Page 104 of 149 FirstFirst ... 45494102103104105106114 ... LastLast
Results 1,031 to 1,040 of 1483

Thread: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

  1. #1031
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    Children Without Mothers Are at Special Risk - Letter - NYTimes.com

    Now....say we experiment with purposefully removing the mother...thinking that equal as well.



    Stressful unless....your two dads in some gay relationship take over and then....the female not in your life doesn;t matter....according to some.
    Single parent households. Irrelevant to the argument. Nothing but a red herring.

    You've got nothing, Charles.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #1032
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    From my previous link:



    What do the libs say?



    All of you are dead wrong, obviously uneducated on this issue. Perhaps another where you're more informed and can keep up with my plethora of data.



    Read more: What happens to kids raised by gay parents?
    Charles, Charles, Charles, you are quoting James Dobson, a noted anti-gay evangelical Christian who has never done any valid studies on gay marraige and the children of those unions. His opinion in matters of fact, therefore are irrelevant, and his words are equally irrelevant. Beyond it being irrelevant for these reasons, it falls under the Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority) logical fallacy. Therefore...

    It is irrelevant to the argument. Nothing but a red herring.

    You've got nothing, Charles.
    Last edited by CaptainCourtesy; 12-23-09 at 08:24 AM.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #1033
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,759

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    So, let's recap again. Charles has refused answer specific questions that I pointed out in post #1030, demonstrating his failed postion through diverting and refusing to address issues. Charles has not addressed the wealth of data presented that demonstrates that children reared by gay couple do as well as those reared by straight couples because a) he can't, b) the data further destroys his position, and c) hmmm...did I say he can't? And, finally, Charles presents data/information that is irrelevant to the topic, does not address the issue in context, and presents great examples of several logical fallacies that I have shown.

    So, in conclusion, not only have I had fun showing how Charles has no argument, and has run scared from addressing anything posted. but I think we all now know that nothing Charles has said in this debate has any validity.

    Now watch Charles present more red herrings, more logical fallacies, continue to refuse to address issues as presented, continue to misrepresent positions, and continue to get annihilated in this debate.
    Last edited by CaptainCourtesy; 12-23-09 at 08:24 AM.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #1034
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,131

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    I don't wanna. I do a better job of arguing against gay marriage than he does. Maybe I could give him some pointers.

  5. #1035
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,866
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    To society, to We the People...it is clearly much more than a contract. And, as it is our right to define our institution and as our government governs at the consent of the governed, we outlaw first cousin marriage contracts. It is no longer a contract or benefit when we do not allow you to marry your brother, there is no other binding contract denied you and your brother, marriage is it.
    Actually marriage is controlled by two groups. One is religious in nature. The other is the government. Both those groups dictate who may get married and who may not.

    A bit of history here before I get to the meat of my post. It wasn't until 1563 when marriages started to be supervised by the church, by the decree of the Council of Trent. Before then it was a state run institution where possible. Where it wasn't it was normally just two people saying that they were married.

    Now to the meat of my post.

    Since the government cannot make laws regarding religion it is obvious that they could not make laws when it concerns marriage if they thought that it was strictly only for religion. It is also obvious that The People think this also since they allow the government to make laws concerning marriage.

    So the government bases it's laws on two things.

    1: Weather or not such a law is a detriment to society as a whole. If it's a detriment it is not allowed. If such a detrimental law is passed we have avenues of getting rid of it. Mainly through the court.

    2: Is it denying something to an individual something that it would give to another group.

    Remember our laws are based on individual rights also..not just what the majority wants. This is proved in several ways.

    1: There are several spots in the Constitution that mention individual rights.

    2: Slavery.

    3: Loving vs Virginia.

    To name just a few.

    Now to focus on my point. Which is individual rights.

    Now sure I'm sure that you will state that everyone has equality in getting married. After all they can marry whoever they want just like you can....so long as it's someone of the opposite sex...as you are restricted to the same. That's equal right? No it is not. And your above quoted paragraph shows why. Marriage is more than just a contract with bennies to The People. What is that more? In today's society that "more" is Love. Marriage is about love. Marriage is about not just commiting to someone but also showing that commitment. Marriage is a pledge, a promise to that special someone. That special someone being the one that you love.

    /tangent

    Now some will try and spin this by bringing in pedophilia or marrying sisters/brothers/first cousins/parents et al. Thing is though is that those are a detriment to society. They will also try and spin it some more by saying that you can't just up and marry someone that you love. While this is true it is still spin. Because everyone knows that in order for there to be marriage BOTH people must agree to the marriage. Knowing this they try to play the semantic game when someone says "one that you love". So know full well that when I say "marry the one that you love" I am including BOTH people. Not just one.

    /endtangent

    So to get back on subject here, heterosexuals may marry the one that they love. Homosexuals cannot. That is what makes laws against GM unequal.

    There goes the second point for why government should allow it.

    Now in all the time that I have studied about homosexuality I have never come across anything that shows that allowing GM is a detriment to society.

    People have tried using statistics about AIDS being a "gay disease" in the US. That does not work as it is behavior that regulates that. Not orientation.

    People have tried to use religion (Bible) to show that it is morally wrong. Irrelevant as morals once thought that it was ok to enslave and segregate people. Even by the bible.

    People have tried to say that it goes against nature. Nature has shown otherwise through around 1500 different species of animals.

    People have tried to say that it would destroy marriage. No proof of that what so ever. The fact that people still get married in Michigan shows this to be false.

    People have tried to say that it would hurt children mentally. This has been proven to be false by several studies.

    People have tried to say that children would not do as well academically. This has been proven to be false by several studies.

    Now it has been proven that families make people more happy and more productive. The same would apply to homosexual families.

    So since there is no detriment that I have EVER seen of allowing GM to happen we can safely say that the government should not care if GM was allowed. Indeed they should push for it since it would make more people happier and more productive in the long run.

    So to summarize here...

    There is no detriment to having GM/gay families. Indeed it would be a positive to allow GM/gay families.

    Based on today's standards of what a marriage is about, beyond the contractual, marriage is not equal.

    Hope you enjoyed this rather long post.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #1036
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,866
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    From my previous link:



    What do the libs say?



    All of you are dead wrong, obviously uneducated on this issue. Perhaps another where you're more informed and can keep up with my plethora of data.



    Read more: What happens to kids raised by gay parents?
    Wow...talk about cherry picking (something that is even talked about in your article). You pick out two paragraphs and totally ignore the rest.

    OH and btw, from the article...

    When Dr. Dobson, in his Time magazine essay criticizing Ms. Cheney, cited research from Kyle Pruett at Yale University to state that children need fathers, Dr. Pruett, author of "Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child," was furious, claiming Dr. Dobson had misrepresented his findings to suggest that children of gay parents would somehow suffer developmentally. After attempts to contact Dr. Dobson proved fruitless, he taped an interview and posted it on YouTube.com excoriating the conservative leader.

    "Look, I said, if you're going to use my research to judge and implicate personal decisions people are making, you are going to hear from me about it because I consider this a destructive use of good science," Dr. Pruett said in an interview.

    While "fathers make unique contributions to children, never do I say in my book that children of gay parents are at risk. Love binds parents and children together, not gender. There are plenty of boys and girls from these families with masculine and feminine role models who turn out just fine."

    Mr. Spriggs remains unrepentant about his and Dr. Dobson's use of research to bolster their contention that children do best with a mother and a father.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  7. #1037
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Sexual orientation is how someone feels about their sexuality.
    Ok...so what?

    Seuxal behavior is commiting a sexual act.
    And what is human sexuality? And don't both issues you're speaking to above fall under the umbrella of human sexuality? The answer is yes they do in case you're struggling. Furthermore, in the umbrella of human sexuality, orientation and behavoir don't rate but a mere fraction. I'm dead on correct about this, it's clear as day.

    People can and do commit acts that they don't like.
    So what?

    For example: Could you as a heterosexual have sex with another man?
    Of course I could!

    Yes you could. Would you as a heterosexual be repulsed by such an act? Yes you would be.
    Repulsed isn't the issue, it is in fact irrelevant, what in God's name are you even talking about?

    Now apply that to male homosexuals having sex with a woman.
    What like...the many homosexual men who have sex with women? Cause, I'm gonna perhaps sort of but not really buy the 'gay' woman being repulsed by having sex with a man argument....but do not tell me 'gay' men are repulsed by a woman if they've been married and especially if they have children. You...obviously ain't repulsed are you. Unless you're going to claim differently....I mean.....you're saying above that I'm repulsed by sex with another man and now apply that to gay people......I think you are correct about the repulsed part even though it's irrelevant but then.....I'm not going to ejaculate or reach orgasm if I'm repulsed now....am I? Or is that normal? I cannot remember one single solitary orgasm in my lifetime whereupon I;ve reached it after first being repulsed! Could you tell me more about this phenom, until then....I'll go ahead and assume no gay man who has fathered a child is "repulsed" by sex with a woman. Please.

    That sir explains the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. How one behaves does not necessarily mean that is what they are.
    I know that, I've argued the exact same. For example, after you father a child, you can act out anyway you'd like, you're not 'gay.' At the very most, you're bisexual however, you ain't gay. Sorry.

    Here is why your appeal to nature is false. As humans we are all considered mammals.
    The fact that we are all considered mammals.....ruins my appeal to nature?

    Which shows that homosexuality is an instinct.
    An instinct? Can you prove this? Sir, instincts are survival traits, will you please give me an analogy, what other instinct can you name like homosexuality then if this is your theory. It's not an instinct, sorry, this is another definition you don't have correct.

    I mean...You tell me an appeal to nature isn't applicable and then you make one yourself? Interesting. And, can you show me where homosexual behavior in any mammal kingdom, family, or subset affects that animal community in the slightest. Do these homosexual mammals merely behave in that manner or are they repulsed by natural sexual behavior, do they not reproduce as many human 'gays' don't reproduce? Cause if they do, what you've seen is bisexuality in some animals, akin to a female dog mounting another, there could be numerous reasons for it.

    According to research homosexuals raise children just as good as heterosexuals. CC and jallman has provided links to this research in this very thread. Not surprising that you ignore it.
    The research shows just as good AND as bad. Meaning the lack of either a male or femal role model in the home is the EXACT same. Correct? You're claiming your relationships are all the same, it'll be the same divorce rate, same abuse rates, same domestic violence rates...correct? And you'll have the exact same "just as bads" as well. And the overwhelming evidence on the lack of a father in the home you continue to seny as if denial were a river in Egypt Sir, the lack of a father...or mother has the EXACT same affect on children. Just because there are two parents doesn't make it equal, you are purposefully removing the female or male from the home and that is NEVER or can NEVER be the equal of a nuclear family where the male father and female mother live with their offspring, it is what we all should strive to attain, it's what EVERY MAMMAL in your example strives to attain as well. Your argument here Sir, is dead wrong and utter poppycock, I've destroyed it several times over responding to other arguments as wrong as yours.

    If they have a good self image then you can gauruntee that that person will lead a successful life.
    What in the world? If they have a good self image, that's the guarantee of success? Why is it the lack of a father in the home then is such a drain on self image, can you explain?

    For the part that was ignored the research conducted wasn't only about self image. It was also about how well they do in school academically.
    Uhhh...not only how they do academically, whether they will use drugs, become involved in crime, behave irrationally, suffer from mental disease, cycle in poverty, the fatherless home is the #1 common denominator for men in prison, did you know that?

    Just because it is "unnecessary" does not mean that it doesn't exist. Or that it is bad.
    Means it's irrelevant. Any homosexual orientation, behavior, act of circus flying skill whatever...means absolutely nothing. It is an behavioral act, it doesn't contribute to anything save for the joy of those engaged. Irrelevant to mankind, irrelevant to the survival of ANY species. The lack of heterosexuality of course.....we aren't having this conversation...correct?

    Going by the research two women can raise a child. As can two men.
    What utter nonsense. And my research has shown the fallacy of your arguments. There are no studies that research gay parents to straight parents. Many gay parents become parents after one of them has come out of another marriage or relationship. Where the child is already many times grown, where the child still has a relationship to the parent who isn't gay.

    The research shows that if you remove the male or female....which ssm does on purpose..it affects the child adversely. Now, I'm sorry if the facts shoot your arguments down like a world war one Spad but hey....great news...the smoldering wreckage of what remains of your argument can be found over the horizon.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  8. #1038
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Charles, Charles, Charles, you are quoting James Dobson, a noted anti-gay evangelical Christian who has never done any valid studies on gay marraige and the children of those unions. His opinion in matters of fact, therefore are irrelevant, and his words are equally irrelevant. Beyond it being irrelevant for these reasons, it falls under the Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority) logical fallacy. Therefore...

    It is irrelevant to the argument. Nothing but a red herring.

    You've got nothing, Charles.
    Actually, this is but one of my links, I've repeatedly overwhelmed the forum with links to children affected by no father in the home. I've been quioting and linking many different sources, CC, something you've failed to do.

    You're wrong, I'm proving it so, you don't like that very much, thus your charge I've nothing. I'm actually dead on correct here and we both know it.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  9. #1039
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    So, let's recap again. Charles has refused answer specific questions that I pointed out in post #1030, demonstrating his failed postion through diverting and refusing to address issues. Charles has not addressed the wealth of data presented that demonstrates that children reared by gay couple do as well as those reared by straight couples because a) he can't, b) the data further destroys his position, and c) hmmm...did I say he can't? And, finally, Charles presents data/information that is irrelevant to the topic, does not address the issue in context, and presents great examples of several logical fallacies that I have shown.

    So, in conclusion, not only have I had fun showing how Charles has no argument, and has run scared from addressing anything posted. but I think we all now know that nothing Charles has said in this debate has any validity.

    Now watch Charles present more red herrings, more logical fallacies, continue to refuse to address issues as presented, continue to misrepresent positions, and continue to get annihilated in this debate.
    I've destroyed your every argument and stand firm on mine. The purposeful removal of either gender on the nuclear family is societal suicide. And most people do not equate a relationship between two of the same gender as the equal of marriage. I've shown you why your research is flawed, why you pretend denial is a river in Egypt, why a 'gay' parent isn't possible, why homosexuality isn't necessary, in fact, irrelevant to human sexuality.

    It does rate on the CDC most suicidal behaviors, in fact, is more dangerous than sharing needles but, that's an another issue, we'll remain on topic, and I'll remain grounded in my arguments.

    You're losng this debate, CC.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  10. #1040
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Jefferson State
    Last Seen
    11-25-12 @ 12:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,545

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    I've destroyed your every argument and stand firm on mine. The purposeful removal of either gender on the nuclear family is societal suicide. And most people do not equate a relationship between two of the same gender as the equal of marriage. I've shown you why your research is flawed, why you pretend denial is a river in Egypt, why a 'gay' parent isn't possible, why homosexuality isn't necessary, in fact, irrelevant to human sexuality.

    It does rate on the CDC most suicidal behaviors, in fact, is more dangerous than sharing needles but, that's an another issue, we'll remain on topic, and I'll remain grounded in my arguments.

    You're losng this debate, CC.
    All you're doing is demonstrating your anti-gay bias and pretending it's 'facts'.

    We get the picture. See ya later.
    Last edited by windovervocalcords; 12-23-09 at 11:06 AM.

Posting Permissions

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