Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

CriticalThought · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
The conclusion supported by the data is clear. Homosexual parents have a tendency to raise homosexual children.

The data was beyond self selected. Some of the authors of the books he used INTENTIONALLY chose to use gay parents of gay kids in order to round off their books and include useful information. I think it is pretty easy to make it look like gay parents raise gay kids when you sample books where authors intentionally chose to find and include gay parents of gay kids. What I struggle to understand is why you didn't exercise the basic critical thinking skills to question the validity of his methods before citing him. It seems to me you liked his conclusion because it supported your political agenda and you don't actually care whether it was a legitimate study.

iguanaman · Apr 27, 2013

Maenad said:
Gay marriage anywhere is not about luv, sweetie, it's about money. It's about government benefits, company benefits, etc. The bigger their cut of the pie the smaller anyone's who isn't gay.....

Just like the wealthy who are sucking up all the money and leaving none for the rest of us....Right?

It is all about religious zealotry. Wanna bet the protestors are devote Catholics? Religion causes all sorts of insane behaviors.

CriticalThought · Apr 27, 2013

Gaugingcatenate said:
First, as Gathomas has rightly pointed out, the Civil Rights movement for African American rights [ which, by extension, was for all American's rights ] is not the same, nor equal, as the Gay Marriage movement. We currently have equal rights in the USA... it is not separate but equal, it is just already equal.

I agree to disagree.

That being said, Civil Unions/domestic partnerships are not the same, nor meant to be equal, to marriage. They are different, just like man and woman are different from man and man and woman and woman. Marriage has in tradition been a protection of women and the children created by the union of a man and a woman. Those same protections are unnecessary as man and man and woman and woman unions do not create/procreate children.

Tell that to infertile heterosexual couples, heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids, and heterosexual couples too elderly to have kids. They can all marry.

I would agree also with Gathomas in that we, at our peril, grant special privileges to special groups, as he indicated being between 2-4% of any nation or group planet wise. To change all of society to suit one small group is opening up a Pandora's ominous box, the negative externalities alone from which we might never recover.

How has same sex marriage changed anyone's marriage?

Let the debate determine who is educated on the topic and who is not... I think that is a label that should be left up to the audience to make up its own mind about, is it not?

So far the basis of your argument is an appeal to tradition fallacy and your personal opinion. Not exactly an "educated" means of debate. I would love to take you on.

AGENT J · Apr 27, 2013

Gaugingcatenate said:
1.)First, as Gathomas has rightly pointed out, the Civil Rights movement for African American rights [ which, by extension, was for all American's rights ] is not the same, nor equal, as the Gay Marriage movement. We currently have equal rights in the USA... it is not separate but equal, it is just already equal.

That being said, Civil Unions/domestic partnerships are not the same

3.), nor meant to be equal, to marriage. They are different, just like man and woman are different from man and man and woman and woman. Marriage has in tradition been a protection of women and the children created by the union of a man and a woman. Those same protections are unnecessary as man and man and woman and woman unions do not create/procreate children.

I would agree also with Gathomas in that we, at our peril, grant special privileges to special groups, as he indicated being between 2-4% of any nation or group planet wise. To change all of society to suit one small group is opening up a Pandora's ominous box, the negative externalities alone from which we might never recover.

Let the debate determine who is educated on the topic and who is not... I think that is a label that should be left up to the audience to make up its own mind about, is it not?

1.) yes i saw his strawman argument that failed

no the gay struggle is not EQUAL to "slavery", but the struggle for equal rights is because its about discrimination and equal rights and thats what people make the comparison too.
Ive never seen anybody say being gay is like being a slaved and whipped and made to do work and having zero rights. His comparison was nonsensical and a straw man ive never seen anybody make.

2.) yes they are not equal that is a fact
3.) this is nothing more than your opinion :shrug:
it also fails and is illogical based on these facts

A.)procreation isnt need, required or considered for marriage to be granted
B.) gays can certainly creat a family through adoption or donors

4.) feel free ot agree iwht him but that argument was nonsensical too.

Native Americans, Hawaiians and many specific religions are that small and smaller, lets not grant them equal rights either LOL

5.) no the debate nor the audience doesnt matter if facts are being discussed. :shrug: LOL

education on a topic is determined by facts and knowledge and some of those facts and knowledge in that post you already agreed with

what i said in that post is factual per its content.

Gathomas88 · Apr 27, 2013

Jredbaron96 said:
His only confirmation was what the kids said. Are you telling me kids don't often think they are something they are not?

How old were most of the children in question?

In one study.

Two studies. The study I mentioned was fact-checking what an earlier study had claimed.

In one study, might I add, that was conducted in a manner equivalent to an 11th grade Reading report. Pardon me for not jumping on that train.

Irrelevant. It is common for academic studies to utilize pre-existing data.

No.

That is correct. Your point is...

If a demonstratable connection between being raised in a homosexual household and turning to homosexuality later in life can be shown, then homosexual adoption is essentially a form of recruitment into the homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexuality is not a deviant lifestyle.

It is an abnormal state of affairs practiced by 2-4% of any given nation's population at most. That is, by definition, " deviant."

Your P.C. semantics can go fly a kite.

Can you re-iterate your original point, I want to make sure I'm getting the full picture.

Young men raised in single mother households often exhibit behavioral problems later in life due to the lack of a father figure.

You claimed that this would not be the case in a same-sex lesbian household because one of the mothers there would take on a "fatherly" role.

A large number of single mothers also live with their own mothers, essentially rendering the environment a de facto same sex two parent household. These behavioral problems still manifest themselves.

This would not seem to support the conclusion that the presence of two women can make up for the absence of a man in the process of childrearing.

My, look at all the data your presented! Oh, wait...

Prove to me they are terrible at them. Don't give this bull**** "Oh that's just how it is!" Give me a real ****ing paper/study/research thing.

Provide specific data which shows that a lesbian can effectively serve as a father figure, or that a gay man can serve in a motherly role with the same efficiency as someone of the opposite sex.

"A handful of children have been raised by gay couples and turned out to be sort of 'okay' (with a strong chance of turning to homosexuality themselves)." Isn't really cutting it.

Oh, it's not? Why did we as a species practice it for thousands of years then? I thought it was 'tradition.'

American plantation slavery was a relatively new phenomena. It dated back no further than the 16th century.

It was also an economic institution, not a "value."

Segregation dated back no further than the mid 19th Century.

Homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle.

Yes, it is.

Once case doesn't make a generalization true.

More like every major case of the last half century. Nice try though.

Liberal social values have proven themselves to be unproductive and even harmful to society in general on more occasions than I care to count.

Gathomas88 · Apr 27, 2013

CriticalThought said:
The data was beyond self selected. Some of the authors of the books he used INTENTIONALLY chose to use gay parents of gay kids in order to round off their books and include useful information. I think it is pretty easy to make it look like gay parents raise gay kids when you sample books where authors intentionally chose to find and include gay parents of gay kids. What I struggle to understand is why you didn't exercise the basic critical thinking skills to question the validity of his methods before citing him. It seems to me you liked his conclusion because it supported your political agenda and you don't actually care whether it was a legitimate study.

Prove it.

Gaugingcatenate · Apr 27, 2013

Jredbaron96 said:
Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. Try again.

And you have a better appeal, do you?

What is known and what is the unknown?

We know about traditional marriage [thousands of years of knowledge and practice], what happens generally with intact two parent, man and woman, marriages over the long term... that is tradition, we can and have studied it. We know it has provided the basic blocks upon which we build the strong societal foundations that we, as a nation, desire to encourage and provide for our posterity, for the the long term health of our society/nation.

This forced upon Russian Roulette experimentation is not something we must do. And that is just what this is, experimentation, a gamble so that we may please a certain minority, 2-4%, while risking the whole, 100%. Seems a little selfish, maybe? The fact that the LBGT movement is not tolerant of just being tolerated [ which in history would be HUGE], they want everyone to condone, to support and ultimately promote something that others do not think right ...nor natural... or whatever their private reasoning, and certainly do not want, as has been stated previously, this forced acceptance shoved down their, our and our children's throats.

Simple as that.

clownboy · Apr 27, 2013

CriticalThought said:
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.

Disingenuous to say the least. Your timeline ignores everything from 1972 to 1996. Are you seriously trying to get folks to believe that in that interim gay marriage wasn't sought almost continuously? And when you couldn't get it through the political process you headed for the courts. When the courts turned you down, did you stop trying to co-opt marriage - no, you just spun the issue slightly, tried a different tack and hit the courts up again. The death of a thousand cuts.

We "force" the majority social view in virtually every law we make. We decide what is acceptable behavior and to what degree by our society's standards.

Believing in individual freedom does NOT mean anything that pops into your head goes.

Jredbaron96 · Apr 27, 2013

Gaugingcatenate said:
And you have a better appeal, do you?

No, I'm not stupid enough to use logical fallacies for my arguments.

What is known and what is the unknown?

We know about traditional marriage [thousands of years of knowledge and practice], what happens generally with intact two parent, man and woman, marriages over the long term... that is tradition, we can and have studied it. We know it has provided the basic blocks upon which we build the strong societal foundations that we, as a nation, desire to encourage and provide for our posterity, for the the long term health of our society/nation.

The divorce rate for straight couples is 50%. you don't have a lot to show for.

This forced upon Russian Roulette experimentation is not something we must do. And that is just what this is, experimentation, a gamble so that we may please a certain minority, 2-4%, while risking the whole, 100%. Seems a little selfish, maybe? The fact that the LBGT movement is not tolerant of just being tolerated [ which in history would be HUGE], they want everyone to condone, to support and ultimately promote something that others do not think right ...nor natural... or whatever their private reasoning, and certainly do not want, as has been stated previously, this forced acceptance shoved down their, our and our children's throats.

Nothing is being 'risked for'.

Simple as that.

Not even close.

Jredbaron96 · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
How old were most of the children in question?

I don't know.

Two studies. The study I mentioned was fact-checking what an earlier study had claimed.

Was the other study the one in the original post I replied to?

Irrelevant. It is common for academic studies to utilize pre-existing data.

When using it as comparison to their own findings, yes. Not what Shumme did.

If a demonstratable connection between being raised in a homosexual household and turning to homosexuality later in life can be shown, then homosexual adoption is essentially a form of recruitment into the homosexual lifestyle.

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.

It is an abnormal state of affairs practiced by 2-4% of any given nation's population at most. That is, by definition, " deviant."

How do you define "abnormal"? And even so, that does not make it a lifestyle.

Your P.C. semantics can go fly a kite.

Your right wing memes can **** off.

Young men raised in single mother households often exhibit behavioral problems later in life due to the lack of a father figure.

Okay.

You claimed that this would not be the case in a same-sex lesbian household because one of the mothers there would take on a "fatherly" role.

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.

A large number of single mothers also live with their own mothers, essentially rendering the environment a de facto same sex two parent household.

Incorrect. The relationship bewteen a married couple and their children is innately different than a mother/grandmother-to-child relationship.

Provide specific data which shows that a lesbian can effectively serve as a father figure,

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.

"A handful of children have been raised by gay couples and turned out to be sort of 'okay' (with a strong chance of turning to homosexuality themselves)." Isn't really cutting it.

Neither it making the same ****ing vague claims of this inablilty for gays to properly raise children.

American plantation slavery was a relatively new phenomena. It dated back no further than the 16th century.

It was also an economic institution, not a "value."

I did not say 'plantation slavery', I said slavery.

Yes, it is.

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

Liberal social values have proven themselves to be unproductive and even harmful to society in general on more occasions than I care to count.

Liberal social policies led to women voting, end of child labor, and the ending of sodomy laws. Try again.

Gaugingcatenate · Apr 27, 2013

AGENT J said:
1.) no, SOME of tham are using violence to fight against equality, thats bigotry and moronic. Please note than and normal protesting would be fine with me whether i agreed or not but i would still judge them as thats my right too,
2.) preservation of what they believe is not needed, they are still free to not participate in gay marriage. What they believe in is not being changed or forced on them.
as for the rest yes they have that right, just as i have the right to judge them.
People had the right to fight against equal rights for minorities and woman too. They were also bigots if they were trying to stop them then too. Also ain if they did it peaceful that would be fine. sp,e are not.

3.) i agree and you realize that you just called the violent protester insane right? but somehow bigots and moron you deem harsh?

4.) yes they do, and if they are against equal rights or against a race, gender or sexuality AND they want to stop others from having those rights, not just have feeling its wrong that doesnt change the fact they are bigots

5.) child abuser are CRIMINALS and RAPIST and they have VICTIUMS and they INFRINGE on RIGHTS of others. Example fails
6.) see above

7.) these examples show how severely uneducated you are on the issues and understanding of rights, freedoms and liberties.

comparing equal rights to rapist and killers is nonsensical and very telling about you ability to be honest and objective and it lets us know where your failed presentations of reality are.

paris aside here in america i would defend ones freedom to PREACH, TEACH, BELIEVE, FEEL, THINK, SAY etc that gay is wrong, gross a sin whatever. But as soon as they try to STOP their fellow americans from having equal rights its hypocritical, bigoted and moronic. :shrug:

you are free to disagree though

1. Where is your dreaded INEQUALITY?

2. They do not need a continuing society? Liberal polices in Europe and their impact is being shown to us in real time. The disintegration of the stable traditional family [which is what we are really talkng about here as well ], the promotion of zero population growth aided by abortion policy/practices, the social welfare policies [ which also allow and promote single parent families to the detriment of those families ], now the promotion of couples who cannot independently reproduce themselves, much less achieve zero they go into the negative... I mean it just goes on and on... and we can see it from over here...
How is it not being forced on them, they were not asked... there was no vote by the People... it is forced...

And again, this false equivalency with the Civil Rights of minorities and women... it simply IS NOT THE SAME.

3. Agreed on the one point. And no, I did not just call a violent protestor insane. Violent protests are situational... some may be sane, we fought a violent Revolution so that we could found this fine country. Was that insane? NO. That is why I place the qualifier generally. I am not into violence, at the same time I understand that a police FORCE is often needed, a strong military is a requirement to deter our enemies and, if necessary to violently fight and beat them. Agreed?

5. Homosexuality used to be illegal, not that long ago, so the criminality argument fails for you, right? All that would have to happen is get enough people in congress to pass the right laws and Bam! No more child molesters because it is legal [ Sounds similar, taking out the criminality part, to what the legislators just did in France, passing a law without allowing a vote by the people on such an important societal changing matter, right? So after they pass that law allowing relations between a 9 year old and an adult man, whose rights are then being infringed? So, double fail there AJ.
7. Don't attempt to label me and how educated I am. I have two degrees, history and poly sci, teach history and economics, have taught American Government, Civics, Law, World History, etc....have more than the equivalent of a minor in English, attended Harvard [ could only afford one semester ] and the best school in the South East [ all at my own expense, not rich here and no desire to be so ] have traveled most of Western Europe by bicycle, North, Central and South America [at my own expense ], have more books in my private library just on politics and history than most people will ever read in five lifetimes...

So why not just prove your points, don't label, let others decide who is and isn't educated on the issues....makes you look bad except to those who already agree, called confirmation bias, by the way.

Comparing principles gets to the bone, buddy... not just your surface stuff like maybe, don't know yet, like maybe you are used to putting out there. The principle either stands up under close scrutiny...or like yours, it does not.

Lets just explore what you were saying, minority right and equality... you were imprecise in your language, do not blame me and would expect you to catch me if similarly imprecise, minorities include ALL MINORITIES my fellow citizen.

THE BIGGEST FAILURE SO FAR IS TO PROVE THAT ANYBODY IS BEING DEPRIVED OF EQUAL RIGHTS... need to work on that AJ

Gaugingcatenate · Apr 27, 2013

AGENT J said:
again more opinion :shrug:
and i would defend you right to have it

Thank you, as I would defend yours, because without those conditions, neither of us can speak our minds.

Right now, though, I would rather you show me the error of my ways ...if you can.

CriticalThought · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
Prove it.

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?

CriticalThought · Apr 27, 2013

clownboy said:
Disingenuous to say the least. Your timeline ignores everything from 1972 to 1996. Are you seriously trying to get folks to believe that in that interim gay marriage wasn't sought almost continuously? And when you couldn't get it through the political process you headed for the courts. When the courts turned you down, did you stop trying to co-opt marriage - no, you just spun the issue slightly, tried a different tack and hit the courts up again. The death of a thousand cuts.

We "force" the majority social view in virtually every law we make. We decide what is acceptable behavior and to what degree by our society's standards.

Believing in individual freedom does NOT mean anything that pops into your head goes.

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.

AGENT J · Apr 27, 2013

Gaugingcatenate said:
1. Where is your dreaded INEQUALITY?

2. They do not need a continuing society? Liberal polices in Europe and their impact is being shown to us in real time. The disintegration of the stable traditional family [which is what we are really talkng about here as well ], the promotion of zero population growth aided by abortion policy/practices, the social welfare policies [ which also allow and promote single parent families to the detriment of those families ], now the promotion of couples who cannot independently reproduce themselves, much less achieve zero they go into the negative... I mean it just goes on and on... and we can see it from over here...
How is it not being forced on them, they were not asked... there was no vote by the People... it is forced...

2a.)And again, this false equivalency with the Civil Rights of minorities and women... it simply IS NOT THE SAME.

3. Agreed on the one point. And no, I did not just call a violent protestor insane. Violent protests are situational... some may be sane, we fought a violent Revolution so that we could found this fine country. Was that insane? NO. That is why I place the qualifier generally. I am not into violence, at the same time I understand that a police FORCE is often needed, a strong military is a requirement to deter our enemies and, if necessary to violently fight and beat them. Agreed?

5. Homosexuality used to be illegal, not that long ago, so the criminality argument fails for you, right?
5a.)All that would have to happen is get enough people in congress to pass the right laws and Bam! No more child molesters because it is legal
5b.)[ Sounds similar, taking out the criminality part, to what the legislators just did in France, passing a law without allowing a vote by the people on such an important societal changing matter, right?
5c.) So after they pass that law allowing relations between a 9 year old and an adult man, whose rights are then being infringed? So, double fail there AJ.
7. Don't attempt to label me and how educated I am. I have two degrees, history and poly sci, teach history and economics, have taught American Government, Civics, Law, World History, etc....have more than the equivalent of a minor in English, attended Harvard [ could only afford one semester ] and the best school in the South East [ all at my own expense, not rich here and no desire to be so ] have traveled most of Western Europe by bicycle, North, Central and South America [at my own expense ], have more books in my private library just on politics and history than most people will ever read in five lifetimes...

So why not just prove your points, don't label, let others decide who is and isn't educated on the issues....makes you look bad except to those who already agree, called confirmation bias, by the way.

Comparing principles gets to the bone, buddy... not just your surface stuff like maybe, don't know yet, like maybe you are used to putting out there. The principle either stands up under close scrutiny...or like yours, it does not.

8.)Lets just explore what you were saying, minority right and equality... you were imprecise in your language, do not blame me and would expect you to catch me if similarly imprecise, minorities include ALL MINORITIES my fellow citizen.

THE BIGGEST FAILURE SO FAR IS TO PROVE THAT ANYBODY IS BEING DEPRIVED OF EQUAL RIGHTS... need to work on that AJ

1.) right to marriage :shrug: some state supreme courts in the US have already decided when put to the task LMAO
yes i knew this thread is about paris, and as their government ruled.

2.) no because its not under attack nor is it in danger of being not preserved. From my understanding striaht marriage is still legal right? nobody is trying to take that away right? then its fine its not in danger and doesnt need preserved because it already exists LOL

theres ZERO force because they dont have to participate in gay marriage LMAO assuming otherwise is just disingenuous.

2a.) you are welcome to that opinion but you have not facts to support it and court ruling in the US already disagree with you

3.) so make up your mind then LOL you made the statement not me LOL glad you clarified.

5.) no it doesn't fail me because homosexuality is not illegal
5a.) WRONG because you would have to strip away many rights to make rape legal LOL
so no "bam" and whether legal or not a victim and force would still be present lol
5b.) no it doesnt if you are an honest adult and understand reality, rights, freedoms liberties and what rape is, a minor is, force is lOL not even CLOSE to the same unless one is totally dishonest LOL
5c.) see above no fail is present, you lose LOL
7.) see another fail because i didnt label you on how uneducated you are in general so please stop lying, you could have 15 degress, on this topic you are uneducated, Im uneducated on many topics, brain surgery, engine rebuilding etc

so let me know when your appeal to emotion rant and strawman is over LMAO tell me that cool line about who looks bad again? LMAO

or continue to lie and make things up, the choose is yours really

8.) nice try but this already failed when i said minorities i was talking about minorities and women was i not and the rights they already GAINED so it was obvious to honest people who i meant Nice back pedal though but it fails LMAO

9.) 100% wrong because facts and state supreme court justices already disagree with you :laughat:

cool line though LOL
my "work" is already done

if you want an HONEST and OBJECTIVE conversation, because i can already tell after that loss if you even response its gong to be emotional ranting all over the place LOL, take deep breaths and feel free to ask me any questions you want. Ill gladly answer

HONEST questions and i will gladly answer them, that way you wont have to assume and make stuff up about my stance.

Gaugingcatenate · Apr 27, 2013

CriticalThought said:
I agree to disagree.

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 .

Tell that to infertile heterosexual couples, heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids, and heterosexual couples too elderly to have kids. They can all marry.

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.

How has same sex marriage changed anyone's marriage?

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.

So far the basis of your argument is an appeal to tradition fallacy and your personal opinion. Not exactly an "educated" means of debate. I would love to take you on.

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?

Me in the green BOLD

AGENT J · Apr 27, 2013

Gaugingcatenate said:
Thank you, as I would defend yours, because without those conditions, neither of us can speak our minds.

Right now, though, I would rather you show me the error of my ways ...if you can.

error in your ways? hmmmm

im not recalling enough about our conversation to remember any FACTUAL "errors", i cant call your OPINIONS errors unless of course they are factually wrong.
Earlier there were somethign things you simple got wrong and i already pointed those out.

you would have to tell me more about yourself, your views and opinions. There may not be any factual ERRORS in your ways, we may just not agree.

your comment came after i responded to somebody saying "gay marriage" will never be "Real marriage" and i explained to them that statment is nothign more than a opinion as it was stated,

he could change that statement and make it a fact
i ould change the statement and make it factually not true

but as worded it was just an opinion

we can start there, how do you feel about his statement.

Gaugingcatenate · Apr 27, 2013

AGENT J said:
1.) yes i saw his strawman argument that failed

no the gay struggle is not EQUAL to "slavery", but the struggle for equal rights is because its about discrimination and equal rights and thats what people make the comparison too.
Ive never seen anybody say being gay is like being a slaved and whipped and made to do work and having zero rights. His comparison was nonsensical and a straw man ive never seen anybody make.

2.) yes they are not equal that is a fact
3.) this is nothing more than your opinion :shrug:
it also fails and is illogical based on these facts

A.)procreation isnt need, required or considered for marriage to be granted
B.) gays can certainly creat a family through adoption or donors

4.) feel free ot agree iwht him but that argument was nonsensical too.

Native Americans, Hawaiians and many specific religions are that small and smaller, lets not grant them equal rights either LOL

5.) no the debate nor the audience doesnt matter if facts are being discussed. :shrug: LOL

education on a topic is determined by facts and knowledge and some of those facts and knowledge in that post you already agreed with

what i said in that post is factual per its content.

1. People have a right to discriminate, discrimination has become a dirty word but we do it all the time when we pick one brand of sneakers over another, one car over another...well, you get the point. Being discriminating in who you hang out with, if you choose positively, is pretty much a good thing. So lets no go overboard with this discrimination word. That might be considered discrimination...:mrgreen: right?

Don't know where your 2 came from out of the blue...but they are equal, a homosexual man has the exact same rights as I, a hetro, do under the constitution. Don't just say I am wrong, prove me wrong...that is how debate is done, right?

3. Marriage is and has been mainly for those protections of women and children through the union of the man and woman...

A. Procreation in most instances is not needed before the fact, that would be silly, it is the legal protections for what come after that we are talking about.
B. Yeah, I do not agree with that either, not good for society. So we are able to limit it to who can get "donors" that is not illegal and they have that perfect right, but no adoptions. Study same sex couple's kids for a hundred years or so, see how those turn out and, if not a problem, then unleash it on society as a whole.

4. All those you just mentioned, Native Americans, etc... have at least the same rights as I do already... do not need special rights as would be needed for same sex marriage. So we don't even have a disagreement here as far as I can tell.

5. EMBARRASSING FAIL. But then, you knew that when you typed it. But we will let the unbiased audience decide.

Bronson · Apr 27, 2013

Verthaine said:
Just because you say so,doesn't make it so.

Just because you say Gay Marriage is real marriage, doesn't make it so.

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.

Maybe you got married to serve some "social or economic purpose" to humanity,but I got married to my wife because that was the woman I wanted to spend the rest of my life with.
Me and Selena just doesn't give a crap what the rest of humanity thinks about our marriage.We don't need your approval,Bronson.We have each other,and that's all that matters to us.

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.

I don't know what goes on in your marriage,but in my marriage to Selena,we've endured good times,we endured bad times,we nursed each other through sickness, we raised three children (from my first marriage,Selena can't have children due to cancer)we argue with one another,we've had epic fights, doors have been slammed,couches slept on,we have passionate make up sex,we've laughed with each other,shed tears for one another,we've been faithful to one another,sometimes we are angry with one another,but at all time we love each other.
Most of all,through thick and thin, we have each others back.
That is what a REAL MARRIAGE is all about.
Not some piece of paper or a word in a dictionary.
Are you saying that Gay people are incapable of going through the things I described above?

Gay marriage is not real marriage.

It never will be

Are you aware of the many times I have stated on this forum that I own a catering and banquet hall business,and gay weddings put thousands and thousands of dollars into my own pocket.
Money that is thus taxed by our government.

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.

Bronson · Apr 27, 2013

AGENT J said:
1,) opinion you are welcome too
2.) opinion you are welcome too
3.) opinion you are welcome too

also feel free to keep these opinions after gay marriage is legal :Shrug:

Dodge noted

Laws can always be repealed/overturned. Human Laws don't change Natural Law.

mpg · Apr 27, 2013

Verthaine said:
So MPG,how the eff do you know what's on the minds of your fellow Americans,hmmm?

NEWS FLASH: Sometimes people express opinions and tell you what they're thinking.

Gaugingcatenate · Apr 27, 2013

Jredbaron96 said:
No, I'm not stupid enough to use logical fallacies for my arguments.

What is known and what is the unknown?

The divorce rate for straight couples is 50%. you don't have a lot to show for.

Nothing is being 'risked for'.

Not even close.

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 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.

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?

The divorce rate on hetero marriage is skewed, by the way, so don't hang your hat on it. Seems the ones who get divorced once have a tendency to do it again...and again...and sometimes again...and..
Would certainly entertain arguments in favor of being stricter with regards to divorce though.

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.

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.

AGENT J · Apr 27, 2013

Gaugingcatenate said:
1. People have a right to discriminate, discrimination has become a dirty word but we do it all the time when we pick one brand of sneakers over another, one car over another...well, you get the point. Being discriminating in who you hang out with, if you choose positively, is pretty much a good thing. So lets no go overboard with this discrimination word. That might be considered discrimination...:mrgreen: right?

Don't know where your 2 came from out of the blue...but they are equal, a homosexual man has the exact same rights as I, a hetro, do under the constitution. Don't just say I am wrong, prove me wrong...that is how debate is done, right?

3. Marriage is and has been mainly for those protections of women and children through the union of the man and woman...

A. Procreation in most instances is not needed before the fact, that would be silly, it is the legal protections for what come after that we are talking about.
B. Yeah, I do not agree with that either, not good for society. So we are able to limit it to who can get "donors" that is not illegal and they have that perfect right, but no adoptions. Study same sex couple's kids for a hundred years or so, see how those turn out and, if not a problem, then unleash it on society as a whole.

4. All those you just mentioned, Native Americans, etc... have at least the same rights as I do already... do not need special rights as would be needed for same sex marriage. So we don't even have a disagreement here as far as I can tell.

5. EMBARRASSING FAIL. But then, you knew that when you typed it. But we will let the unbiased audience decide.

1.) not when it violate rights, liberties and freedoms :shrug: sorry
2.) you are wrong LMAO this is dishonesty and like i said, state supreme court justices disagree. thats how its done
3.) opinion and my two points that make it fail still stand 100%
A.) transaltion: its not required or need, thanks
B.) more of your opinion that doesnt change the point showing how your opinion fails, Please stay on topic, Gays can factually adopt right now in the us. You opinion on that is meaningless
4.) weird, did i say they didnt, i was just pointing out how dumb it is to try and say rights shouldnt be granted on small population % which you were claiming. Its funny how you try to backpedal.
Also gay marriage isnt a "special rights" its equal rights as some state supreme courts have already stated
5.) im sure you think that but facts are on my side and not on yours LMAO you are very entertaining and funny, i like posters like you. I stated fact and you said :nu-huh" :laughat:

AGENT J · Apr 27, 2013

Bronson said:
Dodge noted

Laws can always be repealed/overturned. Human Laws don't change Natural Law.

what dodge you didn't ask me anything?????? LMAO

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

thanks for proving my point

Ray410 · Apr 27, 2013

iguanaman said:
Religion causes all sorts of insane behaviors.

As does homosexuality.

Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

CriticalThought

iguanaman

CriticalThought

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Gathomas88

Gathomas88

Gaugingcatenate

clownboy

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10

Gaugingcatenate

Gaugingcatenate

CriticalThought

CriticalThought

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Gaugingcatenate

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Gaugingcatenate

Bronson

Bronson

mpg

Gaugingcatenate

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Ray410