningful difference between a man who has one deviant sexual attraction, and a man who has another, if both do not act on them.

So there is no meaningful difference between say.....oral sex....and child molestation? You may not be able to discern a difference....but a rational person could.

 

[Skylar]

Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.

Both are equally immoral and deviant.

Immoral and deviant according to who?

Bob, you're just offering us the same bone stupid 'Begging the Question' fallacy that you always do. You arbitrarily label something. And then demand that we must judge it by your label.

Um, no. There's no such mandate. And you can't make a rational argument for homosexuality being immoral. 'Deviant'? That's just different than normal. By that standard, being left handed is 'deviant'. Being blue eyed is 'deviant'. Being circumsized is 'deviant'.

That the law recognizes one as “acceptable” and the other as not, only shows how inconsistent and irrational the law can sometimes be. And if present trends continue, toward normalizing and accepting sexual immorality, then surely we will see the time when incest will be just as legal, and just as normalized, as homosexuality.

Inconsistent with what? Your personal opinion? Remember, an act doesn't become 'immoral' because you imagine it is. And you can provide no rational basis for your claim.

And why would a rational person care if a law is inconsistent with your personal opinion. Um, bob.....you're nobody.

 

[Skylar]

Back in the 60s interracial sex was considered 'deviant' and 'immoral'. By your standards, Bob...the moment we decriminalized interracial sex, incest was on the table. Because if you accept one 'deviant, immoral' behavior, you have to accept them all.

Two problems with your reasoning. First, calling something 'immoral' and 'deviant' doesn't make it so. Second, your logic doesn't follow. As interracial sex has nothing to do with incest. Or pedophilia. Or homosexuality, for that matter.

Your argument's flaws are structural. You haven't yet learned *how* to reason. Somebody did you a grave disservice in convincing you that something must be true because you believe it.

As your personal belief alone is the basis of every argument you make. And no one gives a shit what you believe.

 

[Syriusly]

Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.

Both are equally immoral and deviant. That the law recognizes one as “acceptable” and the other as not,

According to who?

You?

You are no different than the moralist who tells us that sex between a black woman and a white woman is 'immoral and deviant'.

 

[Syriusly]

Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.

Both are equally immoral and deviant. That the law recognizes one as “acceptable” and the other as not, only shows how inconsistent and irrational the law can sometimes be. And if present trends continue, toward normalizing and accepting sexual immorality, then surely we will see the time when incest will be just as legal, and just as normalized, as homosexuality.

Poor Bob- according to him society has gone steadily down hill since we stopped stoning adulterers.

 

[Skylar]

Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.

Both are equally immoral and deviant. That the law recognizes one as “acceptable” and the other as not, only shows how inconsistent and irrational the law can sometimes be. And if present trends continue, toward normalizing and accepting sexual immorality, then surely we will see the time when incest will be just as legal, and just as normalized, as homosexuality.

Poor Bob- according to him society has gone steadily down hill since we stopped stoning adulterers.

You let one 'immoral' and 'deviant' behavior go....you have to let them all I guess. At least according to Bob.

 

[Syriusly]

Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.

Both are equally immoral and deviant. That the law recognizes one as “acceptable” and the other as not, only shows how inconsistent and irrational the law can sometimes be. And if present trends continue, toward normalizing and accepting sexual immorality, then surely we will see the time when incest will be just as legal, and just as normalized, as homosexuality.

Poor Bob- according to him society has gone steadily down hill since we stopped stoning adulterers.

You let one 'immoral' and 'deviant' behavior go....you have to let them all I guess. At least according to Bob.

It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....

 

[Silhouette]

It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....

Quite a large leap from your hyperbole there to legally divorcing a child from even the hope of both a mother and father for life...

 

[Skylar]

It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....

Quite a large leap from your hyperbole there to legally divorcing a child from even the hope of both a mother and father for life...

Its not a leap at all when the idiocy you're arguing against is 'there is no difference'. When silly people try to argue absolutes, they should hardly be surprised when we point out how silly that is.

 

[Silhouette]

It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....

Quite a large leap from your hyperbole there to legally divorcing a child from even the hope of both a mother and father for life...

Its not a leap at all when the idiocy you're arguing against is 'there is no difference'. When silly people try to argue absolutes, they should hardly be surprised when we point out how silly that is.

Unless the shoe fits...

Tell me again how it is that two gay men, married, still offer the contractual-benefit (importance) to children involved of a mother, for their entire life? Tell me again how it is that two lesbians, married, still offer the contractual-benefit (importance) to children involved of a father, for their entire life?

 

[Skylar]

It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....

Quite a large leap from your hyperbole there to legally divorcing a child from even the hope of both a mother and father for life...

Its not a leap at all when the idiocy you're arguing against is 'there is no difference'. When silly people try to argue absolutes, they should hardly be surprised when we point out how silly that is.

Unless the shoe fits...

Tell me again how it is that two gay men, married, still offer the contractual-benefit (importance) to children involved of a mother, for their entire life? Tell me again how it is that two lesbians, married, still offer the contractual-benefit (importance) to children involved of a father, for their entire life?

Tell me again how denying marriage to same sex parents remedies any 'problem' you've cited?

For example, if a lesbian couple has a child.....and the State denies the lesbian couple marriage, do they magically become an opposite sex parents?

 

[Syriusly]

It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....

Quite a large leap from your hyperbole there to legally divorcing a child from even the hope of both a mother and father for life...

Quite a leap to think that parents divorce their children.

Oh wait- heterosexual parents do abandon their children and they are left in foster care waiting for some caring parent or parents to adopt them.

You want to prevent those children from having any parent- just so that you can prevent a homosexual from adopting.

 

[Syriusly]

It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....

Quite a large leap from your hyperbole there to legally divorcing a child from even the hope of both a mother and father for life...

Its not a leap at all when the idiocy you're arguing against is 'there is no difference'. When silly people try to argue absolutes, they should hardly be surprised when we point out how silly that is.

Unless the shoe fits...

Tell me again how it is that two gay men, married, still offer the contractual-benefit (importance) to children involved of a mother, for their entire life? Tell me again how it is that two lesbians, married, still offer the contractual-benefit (importance) to children involved of a father, for their entire life?

A single man- doesn't offer the benefit of a mother involved in their lives for their entire lives
A single mother doesn't offer the benefit of a father involved in their lives for their entire lives.

Now persons who adopt- they offer a child a parent involved in their lives for the rest of their lives. You want to prevent that if the parent is a homosexual.

Why would you prefer a child to reach adulthood- and be abandoned by the state rather than allow a parent who happens to be a homosexual adopt a child?

 

[Silhouette]

Tell me again how denying marriage to same sex parents remedies any 'problem' you've cited?

For example, if a lesbian couple has a child.....and the State denies the lesbian couple marriage, do they magically become an opposite sex parents?

What a single lesbian has done to a child remains a debatable topic. Suffice to say if a wolf adopts a human child and successfully raises it, it does so outside of lifelong binding contract and, we don't go making "wolf marriage" mandated on all 50 states as a result of "helping the poor children of wolves."

When you sit on a Mt. Everest of psychological data (and this poll running 90%) that says "it is important for a child to have both a mother and father, all other situations are inferior to that", you don't make the exceptional inferior situation "the new rule" "as a convenience to some kids caught up in the exception".

Again, how do two gay men provide an important mother to the children involved? How do two lesbians provide the important father to the children involved? They don't and cannot ever. And when a state "marrys" them it binds the children via contractual terms for life to an inferior psychological situation known to cause them statistical harm. That act is forbidden by federal law.

 

[mdk]

I was wondering when wolves raising children would be thrown into the mix again. Classic. lol

 

[Skylar]

Tell me again how denying marriage to same sex parents remedies any 'problem' you've cited?

For example, if a lesbian couple has a child.....and the State denies the lesbian couple marriage, do they magically become an opposite sex parents?

What a single lesbian has done to a child remains a debatable topic. Suffice to say if a wolf adopts a human child and successfully raises it, it does so outside of lifelong binding contract and, we don't go making "wolf marriage" mandated on all 50 states as a result of "helping the poor children of wolves."

Well since lesbians aren't 'wolves', nor are children parties to the marriage of their parents.......do you have any pseudo-legal gibberish that has a thing to do with this topic?

When you sit on a Mt. Everest of psychological data (and this poll running 90%) that says "it is important for a child to have both a mother and father, all other situations are inferior to that", you don't make the exceptional inferior situation "the new rule" "as a convenience to some kids caught up in the exception".

Then you should have been arrested and your child taken from you for raising your daughter without a father?

 

[Debra K]

Tell me again how denying marriage to same sex parents remedies any 'problem' you've cited?

For example, if a lesbian couple has a child.....and the State denies the lesbian couple marriage, do they magically become an opposite sex parents?

What a single lesbian has done to a child remains a debatable topic. Suffice to say if a wolf adopts a human child and successfully raises it, it does so outside of lifelong binding contract and, we don't go making "wolf marriage" mandated on all 50 states as a result of "helping the poor children of wolves."

When you sit on a Mt. Everest of psychological data (and this poll running 90%) that says "it is important for a child to have both a mother and father, all other situations are inferior to that", you don't make the exceptional inferior situation "the new rule" "as a convenience to some kids caught up in the exception".

Again, how do two gay men provide an important mother to the children involved? How do two lesbians provide the important father to the children involved? They don't and cannot ever. And when a state "marrys" them it binds the children via contractual terms for life to an inferior psychological situation known to cause them statistical harm. That act is forbidden by federal law.

You are misrepresenting your poll. The question--noted at the top of your poll--was: "Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?"

I had both a mother and father in life. I did not have regular contact with both. Did I think regular contact with both was important? No I did not. In fact, my mother didn't speak to me for an entire year because she was mad at me. It was a peaceful and pleasant year.

The results of your insignificant and badly-worded poll does not stand for the alleged proposition "it is important for a child to have both a mother and father, all other situations are inferior to that". That's a blatant falsehood.

The alleged results of your insignificant and badly-worded poll mean nothing at all. It is not the "Mt. Everest of psychological data" that you claim it to be. Your hate for an entire class of people doesn't allow you to process information and think clearly. You apparently believe it is better for a child have one unfit mother rather than two fit fathers. Good thing you're not in charge of the world.