Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 247
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Nor am I the least bit interested in your self-serving rationalizations of your own conduct
    Since you have on more than one occasion completely misunderstood my argument, I don't think you have a good handle on what I'm doing and therefore cannot accurately judge my conduct.

    Seriously, doesn't it occur to you that you might misunderstand what I am saying or that I'm misunderstanding what you are saying?

    I sincerely think I'm debating with complete integrity and assuming you are doing the same and your complaints are sincere instead of some ruse to weasle out of a debate that you are losing, how about recognizing that neither of us are perfect in our communication and comprehension skills and we are just suffering from a misunderstanding?

    So I've decided to change attitude and seek to settle this situation maturely and see if we can resolve this in a mature manner.

    So tell me directly and straightforwardly, what do you think the problem is?


    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    nor your opinions about mine.
    While I do have an issue with your unwarranted rudeness (and I apologize for being rude in return - your bad behavior does not justify my bad behavior), that really doesn't change the facts of the debate.

    Until you support your arguments as I have challenged you to, they remain unsupported and fail for lack of support.

    So if we are going to accurately determine whether your arguments hold up, they do not at this point. They were not supported.

    So the competitive side of me doesn't mind you dropping out of the debate for that leaves your arguments as "defeated".

    So if you want to leave it that way, that's fine with me (on that level anyway).
    Last edited by mican333; March 11th, 2014 at 01:00 PM.

  2. #42
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since you have on more than one occasion completely misunderstood my argument, I don't think you have a good handle on what I'm doing and therefore cannot accurately judge my conduct.
    You're entitled to your opinions about me. I'm entitled to mine about you.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    Seriously, doesn't it occur to you that you might misunderstand what I am saying or that I'm misunderstanding what you are saying?
    The bare possibility? Of course, and how condescendingly snarky of you to "seriously" ask a question with such an obvious answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    I sincerely think I'm debating with complete integrity and assuming you are doing the same and your complaints are sincere instead of some ruse to weasle out of a debate that you are losing, how about recognizing that neither of us are perfect in our communication and comprehension skills and we are just suffering from a misunderstanding?
    I'll happily acknowledge neither of us are perfect in our communication skills, as I believe no one is perfect in any aspect of their being, but utterly reject the notion that the problem you and I have is the result of "misunderstanding" alone, or even primarily based on misunderstanding. I simply will not believe you're that stupid that "misunderstanding" is our basic problem, and I know I'm not.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    So I've decided to change attitude and seek to settle this situation maturely and see if we can resolve this in a mature manner.

    So tell me directly and straightforwardly, what do you think the problem is?
    If you really want to hash this out, the PM is clearly the more appropriate venue for such personal matters.

  3. #43
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    73
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    I'm going to assume the obvious: the questions were meant to be condescendingly rhetorical, and respond with civility in spite of it. The point you were making was that you and your same-sex partner wanted to raise a child, so you went out and got yourselves one to raise.
    And I’m going to assume that you didn’t realize how incredibly offensive that last sentence was (or you knew and didn’t care), and respond anyways.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    How you did it is of little concern to me (especially relative to the fact that you did). That you're abusing the English language to characterize it as the biological benefit of your biologically perverted union (ie., "procreating") does bother me, and I firmly reject that abuse of the English language.
    We procreated by means of a surrogate. Just like many other straight couples. You thinking we are “perverted” doesn’t make the definition of the words I used any different.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    When an infertile heterosexual couple uses a surrogate so that they can raise a child, they bring that child into a home that is much more stable, on average, than that of a homosexual couple, and the child experiences growing up with a mother and a father, something else that is critical to the best outcomes for children, and something else the same-sex couple cannot provide. Finally, the enter a home with a history that goes back as far as recorded time, not one that is a recent social phenomenon bordering on a radical social experiment, and the issue of an intense and ongoing culture war in America. Why would anyone who loves children want to subject them to all those handicaps? The only plausible reason would be to save them being state raised, but then that's not why you and your partner "procreated", right? So where's the love motivation for having the child? He or she is not a part of your union, not a reflection of your love for one another except as you both pretend to ignore reality. The child is more a reflection of your combined desire to feel more normal as human beings, having rejected a substantial part of what makes human beings normal, ie., their normal sexual orientation.
    I know you think that all of us homosexuals are borderline psychotic, but in truth, we are just like everyone else. We have children for the exact same reason that anyone else who chooses to have them. And I know that you think that my children have had to face all sorts of societal horrors because they have two gay dads, but they haven’t. They absolutely are a reflection of our love for each other. We are normal. Now that we’ve addressed all the personal attacks, we can get on to the studies:

    From the American Academy of Pediatrics
    Technical Report
    Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian
    Ellen C. Perrin, MD, MA, Benjamin S. Siegel, MD, the COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...peds.2013-0377
    Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation.
    Parent-Child Interaction Styles Between Gay and Lesbian Parents and Their Adopted Children
    Scott Ryan PhD
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1.../J461v03n02_05
    While myths exist that call into question the parenting ability of gay and lesbian parents as well as the impact of such parenting on children in their care, there is an ever increasing body of literature that clearly demonstrates the capabilities of these parents with their birth children. However, there continues to be a dearth of research on gay and lesbian adoptive parents and their children. To address this deficiency in the literature, this article explores the parenting styles of gay and lesbian adoptive parents and strengths of their children between the ages of 5–9 years (N = 94), using scores from the Parent-as-a-Teacher Inventory and the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale. Results illustrate that the gay and lesbian adoptive parents in this sample fell into the desirable range of the parenting scale and their children have strength levels equal to or exceeding the scale norms. Finally, various aspects of parenting style significantly predicted the adoptive parents' view of their child's level of care difficulty which subsequently predicted the type and level of strengths assessed within their adopted child. Recommendations for practice, policy and future research are highlighted

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Stopping gay marriage would bring that house of cards building to an end, and may just serve as the springboard needed to start reversing a trend in credulous societal tolerance that should have never started in the first place.
    So stopping gay marriage could lead to it being illegal again for homosexuals to adopt? (FYI: it would still allow us to use a surrogate.) That sounds like a slippery slope to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    There's no need to pretend I'm avoiding the question, simply to cover the fact you've made claim after claim in this thread so far that you haven't, or can't, demonstrate to be true. Above I've just "pointed out" one possible way preventing gay marriage can benefit the children of a future generation, in much the same way that gay activism has brought us to the point where those future generations are at greater and greater risk.
    You pointed it out using a slippery slope fallacy. That being said, even IF it were suddenly illegal for us to adopt again, we could still use surrogacy. Therefore the answer to the question has not been satisfied. If same-sex marriage becomes illegal, gay couples can still have children, so how does making same-sex marriage illegal “save the children”?

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    If we are ever going to reverse the trend that is responsible for now allowing same-sex couples to raise children, it has to start somewhere, and successfully combating the latest goal of gay activism, opening the institution of marriage to same-sex couples, is the current place to start.
    When were we ever NOT able to raise children? It may have been illegal for us to adopt, but that doesn’t stop homosexual couples from having children.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Another equivocation. Not "just like gay couples", for when the straight couple got the child home, where the home environment begins to matter, the child of the heterosexual married couple has two different gender specific parental roles from which to learn, the gay couple can't give the child that variety and distinction, at least not without confusing the heck out of them. Further, the child of the heterosexual couple enters a much more stable, much less controversial environment.
    Prove it.

    As a side note, you should understand (I’m not sure if you are a parent or not) that my husband and I are not the ONLY couple that my kids see interacting or that they interact with. They have grandparents, aunts and uncles, friend’s parents, etc. Ever heard the expression “It takes a village.”?

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    This is you arguing the straw man you keep accusing me of arguing. I've never argued marriage was just about children, but rather than take on what I have actually argued, that one of society's main interests in establishing, protecting, and subsidizing the institution of marriage is the production of the next generation of well adjusted members, you keep returning to this straw man.
    Let me word it different then so that I may try and better make my point. The law does not require that "one of society's main interests in establishing, protecting, and subsidizing the institution of marriage is the production of the next generation of well adjusted members" be adhered to or believed by a couple before a marriage license is issued. In other words, you don't need to have or be able to have kids to get married. Being married also does not magically give me the rights to have children. I can do that anyway. So how is it a valid argument when debating whether homosexuals should be given the equal right of marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Well, that's a different bit of bigoted nonsense than the one I was referring to, but yes, it is. It is bigoted nonsense to argue from the fact that a relatively few heterosexual marriages don't, for one reason or another, raise children, to the conclusion that the institution wasn't established to help heterosexual marriages raise their children.
    Then you and I have a completely different understanding of what the word bigoted is.

    big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\ : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
    Full Definition of BIGOT
    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    I was not being hateful, obstinate, or intolerant. I was pointing out, once again, that there are reasons that some people get married other than children and that to be legally married, you are not required to have or raise children. Therefore, it is not a valid argument to say that same-sex marriage should be illegal because of children.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    At best all citing that fact does is call into question how successful society has been in protecting and subsidizing it's own institution of marriage.
    Actually, no. It clearly shows that people get married for reasons other than children. So again, to use it as an argument to prevent gay marriage really doesn’t hold much water.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    This is closer, but you've moved the goal posts. Your original claim was that you and your partner had "procreated", which was simply false on it's face, and what I characterized, accurately as I believe it to be "bigoted nonsense", and "abuse" of the English language.
    So you are the one saying that because we are gay and don’t feel “normal” we had a child to make us feel better, and that means I’M the one using bigoted language?

    My husband’s sperm was used to fertilize the egg of an agreed upon and consenting woman outside our marriage (surrogate) because I am unable to get pregnant. That is in fact a method of procreation that is used with couples who have fertility issues. It holds true whether a man or a woman is the one saying it. It’s not an abuse of language.

    All that being said, the only answer you have given to the original question was that if same-sex marriage is made illegal, it could potentially lead to it being illegal for homosexuals to have/raise children. Am I understanding your answer correctly? If I am, please support it.
    Last edited by Gemini; March 11th, 2014 at 03:08 PM.

  4. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    I'll happily acknowledge neither of us are perfect in our communication skills, as I believe no one is perfect in any aspect of their being, but utterly reject the notion that the problem you and I have is the result of "misunderstanding" alone, or even primarily based on misunderstanding. I simply will not believe you're that stupid that "misunderstanding" is our basic problem, and I know I'm not.
    Then I will re-address your first point - the one where apparently the misunderstanding has occurred (since it's the one you complained about).

    ---------- Post added at 07:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    I disagree. What you're suggesting is that we consider only the reasons for legalizing gay marriage, rather than looking at any reasons for not legalizing gay marriage, such as if it's been such a good idea for the entire recorded history of man, why haven't societies all over the world been adopting gay marriage for thousands of years? And that's just for starters.
    And I do think I misunderstood your point here. I thought you were saying that it was a good idea throughout the history of man (and while you did introduce the issue it was not your primary point).

    Instead you are saying that my prior statement was a bad one because it only seeks to analyze the reasons for gay marriage and not the reasons against it as well.

    Did I get it right this time?

    And please note that my response here is completely diplomatic and respectful. I would like you to respond in kind.
    Last edited by mican333; March 12th, 2014 at 10:41 AM.

  5. #45
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,378
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Here is what I tend to notice in these sorts of threads. The arguments tend towards should versus is. For instance, one side may explain marriage "SHOULD" be about X. The side may counter with marriage "IS" about Y. For instance. Gemini states his belief that marriage, to him, is about love. In reality, he is expressing his preference. He is stating marriage SHOULD be about love. Yet, I do not believe the state regulates love nor implies love must exist for marriage to be conferred upon any couple. On the other side of the coin, people argue that marriage IS about procreation. Likewise, the state makes no explicit arrangement for marriage based upon having children. This argument cloaked in the verbage of "IS," is really a "SHOULD". And on and on the debate tends to go. Perhaps, this is the basic issue of the disagreement and why there is so much dissention. Marriage, itself, is simply not well-defined. Everyone has their view of what they believe marriage is yet no one is willing to acknowledge the other side's point of view. So, how can we come to any sort of agreement or amicable arrangement? Mostly, I blame politics for this. Politicians have driven this topic to third rail status by insisting it is an ideological issue. Social conservatives have insisted same-sex marriage is the end of our nation. Social liberals claim this issue is tantamount to black civil rights and would have no societal impact whatsoever. Both arguments are absolutely ridiculous.

    The world will continue to turn if same-sex marriage passes in all 50 states. Yet, same-sex marriage will impact the way Americans view marriage and impact how we define marriage. Note that I am not qualifying this statement with good or bad. Finally, the similarities between the issue of gay marriage and black civil rights is beyond asinine. Black history is trivialized when we compare gay marriage to black equality. There just is no valid comparison to be made.

    So, I'd say if you view the previous paragraph and find yourself full of post rage and believe the above is completely backwards, then I'd say you have zero chance of conducting a rational discussion on the subject matter.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Marriage, itself, is simply not well-defined. Everyone has their view of what they believe marriage is yet no one is willing to acknowledge the other side's point of view.
    I don't think it's that complicated. Just observe what is required for marriage.

    As far as I can tell, the absolute basics of marriage is a commitment between two people.
    Generally, there is some kind of ceremonial aspect with a person officiating the ceremony and that person is often religious but doesn't have to be.
    So really, it's just some kind of recognition of a commitment between two people, assumedly in a romantic sense.

    If it's a governmental marriage, the couple get a license which is what they need for the government to recognize their marriage but it's not required for them to have the ceremony.

    And that's about it.

    So attempting to deny gays the right to marry based on criteria that is not applied to marriage in general is a clearly flawed argument. For example we don't require a couple to procreate in order to marry so procreation is clearly not a prerequisite for marriage and therefore it's ridiculous to argue that gays can't marry because they don't do something that married couples aren't required to do.

    That's really an example of a "reverse criteria" argument (I just made that term up). Instead of coming up with criteria and prohibiting that which meets the criteria equally, one takes the criteria of what they want to ban and THEN say that's a good criteria for banning it (often ignoring the fact that other things they don't want to ban fall under that criteria). I'm sure you'll find that those who say "gays can't marry because they can't procreate" are NOT for banning ALL non-procreative couples from marrying. So they aren't for consistently applying that criteria and are likely just finding something that's true about gays and then just saying that's a reason (just like those who argue that pot shouldn't be legalized because it impairs driving but aren't for banning alcohol).


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The world will continue to turn if same-sex marriage passes in all 50 states. Yet, same-sex marriage will impact the way Americans view marriage and impact how we define marriage. Note that I am not qualifying this statement with good or bad. Finally, the similarities between the issue of gay marriage and black civil rights is beyond asinine. Black history is trivialized when we compare gay marriage to black equality. There just is no valid comparison to be made.
    Since logically there are similarities, you can compare them.

    If you want to say one of them is much more significant/important/dramatic than the other, I won't argue otherwise.

    But they are both civil rights struggles. They are both about a minority in America that is being legally discriminated against getting the laws changed that they do become legal equals with the majority.

    While the differences are clear so are the similarities. So they can be compared. One just can't say they are the exact same thing.

  7. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Here is what I tend to notice in these sorts of threads. The arguments tend towards should versus is. For instance, one side may explain marriage "SHOULD" be about X. The side may counter with marriage "IS" about Y. For instance. Gemini states his belief that marriage, to him, is about love. In reality, he is expressing his preference. He is stating marriage SHOULD be about love. Yet, I do not believe the state regulates love nor implies love must exist for marriage to be conferred upon any couple. On the other side of the coin, people argue that marriage IS about procreation. Likewise, the state makes no explicit arrangement for marriage based upon having children. This argument cloaked in the verbage of "IS," is really a "SHOULD". And on and on the debate tends to go. Perhaps, this is the basic issue of the disagreement and why there is so much dissention. Marriage, itself, is simply not well-defined. Everyone has their view of what they believe marriage is yet no one is willing to acknowledge the other side's point of view. So, how can we come to any sort of agreement or amicable arrangement? Mostly, I blame politics for this. Politicians have driven this topic to third rail status by insisting it is an ideological issue. Social conservatives have insisted same-sex marriage is the end of our nation. Social liberals claim this issue is tantamount to black civil rights and would have no societal impact whatsoever. Both arguments are absolutely ridiculous.

    The world will continue to turn if same-sex marriage passes in all 50 states. Yet, same-sex marriage will impact the way Americans view marriage and impact how we define marriage. Note that I am not qualifying this statement with good or bad. Finally, the similarities between the issue of gay marriage and black civil rights is beyond asinine. Black history is trivialized when we compare gay marriage to black equality. There just is no valid comparison to be made.

    So, I'd say if you view the previous paragraph and find yourself full of post rage and believe the above is completely backwards, then I'd say you have zero chance of conducting a rational discussion on the subject matter.
    The fight for homosexual civil rights is perfectly comparable to black civil rights. Bigotry faced by homosexuals is much like faced by blacks.

    I am sure that in some paper there was a guy who said comparison between blacks and Jews was ridiculous and how they can't have a conversation with someone who doesn't see it that way.

  8. #48
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,378
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    The fight for homosexual civil rights is perfectly comparable to black civil rights. Bigotry faced by homosexuals is much like faced by blacks.

    I am sure that in some paper there was a guy who said comparison between blacks and Jews was ridiculous and how they can't have a conversation with someone who doesn't see it that way.
    Mdougie is the first to remove himself from having a rational discussion on this topic. Anyone else?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Mdougie is the first to remove himself from having a rational discussion on this topic. Anyone else?
    Hey like totally I can't have a rational discussion with someone who is clouded by bigotry against someone for who they are attracted to. I had an uncle who really hated my cousins black boyfriend then husband. He was a super great guy, and they are still together. Oh well, sometimes it is just best to let bigots just be bigots and ignore them.

  10. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,378
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't think it's that complicated. Just observe what is required for marriage.

    As far as I can tell, the absolute basics of marriage is a commitment between two people.
    Generally, there is some kind of ceremonial aspect with a person officiating the ceremony and that person is often religious but doesn't have to be.
    So really, it's just some kind of recognition of a commitment between two people, assumedly in a romantic sense.

    If it's a governmental marriage, the couple get a license which is what they need for the government to recognize their marriage but it's not required for them to have the ceremony.

    And that's about it.

    So attempting to deny gays the right to marry based on criteria that is not applied to marriage in general is a clearly flawed argument. For example we don't require a couple to procreate in order to marry so procreation is clearly not a prerequisite for marriage and therefore it's ridiculous to argue that gays can't marry because they don't do something that married couples aren't required to do.

    That's really an example of a "reverse criteria" argument (I just made that term up). Instead of coming up with criteria and prohibiting that which meets the criteria equally, one takes the criteria of what they want to ban and THEN say that's a good criteria for banning it (often ignoring the fact that other things they don't want to ban fall under that criteria). I'm sure you'll find that those who say "gays can't marry because they can't procreate" are NOT for banning ALL non-procreative couples from marrying. So they aren't for consistently applying that criteria and are likely just finding something that's true about gays and then just saying that's a reason (just like those who argue that pot shouldn't be legalized because it impairs driving but aren't for banning alcohol).




    Since logically there are similarities, you can compare them.

    If you want to say one of them is much more significant/important/dramatic than the other, I won't argue otherwise.

    But they are both civil rights struggles. They are both about a minority in America that is being legally discriminated against getting the laws changed that they do become legal equals with the majority.

    While the differences are clear so are the similarities. So they can be compared. One just can't say they are the exact same thing.
    My apologies to Mdougie. Mican is the first to exclude himself from having a rational debate on this topic.

    Just because you consider two things to be a civil rights issue, does not mean they are comparable. Gay marriage and black segregation aren't even in the same ball park. I mean, blacks were counted as partial citizens. They had to eat at different restaurants and sit in designated places. They were f-ing owned like cattle. They couldn't vote. Gay people cannot get a piece of paper acknowledging their relationship from the government. This is so far from being similar it is beyond comparison. If the black civil rights movement was solely about the right to marry white people, you'd have a great argument. It wasn't. You don't. For blacks, marriage was about overcoming an inequality that was ingrained into the system and excluded them from civic participation. For gay people, gay marriage is the issue. That's it. There isn't some other great fight to be won. They aren't former slaves. They have never been denied the right to vote or hold public office. They simply want to have their marriages recognized by the state. Comparing their issue to the black civil rights movement is beyond asinine. It is a hyperbolic position and one that precludes any hope of understanding or reasonable discussion.

    ---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    Hey like totally I can't have a rational discussion with someone who is clouded by bigotry against someone for who they are attracted to. I had an uncle who really hated my cousins black boyfriend then husband. He was a super great guy, and they are still together. Oh well, sometimes it is just best to let bigots just be bigots and ignore them.
    You can choose to ignore whomever you want. You and your irrational uncle can ignore each other. Neither of you could likely hold a rational conversation on this topic.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  11. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    You can choose to ignore whomever you want. You and your irrational uncle can ignore each other. Neither of you could likely hold a rational conversation on this topic.
    I can certainly hold a rational discussion with a rational person. I can certainly notice similarities in the debate style, arguments, temperament, and philosophy of those who opposed interracial relationships and those who oppose same sex relationships.

    You may find it rational to say you had to choose to be strait, and that in turn means those who you think chose to be gay should not have equality under the law. I don't find that rational.

  12. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    My apologies to Mdougie. Mican is the first to exclude himself from having a rational debate on this topic.

    Just because you consider two things to be a civil rights issue, does not mean they are comparable. Gay marriage and black segregation aren't even in the same ball park.
    Well, the reason they don't equate very well is that you are comparing the entirety of the black civil rights movement to the one small sub-set of the gay civil rights movement.

    If you are going to address them fairly, you have to compare the ENTIRETY of the black civil rights movement to the ENTIRETY of the gay civil rights movement (or compare the equivalent sub-set, such as marriage laws as they applied to blacks and the marriage laws as they applied to gays).

    Otherwise, you only got the inadequate comparison by intentionally using selective focus.

    So if we are going to discuss the entirety of the black civil rights struggle then we must likewise discuss the entirety of the gay civil rights struggle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I mean, blacks were counted as partial citizens. They had to eat at different restaurants and sit in designated places. They were f-ing owned like cattle. They couldn't vote.
    And it was illegal to be gay for much of our history. Up until about a decade ago, there were still laws against consensual gay sex in some states.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Gay people cannot get a piece of paper acknowledging their relationship from the government. This is so far from being similar it is beyond comparison.
    Right, but that's because you chose to compare a small subset of one group's civil rights struggles to the entirety of the others (and besides that, marriage is not just a piece of paper- there are numerous tangible benefits to being legally married in the US).

    If you compare them equally, it becomes easier equate them.

    And really, your argument is about equating them, not comparing them. You can compare any two things no matter how dissimilar they are - pointing out their difference is comparing them. But I figure I should not turn this into a semantics debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If the black civil rights movement was solely about the right to marry white people, you'd have a great argument. It wasn't. You don't.
    And if the gay civil rights movement was solely about their right to marry, you'd have a great argument. It isn't. You don't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    For blacks, marriage was about overcoming an inequality that was ingrained into the system and excluded them from civic participation. For gay people, gay marriage is the issue. That's it. There isn't some other great fight to be won. They aren't former slaves. They have never been denied the right to vote or hold public office.
    No, they just weren't allowed to exist for most of our history (as in if one's existence was discovered, they could be arrested for being what they are).

    And I bet you can't name one openly gay holder of public office before 1970 (I think Harvey Milk was the first).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    They simply want to have their marriages recognized by the state.
    Yeah. NOW they do. That was a right that blacks won decades ago.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Comparing their issue to the black civil rights movement is beyond asinine. It is a hyperbolic position and one that precludes any hope of understanding or reasonable discussion.
    Well, if you think you are so right that any who oppose you cannot be debated with, you shouldn't post in the first place.
    Last edited by mican333; March 13th, 2014 at 06:30 AM.

  13. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,378
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, if you think you are so right that any who oppose you cannot be debated with, you shouldn't post in the first place.
    The point is, if you are going to insist on injecting such hyperbolic drivel into the debate, any debate, you cannot expect to have a reasonable discussion. You throw in emotionally rigged arguments and what do you expect? It is like discussing welfare and insisting those who oppose it are racists. So, if you want to keep making a comparison between the supposed gay civil rights movement and the black civil rights movement, it is your prerogative. On the other hand, you should be aware that such an unbalanced comparison offers nothing and simply makes reasonable discussion impossible. It has never been illegal to be gay, by the way. There were/are sodomy laws in SOME states, but they have rarely been enforced. Also, these laws were not aimed solely at gay people. So, you're even misrepresenting the facts as they pertain to your own claim. Again, there is no reasonable comparison between black and gay civil rights.

    ---------- Post added at 07:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    I can certainly hold a rational discussion with a rational person. I can certainly notice similarities in the debate style, arguments, temperament, and philosophy of those who opposed interracial relationships and those who oppose same sex relationships.

    You may find it rational to say you had to choose to be strait, and that in turn means those who you think chose to be gay should not have equality under the law. I don't find that rational.
    First, I don't think anyone can choose to be a narrow channel of water. Secondly, I have not made any argument for or against gay marriage. So, I certainly have not introduced any argument regarding someone's choice regarding their sexuality. I am simply advising that anyone who wishes to have a rational debate on this topic should be prepared to discard their extreme irrational positions.

    As an aside, I am noticing that no social conservative has complained about being asked to give up their absurdist position. I don't know what that means. I just finding it interesting.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The point is, if you are going to insist on injecting such hyperbolic drivel into the debate, any debate, you cannot expect to have a reasonable discussion. You throw in emotionally rigged arguments and what do you expect? It is like discussing welfare and insisting those who oppose it are racists. So, if you want to keep making a comparison between the supposed gay civil rights movement and the black civil rights movement, it is your prerogative. On the other hand, you should be aware that such an unbalanced comparison offers nothing and simply makes reasonable discussion impossible. It has never been illegal to be gay, by the way. There were/are sodomy laws in SOME states, but they have rarely been enforced. Also, these laws were not aimed solely at gay people. So, you're even misrepresenting the facts as they pertain to your own claim. Again, there is no reasonable comparison between black and gay civil rights.

    ---------- Post added at 07:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 AM ----------



    First, I don't think anyone can choose to be a narrow channel of water. Secondly, I have not made any argument for or against gay marriage. So, I certainly have not introduced any argument regarding someone's choice regarding their sexuality. I am simply advising that anyone who wishes to have a rational debate on this topic should be prepared to discard their extreme irrational positions.

    As an aside, I am noticing that no social conservative has complained about being asked to give up their absurdist position. I don't know what that means. I just finding it interesting.
    A rational person notices similarities. There are many similarities between blacks and homosexuals and the struggle for equality under the law.

    My position is all people should be equal under the law. IF you don't disagree than we don't have anything to debate.

  15. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The point is, if you are going to insist on injecting such hyperbolic drivel into the debate, any debate, you cannot expect to have a reasonable discussion. You throw in emotionally rigged arguments and what do you expect?
    I'm not interested in your bullish*t excuses for not rebutting my points. You can make any excuse you care to make and the results, debate-wise, are the same. You have not rebutted my argument and therefore my rebuttal stands.

    I totally do not buy your excuses for not addressing my points. For all I know, you sincerely believe your malarky. Or for all I know, you know you can't rebut MOST of my points and therefore are using your complaints as an excuse to avoid arguments you cannot handle. I don't know which it is and more to the point, I don't care which it is. If someone, be it you or another debater, does not provide a supported rebuttal to my arguments, my arguments stand.

    So you have two options.

    You can rebut my arguments or you can not address them at all. Making further posts about why you won't address my arguments will not forward the debate and therefore is spam.

    And ironically, the only thing that saves your post from being spam this time is that you actually addressed one of my points! So your excuse rings rather hollow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, if you want to keep making a comparison between the supposed gay civil rights movement and the black civil rights movement, it is your prerogative.
    Remind me. Who exactly introduced the topic of the validity of comparing them on this thread? Oh right, it was you.

    So you basically you forwarded an argument and you refuse to entertain any counter-arguments against it.

    Again, if you don't want to debate an issue, then you shouldn't present it in the first place. Needless to say, if you won't respond to rebuttals to your position, then your position has been rebutted.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It has never been illegal to be gay, by the way. There were/are sodomy laws in SOME states, but they have rarely been enforced. Also, these laws were not aimed solely at gay people. So, you're even misrepresenting the facts as they pertain to your own claim.
    You are correct about the state of the laws as of the early 2000s.

    But if you go back farther in history, there were restrictions on homosexuality in general. The Stonewall riots happened because police were raiding gay bars, which was not an instance of them catching people in the act of sodomy but arresting gay men for just meeting.

    ---------------

    But regardless, either actually engage in this debate or stop responding.

    Your excuses about why you won't engage in the debate, beyond ringing false (especially since you did respond to what I assume you thought was "low-hanging fruit"), do not forward the debate and therefore should not be made.

  16. #56
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,378
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm not interested in your bullish*t excuses for not rebutting my points. You can make any excuse you care to make and the results, debate-wise, are the same. You have not rebutted my argument and therefore my rebuttal stands.

    I totally do not buy your excuses for not addressing my points. For all I know, you sincerely believe your malarky. Or for all I know, you know you can't rebut MOST of my points and therefore are using your complaints as an excuse to avoid arguments you cannot handle. I don't know which it is and more to the point, I don't care which it is. If someone, be it you or another debater, does not provide a supported rebuttal to my arguments, my arguments stand.

    So you have two options.

    You can rebut my arguments or you can not address them at all. Making further posts about why you won't address my arguments will not forward the debate and therefore is spam.

    And ironically, the only thing that saves your post from being spam this time is that you actually addressed one of my points! So your excuse rings rather hollow.



    Remind me. Who exactly introduced the topic of the validity of comparing them on this thread? Oh right, it was you.

    So you basically you forwarded an argument and you refuse to entertain any counter-arguments against it.

    Again, if you don't want to debate an issue, then you shouldn't present it in the first place. Needless to say, if you won't respond to rebuttals to your position, then your position has been rebutted.





    You are correct about the state of the laws as of the early 2000s.

    But if you go back farther in history, there were restrictions on homosexuality in general. The Stonewall riots happened because police were raiding gay bars, which was not an instance of them catching people in the act of sodomy but arresting gay men for just meeting.

    ---------------

    But regardless, either actually engage in this debate or stop responding.

    Your excuses about why you won't engage in the debate, beyond ringing false (especially since you did respond to what I assume you thought was "low-hanging fruit"), do not forward the debate and therefore should not be made.
    Again, there were no laws in the U.S. banning people from being homosexual. Not one. It was never a crime to be a gay person. Gay people were never considered non-citizens or as property. Has there been discrimination against gays? Sure. Absolutely. Just as there was discrimination against Irish, Jews, Mexicans, and any other minority group. None of these groups can compare their struggle in an intellectually honest manner to the civil rights issues of black folk here in America. So, attempts to compare gay marriage to Jim Crow laws is ridiculous. Again, feel free to make these sorts of absurd comparisons all you like. My original point is that you'll never have an honest and open discussion so long as you do. So, if your intent is not to have a reasonable discussion, then by all means, call people bigots who oppose your view. If that makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. What it won't do is encourage an open and honest discussion. Again, my argument was neither for nor against gay marriage. My argument was laying out what it would take to have an open and forthright discussion on the topic. Nothing you have stated actually rebuts my point. You have actually reinforced it by showing just how ideological and rigid your point of view is. So, good luck with that.

    ---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    A rational person notices similarities. There are many similarities between blacks and homosexuals and the struggle for equality under the law.

    My position is all people should be equal under the law. IF you don't disagree than we don't have anything to debate.
    As I have noted to Mican, I have made no argument in this thread for or against homosexual marriage. None. I have offered no bias towards one side or the other. All I have done is offered a remedy for the two opposing sides to have a reasonable and rational discussion on the topic. Clearly, if your main point is that those who oppose gay marriage are bigots equivalent to racists, then the conversation is over before it began. So, you can choose between attempting to feel morally superior or having an open and honest discussion. It is really up to you.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, there were no laws in the U.S. banning people from being homosexual. Not one. It was never a crime to be a gay person. Gay people were never considered non-citizens or as property. Has there been discrimination against gays? Sure. Absolutely. Just as there was discrimination against Irish, Jews, Mexicans, and any other minority group. None of these groups can compare their struggle in an intellectually honest manner to the civil rights issues of black folk here in America. So, attempts to compare gay marriage to Jim Crow laws is ridiculous. Again, feel free to make these sorts of absurd comparisons all you like. My original point is that you'll never have an honest and open discussion so long as you do. So, if your intent is not to have a reasonable discussion, then by all means, call people bigots who oppose your view. If that makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. What it won't do is encourage an open and honest discussion. Again, my argument was neither for nor against gay marriage. My argument was laying out what it would take to have an open and forthright discussion on the topic. Nothing you have stated actually rebuts my point. You have actually reinforced it by showing just how ideological and rigid your point of view is. So, good luck with that.

    ---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 AM ----------



    As I have noted to Mican, I have made no argument in this thread for or against homosexual marriage. None. I have offered no bias towards one side or the other. All I have done is offered a remedy for the two opposing sides to have a reasonable and rational discussion on the topic. Clearly, if your main point is that those who oppose gay marriage are bigots equivalent to racists, then the conversation is over before it began. So, you can choose between attempting to feel morally superior or having an open and honest discussion. It is really up to you.

    Yes people who think being gay means you should not be equal under the law are bigots and equal to those who think being back means one shouldn't be equal under the law.

    That is rational.

    Correct I can't have conversation with someone who doesn't think blacks should be equal by fact of their being black. That person is a bigot. Bigots are not rational.


    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

  18. #58
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Very good point indeed and don't forget visitation rights that many of the anti-gay crowd also tend to ignore. And ultimately too, that it is also between two people who love each other enough to spend the rest of their lives together. Plus a large number of arguments tend towards appealing to tradition or religion, as if they are inflexible and unchangeable. I'm with Gemini, there's no real arguments out there to be had: it's why they've lost the cultural and now legal battle.
    Honestly, I don't see why the government is in the business of overseeing the institution of marriage, which is an entirely social and religious institution, at all. If you feel that the primary purposes marriage are to secure property rights, and to ensure legal privileges of visitation/decision-making/etc, then all of these things can and should be accomplished by reducing the role of government to the legally allowed role of the enforcement of tort law and civil contracts. Instead of forcing this religion or that group to accept a governmental intrusion upon the definition of marriage - whether by forcing others to acknowledge that certain types of unions are valid "marriages" or by refusing to allow certain groups of people to call themselves "married," - we should leave the institution of "marriage" in the social and religious spheres where it belongs and allow any consenting adults who wish to do so to enter into pre-arranged, mutually agreed-upon, civil contracts which make arrangements for medical decision making, property rights, provision for heirs, and all the other things that you have said marriage is supposed to accomplish. All married couples - or groups, for that matter - would have the right to apply for such a contract, and any future arrangements would be purely a matter of a contractural arrangement. They could have the arrangement blessed/acknowledged/consecrated as a "marriage," a "unification of souls," or whatever else the faith of their conscience decreed is necessary, on their own time and without the input of the state on any level. If a certain faith does not acknowledge that a given contractural arrangement qualifies as a "marriage" in that faith, then they would be under no obligation to acknowledge it, since it provides nothing except spiritual or social approval of something which is already a legal reality. Thus, observant Muslims and some old-rite Mormons could have their polygamous marriages, gay couples could be married in a group which acknowledges their union, pagans could be handfasted, and people could even marry bridges or trees without worrying about the legal ramifications, because those are handled separately.

    I don't see how this is a bad solution to the problem.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  19. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Honestly, I don't see why the government is in the business of overseeing the institution of marriage, which is an entirely social and religious institution, at all. If you feel that the primary purposes marriage are to secure property rights, and to ensure legal privileges of visitation/decision-making/etc, then all of these things can and should be accomplished by reducing the role of government to the legally allowed role of the enforcement of tort law and civil contracts. Instead of forcing this religion or that group to accept a governmental intrusion upon the definition of marriage - whether by forcing others to acknowledge that certain types of unions are valid "marriages" or by refusing to allow certain groups of people to call themselves "married," - we should leave the institution of "marriage" in the social and religious spheres where it belongs and allow any consenting adults who wish to do so to enter into pre-arranged, mutually agreed-upon, civil contracts which make arrangements for medical decision making, property rights, provision for heirs, and all the other things that you have said marriage is supposed to accomplish. All married couples - or groups, for that matter - would have the right to apply for such a contract, and any future arrangements would be purely a matter of a contractural arrangement. They could have the arrangement blessed/acknowledged/consecrated as a "marriage," a "unification of souls," or whatever else the faith of their conscience decreed is necessary, on their own time and without the input of the state on any level. If a certain faith does not acknowledge that a given contractural arrangement qualifies as a "marriage" in that faith, then they would be under no obligation to acknowledge it, since it provides nothing except spiritual or social approval of something which is already a legal reality. Thus, observant Muslims and some old-rite Mormons could have their polygamous marriages, gay couples could be married in a group which acknowledges their union, pagans could be handfasted, and people could even marry bridges or trees without worrying about the legal ramifications, because those are handled separately.

    I don't see how this is a bad solution to the problem.
    It isn't a bad solution. The problem is using this a justification to not provide equality to gays now. So whether it is marriage for everyone or no one is fine. As long as it is equal.

    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

  20. #60
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    Yes bigoty is a hard mindset to change. The right wing don't value justice or tolerance or fairness or equality.
    Please keep in mind that it's not the conservatives in this thread that are throwing around gross generalities about whole groups of people, dismissing all of them en bloc without any regard for individual variation of opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    The value power, and punishment and suffering.
    It is not the conservatives who support using the coercive power of the State to dictate social and religious values to the population, at the point of a gun (which is, essentially, what all State-enforced edicts boil down to). That falls squarely within the wheelhouse of the Liberals and Progressives. As far as I can tell, they're the ones advocating for the forcible requirement that all people recognize a certain type of contractural arrangement as a valid interpretaion of "marriage," whether their faith allows that understanding or not... that is to say, the forcible requirement that people violate their conscience in order to be in compliance with the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    The right wing opposed ending the ban on interracial marriage. They opposed ending school segregation.
    Actually, that was the Democrats. Read the history books.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    They oppose ending the ban on homosexual marriage.
    This is an unfair characterization of the position of the right. As far as conservatives are concerned, the State has no business interfering in the social and religious institution of marriage at all... whether to acknowledge or deny any form of it. They don't believe that the State has the right to infringe upon peoples' basic human right of conscience by forcing them to accept as valid a State-enforced change of their religious tenets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    The right is not tolerant as evidenced by schools in Louisiana that punish children who are religions other than Christian.
    Support or retract.

    Also, it apepars that the Left is only tolerant of views that are identical to their own and characterize all other beliefs as something to be eradicated or forcibly forbidden. I defy you to prove otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    The right is obsessed with solving problems with violence.
    Only the Liberals and Progressives are obsessed with using the coercive force of the State to require everyone to accept their position on the matter. Nobody on the right has advocated seriously for any violent or coercive solution. I Challenge to support a claim. you to demonstrate otherwise.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

 

 
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 116
    Last Post: January 26th, 2013, 04:38 PM
  2. Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 17th, 2011, 05:43 AM
  3. Marriage better for children
    By chadn737 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: July 5th, 2009, 04:19 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 1st, 2007, 07:27 PM
  5. Do you have, or want children?
    By Jamie in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 24th, 2005, 05:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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