• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

This is what the good Captain does. Rather than argue content, he argues process. My content cannot be addressed, it is my questions that have yet to be answered.

But keep talking about me and no one else might realize you're wrong. Cause...you are.:lol:

If you cannot argue with proper process, why should we pay any heed to the content? Debating relies on far more than throwing (incorrect in your case) points at people.
 
And that's bringing religion into it. Please read carefully what you type and try not to further reduce your argument to rubble by lying.

It was no attempt to bring religion into this, I haven't made the first argument concerning religion. You had claimed how "disgusted" you were that I'd allow children to remain at risk. I claimed that not giving children every chance in life was against my religion....trying to point out how silly that was for an argument given your ridiculous argument that you were "disgusted". It was an alike attempt for me to take the moral high ground and both yourself and Warspite jumped all over it. Now...if religion don't play here, those morals being irrelevant...so does the fact that you're disgusted. No one cares. Like you not caring what my religion is, I couldn;t care less if you're repulsed or disgusted. You can't take aim at my content as you know I'm dead on correct here, so...you attack the process. It's trasparent...I just want you to know that.

I couldn't care less for your disgust, the fact that you're trying to take the
 
If you cannot argue with proper process, why should we pay any heed to the content? Debating relies on far more than throwing (incorrect in your case) points at people.

Debating doesn't apply to process. If you don't like HOW I'm getting my points across, it's irrelevant. I am getting points acorss, my points stand up there like Rudolph's antlers and the fact that you two cannot address the content...but would like to fault process instead..is quite telling.

Means you're losing the argument.:2wave:
 
No, traitor to a certain Republic that was founded in 1776 Common Era in opposition to tyranny such as you so ardently support.

So....had the Supreme Court or some Executive ruled say......that guns couldn't be owned by the citizenry....and I mentioned that to outlaw guns, we'd need a COnstitutional change....that no Exec or Robe could make that decision....would I be a traitor as well?

Oops. Your silly argument destroyed by a single example. Here's where I say....next in line please.
 
This is what Charles does, though. He has spent this entire thread misrepresenting, avoiding all the arguments and points that prove him wrong (he still hasn't given any indication that he understands the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, nor has he addressed all the links and evidence I provided), and making completely illogical arguments. It's all he's got in his bag of tricks. This is why his position has been so thoroughly demolished and why he cannot respond to issues presented.

It is to be expected. His main argument is based on the completely unsubstantiated and refuted belief that both genders need to be present within a family for children to be raised correctly. If he doesn't have that, then he has nothing and he knows it, so he will ignore any evidence to the contrary of that belief and will distort any evidence he can to support his view. Once I realized that much, I understood how pathetic his position was, and I lost my desire to debate him. That level of irrationality borders on delusion and the fact that he has visions of a grand "gay agenda" which he will not disclose the details of is further proof of the lunacy.
 
Not giving children all they deserve is a mortal sin in my religion is what I wrote, please read carefully.

Oops, there it is.

That's what it all comes down to. Your concept of God, your reading of the bible is right, and everyone else is wrong...

I am always fascinated how a single text gets so distorted and misrepresented. The core message of Jesus is love and tolerance. Anything less is moving AWAY from what He wants for you. It's so simple. Yet we allow our own fears and insecurities to blind us.
 
Debating doesn't apply to process. If you don't like HOW I'm getting my points across, it's irrelevant. I am getting points acorss, my points stand up there like Rudolph's antlers and the fact that you two cannot address the content...but would like to fault process instead..is quite telling.

Means you're losing the argument.:2wave:

Ah no, process is key in debating. Obviously you have never participated in an actual debate (one which is being adjudicated) or you would know otherwise.
 
So....had the Supreme Court or some Executive ruled say......that guns couldn't be owned by the citizenry....and I mentioned that to outlaw guns, we'd need a COnstitutional change....that no Exec or Robe could make that decision....would I be a traitor as well?

Oops. Your silly argument destroyed by a single example. Here's where I say....next in line please.

Nope, you wouldn't - however, the above are examples of different types of tyranny, rather than the tyranny by majority you support. There is a reason why this is not a democracy, but a democratic republic - I know it, the Founders knew it, the question is do you know it.
 
Debating doesn't apply to process. If you don't like HOW I'm getting my points across, it's irrelevant. I am getting points acorss, my points stand up there like Rudolph's antlers and the fact that you two cannot address the content...but would like to fault process instead..is quite telling.

Means you're losing the argument.:2wave:

You really have no clue on how this game is played do you?

As has been pointed out repeatedly here, you have no concept of LOGIC or how it works, this post underscores it even more.

There is a process to EVERY debate, it is called logic, it applies to any and all arguments, and if your position does not follow the LAWS of logic, your position is invalid.

There are no gray areas with logic, it is as clear cut and irrefutable as 2+2=4

Virtually all of your positions are in violation with the rules of the game, so matter how much you want lengthy back and forth arguments nitpicking and addressing every nuance to everything you have posted, there is no need to do so in the minds of virtually everyone participating in this thread, since in general they are easily dismissed and brushed aside as invalid, and using your word here, irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Attorney Cleta Mitchell said that after Fenty signs the bill and it goes to Congress, the group will ask a district elections board to put a referendum on the ballot asking voters to overturn it. She said in a statement before the vote that the law is a "decision for the people, not a dozen people at city hall."


Absolutely right.

If the people vote it in, no problem but circumventing the people is the only way this has passed any state so far.

SO I am assuming that you would be fine with putting all the rights/privileges that you enjoy to a popular vote as well?

It would be fine with you if a law were passed that said "Only Jews can get married"...as long as the people voted for it right?

How about a law that says only white people can be married? I'm assuming that you would be fine with that as well, so long as the majority of the people voted for it right?
 
SO I am assuming that you would be fine with putting all the rights/privileges that you enjoy to a popular vote as well?

It would be fine with you if a law were passed that said "Only Jews can get married"...as long as the people voted for it right?

How about a law that says only white people can be married? I'm assuming that you would be fine with that as well, so long as the majority of the people voted for it right?

For the third time, Sic Semper Tyrannis to the majority. :2razz:
 
For the third time, Sic Semper Tyrannis to the majority. :2razz:

I agree....that's where these people are completely hypocritical and wrong.

They are fine with putting "other " people's rights to a popular vote...but would scream and hollar if anyone dared put their rights to the same vote.
 
I agree....that's where these people are completely hypocritical and wrong.

They are fine with putting "other " people's rights to a popular vote...but would scream and hollar if anyone dared put their rights to the same vote.

And they also have the gall to bitch about how anti-tyranny they are.
 
I'm not really sure I get the joke. Did you even read the link?

Same sex marriage provides a context for legal, financial, and psychosocial well-being, an endorsement of interdependent care, and a form of public acknowledgment and respect for personal bonds. It's also beneficial the children's emotional and social development. Logic dictates that it is a reasonable argument because it is supported with evidence.
Oh I agree it's a "reasonable" argument, the problem is that it's a rather weak argument -- thoroughly unconvincing. What limited "logic" exists in your argument could also apply to civil unions, and could also apply to just about any relationship you could think up.

Don't you think it would help kids born of incest if we provided them with legal and financial benefits, endorsed their care, and publicly acknowledged and respected the personal bonds of their parents?

To exaggerate, your "argument" boils down to: we should give people benefits because they can benefit from them.
 
Oh I agree it's a "reasonable" argument, the problem is that it's a rather weak argument -- thoroughly unconvincing. What limited "logic" exists in your argument could also apply to civil unions, and could also apply to just about any relationship you could think up.

Don't you think it would help kids born of incest if we provided them with legal and financial benefits, endorsed their care, and publicly acknowledged and respected the personal bonds of their parents?

To exaggerate, your "argument" boils down to: we should give people benefits because they can benefit from them.

First off, you made an irrelevant comparison. What does same sex marriage have to do with incest? Your implication is that they are somehow the same but you might as well be comparing apples and oranges in that respect.

Second, you made the argument that civil unions are comparable to marriage. This is also incorrect. Marriage guarantees over a thousand different rights that civil unions do not, and is the social recognition of the bond between two people, not just the civil recognition of the bond between two people.

Third, your exaggeration, which is exactly what it is, fails to account for the fact that millions of children are currently being raised by gay parents and same sex couples, whereas very few are being raised by incestuous couples. Another fault in the implication of comparing the two, and the degree of benefit that would arise by giving same couples the right to marriage as opposed to incestuous couples.

Fourth, more than 25 years of research indicates that same sex parents are just as capable of raising children as heterosexual parents. No such body of research supports incestuous couples.

Frankly, you have demonstrated magnificently that you do not understand my positoin and that you can be just as illogical as Charles. Congrats.
 
This is what the good Captain does. Rather than argue content, he argues process. My content cannot be addressed, it is my questions that have yet to be answered.

You have no content, what you have presented has been refuted and you have refused to address questions asked of you. There is no more better description of "fail" than what you have done in this debate. Congratulations on that.

But keep talking about me and no one else might realize you're wrong. Cause...you are.:lol:

I'll keep talking about your failure in this debate simply because I like rubbing your nose in it and to continue to educate those who choose to be educated on how wrong you are.
 
It was no attempt to bring religion into this, I haven't made the first argument concerning religion. You had claimed how "disgusted" you were that I'd allow children to remain at risk. I claimed that not giving children every chance in life was against my religion....trying to point out how silly that was for an argument given your ridiculous argument that you were "disgusted". It was an alike attempt for me to take the moral high ground and both yourself and Warspite jumped all over it. Now...if religion don't play here, those morals being irrelevant...so does the fact that you're disgusted. No one cares. Like you not caring what my religion is, I couldn;t care less if you're repulsed or disgusted. You can't take aim at my content as you know I'm dead on correct here, so...you attack the process. It's trasparent...I just want you to know that.

I couldn't care less for your disgust, the fact that you're trying to take the

You've been so thoroughly decimated in this debate and has your position so completely destroyed that you don't even know who you are talking to. I never made any of those claims. Critical Thought did. :lol:
 
Debating doesn't apply to process. If you don't like HOW I'm getting my points across, it's irrelevant. I am getting points acorss, my points stand up there like Rudolph's antlers and the fact that you two cannot address the content...but would like to fault process instead..is quite telling.

Means you're losing the argument.:2wave:

Problem is your content is irrelevant both because it is and because you don't understand the process of debate. If you did, you wouldn't present the content that you have because you'd KNOW it was irrelevant.
 
First off, you made an irrelevant comparison. What does same sex marriage have to do with incest? Your implication is that they are somehow the same but you might as well be comparing apples and oranges in that respect.
Nothing -- it's showing how hopelessly generic your argument is through use of analogy.

Second, you made the argument that civil unions are comparable to marriage. This is also incorrect. Marriage guarantees over a thousand different rights that civil unions do not, and is the social recognition of the bond between two people, not just the civil recognition of the bond between two people.
I made no arguments, I was merely pointing out that (again) your argument is hopelessly generic. You have shown no evidence, nor does your argument distinguish the two. It's a poor argument.

Third, your exaggeration, which is exactly what it is, fails to account for the fact that millions of children are currently being raised by gay parents and same sex couples, whereas very few are being raised by incestuous couples.
So... what?

Frankly, you have demonstrated magnificently that you do not understand my positoin and that you can be just as illogical as Charles. Congrats.
On the contrary, you have shown us that you haven't thought too deeply about the issue, and that your understanding of critical thinking does not extend much beyond references to wikipedia-style listings of logical fallacies - many of which you fail to understand because you repeatedly apply them to premises rather than arguments.
 
Nothing -- it's showing how hopelessly generic your argument is through use of analogy.


I made no arguments, I was merely pointing out that (again) your argument is hopelessly generic. You have shown no evidence, nor does your argument distinguish the two. It's a poor argument.


So... what?


On the contrary, you have shown us that you haven't thought too deeply about the issue, and that your understanding of critical thinking does not extend much beyond references to wikipedia-style listings of logical fallacies - many of which you fail to understand because you repeatedly apply them to premises rather than arguments.

Your argument is illogical and therefore irrelevant. You did not consider that there are millions of children who would benefit from same sex couples having the right to marry when there is very few children being raised by parents in an incestuous relationship who would benefit. You also didn't consider that there is a body of evidence to suggest that same sex couples can raise children just as well as different sex couples, but there is no such body of evidence to suggest so for incestuous couples.

You made the mistake of assuming that I was arguing that same sex couples deserve the right to marriage soley because it would be beneficial. In that case, you would be right that inceustous couples could arguably deserve the same right. However, this amounted to little more than a straw man.

My actual argument is that millions of children could benefit from same sex marriage and most of the evidence suggests that children raised by same sex couples turn out just as well as those raised by different sex couples.

You cannot make such an argument for incestuous couples.

Please try to understand people's arguments before you engage in straw man making. It makes you look utterly foolish. If you can provide proof that there are millions of children who are being raised by incestuous couples and evidence suggesting that incestuous couples are doing just a good a job raising children as nonincestous families, then you might have an argument to counter mine instead of an incredibly obvious straw man.

And frankly, you might want to work on your own critical thinking ability before you try to judge the critical thinking ability of others. I'm getting rather bored with decimating yours and Charles's arguments over and over again. If you take issue with how I have argued any logical fallacy in this thread, then please provide an example of it.
 
Last edited:
It is to be expected. His main argument is based on the completely unsubstantiated and refuted belief that both genders need to be present within a family for children to be raised correctly.

Only unsubstantiated if you ignore the mountains of evidence I've provided, while ignoring the reality of no fathers in the home in your own community, meanwhile pushing your now ever present and obvious agenda.:)

If he doesn't have that, then he has nothing and he knows it, so he will ignore any evidence to the contrary of that belief and will distort any evidence he can to support his view.

I've asked before perhaps you have different evidence. The fact that no father in the home ranks as the common denominator from drug use, to education level, to prison time served. Your blindness is crowned by your glaring and colossal errors to date on this matter.

Once I realized that much, I understood how pathetic his position was, and I lost my desire to debate him.

Pathetic because you cannot address it. so easy was everyone but a few in here who had an argument you just couldn't address. Emotional and in an untenable position, your argument now chooses to ignore fact and deny reality and reason.

Lots of name calling, no answers to my questions, no addressing the actual topic. This is so fun, but I do wish the opposition would turn its' difficulty level up. I grow tired of the tired arguments of denial CT, do you have anything else...cause I'm about to shelve your theories here as more of the same and call it a day. Another lil sticker for the fuselage on my now famous right wing fighter.

Oh...here's your argument...sorry it looks..different:flames:
 
Only unsubstantiated if you ignore the mountains of evidence I've provided, while ignoring the reality of no fathers in the home in your own community, meanwhile pushing your now ever present and obvious agenda.:)

What mountain of evidence? All you provided were stats which could only be used to argue that two parent families are better off that single parent families. You have yet to provide a single speck of evidence to indicate that both sexes are needed to raise children .

I've asked before perhaps you have different evidence. The fact that no father in the home ranks as the common denominator from drug use, to education level, to prison time served. Your blindness is crowned by your glaring and colossal errors to date on this matter.

"Fatherless" statistics are single parent statistics. You are accusing me of being blind when you don't even know how to interpret basic statistics? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this? Do you actually have any evidence to indicate that children raised in lesbian homes, not single mother homes, but by a lesbian couples, are anymore likely to use drugs, have a lower education, or spend time in prison? Of course you don't. You can only distort single parent statistics, and pretend like you know what the hell you are talking about.

Pathetic because you cannot address it. so easy was everyone but a few in here who had an argument you just couldn't address. Emotional and in an untenable position, your argument now chooses to ignore fact and deny reality and reason.

You are ignoring the basic rules of statistics. Frankly, you are proving yourself too ignorant to be worth debating. Can you really not see why you can't apply single parents stats to same sex couples? Are you really that uneducated?

Lots of name calling, no answers to my questions, no addressing the actual topic. This is so fun, but I do wish the opposition would turn its' difficulty level up. I grow tired of the tired arguments of denial CT, do you have anything else...cause I'm about to shelve your theories here as more of the same and call it a day. Another lil sticker for the fuselage on my now famous right wing fighter.

Frankly, I presented my argument. You were unable to refute it and you choose instead to use red herring tactics to avoid actually discussing the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom