Page 21 of 45 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 443

Thread: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

  1. #201
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Are you kidding? That is horribly historically inaccurate which is pretty bad given that most of those bans occurred only a decade ago. A little history lesson on this issue is apparently needed.

    1972: Baker v. Nelson the Supreme Court dismissed a case seeking SSM in Minnesota setting the first court precedent on the issue.
    1996: Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton.
    2002: The first Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed by a Democratic Representative.
    2003: Lawrence v. Texas the Supreme Court strikes down sodomy laws.
    2003: Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled the right to marry should be extended to same sex couples.
    2004: Same sex marriage becomes legal in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize it.
    2004: President George W. Bush makes same sex marriage a major part of his election campaign and after winning the GOP pushes ballot questions to ban same sex marriage and civil unions in over 25 states over the nest few years.

    Basically, as a reaction to the sodomy laws being overturned, an inability to pass a federal marriage amendment, and the MA Supreme Court ruling in favor of SSM, your side pushed bans on civil unions and same sex marriage in each state across the country. I didn't ask for marriage, the overreaction was entirely on your side and now that SSM is gaining ground, your side is frantically accusing us of being uncompromising. If from the BEGINNING your side had made any push to compromise with civil unions, then the current debate likely would not be occurring at all, but your side decided to use the government to FORCE a particular social view of the majority at that time and as a result your side became the one that became seen as limiting freedom. Now even the most stout conservatives have trouble reconciling the bedrock principle of individual freedom with their reactionary and completely UNCOMPRISING push to deny same sex couples any legal recognition or rights.

    If you want to be a historical revisionist and pretend that isn't the case in some clearly prejudiced, baseless, and ignorant attempt to blame the gay rights movement for the current state of affairs, then feel free. That is your own animosity, not HISTORICAL FACT.
    The homophobes are so desperate to prove the superior morality of their position that they have to lie and pretend there was a time when they didn't oppose civil unions for GLBT's
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #202
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    Was the other study the one in the original post I replied to?
    The original study was from the Family Research Council in 2006. Schumm's objective was to attempt to disprove their findings by reevaluating the available data and deliberately skewing the methodology used in order to favor the assumption that homosexual parenting did not result in an increased occurence of homosexuality in children.

    Even with the deck heavily stacked against the claim, the FRC's original findings were still found to hold true.

    When using it as comparison to their own findings, yes. Not what Shumme did.
    Nonsense. There are plenty of peer reviewed academic studies which only compile and evaluate existing data.

    Even if Shumme's report is to believed, the amount of children that identified as gay was still the minority. Homosexual adoption is not recruitment, and I cannot believe I actually just had to state that.
    A 16% to 57% chance of adopting a homosexual identity after growing up in a homosexual household is a non-trivial figure.

    How do you define "abnormal"? And even so, that does not make it a lifestyle.
    Anything that falls outside of objective biological or statistical norms.

    Only if it was proven that a couple must exhibit both a mother/father figure in order to function safely, which is dubious as best. I would need to see just how Lesbian and gay couples interact with their children before making a definite claim.
    Again, numerous studies have linked an absence in clearly defined father figures to behavioral problems in male children. Try again.

    Incorrect. The relationship bewteen a married couple and their children is innately different than a mother/grandmother-to-child relationship.
    Why on earth should it matter whether or not the "parents" in question are screwing on the side? wtf.gif

    There are plenty of piss poor parents out there who cannot keep their hands off of one another. There are plenty of great parents who can hardly stand the sight of one another.

    Not my main point.

    I can show you data showing that gays can raise children as effectively as straights. It will not be the first time, but I'm willing to do it again.
    And only with a potential 16% to 57% chance of making any children they adopt gay themselves...

    I did not say 'plantation slavery', I said slavery.
    Large scale slavery was more or less extinct in the West by the late middle ages. Plantation slavery was a new phenomena.

    It was never a "traditional value."

    No, it is not. Being gay does not lend itself to a specific lifestyle. Homosexuality is an orientation.
    Then it is a deviant orientation.

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Schumm's analysis uses 10 samples, most of which are literary books on gay parenting, and at least one of which the author, Abigail Garner, purposely selected HALF the contents to be about gay parents with straight kids and HALF to be about gay parents with gay kids. He uses those samples to argue that gays have a disproportionate number of gay youth. As such, it is false even at face value. That was a criticism back when Cameron did the original analysis and one he intentionally did not mitigate despite the author herself reporting her book was not a representative sample in a radio interview with Cameron.

    Box Turtle Bulletin “Children of Homosexuals” Researcher More Apt To Ape Paul Cameron

    Do you really think authors of gay parenting books are working hard to make their books statistically representative of the gay parenting population?
    To clarify, your argument here is that, because Schumm's conlusions were reached using literary sources about the effects of gay parenting on children, that happened to primarily concern themselves with the effects of gay parenting on children, they are somehow invalid? wtf.gif

    Ummm... What?

    If you have any evidence to suggest that the statistics and figures provided by the literature in question was in any way in error, go ahead and present it. Otherwise, you are simply engaging in a truly bizarre form of the "poisoning the well" fallacy.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 04-27-13 at 10:12 PM.

  3. #203
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    what dodge you didn't ask me anything?????? LMAO

    way to make stuff up
    what natural laws? you mean your OPINION of what natural laws are LOL

    thanks for proving my point
    You're just dodging and weaving because you rely on emotional arguments

    It's comical and embarrassing

    Gay Marriage isn't real marriage nor is marriage a "Civil Right". By it's very nature a "right" means everyone and everything that wants to engage in that right can. If gays get the ability to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ? than every other interest group that wants to get "married" based upon their sexual behavior should get the ability to do so as well.

    Marriage has always had a specific definition and a specific purpose. Gay Marriage isn't anymore real marriage than Group Marriage, Father/Son marriage (no incest since no procreation) ect. Gay Marriage trivializes marriage which is why it pointless and purely an emotional and selfish concept. Not a logical or rational one.

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The homophobes are so desperate to prove the superior morality of their position that they have to lie and pretend there was a time when they didn't oppose civil unions for GLBT's
    You only undermine your own credibility by childishly objectifying anyone who doesn't support Gay Marriage as a "bigot" or a "homophobe".

  4. #204
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    7,873
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    The original study was from the Family Research Council in 2006. Schumm's objective was to attempt to disprove their findings by reevaluating the available data and deliberately screwing the methodology used in order to favor the assumption that homosexual parenting did not result in an increased occurence of homosexuality in children.

    Even with the deck heavily stacked against the claim, the FRC's original findings were still found to hold true.
    Shumm's a colleague of Paul Cameron, and his 'research' was doubling down on the three articles that Cameron selected. All he did was add Junk Science to Junk science, cherry picked data that supported his claim and ignored the pieces that didn't fit into what he wanted.

    Ya know what else? Shumm got his data from a bunch of books. Not peer-reviewed studies.


    Nonsense. There are plenty of peer reviewed academic studies which only compile and evaluate existing data.
    And they are presented as complications, not a brand new discovery.




    Anything that falls outside of objective biological or statistical norms.
    Clarify the bolded.


    Again, numerous studies have linked an absence in clearly defined father figures to behavioral problems in male children. Try again.
    And I'm sure if they're so numerous you would have no problem linking one. Remember, we're not talking about signle mothers raising their children. We're talking about lesbian couples.

    Why on earth should it matter whether or not the "parents" in question are screwing on the side? wtf.gif
    ....

    That is not the only difference between a grandmother and a lesbian partner.


    And only with a potential 16% to 57% chance of making any children they adopt gay themselves...
    Way to avoid the question.


    Large scale slavery was more or less extinct in the West by the late middle ages. Plantation slavery was a new phenomena.
    Again, I never said 'plantation slavery.' Also, I can think of around 4 million people who would disagree with you, but okay.

    It was never a "traditional value."
    How so?



    Then it is a deviant orientation.
    Define deviant.
    "Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
    -FDR

  5. #205
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    7,873
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Yes, you are expecting us, society to go for the unknown over the known, that is just plain fallacy...the unknown is better than known fallacy...make you happy with a label on it now?
    What?

    What is known is how societies have developed in a stable manner over about 10,000 years of recorded history. What do we have for the unknown of same sex marriage? For a guy as seemingly sharp as you, I would have thought you would have figured that out.
    you have a loose definition of 'stable'. The last few thousand years were pretty hectic.

    What is the divorce rate for same sex marriages? Oh yeah, we don't have a lot of data on that. Why is that? Hasn't been around long enough? So lets wait and see how that data turns out before we turn society upside down so that 2-4% can be happy, maybe, in the right here and now... yes, lets just gamble our posterity on just such a roulette wheel. Vegas anyone?
    I'm not arguing that gay marriages are better.

    The divorce rate on hetero marriage is skewed,
    'Course it is. No other explanation.

    Nothing being risked? Wow, you are gonna need to put some depth on that to get it closer to being profound aren't you? Once you open up marriage, you erase the lines, all Hades will soon break out. Who else do you think might want a non tradional type marriage after that... and on what legal basis would you stop anybody/anything from getting married? That would then be discrimination, because they gave these special rights do same sex couples, how are you going to legally deny someone else. We all currently have equal protections under the law, the Constitution... and with it exactly equal right now, we simply cannot improve on that.
    Not bad, except, wrong on every count. Legalizing SSM does not let hell loose. That is a fantasy for the bible thumpers.

    You got nothing much except the "I wanna do it!! Give it to me give it to me" and the "if it feels good in the moment, lets just do it" arguments. Flat and unpersuasive.
    I have a mountain of supporting data and a clean conscience. I am confident in my position.
    "Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
    -FDR

  6. #206
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    The original study was from the Family Research Council in 2006. Schumm's objective was to attempt to disprove their findings by reevaluating the available data and deliberately skewing the methodology used in order to favor the assumption that homosexual parenting did not result in an increased occurence of homosexuality in children.
    I just wanted to point out that in another thread, Gathomas acknowledged that FRC prints propaganda, but now he's using the propaganda because the facts don't support his position

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Yes. I didn't see anything that would cause me to label most of these organizations as being "hate groups."

    If the mere act of distributing wildly absurd and factually incorrect propaganda aimed against particular social or ethnic groups was enough to grant a given organization that title, Moveon.org and PETA would just as easily qualify as any of the groups named in that list.

    Hell! Occupy Wall Street would probably count as a "hate group" as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #207
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I just wanted to point out that in another thread, Gathomas acknowledged that FRC prints propaganda, but now he's using the propaganda because the facts don't support his position
    Let's take a look at some of the other "research" FRC has promoted

    18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda | Southern Poverty Law Center

    Headed since 2003 by former Louisiana State Rep. Tony Perkins, the FRC has been a font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history. It relies on the work of Robert Knight, who also worked at Concerned Women for America but now is at Coral Ridge Ministries (see above for both), along with that of FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey (hired in 1999) and Peter Sprigg (2001). Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.”

    That’s the least of it. In a 1999 publication (Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia) that has since disappeared from its website, the FRC claimed that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order,” according to unrefuted research by AMERICAblog. The same publication argued that “homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy.” FRC offered no evidence for these remarkable assertions, and has never publicly retracted the allegations. (The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”)

    In fact, in a Nov. 30, 2010, debate on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” between Perkins and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok, Perkins defended FRC’s association of gay men with pedophilia, saying: “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children. So Mark is wrong. He needs to go back and do his own research.” In fact, the college, despite its hifalutin name, is a tiny, explicitly religious-right breakaway group from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 60,000-member association of the profession. Publications of the American College of Pediatricians, which has some 200 members, have been roundly attacked by leading scientific authorities who say they are baseless and accuse the college of distorting and misrepresenting their work.

    Elsewhere, according to AMERICAblog, Knight, while working at the FRC, claimed that “[t]here is a strong current of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture. … [T]hey want to promote a promiscuous society.” AMERICAblog also reported that then-FRC official Yvette Cantu, in an interview published on Americans for Truth About Homosexuality’s website, said, “If they [gays and lesbians] had children, what would happen when they were too busy having their sex parties?”

    More recently, in March 2008, Sprigg, responding to a question about uniting gay partners during the immigration process, said: “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.” He later apologized, but then went on, last February, to tell MSNBC host Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied. At around the same time, Sprigg claimed that allowing gay people to serve openly in the military would lead to an increase in gay-on-straight sexual assaults.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #208
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,925
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    You're just dodging and weaving because you rely on emotional arguments

    It's comical and embarrassing

    Gay Marriage isn't real marriage nor is marriage a "Civil Right". By it's very nature a "right" means everyone and everything that wants to engage in that right can. If gays get the ability to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ? than every other interest group that wants to get "married" based upon their sexual behavior should get the ability to do so as well.

    Marriage has always had a specific definition and a specific purpose. Gay Marriage isn't anymore real marriage than Group Marriage, Father/Son marriage (no incest since no procreation) ect. Gay Marriage trivializes marriage which is why it pointless and purely an emotional and selfish concept. Not a logical or rational one.



    You only undermine your own credibility by childishly objectifying anyone who doesn't support Gay Marriage as a "bigot" or a "homophobe".
    I do not have a problem with gay marriage and as this moment in time I am perfectly happy with the state deciding whether or not to recognize it or not. I also do not have a problem with polygamy. I also agree with you that marriage is not a right, as far as I know every state has to issue a marriage licence for one to get married. So in reality one has to obtain government approval first. I also do not think if one is against gay marriage that makes him homophobic or a bigot. It is like being against amnesty for illegal aliens, people tend to label you a racist if you are. But words like these are thrown around way too much now a days just to score or make a political point.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  9. #209
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,777

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    1.)You're just dodging and weaving because you rely on emotional arguments

    2.)It's comical and embarrassing

    3.)Gay Marriage isn't real marriage
    4.)nor is marriage a "Civil Right".
    5.)By it's very nature a "right" means everyone and everything that wants to engage in that right can.
    6.)If gays get the ability to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ? than every other interest group that wants to get "married" based upon their sexual behavior should get the ability to do so as well.

    7.)Marriage has always had a specific definition and a specific purpose.
    8.)Gay Marriage isn't anymore real marriage than Group Marriage, Father/Son marriage (no incest since no procreation) ect. Gay Marriage trivializes marriage which is why it pointless and purely an emotional and selfish concept. Not a logical or rational one.
    1.) LMAO this is a bold face lie, you havent ask me anything.

    if you disagree please by all means prove you didnt lie, link what i dodged, I cant wait so i can laugh again

    2.) yes it is comical and embarrassing watching fail and lie, i agree

    3.) based on nothing but your opinion

    4.) state supreme court justices call it an equal right, so again your opinion is meaningless

    5.) false SCOTUS disagrees with you and has said so at least 14 different times in CASES
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1061742356

    your OPINION is again meaningless

    6.) gay marriage already exists so nothing will change they will just make it protected by federal law, you are wrong again LOL

    7.) this strawman is always a complete failure. "sexually behavior" we arent discussing just behaviors LMAO

    8.) another lie, history proves you wrong and so does reality today

    9.) again, nothing more than your opinion supported by ZERO facts LMAO


    please stop lying because you are failing at every try LMAO
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #210
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    Shumm's a colleague of Paul Cameron, and his 'research' was doubling down on the three articles that Cameron selected. All he did was add Junk Science to Junk science, cherry picked data that supported his claim and ignored the pieces that didn't fit into what he wanted.

    Ya know what else? Shumm got his data from a bunch of books. Not peer-reviewed studies.
    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.

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

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

    And I'm sure if they're so numerous you would have no problem linking one. Remember, we're not talking about signle mothers raising their children. We're talking about lesbian couples.
    The same principles apply.

    ....

    That is not the only difference between a grandmother and a lesbian partner.
    Feel free to list those differences then.

    Again, I never said 'plantation slavery.' Also, I can think of around 4 million people who would disagree with you, but okay.
    Platation slavery was the only kind of slavery to survive in the West into the modern era, and it was a relatively new development.

    As such, it can not be "traditional."

    How so?
    Explain to me why it would count as one?

    Define deviant.
    Contrary to established norms.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 04-28-13 at 12:12 AM.

Page 21 of 45 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •