Presbyterian Church approves of same-sex marriages

ಠ_ಠ

quote:

---

there are no unwanted children in same-sex marriages.

---

That's just not true, why are you trying to stand by it?

I honestly did not. Still isn't really working for me.Maybe its the fact that a good friend of mine has a mother who ran off to be with another woman and doesn't talk to him anymore. (to be fair, I think it has more to do with his father than him)Being gay doesn't mean that you have to want your child.Being gay doesn't mean that you can't have children.The only thing you have going for you is that gay sex can't produce children. But that is no basis on which to determine whether or not gay peoples' children are wanted.You should just stop associating the two, even if your intentions are good.How many gay people were effectively "forced" into heterosexual marriages, and had children, only later to be able to be true to themselves and come out as gay?Sugar-coating that fact away is not something you should be doing.

No I get it, I read it all. I'm disagreeing with the phraseology.

Clarifying. I had no idea what he was talking about when I originally replied.

But that's just stupid. They can't produce a child between them at all.That's no basis to determine if the children they do have are wanted or not. Yeah, how retarded is that!?Something that cannot exist doesn't have an adjective describing it, whoopty-do!None of the soundbites xong offered were either true or meaningful. There's nothing wrong with me pointing that out. Especially if they are unhelpful.

quote:

---

there are no unwanted children in same-sex marriages.

---

That is false.

quote:

---

Same-sex marriages, with the exception of rape, either have to arrange a surrogate mother or a donor male or go through the bureaucratic complications of adoption.

---

That is false.

quote:

---

Once married, a same-sex marriage is almost never, compared to heterosexual marriages, going to have an unwanted child.

---

While a little less false, but still not entirely true, its still not a meaningful or even helpful soundbite.What's wrong with me pointing that out?I don't think that trying to make gay marriages out to be different, even if its meant in a positive way, is a good way to get them to be acceptable. Making them out to be the same would be better for the cause. But you certainly shouldn't be making them out to be different in ways that aren't even true. No, and don't tell me what to do.But that is rich coming from you. Shall I draw up a flow chart and some pie charts to show you how gay marriages can have children both before and after their marriage and also how those children can be unwanted?

What do you think the point is/was? Message 76 was spun to hell, in my opinion. And the conclusion was illogical too.Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

If your going to use sarcasm to get to a retarded non sequitur, then I'd appreciate a smiley.

So do you accept that it is actually relatively easy for gay couples to have unwanted children?Do you think that joking about it as if they couldn't is funny?Know any good racist jokes?

You're an idiot.

Is that supposed to have something to do with me?

Is there a joke that I am missing?Honestly, I still don't get it.

Yeah, I didn't think that you were actually joking.That's why you doubled-down and tried to clarify the point you were making.It was only after it was explained how stupid your point was that you fell back on: "Oh, uh, no I was just joking". People do that all the time.And if you really were joking, then you could have just explained the joke. But you can't, 'cause you weren't.

Its all good, xong I'm not butt-hurt or anything.

I get that. Gay couples who have to adopt have to really want a kid to get one.I've not missed that point. (its also true for straight couples btw)And if someone is talking about how kids need to have dual-sex parents, then I also get that you could make a joke about how gay couples have to really want to have the kid when they have to adopt, so implicitly, having to be wanted by the parents would mean that it would actually be better for the kid in the gay couple situation.My point is that portraying gay couples as being in a position to have to adopt in order to have kids, in order to make that joke (which I'm not convinced was actually made), is ignorant of just how easy it is for gay couples to have custody of a child (which is where your "difference" falls apart), and also be in a position of not wanting them. And that practically, it is the same as it is for straight couples. They could even stop wanting the kid after they adopted it.My original reply was just a clarification, not some hug missing of the point, or even the "joke".Xong did end up clarifying, but that explanation only made the ignorance seem deeper (alas, that could have been a joke as well), rather than explain that my call for clarification was mislead. And if it was all just an elaboration of the ruse, then shame on him. But it actually reads like damage-control...Others jumped in as if I had really just been missing the whole point the whole time, but really they were just missing mine.Then Xong explained that he just wasn't being serious, even though it wasn't really an actual joke. You know: "I said something stupid but I didn't actually mean it." You've been there, right?I'm actually glad we got that cleared up. I think it exposed a lot about some of the posters here.I never did think that Xong was being super-serious, I just thought the clarification was worth being made.Seriously, go back and re-read my posts in this tone. I've been right the whole time.