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

On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

Absolutely... Opinions such as this are generally made by people that have never known a homosexual couple, much less many... My source of information that I base all my decisions on is this TV Show called Cops. About 99.9% of the idiots being chased and arrested appear to be super heterosexuals...

Meaningless personal attack to discredit my point.
 
No. It is posting scenarios to show that his logic is flawed. The two scenarios can obviously be reversed... :roll:



You are new so I will give you the benefit of the doubt that online debating might be new to you as well...



Here is a study result that just came out recently...

"Evidence from a decades long study conducted by Tim Rogers from the Centre For Sexual Deviancy reveal that heterosexual couples engage in more deviant and destructive behaviour, up to and including beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse, than homosexual couples. Over 1,800 couples were consulted from 2002 - 2012 from 29 states.

Centre For Sexual Deviancy

Interesting how multiple attempts in my part to find this study online were unsuccessful.
 
No. It is posting scenarios to show that his logic is flawed. The two scenarios can obviously be reversed... :roll:



You are new so I will give you the benefit of the doubt that online debating might be new to you as well...



Here is a study result that just came out recently...

"Evidence from a decades long study conducted by Tim Rogers from the Centre For Sexual Deviancy reveal that heterosexual couples engage in more deviant and destructive behaviour, up to and including beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse, than homosexual couples. Over 1,800 couples were consulted from 2002 - 2012 from 29 states.

Centre For Sexual Deviancy

I'm not sure how one can conclude that heterosexuals engage in more deviant behavior than homosexuals considering that by definition homosexual engage in deviant behavior 100% of the time.

deviant
— adjective

deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
 
I'm not sure how one can conclude that heterosexuals engage in more deviant behavior than homosexuals considering that by definition homosexual engage in deviant behavior 100% of the time.

deviant
— adjective

deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.

Because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Plus, it is not abnormal to engage in sodomy. Not when a majority of the population, heterosexual and homosexual engage in some form of it when they are sexually active. Deviant sexual behavior would be engaging in something besides just sodomy or even homosexuality.
 
Because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Plus, it is not abnormal to engage in sodomy. Not when a majority of the population, heterosexual and homosexual engage in some form of it when they are sexually active. Deviant sexual behavior would be engaging in something besides just sodomy or even homosexuality.

It's a definition of terms. If less than 10% of the population identifies as homosexual i think that qualifies as deviating from the norm. You have an Interesting opinion about sodomy though :)
 
You're too uneducated to make comments like this without exposing yourself yet again to the forum as a know nothing know it all. 40-50 years ago was the debate about openning marriage to cousins. Many states started to allow it.

In order to refute the slippery slope fallacy, you must show a causal relationship between the thing and the thing that you believe will occur. Since SSM is not analogous to incest, polygamy, or marriage to minors, the causal relationship fails and the logical fallacy exists.
 
THAT IS ABSOLUTE BULL! One thing I know inside and out is peer reviewed literature on same sex parenting and I will literally inundate this thread with hundreds of studies on this topic unless you back up your baseless bullcrap statement by posting these "studies and articles" you claim to have read.

THAT was a bald faced LIE you made. And if you have to LIE you do not have a good argument.

No doubt you can "inundate" this thread with bogus studies designed to push the homosexual agenda. I have full confidence you can do that.

But it's like the man caused global warming hoax. People with common sense had big doubts and were very skeptical of peer reviewed report after peer reviewed report that told of disasters to come if everybody didn't change their ways. But it just never made sense to those that thought about it instead of jumping on the politically correct bandwagon. And of course come to find out most of those reports were packed full of lies, half truths and other nonsense by so called "scientists".
 
Your's and other's attempt to distance your argument for same sex couples to marry from incest, polygamy, and beastiality by calling it a slippery slope and therefore semantically devaluing the correlation is hypocritical and unsuccessful.

These other smaller (and therefore less popular/powerful) groups have been using your arguments for years.... . Their lack of numbers has kept them from being successful with these arguments. But if the current path of acceptance of deviant behaviors that this nation is headed in continues it is not hyperbolic or slippery to expect a similar path to Same Sibling Marriage as taken by Same Sex Marriage.

In the slippery slope fallacy, CAUSAL relationships are key, not correlational. This is why the fallacy exists in this case. You cannot prove causation without an accurate analogy. Also, the arguments used in supporting SSM have been used by minorities for centuries.
 
Correct. And any man has the option to marry any other woman and any woman has the option to marry any other man. Fair and equal application.

I've seen this stupid argument for years. It's dishonest. It omits the reason that most people marry someone else... which then demonstrates that it is not a fair and equal application.
 
No doubt you can "inundate" this thread with bogus studies designed to push the homosexual agenda. I have full confidence you can do that.

YOU'RE discussing bogus studies??? :lol: That's pretty ironic.

I've posted plenty of studies on parenting by gays as has CT. Peer reviewed, repeatable, and valid methodology. That makes the studies valid. All accepted by major groups such as the APA, AMA, and WHO. And what does your side have? Exodus International? Oh, wait... they closed up shop and apologized for presenting lies about gays. NARTH? Hmmm... Cameron as one of their important contributors... someone who was thrown out of the APA for falsifying data in order to push his anti-gay agenda, there's not much credibility there. Who else have you got?
 
I've seen this stupid argument for years. It's dishonest. It omits the reason that most people marry someone else... which then demonstrates that it is not a fair and equal application.

I disagree. It acknowledges why people marry. It just further defines parameters if marriage.

Regardless, I hope you don't really believe that everything in life should be fair. The abundance of unfair circumstances will drive you mad.
 
I disagree. It acknowledges why people marry. It just further defines parameters if marriage.

No, as I said, it omits the reason which is why the argument is both stupid and invalid.

Regardless, I hope you don't really believe that everything in life should be fair. The abundance of unfair circumstances will drive you mad.

You presented "fair and equal". Not my argument. All I did was show how it didn't apply.
 
YOU'RE discussing bogus studies??? :lol: That's pretty ironic.

I've posted plenty of studies on parenting by gays as has CT. Peer reviewed, repeatable, and valid methodology. That makes the studies valid. All accepted by major groups such as the APA, AMA, and WHO. And what does your side have? Exodus International? Oh, wait... they closed up shop and apologized for presenting lies about gays. NARTH? Hmmm... Cameron as one of their important contributors... someone who was thrown out of the APA for falsifying data in order to push his anti-gay agenda, there's not much credibility there. Who else have you got?

No, no thanks I'll pass on any of the studies you pick out. I've seen enough already.

Using a study of only 20 men to determine that 25% of them (or whatever it was) didn't know how to put on a rubber took the cake. And I'm sure you had a straight face on when you were typing it all out in the post you stuck it in. Very selective study if you ask me and is even if you don't.

Very ironic of you to pretend credibility on studies you select. So no. I'm not interested in anything else you have.
 
Actually Lucky Larry is on to something. There are ample studies pointing to absolute bogus studies to show a favor in the promotion of homosexual unions. Unfortunately the bogus studies play a big role in making Law in this country when introduced in a court of law.

Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders

I am not even talking about APA studies. This is an issue that have been studied and is currently being studied in countries across the world by varying health, pediatric, and mental health organizations. It is one thing to say, "well this one particular organization has no credibility on this topic" and quite another to suggest there is no credibility for the dozens of scientific organizations across the world who have studied it.
 
No doubt you can "inundate" this thread with bogus studies designed to push the homosexual agenda. I have full confidence you can do that.

But it's like the man caused global warming hoax. People with common sense had big doubts and were very skeptical of peer reviewed report after peer reviewed report that told of disasters to come if everybody didn't change their ways. But it just never made sense to those that thought about it instead of jumping on the politically correct bandwagon. And of course come to find out most of those reports were packed full of lies, half truths and other nonsense by so called "scientists".

LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR RIGHT NOW! I DID NOT MAKE THE ORIGINAL CLAIM. LUCKY LARRY MADE THE CLAIM. HE STATED THAT INSTANCES LIKE CHILD MOLESTATION ARE MORE COMMON IN HOMOSEXUAL HOMES! HE MADE THAT CLAIM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO BACK IT UP AND STATING HIS VIEW WAS INFORMED BY STUDIES AND ARTICLES. NOW IF YOU WANT TO GET ON ANYONE ABOUT "BOGUS CLAIMS" WHY NOT START ASKING HIM TO POST HIS RESOURCES SO THAT WE SEE HOW VALID THEY ARE.

I seriously detest people who are all too willing to rescue those who lie through their teeth.
 
In order to refute the slippery slope fallacy, you must show a causal relationship between the thing and the thing that you believe will occur. Since SSM is not analogous to incest, polygamy, or marriage to minors, the causal relationship fails and the logical fallacy exists.

:lamo

I think every unbiased critical thinking mind would agree that your comments are BS and a feckless attempt to discredit anyone who presents such an argument in regard to the consequences of changing the definition of marriage to include same sex. Though those arguments based in slippery slope analogies may be conjecture, that doesn't mean they are invalid. On the contrary their analysis based on sound thought and theory disclose the consequences that many are not willing to accept in our society. And because of that becomes a real threat to those who advocate for same sex marriage.
 
No, no thanks I'll pass on any of the studies you pick out. I've seen enough already.

Of course you don't. It wouldn't work out well for you.

Using a study of only 20 men to determine that 25% of them (or whatever it was) didn't know how to put on a rubber took the cake. And I'm sure you had a straight face on when you were typing it all out in the post you stuck it in. Very selective study if you ask me and is even if you don't.

That was ONE study. There are scores of them that show that signficant portions of the population have no idea how to use a condom correctly. Here you go:

Condom use 101: Basic errors are so common, study finds - NBC News.com

This is now twice out of two times I've show you to be incorrect.

Very ironic of you to pretend credibility on studies you select. So no. I'm not interested in anything else you have.

No, as I showed, the irony is on you. You posted a refuted study. You have now been shown by a METAstudy that errors in condom usage is pretty common.
 
:lamo

I think every unbiased critical thinking mind would agree that your comments are BS and a feckless attempt to discredit anyone who presents such an argument in regard to the consequences of changing the definition of marriage to include same sex. Though those arguments based in slippery slope analogies may be conjecture, that doesn't mean they are invalid. On the contrary their analysis based on sound thought and theory disclose the consequences that many are not willing to accept in our society. And because of that becomes a real threat to those who advocate for same sex marriage.

Anyone who knows how to discuss an issue rationally and logically knows that everything you have said in this thread has no credibility. You cannot prove cause and you cannot prove an accurate analogy. Your argument is nothing more than a logical fallacy and no matter how much you scream "nuh, uh" it doesn't alter the fact that you have proven that you don't know what you are talking about.
 
I am not even talking about APA studies. This is an issue that have been studied and is currently being studied in countries across the world by varying health, pediatric, and mental health organizations. It is one thing to say, "well this one particular organization has no credibility on this topic" and quite another to suggest there is no credibility for the dozens of scientific organizations across the world who have studied it.
But you fail to recognize the many instances where the same so called experts are called in on a hearing reporting information that has been found to be false yet is used to influence to change law to benefit homosexual relations. There is a reason why a good portion of the gay community do not support Gay Marriage. They know exactly what is going on. They know the crap being presented as some type of truth to alter laws is bogus.
 
LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR RIGHT NOW! I DID NOT MAKE THE ORIGINAL CLAIM. LUCKY LARRY MADE THE CLAIM. HE STATED THAT INSTANCES LIKE CHILD MOLESTATION ARE MORE COMMON IN HOMOSEXUAL HOMES! HE MADE THAT CLAIM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO BACK IT UP AND STATING HIS VIEW WAS INFORMED BY STUDIES AND ARTICLES. NOW IF YOU WANT TO GET ON ANYONE ABOUT "BOGUS CLAIMS" WHY NOT START ASKING HIM TO POST HIS RESOURCES SO THAT WE SEE HOW VALID THEY ARE.

I seriously detest people who are all too willing to rescue those who lie through their teeth.

LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR (LOL). Makes no difference to me one way or another who you detest. None.

You made a comment about how you would "inundate" this thread. I made a comment directly related to your comment.

I don't know that Lucky Larry did lie. Far as I know, he told the complete truth. You may not think so, but I'm not you. So I see no need to question him about anything, so I won't.
 
...the consequences that many are not willing to accept in our society.

Here is the beauty of the "slippery slope" argument. I can just as easily argue the proposed consequences to society will occur as a result of NOT legalizing same sex marriage.

For example, pretty much every country that has legal polygamy does NOT allow same sex marriage. Maybe if we DON"T legalize same sex marriage it will lead to the legalization of polygamy. Makes about as much sense as the arguments I hear people making that legalizing same sex marriage will lead to polygamy.

You believe that homosexuals are rampant child molesters in waiting? Perhaps NOT legalizing same sex marriage is irresponsible then because that puts those dangerous homos in consensual, adult relationships.
 
LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR (LOL). Makes no difference to me one way or another who you detest. None.

You made a comment about how you would "inundate" this thread. I made a comment directly related to your comment.

I don't know that Lucky Larry did lie. Far as I know, he told the complete truth. You may not think so, but I'm not you. So I see no need to question him about anything, so I won't.

Here is the fact. Lucky Larry cited he could post studies that gay parents are child molesters. You didn't say a word to him. I posted that I could refute that if he didn't back up his claim. You then argue that ANYTHING I would post would inevitably be "bogus". Fact is you completely destroyed any credibility you had in this thread because you made it perfectly clear you don't give a crap about evidence. If it does not agree with what you believe, you will deliberately ignore it. That is by definition, confirmation bias. You are free to do it, but don't pretend that you are anything less than biased as all hell on this issue.
 
But you fail to recognize the many instances where the same so called experts are called in on a hearing reporting information that has been found to be false yet is used to influence to change law to benefit homosexual relations. There is a reason why a good portion of the gay community do not support Gay Marriage. They know exactly what is going on. They know the crap being presented as some type of truth to alter laws is bogus.

Paranoid much? Please substantiate your arguments. Let us see some examples of all these experts called in to hearings. Or how about a major gay organization that is opposed to same sex marriage?

To put it simply, you are full of crap. Prove me wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom