• 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

CaptainCourtesy said:
You know what, Taylor? We've been discussing issues in this thread for quite a while, and you have altered your position more times than I can count.
Click to expand...
You've tried this claim before and I've shown it to be false.
 
Taylor said:
You've tried this claim before and I've shown it to be false.
Click to expand...

I've shown it to be true. And you STILL haven't presented your position in a clear way. One paragraph, Taylor. Should be easy enough.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You still don't get it... and probably never will. YOUR agenda prevents you from understanding how to debate. You have shown no evidence that demonstrates that gay parent household do worse than than straight parent households. Until you do, you lose. Simple as that. Further, all of what you wrote above is what YOU believe, and is your opinion. As I've told you before, that and a quarter is worth... a quarter.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you have not proven it.

You linked to studies based on unsupervised questionaires to determine a psychological profile. Try that with a real shrink and you'll be laughed out of the office.
 
texmaster said:
Sorry, you have not proven it.

You linked to studies based on unsupervised questionaires to determine a psychological profile. Try that with a real shrink and you'll be laughed out of the office.
Click to expand...

As I told you, you do not understand how objective studies are conducted, nor do you understand the difference between research and evaluation. When you learn these differences, let me know.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It's really sad that you still cannot see how you argue from non-logic. Let me demostrate:
Click to expand...

You already have. In your last post.



Irrelevant. It doesn't prove your position.
Click to expand...

Of course you would say that because its another one of those icky facts you can't come to terms with.

It is a Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). Here is the definition:: This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way. Just because it has been done this way, does not prove that it is correct. We are not arguing from a legal standpoint. If that were the case, every abortion argument would be won by the pro-choicers. Are you getting it, yet?
Click to expand...

Obviously you are not. Let me try and educate you. I'll use small words. Traditional marriage is what the country was founded on. That is a fact. It is the cornerstone family unit throughout the centuries since the birth of the country. You cannot prove it shouldn't stay the way it is which is why you use misdirection and dishonesty about the history and law behind traditional marriage. You want to change this based on nothing but faith in your feelings about an alternative lifestyle. That is not an argument. It is a belief.

You just contradicted yourself nicely. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Still using words you don't understand I see.

If there is evidence that gay marriage is not harmful, even if this evidence is from other countries, then there is evidence that gay marriage is not harmful.
Click to expand...

Again, "if" is not an argument. It is a theory. This isn't about harm. Should we base our execution laws on China? Or how about the interrogation methods of Somalia?

BTW, the majority of other countries around the world do not endorse gay marriage so thanks once again for displaying your foot in mouth argument.

The stupidity in that statement of yours is truly astonishing.

See we have our own Constitution. Our own laws. I know its pesky for world thinkers like yourself, or should I say selective world thinkers but the laws of other countries from executions to gay marriage are irrevelant in establishing our own laws. That's why we have our own government and our own laws. :roll:

So, you have given us one logical fallacy, and have given us evidence that you are wrong. Let's continue.
Click to expand...

This is so classic of you. When you can't argue something you label it because you don't have the courage or conviction to argue it.

I guess it is easier than thinking or supporting your argument with facts but thats not new for you is it?

That damn pesky Constitution strikes again.

Once again, you are demonstrating that you do not know how to debate.
Click to expand...

I would never compete with the master. You have that title locked.

Just because the majority agrees on something does not mean it is right. This is the Argumentum ad numerum fallacy (argument or appeal to numbers). It is defined by this: this fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Again, if you want to argue law, then anyone who disputes anything that is currently legal, loses. I will remember this when/if you and I debate on other topics.
Click to expand...

And here we go again. When you cannot debate the facts you resort to falsely classifying the argument to get around the factual data presented.

Until you can come to grips about what the law actually says about propositions and the procedures on how to get those on the ballot, there is no hope for you.

I do hope this is simply dishonesty on your part and not blind ignorance of the law and how propositions are voted on.

You have no evidence of this, but I'd love to see it. I've already destroyed the "homosexuality leads to polygamy" argument several times, so be my guest to present it. :lol:
Click to expand...

LOL You really don't get it do you?

I'm a polygamist. I have a right to marry. You already established gay marriage is a right under the law.

How can you deny my right to marry? Why is it only a "right" for 2 people to be married?

Go ahead, I'd love to see how you are going to spin this one. You haven't been able to yet :rofl

Firstly, you STILL don't seem to grasp the concept of sexual orientation. There is no way to determine, genetically or biologically how sexual orientation is determined...thats BOTH hetero- AND homosexuality. You on your side always forget this simple fact. If one is not genetic, then neither are. Further, you STILL don't seem to grasp the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, though I have explained it numerous times with many examples. My guess is that this is deliberate because it destroys your position.
Click to expand...

Bull**** and I already destroyed this fallacy of yours when you can't explain how humans procreated before speech or writing. How did they know?

For once in your life answer the question.

It fails every time because, like you, most people do not understand the concepts that cover the issue. Or, they don't want to. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

Ah yes. The "I'm smarter than you so I don't have to support myself" argument.

lol Talk about dishonesty. You can't even admit your entire argument is based on belief and not fact.

See, now this is how biased and closed-minded you are. In all of this, you've never asked me what my position is. My position is that all government sanctioned marriage should be eliminated and replaced with civil unions...for both straights and gays. Only religions can use the word marriage and sanction marriages. It is then up to THEM whether to allow gays to marry or not.
Click to expand...

Uh, I just said that. You want gay marriage to be equal to heterosexual marriage.

Your position isn't that complicated. You supporting it with facts has proved to be quite elusive.

So, what we have in your 5 points are 3 logical fallacies and a host of not understanding or refusing to understand concepts around the issue. I would have thought that after 100+ pages you would have gotten some information from this thread, but I suppose not.
Click to expand...

What we have is your inability to support your arguments, dishonesty and falsely categorize your opponent's arguments so you think in your mind you don't have to answer them and your inability to accept your argument is based on pure faith in an idea that has no factual evidence to support it.

In other words, you haven't changed a bit. Although this new dishonest tactic of falsely labeling your opponent's argument then running away from actually addressing it is a new tactic for you. Anything to get around direct debate seems to be your forte.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
As I told you, you do not understand how objective studies are conducted, nor do you understand the difference between research and evaluation. When you learn these differences, let me know.
Click to expand...

And as I've told you, you haven't a clue how psychotherapy works since you laughably rely on unsupervised questionnaires to form a psychological profile.

Go ahead, ask any shrink if they agree with you.
 
texmaster said:
You already have. In your last post.
Click to expand...

Not in the least. You continue to demonstrate that you cannot debate logically, below.





Of course you would say that because its another one of those icky facts you can't come to terms with.
Click to expand...

No, because it is illogical... yet something else that you cannot understand.



Obviously you are not. Let me try and educate you. I'll use small words. Traditional marriage is what the country was founded on. That is a fact. It is the cornerstone family unit throughout the centuries since the birth of the country. You cannot prove it shouldn't stay the way it is which is why you use misdirection and dishonesty about the history and law behind traditional marriage. You want to change this based on nothing but faith in your feelings about an alternative lifestyle. That is not an argument. It is a belief.
Click to expand...

More illogic. You cannot prove that it should stay that way it is except to say that it has always been that way. Irrelevant to debate. Hmmm... until 1870 blacks couldn't vote... BUT WAIT...THAT'S HOW IT WAS ALWAYS DONE. ONE CAN'T PROVE THAT IT SHOULD BE CHANGED BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE! :roll: Until 1920 women couldn't vote... BUT WAIT...THAT'S HOW IT WAS ALWAYS DONE. ONE CAN'T PROVE THAT IT SHOULD BE CHANGED BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE! :roll: These are examples of how ridiculously illogical your argument is. It is illogical to try to prove your position because "that's how it's always been done." Unless you can prove, logically, that that particular way is correct, you have NOTHING... as I have told you repeatedly. Now, I'm sorry I had to use BIG words, but I don't believe you're going to get it anyway, so I just explained it best as I could.



Still using words you don't understand I see.
Click to expand...

Still don't understand the concept of what we are debating nor how to debate it, I see.



Again, "if" is not an argument. It is a theory. This isn't about harm. Should we base our execution laws on China? Or how about the interrogation methods of Somalia?
Click to expand...

You obviously had difficultly understanding my sentence. As you said, let me use small words. Presenting information that gay marriage is not harmful from other countries, is presenting information that gay marriage is not harmful. This is what you did, assisting me in torpedoing your position. Not that I needed any help.

BTW, the majority of other countries around the world do not endorse gay marriage so thanks once again for displaying your foot in mouth argument.
Click to expand...

I never said they did. YOU presented evidence that there was evidence that gay marriage was not harmful in other countries... assisting me in torpedoing your position. Not that I needed any help.

The stupidity in that statement of yours is truly astonishing.
Click to expand...

Your demonstration of not understanding what I wrote is truly astonishing.

See we have our own Constitution. Our own laws. I know its pesky for world thinkers like yourself, or should I say selective world thinkers but the laws of other countries from executions to gay marriage are irrevelant in establishing our own laws. That's why we have our own government and our own laws. :roll:
Click to expand...

You still can't grasp the concept if what is being discussed, can you? No one is talking about laws. We are talking about evidence that gay marriage is not harmful. It is irrelevant whether it is legal or not legal in other countries. You said there was evidence from other countries that it was not harmful. This helps torpedo your position, not that I needed any help. Try to stay focused on what we are discussing.



This is so classic of you. When you can't argue something you label it because you don't have the courage or conviction to argue it.

I guess it is easier than thinking or supporting your argument with facts but thats not new for you is it?

That damn pesky Constitution strikes again.
Click to expand...

Typical of you. When your lack of logic is presented, instead of admitting it, you throw out red herrings.



I would never compete with the master. You have that title locked.
Click to expand...

Awww... did I hurt your feelings? Perhaps if you listen long enough you might pass Debate 101. Maybe.



And here we go again. When you cannot debate the facts you resort to falsely classifying the argument to get around the factual data presented.

Until you can come to grips about what the law actually says about propositions and the procedures on how to get those on the ballot, there is no hope for you.

I do hope this is simply dishonesty on your part and not blind ignorance of the law and how propositions are voted on.
Click to expand...

You have no facts. Because something is a law doesn't prove it's right... I've already demonstrated that. All it does is prove it's a law. This is why you fail at this. You can't tell the difference.



LOL You really don't get it do you?

I'm a polygamist. I have a right to marry. You already established gay marriage is a right under the law.

How can you deny my right to marry? Why is it only a "right" for 2 people to be married?

Go ahead, I'd love to see how you are going to spin this one. You haven't been able to yet :rofl
Click to expand...

You still haven't figured it out. And I doubt you will. Government sanctions marriage because it helps society. I've explained this over and over. Marriage assists in the rearing of children, contributes to a stable society, assists in the health of the people married, and a number of other things. There is evidence that gay coupling creates all these things equally as well as straight marriage. Evidence in plural marriage does NOT produce the same results; therefore it does not benefit society and the government has no reason to sanction it. This illustrates how completely poor is your understanding of this entire debate...and how to debate logically. It is logical to be pro-GM because it provides equal benefits to society and government as straight marriage. It is ILlogical to be pro-polygamy because it does NOT do these things. I'm sure you will either not get this or throw out an irrelevant red herring, but there it is for you. Sorry if it continues to prove you wrong.



Bull**** and I already destroyed this fallacy of yours when you can't explain how humans procreated before speech or writing. How did they know?

For once in your life answer the question.
Click to expand...

That does NOT prove it is genetic or biological. And since you were not around when time began, you do not know whether there was homosexual coupling, then... which based on historical data of there always being approximately 4-6% of the population being homosexual, there most certainly was. If one was genetic, they both were. If one is not, they both are not. Sexual orientation does not distinguish. And procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation. I've explained all this to you, before. You just don't like the answer. Too bad.



Ah yes. The "I'm smarter than you so I don't have to support myself" argument.

lol Talk about dishonesty. You can't even admit your entire argument is based on belief and not fact.
Click to expand...

When you present facts and not logical fallacies, irrelevancies, red herrings, and issues that have nothing to do with the topic, let me know. I've presented evidence and logic. You've done neither.



Uh, I just said that. You want gay marriage to be equal to heterosexual marriage.
Click to expand...

Read it again. That's not what I said.

Your position isn't that complicated. You supporting it with facts has proved to be quite elusive.
Click to expand...

I've presented the facts that the benefits of each are equivalent. You just don't want to accept that. Why don't you tell us why you don't believe the two are equivalent. You've never said. And do try to present a position that is logical.



What we have is your inability to support your arguments, dishonesty and falsely categorize your opponent's arguments so you think in your mind you don't have to answer them and your inability to accept your argument is based on pure faith in an idea that has no factual evidence to support it.

In other words, you haven't changed a bit. Although this new dishonest tactic of falsely labeling your opponent's argument then running away from actually addressing it is a new tactic for you. Anything to get around direct debate seems to be your forte.
Click to expand...

No, what I said is pretty accurate, and your post, here, proves it further. Devoid of logic or any evidence, you rely on fallacies, diversions, red herrings, and demonstrate a non-understanding of what we are discussing. And how to debate. Even though all of these things have been explained to you over and over by several, you stick to your rigid an inaccurate way of thinking. If that suits you, fine. But that's what it is.
 
texmaster said:
And as I've told you, you haven't a clue how psychotherapy works since you laughably rely on unsupervised questionnaires to form a psychological profile.

Go ahead, ask any shrink if they agree with you.
Click to expand...

Still don't understand the difference between research and evaluation. And I don't need to ask anyone. It's what I do for a living. Questionnaires are the best and most objective tools when doing research. Interview are the best tools to use when doing assessments. You are dead wrong about your belief on this.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You have provided no stats that are relevant. Either do so, stop claiming you have, or continue to lie and troll and you will be thread banned. Your choice. Consider this an official warning.
Click to expand...

Consider this my saving you the effort of a "thread ban." On my way out, I'll remind you the clarity of the current reality we have here. You're currently 0-1 against my arguments, hopefully I've enlightened you to fatherless household realities, the rights We the People possess to define our own institutions, and the realization that addressing process, rather than content, doesn't win you arguments. It in fact exposes weaknesses within your own and reduces your ability to sound rational.:2wave:
 
Charles Martel said:
Consider this my saving you the effort of a "thread ban." On my way out, I'll remind you the clarity of the current reality we have here. You're currently 0-1 against my arguments, hopefully I've enlightened you to fatherless household realities, the rights We the People possess to define our own institutions, and the realization that addressing process, rather than content, doesn't win you arguments. It in fact exposes weaknesses within your own and reduces your ability to sound rational.:2wave:
Click to expand...

This is an odd concession statement.
 
Charles Martel said:
Consider this my saving you the effort of a "thread ban." On my way out, I'll remind you the clarity of the current reality we have here. You're currently 0-1 against my arguments, hopefully I've enlightened you to fatherless household realities, the rights We the People possess to define our own institutions, and the realization that addressing process, rather than content, doesn't win you arguments. It in fact exposes weaknesses within your own and reduces your ability to sound rational.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Your Fatherless argument does not hold up for gay/lesbian couples raising Children, as studies show that they are neither better now worse off in life than those raised by heterosexual couples. Your studies applied to single parent households, and households with step-parents that are most likely introduced late in the child's psychological development. Neither statistic applies anywhere in this argument. So, you are the one with the 0-1 score. We, on the other hand, are 1 for 0.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And I don't need to ask anyone. It's what I do for a living. Questionnaires are the best and most objective tools when doing research.
Click to expand...
When you make blanket statements like that, it shows you don't know what you're talking about. Questionnaires have their uses, but to claim that they're the "best and most objective tools" for research is just bs.
 
Taylor said:
You're confused again. I didn't say your argument was illogical, I said it was weak.


It sounds like you're on to another epiphany - the number of children isn't terribly relevant. That leaves us with:

P1: Same sex marriage would be good for children of gay and lesbian parents
C: Therefore, we should legalize gay marriage.

Still not much of an argument, even if we were to add in your second premise:
P2: Homosexual parents don't screw up their kids
Click to expand...

Still trying the straw man tactic I see.

No, you will not reduce my argument. The number of children does make a difference in this case. I'm arguing that 8 to 10 million children benefiting is justification for same sex marriage. What I'm using is a basic legal precedent, that a great number of children would benefit from such a decision and virtually none would be harmed. You cannot make that case with incestuous marriage, due to lack of sufficient number of children being raised incestuous couples and lack of body of evidence supporting their ability to effectively raise children. In essence, you would have to prove not only that changing the law would be beneficial to children of incestuous couples, but also that it would have no negative affect on any number of children. You cannot do that without a body of evidence supporting the parenting of incestuous couples.

I know it would be convenient for you to simplify my argument to a straw man of "same sex marriage would be good for children of gay and lesbian parents" but it isn't that simple. The number of children and the evidence supporting their parenting are factors in my argument, and choosing to ignore them does not make them go away.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
When you make blanket statements like that, it shows you don't know what you're talking about. Questionnaires have their uses, but to claim that they're the "best and most objective tools" for research is just bs.
Click to expand...

Especially psychological research.

He still can't answer why psychiatrists and psychotherapists actually have offices if questionnaires would suffice. Or how he dismisses the entire field of body language. Its just a sad representation of someone who is clearly out of his league.
 
Charles Martel said:
Consider this my saving you the effort of a "thread ban." On my way out, I'll remind you the clarity of the current reality we have here. You're currently 0-1 against my arguments, hopefully I've enlightened you to fatherless household realities, the rights We the People possess to define our own institutions, and the realization that addressing process, rather than content, doesn't win you arguments. It in fact exposes weaknesses within your own and reduces your ability to sound rational.:2wave:
Click to expand...

You are 0 for Idaho on ALL of your arguments, since they either do not support your position, or are not pertinent to the subject...as has been explained to you over and over. I doubt you have learned anything from this thread, either about the subject or how to debate. You refuse to. Hold on to your inaccuracies, Charles. Let us know when you get your head out of the sand.
 
Taylor said:
When you make blanket statements like that, it shows you don't know what you're talking about. Questionnaires have their uses, but to claim that they're the "best and most objective tools" for research is just bs.
Click to expand...

For the type of research we are discussing, they are. Sorry, but you are wrong about this... not surprisingly.
 
texmaster said:
Especially psychological research.

He still can't answer why psychiatrists and psychotherapists actually have offices if questionnaires would suffice. Or how he dismisses the entire field of body language. Its just a sad representation of someone who is clearly out of his league.
Click to expand...

All qualitative measure are insufficient in and of themselves and subject to bias. A questionnaire is considerably more standardized and quantifiable than an interview and is also less subject to bias. That isn't to say that questionnaires are perfect, because they rely on self report and everything from how and when it is administered to how the questions are interpreted can substantially change the results. However, the fact that they are quantifiable gives them greater objective legitimacy than interviews. The best tool for psychological research are experiments, but the conditions to control variables in experiments can alter behavior and it is sometimes unethical or implausible to create the conditions in a laboratory setting.

However, psychology as a science has one thing working for it. Human behavior is rather consistent, despite being difficult to measure. As a result, questionnaires can constantly be improved so that they do a better job of measuring what they are suppose to measure.
 
texmaster said:
Especially psychological research.

He still can't answer why psychiatrists and psychotherapists actually have offices if questionnaires would suffice. Or how he dismisses the entire field of body language. Its just a sad representation of someone who is clearly out of his league.
Click to expand...

And you still don't understand the difference between research and assessment. You're so far out of your league on this, you're in a different sport entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom