New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

American said:

I think it's because CC is a LCSW or LPC and feels he is more qualified to make conclusions on these topics than any of us. My ex is an LPC, so I understand the thinking. The trouble is they become consumed by their methods and philosophies. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean they are predictable. Whenever CC discusses these sorts of things, he sounds the same. And I've heard it all before after 25 years with the same women. The central premise to this profession is that because they study and treat the mind, they can judge your thoughts with unimpuned authority because the mind is the key to reality and therefore all of man's actions. The problems is that they are also human with flawed human minds. Furthermore the brain and the mind is so complex, that their profession (i.e., knowledge and methods) are probably the more imperfect of any. I fully expect a rebuttal, but it will be irrelevant.

Click to expand...

For **** sake!

I give up. Many of the people here don't even have the basic intellectual capability to understand the difference between a cited and referenced journal and an unreferenced piece of political propaganda. I mean if this is really the level of intelligence of people who are opposed to same sex marriage, then I guess I have wasted my time debating this issue.

CriticalThought said:

For **** sake!

I give up. Many of the people here don't even have the basic intellectual capability to understand the difference between a cited and referenced journal and an unreferenced piece of political propaganda. I mean if this is really the level of intelligence of people who are opposed to same sex marriage, then I guess I have wasted my time debating this issue.

Click to expand...

No, I was poking a big stick in CC's argument that he has "sources". I took 20 seconds to find "counter" sources. No, I'm not gonna spend 2 hours finding peer reviewed sources with full bibliographies and source work. I rarely do that anymore. You know why? Cause people like yourself pop off with classic rebuttals like...

"That's old data"
"Well, your link for this part is from a biased source because they take money from Y and have an agenda"

So it really doesn't matter what source I use, the predictable response is ALWAYS THE SAME.

MrVicchio said:

'
Sure, I'll take that bet.

Real Women of Canada - Newsletters - SAME-SEX PARENTING IS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN


See CC, anyone can play the "I have data game". My source says your sources are flawed for political reasons, and lays out why. What makes your sources more "right" then mine? Because they give the conclusions you want them too?

Click to expand...

I reject this study as both methodologically unsound in some areas, as having no research attached to it in others, and there being no links to research for me to examine. You've got NOTHING MrV. You have a paper, one whose methodology is not credible or valid because it has not been peer reviewed or been repeated. See, THAT'S how one can tell if a study is valid. Yours is not. So, I would appreciate it if you would come at me with something pertinent. I'm pretty busy around here and it is tiresome to have to dismiss such irrelevance.

I am quite sure that there are WONDERFUL Gay couples of either sex that raise happy, well adjusted children. I'm not gonna say it doesn't happen, that would be arrogant of me to presume otherwise. However, for you to claim there is no difference in a gay family Vs. a straight family, that all the reasons brought up are just biased bigotry based in ignorance is wrong.

Click to expand...

No, it's completely accurate. You have done nothing to dispel what I have said. You so desperately want your position to be right (and I believe to "beat" me) that you will throw something as poor as that link at me. Unfortunately for you, you can do neither. I can demonstrate scores of studies that are peer reviewed and repeatable, demonstrating credibility and validity. Like I said, you have nothing.

Just as it is arrogant of you to proclaim polygamist marriages are bad, and you have the studies that say otherwise. We are at an impasse again.

Click to expand...

Sure, the impasse is that you refuse to acknowledge facts. As long as you recognize that, it's OK with me.

You think you know what I am doing, it appears you are in error here as well. What I am doing, and I'll even tell you so there is no confusion. I'm exposing your claims of having the "right answer" for the ego driven arrogance that it is. Navy Pride holds his point of view, but he doesn't debate his point with the same "logical style" that you do, so he's wrong.

Click to expand...

I am perfectly aware of what you are doing, MrV. You explained it below. It didn't elude me. It is also inconsequential. I'm not altering how I post.

And NP has his point of view, but there is no logic behind it. That's what you are missing. Mine does. It's not about a logical style. It's about logic itself.

I intentionally went a little over the top, just to get you to post in that highly condescending manner you tend to post in when you feel you are right beyond reproach. I personally find that particular attribute of yours to be your least endearing quality.

Click to expand...

I ALWAYS post in a condescending manner when someone attempts to force their arrogance and non-logic at me. THAT is how YOU post and it is YOUR least endearing quality. And trust me. I have no intention of changing my style when folks come at me like you do.

So, are we done here?

American said:

I think it's because CC is a LCSW or LPC and feels he is more qualified to make conclusions on these topics than any of us. My ex is an LPC, so I understand the thinking. The trouble is they become consumed by their methods and philosophies. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean they are predictable. Whenever CC discusses these sorts of things, he sounds the same. And I've heard it all before after 25 years with the same women. The central premise to this profession is that because they study and treat the mind, they can judge your thoughts with unimpuned authority because the mind is the key to reality and therefore all of man's actions. The problems is that they are also human with flawed human minds. Furthermore the brain and the mind is so complex, that their profession (i.e., knowledge and methods) are probably the more imperfect of any. I fully expect a rebuttal, but it will be irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Only rebuttal I can come up with is that you have completely misjudged what I do and what I believe. I am a little surprised because we have spoken at times. Then again, perhaps not.

MrVicchio said:

No, I was poking a big stick in CC's argument that he has "sources".

Click to expand...

He does have sources. Sources that actually reference their sources.

I took 20 seconds to find "counter" sources.

Click to expand...

What counter sources? You found a website that doesn't even list its sources. Is CC suppose to be struck by how you countered the referenced journals of organizations like the American Pediatric Association with an anti gay rights website that doesn't even list its sources?

No, I'm not gonna spend 2 hours finding peer reviewed sources with full bibliographies and source work. I rarely do that anymore. You know why? Cause people like yourself pop off with classic rebuttals like...

"That's old data"
"Well, your link for this part is from a biased source because they take money from Y and have an agenda"

Click to expand...

So let me get this straight...you posted a source that you know is biased, which you know doesn't provide any degree of reference, and which you know is old data, so that you could argue that posting data is useless? Puh leez. All you have proven is that you don't have valid and substantial data to support your views so you will resort to posting crap and arguing that posting any data is a waste of your time. That is pathetic and intellectually dishonest to the nth degree.

So it really doesn't matter what source I use, the predictable response is ALWAYS THE SAME.

Click to expand...

That might be because you don't seem to know how to obtain valid data or how to use it.

MrVicchio said:

No, I was poking a big stick in CC's argument that he has "sources". I took 20 seconds to find "counter" sources. No, I'm not gonna spend 2 hours finding peer reviewed sources with full bibliographies and source work. I rarely do that anymore. You know why? Cause people like yourself pop off with classic rebuttals like...

"That's old data"
"Well, your link for this part is from a biased source because they take money from Y and have an agenda"

So it really doesn't matter what source I use, the predictable response is ALWAYS THE SAME.

Click to expand...

Your stick broke. :2razz:

CriticalThought said:

He does have sources. Sources that actually reference their sources.



What counter sources? You found a website that doesn't even list its sources. Is CC suppose to be struck by how you countered the referenced journals of organizations like the American Pediatric Association with an anti gay rights website that doesn't even list its sources?




So let me get this straight...you posted a source that you know is biased, which you know doesn't provide any degree of reference, and which you know is old data, so that you could argue that posting data is useless? Puh leez. All you have proven is that you don't have valid and substantial data to support your views so you will resort to posting crap and arguing that posting any data is a waste of your time. That is pathetic and intellectually dishonest to the nth degree.



That might be because you don't seem to know how to obtain valid data or how to use it.

Click to expand...

This isn't about the sources or the issue, CriticalThought. This is about me, as I figured from his initial post.

If you have something to say to ME, MrV, say it in PM. Don't muck up this thread with irrelevancies.

CaptainCourtesy said:

This isn't about the sources or the issue, CriticalThought. This is about me, as I figured from his initial post.

If you have something to say to ME, MrV, say it in PM. Don't muck up this thread with irrelevancies.

Click to expand...

I'm starting to hate this forum.

If you argue evidence, then you are told that arguing evidence is useless because their arguments are based on personal experience and "common sense", and those are apparently above evidence. Or they post really crappy evidence and pretend that their evidence somehow disputes your evidence.

If you argue reason, then you are told arguing reason is useless because their views come from a source higher than human logic.

If I can't argue with evidence or reason, then what do I have? I give up. I would have better luck debating with a wall.

CriticalThought said:

I'm starting to hate this forum.

If you argue evidence, then you are told that arguing evidence is useless because their arguments are based on personal experience and "common sense", and those are apparently above evidence. Or they post really crappy evidence and pretend that their evidence somehow disputes your evidence.

If you argue reason, then you are told arguing reason is useless because their views come from a source higher than human logic.

If I can't argue with evidence or reason, then what do I have? I give up. I would have better luck debating with a wall.

Click to expand...

Just argue reason or sources and when they post crap right back, get condescending and dismissive like I do. Tends to work fine.

CaptainCourtesy said:

This isn't about the sources or the issue, CriticalThought. This is about me, as I figured from his initial post.

If you have something to say to ME, MrV, say it in PM. Don't muck up this thread with irrelevancies.

Click to expand...

Why should I take this to PM CC?

I'm not mucking up the thread with irrelevancies, I'm discussing the issue of Gay Marriage and this thread has meandered around quite a bit and it turned to the post-gay marriage situation.

But of all the posters to opine here few are as arrogant as you in stating that only YOU have the facts on your side, only YOU have the judgment to determine right and wrong in this matter, and only YOUR sources, stances and beliefs are correct.

All others that disagree with gay marriage, or those that realize once that wall falls (gay marriage becomes legal) polygamy is next, are wrong.

Because YOU say so. And you're little followers like Critical Thought will fawn before you and yap at your feet agreeing with you in hopes you'll like them.

It's down right sickening.

You have your point of view, aces, you have your "sources" and you believe you are right.

Great.

But your hypocrisy is out for all to see, again. You're an egotistical hack on this. If this was a thread about Conservative Vs. Liberal policy, and a poster claimed he had the sources, and info showing his side was right, and all others are wrong, you'd be in here telling him to knock off the "partisan hackery".



But you ARE wrong, I am discussing the issue, you came in and mucked it up with your ego. If you don't want to discuss the issue of Gay Marriage and the probable fall out of that, because you have the definitive answer and there need be no discussion... you probably shouldn't post in this thread anymore as you have nothing left to say.

MrVicchio said:

Because YOU say so. And you're little followers like Critical Thought will fawn before you and yap at your feet agreeing with you in hopes you'll like them.

Click to expand...

Follower? Buahahahahah! Dude, you just suck at debating same sex marriage. Hell! I've done a better job of arguing against same sex marriage and homosexuality than you have!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/51669-truth-and-dangers-same-sex-marriage.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/50072-truth-and-dangers-homosexuality.html

Get over yourself.

CriticalThought said:

I'm starting to hate this forum.

If you argue evidence, then you are told that arguing evidence is useless because their arguments are based on personal experience and "common sense", and those are apparently above evidence. Or they post really crappy evidence and pretend that their evidence somehow disputes your evidence.

If you argue reason, then you are told arguing reason is useless because their views come from a source higher than human logic.

If I can't argue with evidence or reason, then what do I have? I give up. I would have better luck debating with a wall.

Click to expand...

I wasn't using that as "irrefutable evidence" I was making a mockery of the claim "I have sources". It was a challenge for CC to post his sources.

You get mad at me for posting a crappy source, but you fawn over CC and he hasn't posted any!

Amazing.

CriticalThought said:

Follower? Buahahahahah! Dude, you just suck at debating same sex marriage. Hell! I've done a better job of arguing against same sex marriage and homosexuality than you have!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/51669-truth-and-dangers-same-sex-marriage.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/50072-truth-and-dangers-homosexuality.html

Get over yourself.

Click to expand...

Same sex marriage... call em civil unions and we're good. Don't change the definition of "marriage".

Is that so hard to grasp?

Also you assume I'm arguing against the whole issue... I'm not.

I'm pointing out that Polygamy is the next step in the line.

MrVicchio said:

I wasn't using that as "irrefutable evidence" I was making a mockery of the claim "I have sources". It was a challenge for CC to post his sources.

You get mad at me for posting a crappy source, but you fawn over CC and he hasn't posted any!

Amazing.

Click to expand...

He has posted them before, and some are quite good.

MrVicchio said:

No, I was poking a big stick in CC's argument that he has "sources". I took 20 seconds to find "counter" sources. No, I'm not gonna spend 2 hours finding peer reviewed sources with full bibliographies and source work. I rarely do that anymore. You know why? Cause people like yourself pop off with classic rebuttals like...

"That's old data"
"Well, your link for this part is from a biased source because they take money from Y and have an agenda"

So it really doesn't matter what source I use, the predictable response is ALWAYS THE SAME.

Click to expand...

Um... re: Old Data.

According to the recent quantitative analysis on same-sex parenting by Lerner and Nagai, 49 American studies, which advocate homosexual parenting, have fatal flaws, rendering them statistically invalid (non-representative samples, imprecise hypotheses, confused political objectives, etc.).

Click to expand...

Lerner and Nagai self-published in 2001. Not peer reviewed. They run a conservative consulting firm...

Old data. Bad data. Not really data at all.

Shall I go on?

MrVicchio said:

Why should I take this to PM CC?

I'm not mucking up the thread with irrelevancies, I'm discussing the issue of Gay Marriage and this thread has meandered around quite a bit and it turned to the post-gay marriage situation.

But of all the posters to opine here few are as arrogant as you in stating that only YOU have the facts on your side, only YOU have the judgment to determine right and wrong in this matter, and only YOUR sources, stances and beliefs are correct.

All others that disagree with gay marriage, or those that realize once that wall falls (gay marriage becomes legal) polygamy is next, are wrong.

Because YOU say so. And you're little followers like Critical Thought will fawn before you and yap at your feet agreeing with you in hopes you'll like them.

It's down right sickening.

You have your point of view, aces, you have your "sources" and you believe you are right.

Great.

Click to expand...

Like I said and thought. This isn't about the issue. It's about me.

But your hypocrisy is out for all to see, again. You're an egotistical hack on this. If this was a thread about Conservative Vs. Liberal policy, and a poster claimed he had the sources, and info showing his side was right, and all others are wrong, you'd be in here telling him to knock off the "partisan hackery".

Click to expand...

If someone shows credible sources, I would not. I do so when they do not, or when they misrepresent an issue. This is what you don't get.

So, this is STILL about me, eh, MrV? You know, it was curious last night. NP's posts started to sound a bit like yours. Did you coach him at all? I'm just curious.

But you ARE wrong, I am discussing the issue, you came in and mucked it up with your ego. If you don't want to discuss the issue of Gay Marriage and the probable fall out of that, because you have the definitive answer and there need be no discussion... you probably shouldn't post in this thread anymore as you have nothing left to say.

Click to expand...

Nah, I'll post where and when I want. Like I told you and like I have, I'll rebut anything you throw. You have offered no evidence that your slippery slope is based in reality. You post it, I show that.

MrVicchio said:

Same sex marriage... call em civil unions and we're good. Don't change the definition of "marriage".

Is that so hard to grasp?

Also you assume I'm arguing against the whole issue... I'm not.

Click to expand...

You posted a source that suggested children are at a greater risk of being molested by homosexuals than by heterosexuals. Either you are acknowledging that is bull, or you are saying you don't care that children wil be molested by homosexual couples in civil unions. Which is it?

I'm pointing out that Polygamy is the next step in the line.

Click to expand...

Look at argument 1 in the first thread you quoted.

Now do you want me to go through all the counterarguments on that issue. Such as the fact that none of the countries that have legalized same sex marriage have legalized polygamy, or all the differences between polygamy and same sex marriage that make them incomparable, or the fact that there is evidence supporting the societal benefits of same sex marriage but not polygamous marriages? Frankly, when you argue both sides of an issue, you know how to destroy the irrational arguments.

MrVicchio said:

I wasn't using that as "irrefutable evidence" I was making a mockery of the claim "I have sources". It was a challenge for CC to post his sources.

You get mad at me for posting a crappy source, but you fawn over CC and he hasn't posted any!

Amazing.

Click to expand...

I have posted a multitude of sources on several occasions. They take up 3 entire posts... in the abridged version. The entire version takes up 5. Do you want me to post them? I'd be happy to, but since this is about me and not the issue, I see little point.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Only rebuttal I can come up with is that you have completely misjudged what I do and what I believe. I am a little surprised because we have spoken at times. Then again, perhaps not.

Click to expand...

Yes we've spoken, but not about your profession. But I've noted an aire of superiority from you in these matters, maybe unintentionally. I did misjudge your rebuttal, usually it comes in like a bulldozer. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Maybe my ex has significant problems.

hazlnut said:

Um... re: Old Data.



Lerner and Nagai self-published in 2001. Not peer reviewed. They run a conservative consulting firm...

Old data. Bad data. Not really data at all.

Shall I go on?

Click to expand...

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America's mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it's bigger than even those chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns' triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage.

More important, the De Bruijn wedding reveals a heretofore hidden dimension of the gay marriage phenomenon. The De Bruijns' triple marriage is a bisexual marriage. And, increasingly, bisexuality is emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for multipartner marriage has been developing for some time.

Click to expand...

Here Come the Brides | The Weekly Standard

CaptainCourtesy said:

I have posted a multitude of sources on several occasions. They take up 3 entire posts... in the abridged version. The entire version takes up 5. Do you want me to post them? I'd be happy to, but since this is about me and not the issue, I see little point.

Click to expand...

Yes, please do.

No offense sir, but this thread is now very long so digging through it is a bit of a muckracking experience no?

MrVicchio said:

Same sex marriage... call em civil unions and we're good. Don't change the definition of "marriage".

Is that so hard to grasp?

Click to expand...

And if you hadn't made this issue a personal issue towards me for whatever reason that's going on in YOUR head, you would realize that this is my position, completely. But you see, MrV, you have been so hell bent on going after me for quite a while, now, that you have no idea on where I stand on anything. You have made this personal. At this point, I could care less if you EVER know. You are uninterested and just want to fight. Well guess what? I'm still going to debate you and call you out when you are wrong.

Also you assume I'm arguing against the whole issue... I'm not.

I'm pointing out that Polygamy is the next step in the line.

Click to expand...

Which you are wrong about.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Like I said and thought. This isn't about the issue. It's about me.



If someone shows credible sources, I would not. I do so when they do not, or when they misrepresent an issue. This is what you don't get.

So, this is STILL about me, eh, MrV? You know, it was curious last night. NP's posts started to sound a bit like yours. Did you coach him at all? I'm just curious.





Nah, I'll post where and when I want. Like I told you and like I have, I'll rebut anything you throw. You have offered no evidence that your slippery slope is based in reality. You post it, I show that.

Click to expand...

It really isn't about you, you just made a target, and now you'd rather have a discussion about how it's ALL ABOUT YOU, rather then face the fact that Gay Marriage WILL lead to group marriage.

It's coming. All the tactics being used to promote gay marriage, all the small steps to make it legal... can be used by the group marriage (so much easier to type then polygamy..) advocates. Gay marriage will pave the way.

You cannot prove that there is any legal reason why 3 people in love shouldn't be allowed to enter into a legally binding union.

American said:

Yes we've spoken, but not about your profession. But I've noted an aire of superiority from you in these matters, maybe unintentionally.

Click to expand...

No, the superiority is probably intentional, though it absolutely depends on how I am approached. There are a few things in my life that I'm pretty good at and I present a lot of confidence when I discuss them.

I did misjudge your rebuttal, usually it comes in like a bulldozer. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sometimes it does. Again, it depends on how I am approached. I liked your approach a lot... it wasn't attacking and it was considerate. Also, I haven't slept in 27 hours so I'm a bit mellow right now. :mrgreen:

Maybe my ex has significant problems.

Click to expand...

Yeah, could be.

MrVicchio said:

Yes, please do.

No offense sir, but this thread is now very long so digging through it is a bit of a muckracking experience no?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure if I posted them in this thread or not, but give me a moment to dig them up and edit some of the headers. I'll just post that children of gay relationships stuff. The rest really isn't pertinent.