Page 26 of 45 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 443

Thread: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

  1. #251
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,044

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Quag View Post
    Again you could be talking for either side, though I'm pretty sure which one you mean
    l am sure you are

    you read many of my posts
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  2. #252
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,004

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    l am sure you are

    you read many of my posts
    Others may be less informed on your positions however
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  3. #253
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    7,874
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    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.

    This part of our conversation is becoming a lot like the one at the bottom of our posts, so I'm just going to combine them to save space.



    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.
    My argument is not that they need opposite sex role models. My argument is that two heads are better than one. You made the false claim that the reason for lower rates of success in single parent children is that there's only one sex in the household, which I do not agree. I am pointing out the fact that two heads are better than one.



    Which is all a lot of very vague and insubstantial quibbling which really signifies nothing.
    I gave examples. If you cannot counter them, then do do not act as though I said nothing significant. If you wish, I can go deeper into it.


    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.
    Correct. I'm glad to see you payed attention.


    Yea.. I'm sure she that she's a real "objective" and "impartial" source on the matter.
    We'd be asking about how her relationship with her mother is different then her relationship with her partner. I don't how your claims of bias hold and ground.



    Then why are we discussing it?
    Because you brought up tradition as part of the social converative act. I pointed out that simply because we've been doing it for a long time does not mean it's a good thing.


    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."
    I asked by 'who' not what. 'Objective reality' is not a person/group.
    "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

  4. #254
    Sage
    mpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,769

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Verthaine View Post
    You made it sound as if YOU know what's on the mind of EVERY American in this country.
    That's absolutely false and anyone can go back and read my posts to see that you're lying baldly.
    If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.

  5. #255
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Its fine to disagree, doesn't do much if you cannot explain your position however. Let me make is simpler for you, a gay man has the same rights and restrictions as I, a hetero, have. EQUAL .
    Equal in the same sense that interracial marriage bans made it so nobody could marry someone of a different race. That is equal as well as it applies across the board. However, it did not serve a legitimate or rational state interest and therefore was found unconstitutional. In the same way, same sex marriage bans discriminate on the basis of sex. No person can marry someone of the same sex, and that is equal, but it is not rational nor does it serve a legitimate state purpose.

    Policies are not made for the exceptions, they are made for the general rule... who is to say that advances in science cannot allow fertility? That those who choose not to have children suddenly choose to have some. Giving the right to the elderly female and male will not erase the lines as presently drawn and open up the dread of negative unintended, some of which are foreseeable, consequences.
    As a general rule, children of same sex couples deserve the same rights and protections inherent in having married parents as do children of opposite sex couples. When you brought children into the argument you lost because opposite sex couples do not have a monopoly on raising children. People will and do procreate regardless of marriage and as such it is not a basis for discriminating who does and does not deserve to marry. To the contrary, the true basis for marriage in a modern society is on providing stable homes to raise children, of which over 30 years of evidence supports that same sex couples are well equipped to do.

    We, as you know, haven't really had the time to study it yet. But we do know that once you erase the line of tradition, the walls holding back the floods of chaos will soon coming crashing in. Who will we then say no to? Anything and everything will be allowed...what would be the legal basis of denying anybody the right to marriage to anybody, or in some cases, or anything? That clearly would be chaos, think about that critically. Society cannot withstand such assaults for very long.
    In other words, your argument is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy of which you have no evidence to support. Did you realize that the states with the lowest divorce rates are actually the states which have and support same sex marriage? That has not changed.

    Tradition is a proven entity, so comes up ACES... what you got in your deck of fallacies that might beat mine? Experimentation is better than a proven winner? Not so good...so what ya got?
    Appeal to tradition fallacy. Slavery was a tradition, as was denying anyone but white, male property owners the right to vote. Traditions are not inherently good or "proven" as you state. They are simply an established attitude or practice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  6. #256
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    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? Attachment 67146667
    This is difficult because you apparently do not understand what he did or how a meta analysis works.

    A meta-analysis uses several RANDOM samples to make generalizations about a population. However, Schumm and Cameron deliberated used NONRANDOM samples in their analysis. As such the methodology was completely unsound. All I had to do to prove such was show that the samples he used were not randomly selected and therefore not representative. It is psuedoscience for people who do not understand how an actual meta-analysis is suppose to work.

    Let me give you an example. What Schumm and Cameron did was like going to Denver zoo in Colorado to get an idea of the natural wildlife in Colorado. The owners of the zoo intentionally made the zoo so it is not representative of wildlife in Colorado. You don't see lions and tigers running through the Rocky Mountains.

    In the same way, some of the authors of the books that Schumm and Cameron used intentionally made it so their books were not representative because they were trying to appeal specifically to gay parents. As such, some of the books are half about gay parents with straight children and the other half about gay parents with gay children.

    Let me state this clearly since it is apparent you haven't actually read their study. What they did was take several BOOKS, not scientific studies, but literary BOOKS written by people on gay parenting. He used those BOOKS as if they were REPRESENTATIVE samples in his "meta-analysis". However the authors of the books specifically chose who they put and did not put in the book in order to balance it out. The author of at least one book cited by Schumm in his "meta-analysis", Abigail Garner, PURPOSELY selected half of the children featured in her book to be the Gay children of Gay parents.

    Do you think that would be a representative sample? As such, it was not only a self selected sample, but a researcher biased sample. The authors chose to put a disproportionate number of stories of gay parents who raised gay kids.

    To make it clear, a meta analysis needs to be composed of relatively RANDOM samples to be valid. Do you understand what that means or am I wasting my time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  7. #257
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    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.
    I'm gay. I don't want marriage for "equality". I want it for the rights and protections it would afford my family. If there had ever been a viable alternative I would have been fine with it. However, between the federal government not recognizing civil unions and states passing bans on them, that has never been an option I could even entertain. If you want to argue that gay rights advocates are to blame because they sought the "marriage" title then fine. The reality is that your side criminalized my relationship with sodomy laws and has NEVER put forth a civil union bill or came to the table seeking a compromise. Until that happens you have no ground to stand on. To the contrary, there have been many, many gay rights advocates who have pushed for civil unions in the past, and many were even OPPOSED to same sex marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  8. #258
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post

    A. Equal in the same sense that interracial marriage bans made it so nobody could marry someone of a different race. That is equal as well as it applies across the board. However, it did not serve a legitimate or rational state interest and therefore was found unconstitutional. In the same way, same sex marriage bans discriminate on the basis of sex. No person can marry someone of the same sex, and that is equal, but it is not rational nor does it serve a legitimate state purpose.



    B. As a general rule, children of same sex couples deserve the same rights and protections inherent in having married parents as do children of opposite sex couples. When you brought children into the argument you lost because opposite sex couples do not have a monopoly on raising children. People will and do procreate regardless of marriage and as such it is not a basis for discriminating who does and does not deserve to marry. To the contrary, the true basis for marriage in a modern society is on providing stable homes to raise children, of which over 30 years of evidence supports that same sex couples are well equipped to do.



    C. In other words, your argument is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy of which you have no evidence to support. Did you realize that the states with the lowest divorce rates are actually the states which have and support same sex marriage? That has not changed.



    D. Appeal to tradition fallacy. Slavery was a tradition, as was denying anyone but white, male property owners the right to vote. Traditions are not inherently good or "proven" as you state. They are simply an established attitude or practice.

    A. Yes. The state has the legitimate mission of continuance, survival. A nation achieves this promoting those policies which best achieve that end, discouraging that which detracts.

    WE, the people, desire to survive as a strong nation. Promoting strong families, the building blocks of any strong nation wanting to continue past more than a few generations, is a compelling state interest. We can easily view Europe and its demographics crisis due, in large part, to liberal policies put in place there within just the last three generations... it is more and more imperative that we do the right things. We have been so mired in going in the wrong direction, and now more than ever, need to come to that realization.

    Our government does not prohibit private unions of same sex couples, we are a tolerant nation, so acceptance in many situations has been accomplished. But to press this, forcing society to fundamentally change into something that brings with it no particular benefit, thus no compelling state interest, for the benefit of less than 4% of the population, a population that is not replacing itself but must rely, and actually draw upon the others, seems more of a burden, most certainly does not promote the general welfare. With no definitive proof as to whether sexual orientation is due to nature or to nurture or any combination of the two, and as it could very well be heavily influenced through nurture, the state interest being survival and maintaining its vitality, why should the state promote policies that are determined in all probability to be in conflict with one of its primary missions of long term survival?

    Answer: there is no compelling interest in so doing and many reasons not to do so.


    B. You do not base policy on the exception, you base it on the rule [the majority]. Only opposite sex couplings, egg and sperm, produce offspring. While there are the few same sex parented families, in comparison to the whole, indeed out there, we must base policies on the majority. We allow this rarity in society, yet we have no reason to promote nor encourage this type of family unit. Demanding more, demanding equal status when such couplings are not the same, are not inherently equal and do not perform anywhere near the optimal for long term health of a society... that becomes a selfish need at the expense of the whole.

    C. Slippery slopes can slope either way. We have thousands of years of study of traditional marriage to show what works, what does not. We have no studies of existing same sex cultures as none have survived. It is difficult to see how one, could, in fact, survive very long. But tell me, since you do not attempt to even address the major question, upon what legal basis will we deny anybody from marrying anybody or anything? After we fundamentally change society? And do you deny that allowing everybody to do whatever they want will only lead to chaos? Whether you do or not, it would... and most people given a proper understanding that our laws will not allow you to just open the door a crack, to allow just what "you" want to come in, once open you let it ALL in.

    As you know, regarding divorce same sex states blah blah, correlation is not equivalent to causation. Could be all myriad reasons for that stat, probably not underrepresented is that many people might be giving up on marriage as a whole, it being seen to be of less and less worth with dilution and ease of divorce.

    D. Again, you have nothing to trump tradition, experimental societies come and go, seldom even noticed, often unheard of and forgotten to history. We have a proven system. Often smart/best to go home with the one that brought you to the dance. Again, you go with the rarities [Slavery], the exception upon which to base policy? We have the incubators of democracy with states, take it as far as you can go in the states, let the people there decide, then watch, see what happens... but to force everyone, whether they/we like it, believe in it, or not, that we must do as the minority says, would that not be rather totalitarian and a tyranny of the minority?

  9. #259
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzai View Post
    It has to be done that way because monotheism has reduced people to cannibalistic sheep (read: mob).......................
    Well, I certainly do not know how they do it, I cannot stand lamb or mutton myself...even on kabob ...or would that be kamob...???

  10. #260
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    08-04-13 @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    459

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    A. Yes. The state has the legitimate mission of continuance, survival. A nation achieves this promoting those policies which best achieve that end, discouraging that which detracts.

    Even if that's so, there is no evidence--zero!--that same sex marriage "detracts" from our "survival" or "continuance" as a society in any way.



    why should the state promote policies that are determined in all probability to be in conflict with one of its primary missions of long term survival?
    Again: how is it in conflict with long-term survival?


    C. Slippery slopes can slope either way. We have thousands of years of study of traditional marriage
    Marriage and what it means not only has differed from place to place, but has changed radically within every old society.

    These changes predate the "three generations" of European iniquity which you elsewhere summon, and by a long shot.

    We have no studies of existing same sex cultures as none have survived. It is difficult to see how one, could, in fact, survive very long.


    Who, pray tell, is trying to create a "same sex culture?"

Page 26 of 45 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... 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
  •