• 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!

Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

Quag said:
Again you could be talking for either side, though I'm pretty sure which one you mean ;)
Click to expand...

l am sure you are

you read many of my posts :mrgreen:
 
Gathomas88 said:
A high IQ actually serves a purpose. However, I would agree that such individuals are no less anomalous than homosexuals.

As such, they are not, strictly speaking, "normal" either.


It is literally the text book definition of the word.
Click to expand...


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



It is simple inference. If children raised in single sex / single parent households tend to suffer for it due to the lack of same and/or opposite sex role models, why on earth would children raised in single sex / homosexual households be any different.

If anything, you need to provide evidence to support the assertion that the two situations are in any way different.
Click to expand...

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



Which is all a lot of very vague and insubstantial quibbling which really signifies nothing.
Click to expand...

I gave examples. If you cannot counter them, then do do not act as though I said nothing significant. If you wish, I can go deeper into it.


Besides, I'm just about positive that you have stated repeatedly at this point that the role played by a care giver did not matter so long as the child was rasied in a loving home.
Click to expand...

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


Yea.. I'm sure she that she's a real "objective" and "impartial" source on the matter.
Click to expand...

We'd be asking about how her relationship with her mother is different then her relationship with her partner. I don't how your claims of bias hold and ground.



Then why are we discussing it?
Click to expand...

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


Objective reality. By definition, one cannot be a member of any minority group that only makes up slightly more or less than 1% of a given society's population and still be considered "normal."
Click to expand...

I asked by 'who' not what. 'Objective reality' is not a person/group.
 
Verthaine said:
You made it sound as if YOU know what's on the mind of EVERY American in this country.
Click to expand...
That's absolutely false and anyone can go back and read my posts to see that you're lying baldly.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
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 .
Click to expand...

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

Policies are not made for the exceptions, they are made for the general rule... who is to say that advances in science cannot allow fertility? That those who choose not to have children suddenly choose to have some. Giving the right to the elderly female and male will not erase the lines as presently drawn and open up the dread of negative unintended, some of which are foreseeable, consequences.
Click to expand...

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

We, as you know, haven't really had the time to study it yet. But we do know that once you erase the line of tradition, the walls holding back the floods of chaos will soon coming crashing in. Who will we then say no to? Anything and everything will be allowed...what would be the legal basis of denying anybody the right to marriage to anybody, or in some cases, or anything? That clearly would be chaos, think about that critically. Society cannot withstand such assaults for very long.
Click to expand...

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

Tradition is a proven entity, so comes up ACES... what you got in your deck of fallacies that might beat mine? Experimentation is better than a proven winner? Not so good...so what ya got?
Click to expand...

Appeal to tradition fallacy. Slavery was a tradition, as was denying anyone but white, male property owners the right to vote. Traditions are not inherently good or "proven" as you state. They are simply an established attitude or practice.
 
Gathomas88 said:
To clarify, your argument here is that, because Schumm's conlusions were reached using literary sources about the effects of gay parenting on children, that happened to primarily concern themselves with the effects of gay parenting on children, they are somehow invalid? View attachment 67146667
Click to expand...

This is difficult because you apparently do not understand what he did or how a meta analysis works.

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

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

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

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

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

To make it clear, a meta analysis needs to be composed of relatively RANDOM samples to be valid. Do you understand what that means or am I wasting my time?
 
clownboy said:
But that wasn't my position in the first place. I was saying that going for the title is what is holding them back from what they say they want - equality. That they could have easily, or not so easily, had equal civil unions by now, at least in many states. But the run for the title has triggered a reaction that has put their whole effort in jeopardy.

Look, I know the fanciful thinkers here really believe the SCOTUS is going to hand them a victory soon. But as I said to another poster - you're counting your chickens way too early and you may be heartbroken by the actual reality.
Click to expand...

I'm gay. I don't want marriage for "equality". I want it for the rights and protections it would afford my family. If there had ever been a viable alternative I would have been fine with it. However, between the federal government not recognizing civil unions and states passing bans on them, that has never been an option I could even entertain. If you want to argue that gay rights advocates are to blame because they sought the "marriage" title then fine. The reality is that your side criminalized my relationship with sodomy laws and has NEVER put forth a civil union bill or came to the table seeking a compromise. Until that happens you have no ground to stand on. To the contrary, there have been many, many gay rights advocates who have pushed for civil unions in the past, and many were even OPPOSED to same sex marriage.
 
CriticalThought said:
A. Equal in the same sense that interracial marriage bans made it so nobody could marry someone of a different race. That is equal as well as it applies across the board. However, it did not serve a legitimate or rational state interest and therefore was found unconstitutional. In the same way, same sex marriage bans discriminate on the basis of sex. No person can marry someone of the same sex, and that is equal, but it is not rational nor does it serve a legitimate state purpose.



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



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



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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Well, I certainly do not know how they do it, I cannot stand lamb or mutton myself...even on kabob ...or would that be kamob...???
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
A. Yes. The state has the legitimate mission of continuance, survival. A nation achieves this promoting those policies which best achieve that end, discouraging that which detracts.
Click to expand...


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



why should the state promote policies that are determined in all probability to be in conflict with one of its primary missions of long term survival?
Click to expand...

Again: how is it in conflict with long-term survival?


C. Slippery slopes can slope either way. We have thousands of years of study of traditional marriage
Click to expand...

Marriage and what it means not only has differed from place to place, but has changed radically within every old society.

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

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

:)

Who, pray tell, is trying to create a "same sex culture?"
 
winston53660 said:
Loving vs Virginia was a SCOTUS case.
Click to expand...

As was Brown v Board, Browder v Gayle, so sure, there were court cases...but the Little Rock Nine, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Marchs on Selma, on Birmingham, on Washington... the list goes on and on... non violence in the face of beatings, clubbings, dogs and fire hoses... they worked it hard, earned everyone's respect. African Americans did not just insinuate themselves into society through the courtroom doors and smoke filled congressional closed meetings.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
As was Brown v Board, Browder v Gayle, so sure, there were court cases...but the Little Rock Nine, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Marchs on Selma, on Birmingham, on Washington... the list goes on and on... non violence in the face of beatings, clubbings, dogs and fire hoses... they worked it hard, earned everyone's respect. African Americans did not just insinuate themselves into society through the courtroom doors and smoke filled congressional closed meetings.
Click to expand...

So you are basing something being legal by how they worked at getting it to be legal? That's just silly.

fact is gays have worked hard in today's society. If you are basing gays on gay pride parades, you are sadly not only mistaken but ignorant as well.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
A. Yes. The state has the legitimate mission of continuance, survival. A nation achieves this promoting those policies which best achieve that end, discouraging that which detracts.

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

You are making a strong argument FOR same sex marriage. Canada, for example, did not legalize same sex marriage as just a liberal principle. It did so largely as a conservative and moral principle because the institution regulates the sexual behavior of homosexuals and provides additional stable homes for children. Trying to compare same sex marriage to no fault divorce is ridiculous and a large part of the reason your side has been losing this debate. Extending marriage to same sex couples leads to MORE people marrying, not less.

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

Since 2003. That was when Lawrence versus Texas struck down sodomy laws. The "tolerance" of our nation is a decade old.

You argue that the whole "nature v. nurture" debate has not been settled while arguing that gays recruit people to homosexuality. That is intellectually dishonest. You made up your mind, and the science has shown pretty strong evidence that homosexuality is based on combination of factors, biology being a large part of it.

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

Same sex marriage does serve a state interest. Hundreds of thousands of children in this country are raised by gay parents. They deserve the same benefits of marriage as children being raised by opposite sex parents get to enjoy. The fact that you ignore this is further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.

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

Promote? Are you kidding? So when gays practice promiscuous sex outside of committed relationships then that is acceptable? But we would not want to promote that they practice committed, monogamous relationships the way we do for heterosexuals...with marriage? Social conservatism is a walking contradiction.

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

Society will always have that conversation and it will be based on what is best for society, not the interest of the few. I am confident that same sex marriage will prove to be best for society as a whole. Whether or not it can be extended beyond same sex marriage is a different debate and one we will have as a society regardless of whether or not same sex marriage is made legal. Trying to conflate the issue by turning to an appeal to consequences fallacy is not very convincing nor rational.

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

Apply that same reasoning to the argument you made above.

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

Innovation and reason trump tradition. We have no progressed as a society by always doing things the same way simply because they appeared to work well in the past. We question our assumptions and challenge ourselves to look for better ways. Your appeal to tradition fallacy and slippery slope fallacy are as stale as always. For somebody who promised me an "educated" debate you rely quite a bit on logical fallacies and a lack of evidence.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
As was Brown v Board, Browder v Gayle, so sure, there were court cases...but the Little Rock Nine, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Marchs on Selma, on Birmingham, on Washington... the list goes on and on... non violence in the face of beatings, clubbings, dogs and fire hoses... they worked it hard, earned everyone's respect. African Americans did not just insinuate themselves into society through the courtroom doors and smoke filled congressional closed meetings.
Click to expand...

So you are trying to tell us that in order for gays to get marriage rights they should be put through horrible abuses first. Somehow i think that even after they do that it still won't be good enough for you.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
1. What?



2. you have a loose definition of 'stable'. The last few thousand years were pretty hectic.



3. I'm not arguing that gay marriages are better.



4. 'Course it is. No other explanation.



5. Not bad, except, wrong on every count. Legalizing SSM does not let hell loose. That is a fantasy for the bible thumpers.



6. I have a mountain of supporting data and a clean conscience. I am confident in my position.
Click to expand...

1. I am paid to teach, I do this as recreation... if you cannot understand what is being said, maybe you should ask someone for some assistance?

2. All life is hectic, where ones sees stability is where there is civilization, civilizations are built upon the family as the most basic unit, families are created by opposite sex couplings...where do you see same sex unions civilizations... or even sex sex communities that have survived any length of time at all? With, like as in opposite sex families, an uninterrupted history from as far back in recorded history as we can go?

You cannot, never wondered why, I am guessing.

3. You could not argue that in any event. I am also arguing that this is a great risk as we have nothing upon which to base a successful outcome of the implementation of such a foreign policy into the social make up of this country that the whole world depends upon to remain strong. That should help you as a hint to figuring out number 1 above, though.

4. Don't believe me? Look it up. Maybe you will prove me wrong on this one point at least. You won't, but...

5. Nice fake to the left there...how about answering the question instead of calling people names, like that is a real answer... the question again: upon what legal basis would you stop anybody/anything from getting married? We have the 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law, once you start giving certain groups special privileges, what will be the basis to deny any other groups... the liberal "D" word, discrimination will be tossed everywhere... how will you counter that... let's say I want to marry my adult sister... what is your basis of denial in the law?

6. Well lets all hear that mountain sing, don't keep it to yourself man, I am sure it is utterly fascinating fiction, yet persuasive, right...?
 
chromium said:
So you think civil unions would have been legal in Texas by now? Which of the 20 states do you think this would be the case? Support for SSM has gone way up despite your warnings that it has backfired. The only change I've noticed since the court case is like 2% went from indifferent to against in polls. Who cares?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps not, we'll never know now. The pooch has been screwed and the pendulum swung. And no, in recent years support for homosexual marriage has not increased other than a few spurious and obviously inaccurate polls. In real life, at the voting booth it's getting defeated in the large majority of cases.

chromium said:
Also, please explain how civil unions, even if DOMA is struck down, will grant the same 1000 rights reserved for married couples. No joint tax return, as in France no adoption in most states, power of attorney needed for hospital visitation, joint benefits in my state are for *married couples only and the civil union couples do NOT get them*...You get the point I hope.
Click to expand...

Easy, if a state or the feds want civil unions to be equivilent to marriage, it's a simple bill to author. But that's probably not going to happen now. In going for the gold ring you may have missed the brass one. It could go your way, we'll find out if the court is going to help you sidestep the people again soon.
 
specklebang said:
I would have hoped for better from a country that invented Freedom Fries.

Tsk.
Click to expand...



You got that right.

Sometimes I like the French, and sometimes I don't.




"If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." ~ Lewis Carroll
 
Perhaps it's a case of liking some of the French, some of the time.


shrubnose said:
You got that right.

Sometimes I like the French, and sometimes I don't.




"If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." ~ Lewis Carroll
Click to expand...
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm gay. I don't want marriage for "equality". I want it for the rights and protections it would afford my family. If there had ever been a viable alternative I would have been fine with it. However, between the federal government not recognizing civil unions and states passing bans on them, that has never been an option I could even entertain. If you want to argue that gay rights advocates are to blame because they sought the "marriage" title then fine. The reality is that your side criminalized my relationship with sodomy laws and has NEVER put forth a civil union bill or came to the table seeking a compromise. Until that happens you have no ground to stand on. To the contrary, there have been many, many gay rights advocates who have pushed for civil unions in the past, and many were even OPPOSED to same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a pity party where you want to blame everyone else because you won't get off you own ass. If you want "the rights and protections it would afford my family" that IS equality. And I've never been called to the table period, so compromise with what? The folks who want something from the political system generally work for it from the local upward. Heck, CA and many states have the initiative process. The so-called bluest state and not once was there an initiative for civil unions. If you can't even collect enough signatures in the blue state of CA then it's time to hang up your spurs.
 
AGENT J said:
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:
Click to expand...

1. Not an arguable statement with the understanding that all rights are not absolute, each has a limit.
2. No, that is in conflict with your statement number one. Certain groups should not be afforded special rights created out nothing, do not get to trample on one's religious beliefs and freedoms...
3. Hardly, but delusions are free...
3A. So, lets make it simple, do away with legal protection for children... yeah, that is smart...
3B. Yet you assume I care what your opinion of mine is then, huh? too funny.
4. You were the one talking minority rights were you not? Then you would not stand up for child abusers, isn't that just a little bigoted, not very progressive of you...
Just because the SC says it doesn't make it right nor permanent... Plessy v Feguson... did that hold up, was it correct?
5. Take out the "c" ... you stated fat, overweight ungainly statements having lots of empty calories... you cannot always rely on saying that is your opinion, especially when trumped with logic...or proof, evidence, and yes, "real facts".... and a good debate is always fun...
 
tererun said:
So you are trying to tell us that in order for gays to get marriage rights they should be put through horrible abuses first. Somehow i think that even after they do that it still won't be good enough for you.
Click to expand...

Never said they should, just said that is how the African American Civil Rights Movement gain widespread respect, they earned it, did the hard work, and most saw that they were correct and deserving.

And no, I do not think marriage for same sexes is good for society short or long term...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1. You may not know this... or are forgetting, 31 states have already adopted same sex ban amendments, so the judges cannot really do much about it if a case did come up, well, except decide against it, I suppose.

1b. Don't know your CR history either, that is wow worthy.

1c. I think it beyond only my opinion but well within the realm of plausibility ....right up to probably.

2. Need to sharpen the blade on your research tool, dig a bit deeper there, all that means something, means not being completely blind going into the future, seeing where the rocks and obstacles coming up, seeing how the ones that are going before us are doing [ not so well ]. Thankfully you only have the majority in the Senate and executive office... we have the House and 30 governorships... we will be able to hold all that off until we get the others back. So you can ignore it, pretend its not happening...

And you don't have to keep chanting that mantra, "straight marriage is still legal, blah blah blah, straight marriage is....

2a.)Oh, and if you mention a court ruling, please how about some clue as to what you are talking about, what it said, why it should have some bearing on the conversation.

4. I am sure if you just make some discreet inquiries about how gay people were treated and why it was wise to stay hidden, they will let you in on all the dark little secrets. Such feebleness regarding defense of it now being legal... if you are intellectually honest, you know.
straw man--- Nobody is equating, you say that to shift attention away from the real problem, it doesn't matter what you think now, it was different then and it was criminal, but very similar for the gay community and general impressions.

5. Hardly, what I am saying it that everybody else will want these same special rights. At the moment all is completely equal in the vast majority of states, I cannot marry another man, a woman cannot marry another woman, nobody can marry under a certain age, if I wanted to I cannot marry my sister, a gay cannot marry his sister or brother, nor can I....we have the exact same rights and restrictions right now. I can marry only within certain boundaries, the same as everyone else. The exact same for each in each state, except about 6 states grant special rights to same sex couples.

6. Yep. Already dismantled the equal stuff, so you would have to dismantle my dismantling to be anywhere near credible at this point.

7. You see, analogies are not supposed to be the exact same, they are analogies, similar, gets the point across [ to most] and its the principle we are digging at. Either get it or you don't, I am just presenting it for those actually looking for the right answers. Explain exactly which rights are being taken away?

8. I wasn't incorrect either, you were bandying about the word uneducated, I informed you of my education and then educated you on the topic.

9. Ill let you make the case if you think you can beat me, have at it....prove how its 100% the case.

10. I know enough history to know the justices are not always right. Either they were in Plessy v Ferguson or in Brown v Board.... but not both, so they are proven to be wrong... and what was the decision you are talking about anyhow, Again, if you are going to use a court ruling you have to at least say what the ruling is.... can't just say they ruled and....I won..... that't not how it works....

good tries tho...

11.)The best I can get, by the way, and always appreciative of whatever it is I got.
Click to expand...

1.) well aware, remind me how many of them were done by that states supreme court? ;)
1a.) so you have not facts still just you opinion, i knew that already
1b.) plausible based on your OPINION
2.) again that long story had zero FACTUAL or LOGICAL impact only your opinion that you think it matters with nothing but your "feelings" to support it, so no sharpening needed, because i dont buy your dull "story" ;)
2a.) are you saying you are unaware of this, i thought you were chest beating earlier and said you are educated on this topic? lol
4.) so you are not going to qoute the us laws that make gay culture illegal? thanks thats what i thought, deflection noted LMAO
my honesty is what makes me laugh at your opinion pushed as facts
what was criminal you still havent said it, what law are you referring to?
5.) you fail in the first sentence because they are special, justices already disagree with you and everybody else doesnt matter because like your argument fails so will theirs. Saying its completely equal is simply a lie.
Like i said justices already disagree with you. But you are welcome to keep you OPINION.
6.) no it was a complete failure as court rullings support those people and the only support you have is your "feelings" LMAO nothing was dismantled in reality.
Credibility is solid in the justices rulings :shrug: and your credibility is based on, nothign but your feelings. Feelings VS supreme court justices = your feelings lose
7.) who said they have to be exact but they do have to be parallels and you claiming that a minotiy group like child rapists would want "special rights" based on equal rights for gays is asinine. Nobody sane, logical and honest would by that.

you want to know what rights would be taken away if rape was made legal???/? LMAO you cant be serious, now i know you are just making stuff up since you lost and are just talking circles for fun

8.) yes you were 100% wrong because this is the start of your dishonest, illogical, straw-man rant "Don't attempt to label me and how educated I am." i never did this, i said you are uneducated about this topic. and you reant was about general knowledge and chest beating that was pointless and impressed nobody :)

9.) its already proven, my quote and what i actually said proves it? are you hoping that today my post will be different and has different words in it? LMAO

I made a statement about "A" you tried to relate my statement or claimed it meant "B" it factually did not and there no logic or facts to even support that false conclusion.

if you feel differently by all means post my quote here AGAIN and disect it, show me where my words meant minorities that didnt have rights yet or minorities ilke pedophilia. Id LOVE to hear it and if you can, i sir will admit you were right.

10.) translation, you have nothing, it was a fail and multiples have rules on it, not just one LOL so yes, it was a good try by you

11.) i thought so, and like i said that wasnt an insult, i could honestly tell you were drinking, a little to much babbling, filler, random sayings/quotes and non related material being typed LOL
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I can't recall a time Agent J has ever called himself a libertarian.

Now, seeing as how you don't care and have zero opinion about the topic in the OP, why are you here?
Click to expand...

I dont think he knows why he was here, he was all over the place, his posts made no sense.
Not that something like that is unusual for his posts but it was extra nonsensical.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Annnnnnnd right back on the ignore list with AgentJ he goes. :2wave:
Click to expand...

its funny you think this bothers people, it makes me happy when posters like yourself get their feelings hurt by me, it lets me know im a good poster and you running and hiding cause your arguments got destroyed is really does little to make you look any better after your loss :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom