I was more pointing towards the article., Everyone says "yeah we should let the gays have kids" but we need to consider how the kids are going to feel about this. You would be hard pressed to find a single kid who would say I wish I had gay parents.

Rather, you'd find MANY kids that say "I'm glad that I have loving parents".

I the same way you're sticking to your arguement I can't see your point of view. We are all brought up differently and have different opinions on matters. My gf is all for gays having children but my gf's mom ( whos sister is gay) is against the idea, I have my views you have yours....

The difference is, YOUR views are towards supressing a minority's rights, and if you decide to come on to a forum and express such inhibitions, you're going to get a lot of people expressing why your view is a bad idea.

Once again, WHY are the loving parents to blame, and not the outcasting, narrow-viewed society? You can't just use "because those are my views" as ANY kind of logical justification in an argument.

you can hold on to your hatred, i must cease any further correspondence with you. your pent antipathy and hostily shows who the true bigot is, and judging by your usage of it, you cleary dont even know what it means.

bye, dont talk to me again

My personal opinion is, let the religions have "marriage". As far as laws, nations, etc, are concerned, everyone should have a "civil union" if they want to be recognised as a couple as far as any of that is concerned.

For those in favour of gay marriage who go "but the term 'marriage' is too important, this is about equality", I'll point out that nothing stops a gay couple who isn't part of a religion that bars all homosexuality from getting "married", either - it's a term, even atheist organisations can have their own "marriage", and the church can't complain about it any more than pagans can complain about the church co-opting their biggest holidays. The important thing is that, in the eyes of the state, everyone is treated equally, and that is achieved using "civil unions" and striking all mentions of marriage from all laws (replaced by civil unions where appropriate).

For those against gay marriage, and who go "the name isn't the important thing, it's the support for homosexuality that is the issue" or similar arguments, I'll point out that in a free society, freedom of religion is key, and that also means freedom from religion. Marriage, as it stands, is a union between two people capable of consent - that is, two people who are capable of entering into a contract. Because as far as the legal status of "marriage" is concerned, it is a contract observed by the state.

That means that "slippery slope" arguments about paedophilia and bestiality don't make sense, because neither children nor animals are capable of entering into a contract. Neither children nor animals are capable of consent, as far as laws are concerned. This is why you always hear things like "if you are under 18, you must have a parent or guardian sign for you" on membership agreements, etc - because the parent or guardian is the only one capable of entering into a contract. Similarly, since "between two people" isn't changing, polygamy isn't affected, either.

What this also would mean is that the religious institution of marriage and the legal union of people would become completely distinct concepts. And that means, for instance, that mormons who wish to be polygamous may do so - they may marry as many people as they wish... but as far as the state is concerned, they may only be in a civil union with one of them. And if some oddball wants to marry their dog, they may do so... but the state won't recognise it, and the laws against bestiality still apply just as much as usual. And if someone wants to marry the love of their life, but are not interested in legal recognition, they may have a religious marriage and not a civil union. Indeed, it would be possible for person A to marry person B, but to be in a civil union with person C, instead.

If you didn't want to debate the subject why did you post in the first place? Anyways, I accept your terms of surrender and won't press the issue anymore with you.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

I'll say the same as I did to the previous guy. The difference between my opinions and yours is that yours seek to supress a minorities rights, or deem them inferior. Otherwise, you wouldn't be working out of your way to "ensure your child will not be gay". 

Your opinions may be your own, but if you cannot tolerate questioning or criticisms of said opinions, then I suggest that you keep them to yourself, and not express them and then demand that people do not answer them.

well i was debating to post or not, i had clicked submit, then imediately afterwards I decided i didnt want to get into it, so i deleted my post, but apparently Fordy had already quoted me.

anyway im not surrendering, i just realize the endless cycle an ensuing debate will have, so i wish no longer to do so on this subject manner.

and thanks for being respectful, that means a lot.

please inform me where i treated any group with hatred, and wanted to supress somebodies rights. im waiting with baited breathe. 

unless ofcourse you consider me treating human being regardless of their sexual orientation with love, dignity and respect, bigotry.

now please shutup and dont speak to me.