• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

Prove it. All I see here are a bunch of wild unsupported accusations aimed against a peer reviewed study that came to conclusion you simply happen to dislike.

I belive some others have already answered this, so I won't restate it.





Walter Shuum is not in any way that I know of directly affiliated with the FRC.

I said Paul Cameron, not the FRC.





They make up to 2-4% of the population. They are a statistical anomaly.

So are people with genius level IQ's. Does that make them bad? Even so, using "Not in line with the majority" as your definition of normal (Or some variation) is not a very good line to hold.



The same principles apply.

I'm not the one making the claim (In this particular part of our debate.) you are. You made the claim, you back it up. It's not my job to do your homework for you.



Feel free to list those differences then.

Well for one, there's the innate difference between how a grandmother views her grandchild and how a mother views her child.

Then there's the possible variations in the mother-to-mother relationship which needs to be taken into account. And of course each one's persona view of how the child should be raised.

If you really want to know, ask Your Star.


Platation slavery was the only kind of slavery to survive in the West into the modern era, and it was a relatively new development.

Okay.

As such, it can not be "traditional."

But I did not make my original point using plantation slavery. I used the blanket term 'slavery'.

Or how about slavery? For a thousand years humanity kept slaves. Should we keep slaves just because we've been doing it for so long?




Explain to me why it would count as one?

tra·di·tion·al

/trəˈdiSHənl/
Adjective

  1. Existing in or as part of a tradition; long-established.


Slavery was unarguably long-established.


(Notice how I never in this debate said slavery was a 'value.')



Contrary to established norms.

Uh huh. And who establishes the norms?
 
In no way, shape, or form does an anomalous condition afflicting only 2-4% of a given population match this definition, nor is there any way in which it ever conceivably could.

Are those who suffer from schizophrenia "normal" too?



I've tried "converting" a few people. It's a "failure to launch" endeavor..................
 
Nonsense. As your own source admitted, he used "meta-analysis." This is a perfectly valid technique for gathering data regardless of what the critics might happen to say.

It's hardly his fault that literature concerning the effects of homosexual parenting happens to be so sparse.

Wrong, using non-representative and non-random samples is not a perfectly valid technique. It's deviant.

And of course, it's not his fault that he used bad data. He was forced to use bad data instead of collecting good data. :roll:




Now you're just spitting out random combinations of words without the slightest understanding of what they mean.

You have absolutely no idea how "representative" or "random" the examples given in any of those books happened to be. Again, these books were the ONLY research available on the subject.

Since the stories in the book were "chosen" by their authors, we know they weren't "random". You do realize what the word "random" means, right?

And since half the stories were about same sex couples, and because we know that half of all couples are not same sex couples, we know that the samples were not "representative". You do know what the word "representative" means, right?

If they can be used to come to false conclusions concerning homosexual parenting, that is the fault of academia for categorically choosing to ignore this field of study.

Yes, whatever Schumm did is completely the fault of someone else. They forced him to use bad data. They did not allow him to collect good data :roll:



Again, not so good with this whole "definitions of words" thing, are you? :roll:

Says the guy who thinks stories that were chosen by authors are "random" :lamo




Google is your friend Sang.

You're begging the question. Google that



Which would be a great argument... If there were any other evidence to go off of.

There is not.

You can blame academia's pro LGBT agenda for that.

At least you're now admitting that there's no data to support any conclusion. Yet, you continue to believe that you have data which supports your conclusion
 
1. Noticed the “some”. Some state supreme courts.

Very little some… almost lonesome. Almost none, comparatively.

Should, sorry to have to say, stay that way. What gave credibility in the eyes of everyone, EVERYONE, African Americans fought Civil Rights pretty much straight up, proud and righteous, honestly righteous. Those who had never had to take a side, just comfortable, living, lettin be, gettin along, suddenly chanced to see it starkly, for what it was,,, rebelled against that … that thick stinky fertilizer, surface deep but rich soiled there in the South.

In contrast, the same sex marriage movement....

Battles in courts, sometimes a legislature, removed from the people, just like France [tangentially] … where there are not the votes for it, it de facto won’t happen. If you try to force, de jure, you often slow it down. People have to accept willingly, people in this country have come miles and miles on the whole Gay issue. But when pushed hard, like by a salesman at a car dealership, we tend to shy in the other direction.
We’ve been really tolerant, despite conflicting with most’s faith. Should be appreciated, acknowledged, honored.

There are times to draw lines.

Loving vs Virginia was a SCOTUS case.
 
So are people with genius level IQ's. Does that make them bad?

A high IQ actually serves a purpose. However, I would agree that such individuals are no less anomalous than homosexuals.

As such, they are not, strictly speaking, "normal" either.

Even so, using "Not in line with the majority" as your definition of normal (Or some variation) is not a very good line to hold.

It is literally the text book definition of the word.

I'm not the one making the claim (In this particular part of our debate.) you are. You made the claim, you back it up. It's not my job to do your homework for you.

It is simple inference. If children raised in single sex / single parent households tend to suffer for it due to the lack of same and/or opposite sex role models, why on earth would children raised in single sex / homosexual households be any different.

If anything, you need to provide evidence to support the assertion that the two situations are in any way different.

Well for one, there's the innate difference between how a grandmother views her grandchild and how a mother views her child.

Then there's the possible variations in the mother-to-mother relationship which needs to be taken into account. And of course each one's persona view of how the child should be raised.

Which is all a lot of very vague and insubstantial quibbling which really signifies nothing.

Besides, I'm just about positive that you have stated repeatedly at this point that the role played by a care giver did not matter so long as the child was rasied in a loving home.

If you really want to know, ask Your Star.

Yea.. I'm sure she that she's a real "objective" and "impartial" source on the matter.

(Notice how I never in this debate said slavery was a 'value.')

Then why are we discussing it?

Frankly, so long as we're on the subject, it should be pointed out that the notion of labor without rights has never really gone away in first place. Military service, for instance, bear a string resemblence to slavery in many respects. This was especially the case back before they did away with the draft.

Uh huh. And who establishes the norms?

Objective reality. By definition, one cannot be a member of any minority group that only makes up slightly more or less than 1% of a given society's population and still be considered "normal."
 
A high IQ actually serves a purpose. However, I would agree that such individuals are no less anomalous than homosexuals.

As such, they are not, strictly speaking, "normal" either.



It is literally the text book definition of the word.

Homosexuality serves an evolutionary purpose.
 
Nicely done, I would not have expected anything less.

That being said…we have differing views, yet…

1. Noticed the “some”. Some state supreme courts.

Very little some… almost lonesome. Almost none, comparatively.

Should, sorry to have to say, stay that way. What gave credibility in the eyes of everyone, EVERYONE, African Americans fought Civil Rights pretty much straight up, proud and righteous, honestly righteous. Those who had never had to take a side, just comfortable, living, lettin be, gettin along, suddenly chanced to see it starkly, for what it was,,, rebelled against that … that thick stinky fertilizer, surface deep but rich soiled there in the South.

In contrast, the same sex marriage movement....

Battles in courts, sometimes a legislature, removed from the people, just like France [tangentially] … where there are not the votes for it, it de facto won’t happen. If you try to force, de jure, you often slow it down. People have to accept willingly, people in this country have come miles and miles on the whole Gay issue. But when pushed hard, like by a salesman at a car dealership, we tend to shy in the other direction.
We’ve been really tolerant, despite conflicting with most’s faith. Should be appreciated, acknowledged, honored.

There are times to draw lines.

Enough already

2. Don’t really keep either eye pealed on Europe I am guessing? Can’t envision the coming Cassandra, cannot see that old locomotive puffing for the wooden bridge, bridge over the deep gash of a mountain pass. Look closer, wooden spars falling away as we watch, bridge collapsing as the train approaches... Europe these days.

This isn’t about Europe. We can sort of do a real time autopsy before the fact. Your opinion about European society, think its strong? Strong enough? Wasn’t just this current crisis though, unhappily for liberals, its more just plain liberal, too liberal, policy in general. Yes, my opinion, with points, solid. This post is already too long, however.

Also apropos, the old adage, watch what you ask for, you might just get it. Europe got it, and it is contagious.

What y’all don’t seem to get is that gay movement has not been a, no pun intended either time, straight on assault as stated previously. Lots of short term termiting, lacing the entire structure upon which we have built a strong nation… done with many hardly even realizing it…just like Europe, starting much earlier, hit much harder.

2a. A Court case ruling huh? One? What about, what was the rulling…?? see what you did, now I’m on the edge of my seat. Soooo not convincing tho, besides, you had already made some head feints that direction, straw man called.

3. Yes, I did clarify, you understand the subtlety. Rarely used violence, on occasion, ends the job. Not a big advocate, but when used…hard and fast. Make it hurt so bad others won’t try, unless just stupid suicidal. Dance back Ali like, untouched if possible.

4. Nearly all the gay culture WAS criminal. See, all those other minority groups you hesitate to support, currently illegal, too. Easily changed, assisted by this, those and many leagues of others. Then unhindered, a now unstoppable force no longer meeting an immovable object…

Society crumbles, a tide slicing though sand castles.

5. Stripping away/adding special rights, whichever way necessary for certain groups wanting... whatever. Basis upon which to deny them? After? None. Hey, you gave that to same sex folks, cries of discrimination ring from all sides [and they would be right]… so how legally to stop much of anything after? You won’t be able.

Society crumble crumble crumbling.

Interesting thought experiment. If rape were made legal, how long would it be before people stopped struggling against? Let’s say, with just the right backing, or packing, a court or two, or the courts in general, started ruling in their favor, maybe a legislature somewhere or three joined… The national legislature bonded with them, passed the law… but the people were against it… then what?

Anybody see France in this frame?

All is uncomfortable even to think about, suffice to say, could come to pass, doubting it ostensibly, sure, seems too repugnant. See, even a similar past. Surely cannot be certain, not at all certain it wouldn’t.


6. Give ya slack on this one too, cause you are not really incorrect, you were just slinging so parameters were in order.
7. Sorry, just not the case… but again, its hardly enough to quibble over.
8. Already dealt with this continued fail…



It has to be done that way because monotheism has reduced people to cannibalistic sheep (read: mob).......................
 
Yes, gay rights advocates have fought for same sex marriage AND civil unions since the 1970s. It wasn't until Lawreence v. Texas that it was even possible to consider same sex marriage as a realistic possibility because of the number of states that had anti sodomy laws. Even though those laws were declared unconstitutional, they are still being repealed state by state today. It is not fair to ague that every gay person or supporter of gay rights had a "marriage or nothing" mentality about it. We are also talking about the span of 1 year, from 2003 to 2004.

But that wasn't my position in the first place. I was saying that going for the title is what is holding them back from what they say they want - equality. That they could have easily, or not so easily, had equal civil unions by now, at least in many states. But the run for the title has triggered a reaction that has put their whole effort in jeopardy.

Look, I know the fanciful thinkers here really believe the SCOTUS is going to hand them a victory soon. But as I said to another poster - you're counting your chickens way too early and you may be heartbroken by the actual reality.
 
1.) yes some, the ones that have looked at it in a case
cant decide before a case :shrug

1b only if we rewrite history LMOA
1c.) you are welcome to this opinion

2.) uhm i dont care about any of that nor does any of it along with your opinions change anything?
straight marriage is still legal and nobody is tryign to stop it lol

im not sure what any of it even meant in correlation, are you drinking? and NO im not trying to insult you or be a smart ass, i was being serious in a funny way because i ahev no clue what this rant was about :)

2a. no not just one a couple thats how gay marriage as already been established in some states :shrug:
no straw man facts

3.) i understand and i would support some violence in some case, not against equality though

4.) gay culture now? what are you referring to, please qoute these laws in the US that made gay culture illegal LOL
and like i said it is not illegal now not does it involve a victim

trying to equate gay marriage with child rapist is silly

5.) but again gay marriage doesnt strip away rights it grants them, your examples would strip them away so they are illogical anologies.

6.) society crumbling is your opinion, many feel equal rights strengthens it :shrug:

7.) again that takes rights away, its doesnt just grant them so again the example is a failure as they are not the same lol

8.) i know im not incorrect you were lol
9.) its 100% the case as my post proves would you like to read it again
10.) weird you call it a fail when its true, justices disagree with you LMAO you lost


anyway, what are you drinking? anything good or unique?

1. You may not know this... or are forgetting, 31 states have already adopted same sex ban amendments, so the judges cannot really do much about it if a case did come up, well, except decide against it, I suppose.

1b. Don't know your CR history either, that is wow worthy.

1c. I think it beyond only my opinion but well within the realm of plausibility ....right up to probably.

2. Need to sharpen the blade on your research tool, dig a bit deeper there, all that means something, means not being completely blind going into the future, seeing where the rocks and obstacles coming up, seeing how the ones that are going before us are doing [ not so well ]. Thankfully you only have the majority in the Senate and executive office... we have the House and 30 governorships... we will be able to hold all that off until we get the others back. So you can ignore it, pretend its not happening...

And you don't have to keep chanting that mantra, "straight marriage is still legal, blah blah blah, straight marriage is....

Oh, and if you mention a court ruling, please how about some clue as to what you are talking about, what it said, why it should have some bearing on the conversation.

4. I am sure if you just make some discreet inquiries about how gay people were treated and why it was wise to stay hidden, they will let you in on all the dark little secrets. Such feebleness regarding defense of it now being legal... if you are intellectually honest, you know.
straw man--- Nobody is equating, you say that to shift attention away from the real problem, it doesn't matter what you think now, it was different then and it was criminal, but very similar for the gay community and general impressions.

5. Hardly, what I am saying it that everybody else will want these same special rights. At the moment all is completely equal in the vast majority of states, I cannot marry another man, a woman cannot marry another woman, nobody can marry under a certain age, if I wanted to I cannot marry my sister, a gay cannot marry his sister or brother, nor can I....we have the exact same rights and restrictions right now. I can marry only within certain boundaries, the same as everyone else. The exact same for each in each state, except about 6 states grant special rights to same sex couples.

6. Yep. Already dismantled the equal stuff, so you would have to dismantle my dismantling to be anywhere near credible at this point.

7. You see, analogies are not supposed to be the exact same, they are analogies, similar, gets the point across [ to most] and its the principle we are digging at. Either get it or you don't, I am just presenting it for those actually looking for the right answers. Explain exactly which rights are being taken away?

8. I wasn't incorrect either, you were bandying about the word uneducated, I informed you of my education and then educated you on the topic.

9. Ill let you make the case if you think you can beat me, have at it....prove how its 100% the case.

10. I know enough history to know the justices are not always right. Either they were in Plessy v Ferguson or in Brown v Board.... but not both, so they are proven to be wrong... and what was the decision you are talking about anyhow, Again, if you are going to use a court ruling you have to at least say what the ruling is.... can't just say they ruled and....I won..... that't not how it works....

good tries tho...

The best I can get, by the way, and always appreciative of whatever it is I got.
 
But that wasn't my position in the first place. I was saying that going for the title is what is holding them back from what they say they want - equality. That they could have easily, or not so easily, had equal civil unions by now, at least in many states. But the run for the title has triggered a reaction that has put their whole effort in jeopardy.

Look, I know the fanciful thinkers here really believe the SCOTUS is going to hand them a victory soon. But as I said to another poster - you're counting your chickens way too early and you may be heartbroken by the actual reality.

So you think civil unions would have been legal in Texas by now? Which of the 20 states do you think this would be the case? Support for SSM has gone way up despite your warnings that it has backfired. The only change I've noticed since the court case is like 2% went from indifferent to against in polls. Who cares?

Also, please explain how civil unions, even if DOMA is struck down, will grant the same 1000 rights reserved for married couples. No joint tax return, as in France no adoption in most states, power of attorney needed for hospital visitation, joint benefits in my state are for *married couples only and the civil union couples do NOT get them*...You get the point I hope.
 
Riots be damned good job France!
 
The rioters are on the wrong side of history.

Were it not for cameras, most of them would be able--in future, when homosexuality is considered a non-issue--to deny they were ever opposed!
 
Just because you say Gay Marriage is real marriage, doesn't make it so.
You are right.I'm not gay.That is for gay people to decide for themselves wheter or not what they have constitutes a REAL MARRIAGE.
Neither you or I are in any real position to say otherwise,now are we.
Marriage is not a Civil Right. It is an institution with specific social and economic purposes. Gay Marriage is pointless and serves no purpose that benefits society as a whole. Gay Marriage is not real marriage.
That is what is called YOUR OPINION.

Why don't you put your massive ego to one side and provide some credible data that backs that up.

Again heterosexuals don't marry with the specific purpose of serving humanity, but their unions usually do by their very nature. They create more taxpayers through their unions. Gay couples cannot procreate. Humanity relies on heterosexual unions to exist. It's just biological fact. Has nothing to do with approval.
And you know all this how?
Just what gives you the right to speak for all humanity?
Inquiring minds want to know.

You do realize that just because a person is gay does not mean that a gay man are incapable of providing the sperm that creates a child,or gay woman are incapable of giving birth to children?
Or that it is not impossible for gays to raise happy,well adjusted children.
Hmm,I guess not.
Maybe you are not as smart as you like to think you are?

Gay marriage is not real marriage.
It never will be
I don't know who you are or what you've stated and I could care less. Gay Marriage serves no social or economic purpose. They don't create more taxpayers. Every citizen acts as a consumer, but that has nothing to do with the lifetime of productivity every human being born into this world is capable of realizing. Your arguments are purely emotional. Not logical.

Wow,Bronson,you've stated all this as if you are someone important.
As if you are someone with wealth and power,and your opinions actually means something,and has an impact,on those of use who actually live normal everyday lives?

As a businessman myself ,I'm very interested,if you are THAT important..
Why don't you PM (you do know how to use the DebatePolitics.com Private Messaging function,don't you?) me explaining what makes what you say so important to everybody and,what makes you so powerful and influential that your words are Reality.
Show me your credentials,and I'll have no problem showing you mine.
Then maybe we could do so me business together.Something I'm always interested in doing (especially with people with a lot more wealth,power,influence and prestige than I can ever hope for).

I'm willing to give you my real name,my address,my phone number,my date of birth, my companies website and Facebook pages,my menus,references from satisfied customers,YOUTUBE links to commercials for my restaunts, my mothers maiden name, and my social security number (if you are really as important as you think you are,you should have no problem verifying who I truly am) as long as you make it worth my while for providing that information.
And if we can do business together,I'll make it worth your your while
.I'm a damn good business man myself.
I'm always on the look out to make lots of money.I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is,if it means I make more money doing so.
Are you willing to do the same,Bronson?
Like I said,all you have to do is PM me.



May I remind you that we are emotional creatures,and logic once stated that the universe revolved around the earth?
From what I can see from this and other threads you have been in on this subject,your logic really isn't all sound if numerous people (including myself) are constantly pointing out the holes in it.
My argument may be from the emotional,but at least it's always been honest
.I always fully admitted here on DP that I have a gay daughter,and gay marriages are very lucrative for me.
Marriages are a multi-billion dollar industry,and I'm just trying to grab my share,
I can make a lot of money off gay marriages,and am always looking to make more ( do you find something wrong with good old fashion capitalism?)
What's your stake in all this.Do you stand to make hundreds of thousands ,or million of dollars,if gays aren't allowed to married?

You want to talk about logic,Bronson?
Well,were I come from,if it "don't make dollar's,it don't make sense".
So why don't you use logic to convince me that joining your side will make me a LOT more money than what I am already making on my own.
That's the type of logic I appreciate.
Not someone's (your) else's ego gratification.
Use yourself as an example.Tell everyone here how being against SSM has made you fabulously wealthy,and dating supermodels.

So unless your opinions and beliefs can translate to lots of cash in my pocket,I couldn't care less what your opinions or beliefs are myself.
 
NEWS FLASH: Sometimes people express opinions and tell you what they're thinking.

Wow,you are that important that everyone in this country is telling you there opinions?
How do you find the time to listen to all 300,000,000+ million of us?

NEWS FLASH: Sometimes people don't tell you the truth.
NEWS FLASH: Opinions are o cheap,even you can afford them.
NEWS FLASH:Sometimes,opinions are ill informed,based on ignorance,are disinformation,or just plain stupid.
NEWS FLASH:Sometimes people like you just make stuff up just so that they can feel like they are participating in something.

You made it sound as if YOU know what's on the mind of EVERY American in this country.Me and Sangha (and probably a few others) want to know where and how.
Sure;y you are capable of providing that,aren't you?
 
Funny people on this forum. Funny people indeed. :lamo

Actually,I find quite a number of people here to be quite terrifying.Especially when it comes to my freedoms.Or the freedoms of those I love.

Apparently, quite a number of the conservatives here are trying to convince people they are just as big of a threat to freedom as the liberals supposedly are (and I am definitely not big fan of liberals).

Well,if that was the intention,I've become convinced,bravo :applaud
But that's just my opinion.It really doesn't matter,now does it?
 
I can link you several studies that prove that gays can raise children as effectively as straights, if you are interested.
Ah, that's the problem. I think I've read them all. On these threads this subject has been endlessly discussed ("discussed" is a polite descriptive), and generally both sides of the argument are dismissive of the other's point of view and the associated studies. Most of the studies appear to contain fatal bias in my view, regardless of which perspective you endorse. The conundrum I see is that it is impossible to reach a sound conclusion without allowing gays to marry and raise children.
 
You made no points, not only that but you changed my post then went ahead and spelled "you're" wrong.

I DON'T CARE, I don't care what the **** people do - yet you call yourself a libertarian and have a difficult time understanding that idea???

There is no such thing as EQUALITY.... Your argument here would apply to just about anything.. Why should the doctor who works 50 hours a week make more than the dummy who works 50 hours a week scrubbing his toilets??? They both work the same hours so why should one get more than the other??

Civil unions/gay marriage are a TENTH AMENDMENT ISSUE - EVERY LIBERTARIAN KNOWS THIS...

I can't recall a time Agent J has ever called himself a libertarian.

Now, seeing as how you don't care and have zero opinion about the topic in the OP, why are you here?
 
Back
Top Bottom