JBennett, Well, speaking for myself, the reason why I left this thread was because it became incredibly childish. I stopped back in to see if it had gotten anywhere, but it hasn't. Dunno if this is why the others left.

Call that a victory if you will. I suppose it's easy to win arguments when the others have left in disgust.

I note you indicate those on your side of the argument 'politely disagreed'

You were among the first with the 'bottom of the class comments' to which I admit I foolishly rose to challenge.
Clearly, you didn't understand the point I was making in that post until I clarified it later and called your rank errors.
Since then, you've gone with terms like homos, numbskulls, and indulged in a fair bit of the childish nonsense in this thread.

As for names, I'll just stick with hypocrite and leave it at that.

TurnRightThenLeft, I've not left in disgust but rather it seems that we are back to arguing in circles. No new substance just the same old claims with no evidence. It seems kind of pointless to keep making the same points over and over.

Those opposed to allowing gay partnerships to be recognised legally have made a variety of claims about why it would be harmful which have been rebutted. They have failed to produce any substantial evidence to back their claims.

For those genuinely concerned with child welfare there are real risks to children which should be addressed.

The biggest factors which we need to work on if we want to better protect children are in my view
- Substance abuse by parents
- Poverty
- Social alienation/loss of purpose

I've seen no evidence that the sexual orientation of parents (unless it's towards children) is any kind of risk factor.

R0bert

Robert,
One other factor that should be included in your list is:

Work constructively to maintain the quality relationships of natural parents so children grow up in optimum in loving conditions. There is no better conditions for a child than a full healthy relationship with both mother and father; anything else is merely a substitute.

TRTL mate you would need to rise to address even the bottom of the class comments. Your Greek comments were lower then low. You can call it childish to call a spade a spade if that makes you feel better but those if favour of kids falling prey to a homo union upbringing don’t have an argument.

Robert where are the circles. You won’t admit that you think sexual perverts are normal. You think that an obvious risk is somehow defended with a try it and see what happens because obviously we have to risk kids for many years before anyone can prove with research that the end result will be harmful. We’ll just experiment with kids in the meantime. Sorry but that expresses a poor attitude toward kids not an argument or a rebuttal. You shy away totally when I raise the issue of other potential risks.

I asked how do you know many homos don't intend to molest but keep it quiet because numbsculls aren't ready for that yet? When people resisting homo rights demands said that homos agenda was to redefine marriage homo activists acted offended and called it hysterical bigotry yet now they ask for gay marriage. Obviously they wanted to all along but the fools needed more time. When homo activists inisted their sexual perversion was a healthy lifestyle choice they didn’t swear blindly they are born that way. Right now most of them say the important thing is consenting adults and claim it is hysterical bigotry to associate them with child molestors but it sounds too familiar why don't I trust them? You can’t answer that can you?

You are right with the biggest current factors but again you are sidetracking. Those factors need to be addressed and it will take time but that is no excuse to increase the number of kids at risk by changing things for the worse.

"I asked how do you know many homos don't intend to molest."

What the hell?

How many men don't intend to rape?
How many soldiers don't intend to commit genocide?
How many motorists don't intend to commit vehicular manslaughter?
How many footballers don't intend to commit assault?

Don't know?

Well, clearly, the world must be jam packed full of genocidal rapists intending to commit assault and manslaughter.

Your assumption of guilt is not only poor debating and a glaring example of why it's important to learn basic critical reasoning, it reveals the thought process behind your posts.

And give the bloody greek thing a rest. I told you, it was informing you about history, nothing more, nothing less. So it's not the least bit low. It's just adding historical perspective, something you're lacking.
Believe what you want, but I'm telling you right now what I meant and guess what? I'm in a far better position to judge what I'm saying.

Though I see why you focus on your own misinterpretations. It's all you've got to go by, seeing as how I proved how stupid and ill informed your comments on civil unions really are, which largely formed the basis of your argument, especially as you can't provide any backing. No studies. No statistics. No nothing. It's all empty opinion.

This is going round in circles. I'll bid your trolling adieu, feeling soiled that I even dignified your hateful rhetoric with a response.

TRTL,

JB is not going to allow facts or reason to get in the way of his prejudice. The vitreol that he spews cannot be from deductive reasoning and must stem from some life experience.

Without this background, debate is meaningless.

JB no one is asking you to like gays, but this level of hatred is poisonous. Get help.