For the benefit of anyone following this debate, even though Scripter does not wish to contribute further, I will answer his accusation.
Scripter says I "dodged" his question. But that presumes that I actually HAVE formed an opinion on this question and I am deliberately choosing not to answer him. One wonders what Scripter thinks I am hiding?
As I have explictly told Scripter on several occasions, I haven't thought about every nuance to every question he has posted in this thread. I sincerely don't understand why he thinks I'm "dodging" the question.
Scripter keeps asking this same question repeatedly i.e. why would I want to prevent two same-sex blood relatives from marrying? This question obviously is very important to him. However, I have never been asked this question prior to this thread and I have never thought about it before---so, contrary to Scripter's assumption, I don't have a position on it!
AFTER considering pro-and-con arguments, I might be opposed to such a marriage. OR, alternatively, maybe I would find such a marriage acceptable. I just don't know at this time. That is the simple truth of the matter! If I had an answer, I would be happy to share it. Apparently, Scripter has some un-stated reason for thinking that I am refusing to answer the question. It would be interesting to know what that reason is.
You've made your position very clear by your demonization and denigration of those who disagree with you. You have dodged, weaved and run from questions.
I have a different interpretation and conclusion.
When you first meet someone and know virtually nothing about their character, integrity, values, or beliefs --- then it is quite rude, hostile, unkind, and un-Christian to describe them as "pervert" or any other comparable pejorative term. Use of such language betokens a desire to demonize and de-humanize a person and make everything they have to say worthy of contemptuous dismissal. Such language makes impossible, from the beginning, a genuine conversation.
Your first message to me was #417. Our subsequent exchanges dealt with Paul Cameron. In NONE of my responses to you did I make ANY PERSONAL ATTACKS ON YOU WHATSOEVER.
However, your message #482 implied that I was a liar. Your exact comment: "This is a family friendly website that pushes conservativism, not lies."
Now what had I done to deserve that implied rebuke? I merely quoted from resolutions about Cameron by three professional organizations!
You concentrated on whether or not Paul Cameron had resigned from the APA but I focused on the fact that 3 different professional organizations dissociated themselves from Cameron. Which you did not dispute! One of them (ASA) described Cameron thusly: Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Obviously, this is a totally different issue from his APA standing. I also referred to a court decision which denounced Cameron.
The next time you and I exchanged messages started with #547. You responded to a message I sent to DirtyHarry. Commencing with this message, you started referring to ALL homosexuals as "perverts" and you cited a dictionary definition. Keep in mind: prior to this point I had made no derogatory comment about you whatsoever!
In message #545 you said you didn't see any hateful comments in DirtyHarry's messages. I responded in #546 by quoting the dictionary definition and synonyms from a thesaurus. However, while you had no problem applying the dictionary definition of "pervert", (certainly not a friendly term) you vigorously object to applying the dictionary definition of "hateful" (another unfriendly term). Apparently, in your scheme of things, you are free to use ANY UNFRIENDLY AND HOSTILE TERMINOLOGY that you like without objection being raised.
Most revealing of all, however, is your hostile response to my request for more information on your statistic. I didn't ask you to "hold my hand". I asked if you could cite a single journal article or website that I COULD CONSULT to find evidence to support your repeated use of a statement about the number of former homosexuals. And now you say that is just too burdensome for you! OK fine. As previously noted, I have already begun to contact persons whom are affiliated with the organizations cited in your messages----and I will summarize whatever data they send to me in a subsequent message.
Finally, with respect to your constant whining and moaning about me "misrepresenting" you (and others) and incorrectly inferring ulterior motives---I still don't understand what you object to. It certainly isn't my summation of your position on same-sex marriage: you obviously do oppose it under all circumstances, correct?
Perhaps you are referring to my repeated references to "persons who use language calculated to evoke fear, disgust, and revulsion about entire categories of other human beings"? If that, indeed, is what is offending you, then perhaps you might consider altering the way you engage in debate. For example: you could eliminate, altogther, your references to "pervert" or "perversion" and just stick to comments on why you think same-sex marriages or adoptions are undesirable.
Apparently, and besides a plethora of other issues, one major issue for this guy is he has no idea what context is. Either that or he's playing games.
Isn't it too bad that wittle ernie doesn't wike the word "perversion". The nasty word hurts his wittle feelings.
It's like those who think it's evil to have photos of aborted babies, or to describe in detail the abortion procedure, but defend to the death the actual process of abortion.
You don't like the word because it fits the actions homosexuals engage in. You could change the word "pervert" to "gay" and it doesn't change the truth. The truth is that nature arranged sexual difference and harmony between a man and a woman for the good of all. Going against the laws of nature always, I repeat ALWAYS, has disastrous effects.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
What really bothered me was his incessant lying. Such as the following in regards to the APA and Paul Cameron:
Which you did not dispute!
But I did dispute just that in post 482. And then I said:
In summary, everything you've posted stems from a politically motivated attack from politically correct professional organizations. This is a family friendly website that pushes conservatism, not lies.
Of course the context demonstrates I was referring to the lies stemming from that discredited Pietryzk, yet he twisted it, trying to say I called him a liar. I often got the feeling I was discussing the issues with more than one person.
Just when you thought he had been shown for the disruptor that he was, he would start to rehash everything all over again as if no previous discussion on the issue had taken place. Disruptor, indeed.