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 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 247
  1. #81
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    I don't have a formal definition.
    Then I'm going to appeal to your reasoning ability and suggest that you stop lumping everything you don't happen to like about conservatism into right-wing and/or find a different term. You might have more meaningful debates/discussions on ODN if you consider this.

    For your reference, right wing does actually have a general meaning to most people who use it and it does have a history. And when it's used in debate and discussions by reasonable people, hopefully somewhat educated, they are using it within the boundaries of this definition:

    right wing
    Actually slang. Derived from how the conservatives in france, during the French revolution, sat on the right side of their governing house (whatever that was). In America, (and this is widely misunderstood by college students) Right Wing refers to conservatives who, by their nature, favor a small limited government with little power and little control over the people, with most of the power residing within the local state governments. Basically anti-federalist. In other words, the politicians who DON'T want more government involved with your everyday life. They don't want the government to get too big have a lot of control over the people.
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...m=right%20wing

    1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (often capitals) the conservative faction of an assembly, party, etc
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/right+wing


    People who value authority, submission, aggression.They like the idea of punishment and suffering.
    Humm.... that definition sounds somewhat like aspects of fascism: "a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government: very harsh control or authority; nationalism and complete obedience to authority; aggressive nationalism "

    Maybe you should consider that word whenever you mean 'submission, aggression, punishment and suffering.'
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  2. #82
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Then I'm going to appeal to your reasoning ability and suggest that you stop lumping everything you don't happen to like about conservatism into right-wing and/or find a different term. You might have more meaningful debates/discussions on ODN if you consider this.

    For your reference, right wing does actually have a general meaning to most people who use it and it does have a history. And when it's used in debate and discussions by reasonable people, hopefully somewhat educated, they are using it within the boundaries of this definition:

    right wing
    Actually slang. Derived from how the conservatives in france, during the French revolution, sat on the right side of their governing house (whatever that was). In America, (and this is widely misunderstood by college students) Right Wing refers to conservatives who, by their nature, favor a small limited government with little power and little control over the people, with most of the power residing within the local state governments. Basically anti-federalist. In other words, the politicians who DON'T want more government involved with your everyday life. They don't want the government to get too big have a lot of control over the people.
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...m=right%20wing

    1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (often capitals) the conservative faction of an assembly, party, etc
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/right+wing




    Humm.... that definition sounds somewhat like aspects of fascism: "a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government: very harsh control or authority; nationalism and complete obedience to authority; aggressive nationalism "

    Maybe you should consider that word whenever you mean 'submission, aggression, punishment and suffering.'
    I think I have laid out my definition and support for that definition very well. I am talking about personality traits, and not using the term to simply mean political ideology. Someone who is right wing would want to maintain the government sponsored discrimination against homosexuals. That is big government. Right wing are concerned with women submitting to their views on reproduction. That isn't small government. To wit they want women to be forced to account to government If they are pregnant, and how that pregnancy ended. That isn't small government. The right wing like big military. We should be able to fight two simultaneous wars or more even when no country on earth can invade us. That isn't small government.

    Right wing is an appropriate term to describe these people. Conservative is not.

  3. #83
    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
    One not need to be prejudiced against every single group to be an RWA, but I bet some % are.
    So, having even one of these qualities makes you a RWA?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    Yes thinking women should be second class citizens again makes one very likely RWA.
    I didn't say, "thinking women should be second class citizens." I said, "disagreement with feminist ideals." Are you saying that everyone who disagrees with feminist establishment's ideals of femininity and what defines "equality" means thinks women should be second class citizens? It sure sounds like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    Again these are personality traits. You are smart enough to understand nuance. We both understood what the academic paper said.
    I know that I understood what the academic paper said. I'm not sure that you did, because you keep using the term "right wingers" in what seems to be an intentionally ambiguous way virtually any time people express disagreement with the core principles of Progressive Liberalism. Even now, you just implied that the only acceptable idea of how society should relate to women has been defined by a specific group of women (and men) who espouse a certain set of values they call "feminism," but which I personally believe is anything but an "equal rights" movement, and for very good and well thought-out reasons. Never the less, your characterization of what I said makes me RWA, because you have distorted my position to the straw man of, "I think women should be second class citizens." This is my problem with your position, Mdougie... you keep using this term indiscriminately and without adequate definition, and you use it in pretty much every thread you debate as a solitary and unsupported attempt at rebuttal to points you don't like. I'm tired of it, and I want to get to the bottom of this once and for all. We're going to hash this out here and now. I have listened to my last tirade from you about how "right wingers" hate this person and that person and want to kill gays and want everybody to suffer except them, while you conflate prominent conservatives and conservative ideals with this ill-defined notion of "RWA" all the time and mistakenly characterize any dissent from your orthodoxy as a position of the "RWA," which then opens that position - and presumably every person who agrees with it - to endless and unfounded ridicule of the most vicious and unsubstantiated nature. I'm done with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    I understand you are emotionally attached to the word conservative. I am not attacking conservatives. I hold several in high regard. Buckley was a conservative, and I think he seemed like a good guy. Buchanan is a pretty good one, but he can be a tad bigoted at times. Michael Savage is always a hoot. So no I am indeed not talking about small government conservationism.
    You have just strongly implied that anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy of the Left on the subject of feminism is a RWA. You'll forgive me, then, for being fairly dubious of your claim that you do not intend to attack conservatives when you use the term "RWA," especially since this is not the first time you've done such things in other contexts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    I am talking about Right Wing Authoritarians who wish to use the government to discriminate.
    If you really are just talking about extreme bigots who literally want to use the government to force their bigotry onto the rest of the population, then your objection is noted.... and it is totally irrelevant to the vast majority of the discussions in which you have mentioned it, since none of the people or principles you have invoked the moniker against have any resemblance to the Nazis, KKK, heterofascists, or other openly authoritarian hate groups that exist. Nobody's seen Limbaugh with a Swastika or a Klansman's robe on, last time I checked. I happen to agree with some of what Michael Savage says, even if he is a bit unvarnished at times. You keep hitting pretty darned close to targets I agree with when you hurl this "RWA" epithet around, and I just want to know whether you mean to include me when you are talking about these people. There's a lot of doubt here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    We aren't just talking about them though. If you think that gays should not be treated equally under the law you are a RWA
    But your definition of "equally under the law" and mine may be totally different. I'm almost certain of it. So, if I disagree with your particular understanding of what it means to have gays treated "equally under the law," i.e. that I don't think that gays should be allowed to force other people to acknowledge or participate in homosexual "marriages," am I RWA? I don't think that the government should be telling *anyone* what marriage looks like, but I certainly don't think that they should be forcing religions to acknowledge gay marriages if they don't want to. So, as things stand right now, I strongly disagree with the direction the "gay rights" movement has taken in trying to secure what they call "marriage equality," because it focuses on nothing but State sponsored coercion of other groups to allow gays to redefine what "marriage" is and to prosecute people who act on their beliefs that disagree with them. Does that make me a RWA or not?
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  4. #84
    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
    So, having even one of these qualities makes you a RWA?
    I would say having one of them make it kinda likely having more than one increases the likelihood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    I didn't say, "thinking women should be second class citizens." I said, "disagreement with feminist ideals." Are you saying that everyone who disagrees with feminist establishment's ideals of femininity and what defines "equality" means thinks women should be second class citizens? It sure sounds like it.
    I see. Well I don't know what feminism you are talking about, but I think feminism that held women should have the right to own property, vote, and work is good. Being against those ideals is bad. Being against women having equality is RWA. I have no wish to debate what feminism is outside that definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    I know that I understood what the academic paper said. I'm not sure that you did, because you keep using the term "right wingers" in what seems to be an intentionally ambiguous way virtually any time people express disagreement with the core principles of Progressive Liberalism. Even now, you just implied that the only acceptable idea of how society should relate to women has been defined by a specific group of women (and men) who espouse a certain set of values they call "feminism," but which I personally believe is anything but an "equal rights" movement, and for very good and well thought-out reasons. Never the less, your characterization of what I said makes me RWA, because you have distorted my position to the straw man of, "I think women should be second class citizens." This is my problem with your position, Mdougie... you keep using this term indiscriminately and without adequate definition, and you use it in pretty much every thread you debate as a solitary and unsupported attempt at rebuttal to points you don't like. I'm tired of it, and I want to get to the bottom of this once and for all. We're going to hash this out here and now. I have listened to my last tirade from you about how "right wingers" hate this person and that person and want to kill gays and want everybody to suffer except them, while you conflate prominent conservatives and conservative ideals with this ill-defined notion of "RWA" all the time and mistakenly characterize any dissent from your orthodoxy as a position of the "RWA," which then opens that position - and presumably every person who agrees with it - to endless and unfounded ridicule of the most vicious and unsubstantiated nature. I'm done with it.
    Yes I get that you see schemes from outgroups that you think are out to steal something from you all over the place. I never accused you of wanting to kill gays so I don't know where that comes from. Do you want to kill gays? Or are you satisfied if they are not to be treated equally under the law?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    You have just strongly implied that anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy of the Left on the subject of feminism is a RWA. You'll forgive me, then, for being fairly dubious of your claim that you do not intend to attack conservatives when you use the term "RWA," especially since this is not the first time you've done such things in other contexts.
    I have not implied that anyone who disagrees with any orthodoxy. It is simple. If you think that gays, or Mormons or Muslims or women as a group should have the same rights and benefits under the law than you are likely RWA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    If you really are just talking about extreme bigots who literally want to use the government to force their bigotry onto the rest of the population, then your objection is noted.... and it is totally irrelevant to the vast majority of the discussions in which you have mentioned it, since none of the people or principles you have invoked the moniker against have any resemblance to the Nazis, KKK, heterofascists, or other openly authoritarian hate groups that exist. Nobody's seen Limbaugh with a Swastika or a Klansman's robe on, last time I checked. I happen to agree with some of what Michael Savage says, even if he is a bit unvarnished at times. You keep hitting pretty darned close to targets I agree with when you hurl this "RWA" epithet around, and I just want to know whether you mean to include me when you are talking about these people. There's a lot of doubt here.
    I don't know if you are RWA. You show some tendency, but I can't be certain at the moment. I would say your propensity to exaggerate, see conspiracy and be overly emotional suggests that you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    But your definition of "equally under the law" and mine may be totally different. I'm almost certain of it. So, if I disagree with your particular understanding of what it means to have gays treated "equally under the law," i.e. that I don't think that gays should be allowed to force other people to acknowledge or participate in homosexual "marriages," am I RWA? I don't think that the government should be telling *anyone* what marriage looks like, but I certainly don't think that they should be forcing religions to acknowledge gay marriages if they don't want to. So, as things stand right now, I strongly disagree with the direction the "gay rights" movement has taken in trying to secure what they call "marriage equality," because it focuses on nothing but State sponsored coercion of other groups to allow gays to redefine what "marriage" is and to prosecute people who act on their beliefs that disagree with them. Does that make me a RWA or not?
    Equality under the law means that gays have the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals do. That the laws for marriage be applied to them. That the laws are discriminatory in the same way that laws banning inter racial marriages were discriminatory. You don't have to go to a gay wedding or believe God likes them. If you think it is good that government excludes homosexuals from equality than you are likely RWA.

  5. #85
    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 Gemini View Post
    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.
    Good. I'd apologize if I knew what was "offensive" in what I said, but I don't, so I won't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    We procreated by means of a surrogate. Just like many other straight couples.
    Neither you nor the straight couple "procreates". When you procreate with another human being, the result of that procreation has half of your DNA, and half of that other human being. In your household there are two men and a child, and that child shares its DNA with only one of the men. You two men are in the same exact situation, biologically speaking, as a divorced homosexual man with child custody and his homosexual "spouse".

    Now, you can twist that around in your head any way you like that makes you feel better about things, but I'm under no obligation to you to follow along.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    You thinking we are “perverted” doesn’t make the definition of the words I used any different.
    The point is the definitions of the words you use are not up to you. English is not your private language to make up as you like as you go along. And I'm sorry if my referring to your relationship with your "husband" as "perverse" offends, but it is an entirely accurate word. It means, as I'm using it, "to turn to an improper use", and that is the entire sexual basis of your relationship - improper use.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    I know you think that all of us homosexuals are borderline psychotic...
    You need to start dealing with what I say, instead of what you can imagine from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    ...but in truth, we are just like everyone else.
    I can think of several ways in which you're not like everyone else. For one thing, my wife and my relationship has never been mentioned in any version of the APA's DSM as a mental disorder we share. And there's a whole list of other distinctions I can think of, but I doubt you'd like to hear them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    Now that we’ve addressed all the personal attacks, we can get on to the studies:
    Well, before we do that, let's get one thing clear. You've gone out of your way to make this thread absolutely as personal as you could possibly make it. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say you've made it all about you! Okay, I have no problem with that. It's a bit self-absorbed, but then in my not insubstantial experience with gays and lesbians, being self-absorbed is a common enough trait in the breed. But I'm going to have a big problem if I can't argue against your position without being accused of "making it personal", or engaging in "personal attacks", when you're the one whose set it up so that I can do nothing else, or have to walk on egg shells to keep from hurting your feelings.

    If you don't want to be personally attacked in a debate, don't may YOU the debate issue. Simple as that.

    As for the two studies you cited, I imagine they're two of the 59 studies finding "no difference" Loren Marks reviewed for their methodologies in his survey I cited earlier in that other thread you mentioned, and found to be fatally flawed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    So stopping gay marriage could lead to it being illegal again for homosexuals to adopt?
    No, I was referring to the present social acceptance for gays and lesbians raising children, without respect for how they acquired them. Afaic, the only legitimate excuse for homosexual couples raising children is if the only other alternative is being state raised, and even then I'd want to see strict criteria in place guaranteeing that the relationship was monogamous and stable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    (FYI: it would still allow us to use a surrogate.)
    No, it wouldn't. If adopting children became illegal for gay couples, as it once was, what makes you think the state would allow gay couples to raise children by going around the law? I suppose you could use a surrogate, but then a child services worker could just come get it, and put it up for adoption, so why would you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    That sounds like a slippery slope to me.
    We can hope.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    You pointed it out using a slippery slope fallacy.
    Then there is either something wrong with your reading comprehension, or you don't know what a slippery slope fallacy actually is. A slippery slope fallacy is saying if A happens then A will cause B, which will cause C, etc. I didn't argue that. What I said is that each new "right" that gay activism has achieved, has laid the ground work for the next round of gay activism to gain it's next "right". That is not nearly the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    When were we ever NOT able to raise children? It may have been illegal for us to adopt...
    What is the purpose of adoption? To raise the child. And why would it be illegal for you to adopt, if it were someday? Because the state didn't want you raising any children. So what makes you think that if the state ever again made it illegal for gays to adopt, that the state would still allow you to keep any children you got through surrogacy? Isn't this fairly obvious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    Prove it.
    Which? That gay couples can't expose a child to two different gender specific parenting roles, or that in general gay couples can't provide as stable a home life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    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.”?
    In reverse order: yes, I've heard the expression, and I reject it thoroughly. And even if I didn't, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and friend's parents can't make up for what is lacking at home. If they could, then we'd have studies showing that grandparents and friend's parents were just as good as the child's biological parents in raising the child, and, of course, there are no such studies, because that's just not true. And I'm the father of three sons, one still living at home.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    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.
    You're just saying the same thing here that you've been saying in every post, and it's a straw man. Of course there is no law saying you have to believe that the reason for the State having established the institution is what it is before you can get married.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    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?
    The point is you're arguing that what is good for you should be a state interest, but based on what you're not saying. I'm not arguing from the institution of marriage to a state interest, but the other way around. The State has a vested interest in the next generation consisting in as many well developed adults as possible. I don't think it is necessary to prove this self-evident proposition. So, how has the State traditionally gone about protecting that particular vested interest? it has limited marriages to one man and one woman, and granted married couples certain (and much too few) privileges other relationships don't get.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    Then you and I have a completely different understanding of what the word bigoted is.
    Thesaurus.com for "bigoted": biased. I won't insult you by providing you the definition of biased. Biased was my intent. I simply used bigoted as a synonym with a bit more rhetorical punch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    Actually, no.
    Actually, I don't argue "facts" with people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    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?
    That's about it. Let me ask you the $64,000 question. Before you made the decision (not before you actually did it, but before you made the decision, while you were still thinking it over), how much research did you do on child outcomes for children having two gay men as parents? Be honest.

  6. #86
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Good. I'd apologize if I knew what was "offensive" in what I said, but I don't, so I won't.



    Neither you nor the straight couple "procreates". When you procreate with another human being, the result of that procreation has half of your DNA, and half of that other human being. In your household there are two men and a child, and that child shares its DNA with only one of the men. You two men are in the same exact situation, biologically speaking, as a divorced homosexual man with child custody and his homosexual "spouse".

    Now, you can twist that around in your head any way you like that makes you feel better about things, but I'm under no obligation to you to follow along.



    The point is the definitions of the words you use are not up to you. English is not your private language to make up as you like as you go along. And I'm sorry if my referring to your relationship with your "husband" as "perverse" offends, but it is an entirely accurate word. It means, as I'm using it, "to turn to an improper use", and that is the entire sexual basis of your relationship - improper use.



    You need to start dealing with what I say, instead of what you can imagine from it.



    I can think of several ways in which you're not like everyone else. For one thing, my wife and my relationship has never been mentioned in any version of the APA's DSM as a mental disorder we share. And there's a whole list of other distinctions I can think of, but I doubt you'd like to hear them.



    Well, before we do that, let's get one thing clear. You've gone out of your way to make this thread absolutely as personal as you could possibly make it. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say you've made it all about you! Okay, I have no problem with that. It's a bit self-absorbed, but then in my not insubstantial experience with gays and lesbians, being self-absorbed is a common enough trait in the breed. But I'm going to have a big problem if I can't argue against your position without being accused of "making it personal", or engaging in "personal attacks", when you're the one whose set it up so that I can do nothing else, or have to walk on egg shells to keep from hurting your feelings.

    If you don't want to be personally attacked in a debate, don't may YOU the debate issue. Simple as that.

    As for the two studies you cited, I imagine they're two of the 59 studies finding "no difference" Loren Marks reviewed for their methodologies in his survey I cited earlier in that other thread you mentioned, and found to be fatally flawed.



    No, I was referring to the present social acceptance for gays and lesbians raising children, without respect for how they acquired them. Afaic, the only legitimate excuse for homosexual couples raising children is if the only other alternative is being state raised, and even then I'd want to see strict criteria in place guaranteeing that the relationship was monogamous and stable.



    No, it wouldn't. If adopting children became illegal for gay couples, as it once was, what makes you think the state would allow gay couples to raise children by going around the law? I suppose you could use a surrogate, but then a child services worker could just come get it, and put it up for adoption, so why would you?



    We can hope.



    Then there is either something wrong with your reading comprehension, or you don't know what a slippery slope fallacy actually is. A slippery slope fallacy is saying if A happens then A will cause B, which will cause C, etc. I didn't argue that. What I said is that each new "right" that gay activism has achieved, has laid the ground work for the next round of gay activism to gain it's next "right". That is not nearly the same thing.



    What is the purpose of adoption? To raise the child. And why would it be illegal for you to adopt, if it were someday? Because the state didn't want you raising any children. So what makes you think that if the state ever again made it illegal for gays to adopt, that the state would still allow you to keep any children you got through surrogacy? Isn't this fairly obvious?



    Which? That gay couples can't expose a child to two different gender specific parenting roles, or that in general gay couples can't provide as stable a home life?



    In reverse order: yes, I've heard the expression, and I reject it thoroughly. And even if I didn't, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and friend's parents can't make up for what is lacking at home. If they could, then we'd have studies showing that grandparents and friend's parents were just as good as the child's biological parents in raising the child, and, of course, there are no such studies, because that's just not true. And I'm the father of three sons, one still living at home.



    You're just saying the same thing here that you've been saying in every post, and it's a straw man. Of course there is no law saying you have to believe that the reason for the State having established the institution is what it is before you can get married.



    The point is you're arguing that what is good for you should be a state interest, but based on what you're not saying. I'm not arguing from the institution of marriage to a state interest, but the other way around. The State has a vested interest in the next generation consisting in as many well developed adults as possible. I don't think it is necessary to prove this self-evident proposition. So, how has the State traditionally gone about protecting that particular vested interest? it has limited marriages to one man and one woman, and granted married couples certain (and much too few) privileges other relationships don't get.



    Thesaurus.com for "bigoted": biased. I won't insult you by providing you the definition of biased. Biased was my intent. I simply used bigoted as a synonym with a bit more rhetorical punch.



    Actually, I don't argue "facts" with people.



    That's about it. Let me ask you the $64,000 question. Before you made the decision (not before you actually did it, but before you made the decision, while you were still thinking it over), how much research did you do on child outcomes for children having two gay men as parents? Be honest.
    You're an RWA for sure. Those responses show very high value for authority, submission, and aggression, and a psyche that is prejudiced. I get why you don't like these traits exposed as being bad, but I am sorry they are indeed bad. Your need to bully and control others is not conducive to free society.

    ---------- Post added at 01:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Good. I'd apologize if I knew what was "offensive" in what I said, but I don't, so I won't.



    Neither you nor the straight couple "procreates". When you procreate with another human being, the result of that procreation has half of your DNA, and half of that other human being. In your household there are two men and a child, and that child shares its DNA with only one of the men. You two men are in the same exact situation, biologically speaking, as a divorced homosexual man with child custody and his homosexual "spouse".

    Now, you can twist that around in your head any way you like that makes you feel better about things, but I'm under no obligation to you to follow along.



    The point is the definitions of the words you use are not up to you. English is not your private language to make up as you like as you go along. And I'm sorry if my referring to your relationship with your "husband" as "perverse" offends, but it is an entirely accurate word. It means, as I'm using it, "to turn to an improper use", and that is the entire sexual basis of your relationship - improper use.



    You need to start dealing with what I say, instead of what you can imagine from it.



    I can think of several ways in which you're not like everyone else. For one thing, my wife and my relationship has never been mentioned in any version of the APA's DSM as a mental disorder we share. And there's a whole list of other distinctions I can think of, but I doubt you'd like to hear them.



    Well, before we do that, let's get one thing clear. You've gone out of your way to make this thread absolutely as personal as you could possibly make it. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say you've made it all about you! Okay, I have no problem with that. It's a bit self-absorbed, but then in my not insubstantial experience with gays and lesbians, being self-absorbed is a common enough trait in the breed. But I'm going to have a big problem if I can't argue against your position without being accused of "making it personal", or engaging in "personal attacks", when you're the one whose set it up so that I can do nothing else, or have to walk on egg shells to keep from hurting your feelings.

    If you don't want to be personally attacked in a debate, don't may YOU the debate issue. Simple as that.

    As for the two studies you cited, I imagine they're two of the 59 studies finding "no difference" Loren Marks reviewed for their methodologies in his survey I cited earlier in that other thread you mentioned, and found to be fatally flawed.



    No, I was referring to the present social acceptance for gays and lesbians raising children, without respect for how they acquired them. Afaic, the only legitimate excuse for homosexual couples raising children is if the only other alternative is being state raised, and even then I'd want to see strict criteria in place guaranteeing that the relationship was monogamous and stable.



    No, it wouldn't. If adopting children became illegal for gay couples, as it once was, what makes you think the state would allow gay couples to raise children by going around the law? I suppose you could use a surrogate, but then a child services worker could just come get it, and put it up for adoption, so why would you?



    We can hope.



    Then there is either something wrong with your reading comprehension, or you don't know what a slippery slope fallacy actually is. A slippery slope fallacy is saying if A happens then A will cause B, which will cause C, etc. I didn't argue that. What I said is that each new "right" that gay activism has achieved, has laid the ground work for the next round of gay activism to gain it's next "right". That is not nearly the same thing.



    What is the purpose of adoption? To raise the child. And why would it be illegal for you to adopt, if it were someday? Because the state didn't want you raising any children. So what makes you think that if the state ever again made it illegal for gays to adopt, that the state would still allow you to keep any children you got through surrogacy? Isn't this fairly obvious?



    Which? That gay couples can't expose a child to two different gender specific parenting roles, or that in general gay couples can't provide as stable a home life?



    In reverse order: yes, I've heard the expression, and I reject it thoroughly. And even if I didn't, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and friend's parents can't make up for what is lacking at home. If they could, then we'd have studies showing that grandparents and friend's parents were just as good as the child's biological parents in raising the child, and, of course, there are no such studies, because that's just not true. And I'm the father of three sons, one still living at home.



    You're just saying the same thing here that you've been saying in every post, and it's a straw man. Of course there is no law saying you have to believe that the reason for the State having established the institution is what it is before you can get married.



    The point is you're arguing that what is good for you should be a state interest, but based on what you're not saying. I'm not arguing from the institution of marriage to a state interest, but the other way around. The State has a vested interest in the next generation consisting in as many well developed adults as possible. I don't think it is necessary to prove this self-evident proposition. So, how has the State traditionally gone about protecting that particular vested interest? it has limited marriages to one man and one woman, and granted married couples certain (and much too few) privileges other relationships don't get.



    Thesaurus.com for "bigoted": biased. I won't insult you by providing you the definition of biased. Biased was my intent. I simply used bigoted as a synonym with a bit more rhetorical punch.



    Actually, I don't argue "facts" with people.



    That's about it. Let me ask you the $64,000 question. Before you made the decision (not before you actually did it, but before you made the decision, while you were still thinking it over), how much research did you do on child outcomes for children having two gay men as parents? Be honest.
    You're an RWA for sure. Those responses show very high value for authority, submission, and aggression, and a psyche that is prejudiced. I get why you don't like these traits exposed as being bad, but I am sorry they are indeed bad. Your need to bully and control others is not conducive to free society.

    Don't take this as an insult or attack. Just like you are frank with the "pervert" I am being frank with an RWA, who asked me directly if they were RWA. Now I can see by the lack of any semblance of of what we non RWA call compassion or empathy. So take those emotions you feel when someone points out acting like a psychopath online is bad and think. Hey do other people feel bad when I say despicable things to them? That is called empathy. That is something RWA is not good at. You obviously have emotion so use it in a positive way to display non psychopathic traits.

  7. #87
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Gay people have been arrested for being gay. The reason the stonewall riots happened was because police were raiding gay bars and arresting gays.

    And while sodomy laws can apply to heteros, every instance of gay sex counted as "sodomy" and therefore gay sex was outlawed. If any same-sex couple had sex, they were breaking the law. So it was definitely a crime to have gay sex for much of our history. In fact, in early American history, castration was a prescribed punishment.



    Why not? I have to say that your argument has pretty much been based on "because I say so". So give me something other than your opinion.

    If you are saying that one cannot have an honest and open discussion with YOU, I will accept that. But if you saying that one cannot have an honest and open discussion AT ALL, then you will need to support that.




    And I never did that. I suggest comparing the entirety of both civil rights struggles.




    If you mean I'll never have an open and honest discussion with you, I agree. But then since I never called someone a "bigot" the entire time I've been on ODN and yet you say...




    I can forward the comparison and have a reasonable discussion. But apparently just not with you. And I don't think I've ever called anyone here a bigot so I guess unfounded personal attacks is just something you like to do. So yeah, a reasonable discussion with you doesn't seem likely, even if I weren't offering comparison.




    And nothing you have said supports your point. Your argument has never risen above a bald assertion.

    You just point out differences between the two and then state that one cannot compare them as if two things that have differences cannot be compared.



    And good luck supporting your assertion.

    Because I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that one cannot have an open and honest discussion with someone who compares the gay civil rights struggle with the black civil rights struggle.
    First, the use of bigotry was towards mdougie, not specifically yourself. Second, my point was that conservatives and liberals could not engage in a rational dialogue. If you are claiming that denying gays the right to marriage is equivalent the black struggle for civil rights, then while you may not be directly calling those who oppose it, bigots, the implication is most certainly there. So, once you start making equivalencies between the two, then there is really no hope a real dialogue can occur. Not with me. Not with someone who opposes gay marriage. Obviously, you can having wonderful conversations with people who already agree with your position. My support is based on two things. First, the logical premise that I just stated. Second, the historical accuracy where we do not see objective and rational discussions between the two sides. I offered my post as a bit of advice. Advice for the two opposing camps to begin some sort of meaningful and respectful dialogue. I guess, though, for some in the absolute pro-gay marriage camp, respectful and rational dialogue is just asking too much. Lastly, I want you to compare your arguments to those of mdougie. While you are more respectful in that you are not claiming anyone is a bigot, his arguments all lead to that conclusion. Both of your arguments start from the same base, namely that gay marriage is a civil rights issue comparable to black civil rights. So, as I noted before, the inference, whether directly stated or even unintended, is there.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. #88
    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
    First, the use of bigotry was towards mdougie, not specifically yourself. Second, my point was that conservatives and liberals could not engage in a rational dialogue. If you are claiming that denying gays the right to marriage is equivalent the black struggle for civil rights, then while you may not be directly calling those who oppose it, bigots, the implication is most certainly there. So, once you start making equivalencies between the two, then there is really no hope a real dialogue can occur. Not with me. Not with someone who opposes gay marriage. Obviously, you can having wonderful conversations with people who already agree with your position. My support is based on two things. First, the logical premise that I just stated. Second, the historical accuracy where we do not see objective and rational discussions between the two sides. I offered my post as a bit of advice. Advice for the two opposing camps to begin some sort of meaningful and respectful dialogue. I guess, though, for some in the absolute pro-gay marriage camp, respectful and rational dialogue is just asking too much. Lastly, I want you to compare your arguments to those of mdougie. While you are more respectful in that you are not claiming anyone is a bigot, his arguments all lead to that conclusion. Both of your arguments start from the same base, namely that gay marriage is a civil rights issue comparable to black civil rights. So, as I noted before, the inference, whether directly stated or even unintended, is there.
    Yes someone who thinks gays don't deserve equal protection and benefits of law is bigot. Someone who thinks blacks don't deserve equal protection and benefits of law is a bigot.

    You are correct it is nearly impossible to reason with bigots. Bigots don't use logic and reason.

    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

  9. #89
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,697
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    And I'm sorry if my referring to your relationship with your "husband" as "perverse" offends, but it is an entirely accurate word. It means, as I'm using it, "to turn to an improper use", and that is the entire sexual basis of your relationship - improper use.
    While the definition of "perverse" is indisputable, whether a relationship is actually perverse is disputable. All you are really saying is that in your OPINION, their relationship is "perverse" or "improper". A gay person, with just as much support (in other words, his opinion) state that heterosexual relationships are "perverse".


    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    I can think of several ways in which you're not like everyone else. For one thing, my wife and my relationship has never been mentioned in any version of the APA's DSM as a mental disorder we share. And there's a whole list of other distinctions I can think of, but I doubt you'd like to hear them.
    And your marriage is different than mine because we have different wives. So of course every relationship is different than any other relationship. The only relevant issue is whether there are differences that warrant unequal treatment.

    Currently, homosexuality is not seen as a disorder by the professional medical and psychiatric profession. It doesn't matter if it was in the past unless, of course, they were correct in the past and are incorrect in the present and the notion has yet to be supported. Short of this proposition being supported, what occurred in the past isn't relevant to how we should be treating gays today.



    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    No, I was referring to the present social acceptance for gays and lesbians raising children, without respect for how they acquired them. Afaic, the only legitimate excuse for homosexual couples raising children is if the only other alternative is being state raised, and even then I'd want to see strict criteria in place guaranteeing that the relationship was monogamous and stable.
    Shouldn't we have the same criteria for heterosexual adoptees? Actually, I bet we do (adopted couples, I believe, are pretty well vetted).

    Overall, I see no reason to use different standards for straight or gay adopted parents, step-parents, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    What I said is that each new "right" that gay activism has achieved, has laid the ground work for the next round of gay activism to gain it's next "right".
    And that's not a problem if they are entitled to the rights that they are seeking.



    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    I'm not arguing from the institution of marriage to a state interest, but the other way around. The State has a vested interest in the next generation consisting in as many well developed adults as possible. I don't think it is necessary to prove this self-evident proposition. So, how has the State traditionally gone about protecting that particular vested interest? it has limited marriages to one man and one woman, and granted married couples certain (and much too few) privileges other relationships don't get.
    I seriously doubt that is true, but I won't challenge it for even if it is true, it does not equate to a valid argument for banning gay marriage.

    Current evidence shows that gays do as good a job of raising functional children as gay people do so even if the reasoning you forwarded was true, the assumptions they were using to ban gay marriage (gays are bad parents) does not hold up and therefore their reasoning for banning gay marriage does not hold up.

    ---------- Post added at 11:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, the use of bigotry was towards mdougie, not specifically yourself.
    Well, you were addressing me. But I certainly can understand some confusion like that when debating two people are once, so no problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Second, my point was that conservatives and liberals could not engage in a rational dialogue. If you are claiming that denying gays the right to marriage is equivalent the black struggle for civil rights, then while you may not be directly calling those who oppose it, bigots, the implication is most certainly there.
    I see absolutely no necessity for believing that. To be clear, IMO, the only rational point I can glean from your arguments is that you think that blacks suffered much worse discrimination than gays and likewise their struggle for civil rights is more important/significant. And I don't consider that a bigoted viewpoint at all. Nor am I even arguing against it.

    The fact is that there are similarities between the two and therefore one can compare them. You can compare the best movie ever made and worst movie ever made because they are both movies.

    Saying they are exactly the same makes no sense, of course, but then to compare them is not to say they are the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, once you start making equivalencies between the two, then there is really no hope a real dialogue can occur. Not with me.
    I will accept THAT. That YOU, for some reason, cannot have a discussion with someone who forwards the comparison. I don't know why you can't but then I don't care to get into your personal beliefs or issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Not with someone who opposes gay marriage.
    And that's what I challenged you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT. So either support that one cannot have such a conversation with this person once they forward the comparison or retract this assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    My support is based on two things. First, the logical premise that I just stated. Second, the historical accuracy where we do not see objective and rational discussions between the two sides.
    I have no idea what you are referring to. Please forward your support more clearly.

    But if this will help, I do not challenged any historical fact that you have forwarded concerning the treatment of blacks and their civil right struggle. I just don't see how these facts qualify as support that one cannot have a rational discussion with someone who compares them to the gay civil rights struggle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I offered my post as a bit of advice. Advice for the two opposing camps to begin some sort of meaningful and respectful dialogue. I guess, though, for some in the absolute pro-gay marriage camp, respectful and rational dialogue is just asking too much.
    If you are saying that offering the comparison is inherently disrespectful, I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    While you are more respectful in that you are not claiming anyone is a bigot, his arguments all lead to that conclusion. Both of your arguments start from the same base, namely that gay marriage is a civil rights issue comparable to black civil rights. So, as I noted before, the inference, whether directly stated or even unintended, is there.
    And that likewise is not supported.

    You are welcome to your opinions but I see nothing that you are forwarding that is based on logical truism or relevant fact.

    So again,

    SUPPORT OR RETRACT than anyone who disagrees with someone cannot debate them if they forward the comparison

    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that anyone who offers the comparison is implying that anyone who disagrees with their comparison is a bigot.

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

    And really, I think your overall argument might be a bit of a straw man. I'm not aware of liberals, in general, comparing the two. You might be able to find someone who does do that but they might be as rare as a right-winger who actually does forward that gay marriage will destroy us all. That's not to say that wackos don't exist but the fringes are not relevant to the whole of a belief and therefore don't really mean much.

    From what I can tell the "comparison" discussion typically goes like this:

    Pro-gay person: Gay equality is a civil rights issue.
    Anti-gay person: You can't call it a civil rights issue because it's wrong to compare it to the black civil rights struggle.

    Note in that argument, it was not the pro-gay who made the comparison, but the anti-gay person who inferred it by the pro-gay saying "civil rights".

    Now, I admit that I am just forwarding what I think here and did not support it and perhaps you can blow all of this away by showing typical pro-gays making the comparison in an article. So consider this a "soft" argument.

    But still, that's how I currently see things. There really isn't a problem with pro-gays making that comparison (assuming it's a problem to make the comparison).
    Last edited by mican333; March 14th, 2014 at 08:27 AM.

  10. #90
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I find myself in a weird position where I agree with some of what you're saying but let's go with the disagreements first -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    marriage is equivalent the black struggle for civil rights, then while you may not be directly calling those who oppose it, bigots, the implication is most certainly there. So, once you start making equivalencies between the two, then there is really no hope a real dialogue can occur.
    I think you're wrong here because the link between the two are social conservatism. In nearly all struggles - women's rights, black rights and gay rights, it is the same group of people who seek to maintain the status quo or revert things to where they were. So it's not really against bigotry per se but being against those stalling social progress. That's where the two struggles begin.


    Where I do agree with you is that this link isn't necessary to support gay rights. Where you might be misreading MD is that he is using black rights as a way for you to understand gay struggle both in terms of harm done but also from a historical perspective.

  11. #91
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,697
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Where I do agree with you is that this link isn't necessary to support gay rights. Where you might be misreading MD is that he is using black rights as a way for you to understand gay struggle both in terms of harm done but also from a historical perspective.
    Good point. Likewise when providing legal rational for granting gay their civil rights, it makes perfect sense to refer to previous civil rights struggle to forward the principles that gave blacks their civil rights.

    For example, I have referred to Loving vs. Virginia, the ruling that granted the right to interracial marriage (and therefore part of the blacks' civil rights struggle) when arguing for gay marriage in previous debates.

  12. #92
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Usually couched in the decay of society, I'd argue that the resistance to these kinds of rights is usually about maintaining some kind of power.

    What kind of power is maintained over homosexuals in denying them the right to marry?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #93
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Interestingly, the right wing Christian hate groups such as American Family Association also use the Black Civil Rights Movement to garner empathy for their cause:

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...tians-back-bus

    The American Family Association believes that the defeat of “right to discriminate” bills in states like Arizona is ushering in anti-Christian discrimination akin to Jim Crow, warning: “Christians, please move to the back of the bus.”

    On Tuesday, the group posted a letter by AFA head Tim Wildmon, which warns that the “Gay Gestapo” is “using the law to punitively enforce their political and social agenda.” They also included a poll asking which organization —Southern Poverty Law Center, American Humanist Association, Human Rights Campaign, or Freedom From Religion Foundation — “poses the greatest threat to religious liberty in America today.”

    - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....KxVztWvM.dpuf

    I guess this must be how Isbeld sees the gay rights vs black rights conflation.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; March 14th, 2014 at 10:25 AM.

  14. #94
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Usually couched in the decay of society, I'd argue that the resistance to these kinds of rights is usually about maintaining some kind of power.

    What kind of power is maintained over homosexuals in denying them the right to marry?
    Arbitrary power for the right wing authoritarian and the churches can claim political authority, power and relevance.

  15. #95
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    Arbitrary power for the right wing authoritarian and the churches can claim political authority, power and relevance.
    This is completely spot on. This is completely about religious power and politicians using religion to manipulate the masses. Why is it so one sided though? Are there pro-gay anti-abortion supporters?

  16. #96
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    This is completely spot on. This is completely about religious power and politicians using religion to manipulate the masses. Why is it so one sided though? Are there pro-gay anti-abortion supporters?
    Yes there are a few. They tend to lean libertarian. There are far more libertarian religious pro choice pro equality though.

  17. #97
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I find myself in a weird position where I agree with some of what you're saying but let's go with the disagreements first -



    I think you're wrong here because the link between the two are social conservatism. In nearly all struggles - women's rights, black rights and gay rights, it is the same group of people who seek to maintain the status quo or revert things to where they were. So it's not really against bigotry per se but being against those stalling social progress. That's where the two struggles begin.


    Where I do agree with you is that this link isn't necessary to support gay rights. Where you might be misreading MD is that he is using black rights as a way for you to understand gay struggle both in terms of harm done but also from a historical perspective.
    I understand what the argument is intended to do. The problem with inserting the comparison to black rights is that it simply derails the conversation into a morality play where one side tries to win its argument by demonizing the other side. If the goal is to have a meaningful discussion on the topic, demonizing the other side probably is not a good start. Unfortunately, as MD demonstrated, even arguing that the comparison is invalid or isn't necessary lead him to labeling me a bigot. Imagine if I were actually arguing against gay marriage itself....

    In terms of social conservatives and its link with gay, black, and women's rights. Even your own attempt at a moderate argument has led to this strange generalization which lends to conflating social conservatives as Republicans or right wingers. The implication is that social conservatives are racist and sexist and, of course, homophobic. If this is your view, fine. I am not going to argue with you about it. It simply is no way to start a genuine and rational discussion on any topic.

    ---------- Post added at 10:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Interestingly, the right wing Christian hate groups such as American Family Association also uses the Black Civil Rights Movement to garner empathy for their cause too:

    I guess this must be how Isbeld sees the gay rights vs black rights conflation.
    Pretty much. Seems kinda ridiculous when it is used to oppose your view, doesn't it?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  18. Likes Talthas liked this post
  19. #98
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I understand what the argument is intended to do. The problem with inserting the comparison to black rights is that it simply derails the conversation into a morality play where one side tries to win its argument by demonizing the other side.
    That's because it is a morality play. When the opposition's arguments aren't lies (eg conflating it with pedophilia or putting forward debunked research) then the reasons are religious. In that sense it is fair to weigh the apparent moral harm done being gay vs the moral harm done legislating against it. Social conservatives feel one way and progressives feel another. It's the same story throughout all the social struggles.

    If the goal is to have a meaningful discussion on the topic, demonizing the other side probably is not a good start.
    Gay people are already demonized and their sexuality is demonized. That's why there are these restrictions in the first place. The argument isn't to give gay people more rights , it is to give them equal rights.

    Unfortunately, as MD demonstrated, even arguing that the comparison is invalid or isn't necessary lead him to labeling me a bigot. Imagine if I were actually arguing against gay marriage itself....
    But you didn't say not necessary, I did. You said it was invalid, which I argue is wrong.

    In terms of social conservatives and its link with gay, black, and women's rights. Even your own attempt at a moderate argument has led to this strange generalization which lends to conflating social conservatives as Republicans or right wingers. The implication is that social conservatives are racist and sexist and, of course, homophobic.
    Social conservatives have a habit of consistently being on the wrong side of these battles. It's not that they're necessarily racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-Islam (though some certainly are) but that they are stalling social progress towards human equality. This is factually what they have done and are doing. The implications you want to draw from that is another argument altogether.


    If this is your view, fine. I am not going to argue with you about it. It simply is no way to start a genuine and rational discussion on any topic.
    As Gemini pointed out in the OP, there is a severe lack of rational reasoning to begin with. The conservatives don't want to point out that they really want their religious preferences imposed on others and instead offer lies and obfuscations and outdated and bad research. That's all I see.

    Scratch that. Talthas has an impractical solution to slow down progress.

    Pretty much. Seems kinda ridiculous when it is used to oppose your view, doesn't it?
    Yes, but here's the rub: you're missing that in order for the AFA argument to work, you have to agree that their religious preferences override gay rights. Whereas in both the gay and black right struggles it is seeking equal rights.

  20. #99
    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
    I understand what the argument is intended to do. The problem with inserting the comparison to black rights is that it simply derails the conversation into a morality play where one side tries to win its argument by demonizing the other side. If the goal is to have a meaningful discussion on the topic, demonizing the other side probably is not a good start. Unfortunately, as MD demonstrated, even arguing that the comparison is invalid or isn't necessary lead him to labeling me a bigot. Imagine if I were actually arguing against gay marriage itself....

    In terms of social conservatives and its link with gay, black, and women's rights. Even your own attempt at a moderate argument has led to this strange generalization which lends to conflating social conservatives as Republicans or right wingers. The implication is that social conservatives are racist and sexist and, of course, homophobic. If this is your view, fine. I am not going to argue with you about it. It simply is no way to start a genuine and rational discussion on any topic.

    ---------- Post added at 10:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------



    Pretty much. Seems kinda ridiculous when it is used to oppose your view, doesn't it?
    You miss understand. I didn't call you a bigot. It was an if then statement. If you think blacks or gays don't deserve equal protection and benefits from government then you are a bigot.

    If you don't think that way you are not a bigot.

    So only you know. Are you?

  21. #100
    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
    I see. Well I don't know what feminism you are talking about, but I think feminism that held women should have the right to own property, vote, and work is good. Being against those ideals is bad. Being against women having equality is RWA. I have no wish to debate what feminism is outside that definition.
    If that's all you think feminism is, you haven't paid very close attention. But if that's all you're talking about, then we agree. Now whether we agree on what the definition of "equality" is and whether it exists in given spheres or not is a different matter. I'll bet you'll eventually get around to deciding I'm RWA even though I agree that women should have equal rights if I disagree with you on the facts of the matter, though. That seems to be your MO.

    Quote Originally Posted by MDougie
    Yes I get that you see schemes from outgroups that you think are out to steal something from you all over the place.
    I have made note in other threads about some of the injustices perpetrated against straight people and people of faith who don't agree with the idea of homosexual marriage. I'm not talking about conspiracies; I'm talking about honest-to-God facts. Prominent leaders in the gay rights movement have been very explicit in their aims to marginalize Christians and to impose their views upon society to the exclusion of other viewpoints... all in the name of tolerance. It's not a matter of conspiracy theories; it's a matter of record.

    Quote Originally Posted by MDougie
    I never accused you of wanting to kill gays so I don't know where that comes from. Do you want to kill gays? Or are you satisfied if they are not to be treated equally under the law?
    I have watched you rant for page after page on multiple threads about how so-called RWA value nothing except power, that RWA hate Jews/gays/blacks/Muslims/whoever, and how they want to subjugate, repress, or kill people who disagree with them or whom they find inconvenient or undesirable. I've seen you rant about how they are incapable of seeing reason and value only force and violence to settle disputes. I've watched you, even on this thread, talk about how RWA want (insert group here) to suffer. Is it really a stretch to go from there to killing? I wasn't citing a specific example; I was using the very same pattern of accusations you make against a group with whom you disagree to make a point. If you believe that there are people who enjoy watching gay people suffer and who want to subjugate and repress them and who sees violence as an acceptable solution to what they believe are problems, how long do you honestly think it would take before such an evil person would decide that the best option is to kill the people to whom he objects? Don't be coy... say what you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by MDougie
    I have not implied that anyone who disagrees with any orthodoxy. It is simple. If you think that gays, or Mormons or Muslims or women as a group should have the same rights and benefits under the law than you are likely RWA.
    If someone doesn't think that x groups should have "the same rights under the law" as you interpret those rights and those laws to be, then they're a bigot and a RWA. Gotcha. You've characterized pretty much every substantive disagreement with your position, whether it be from a perspective of policy, Constitutionality, public health, religious freedom, or any other platform, as RWA bigotry. I have never seen you once admit that there is a single valid objection to any position you have espoused, no matter how it's structured or what other positions are taken alongside it. So, you tell me.... how is this not characterizing anything outside your orthodoxy as RWA?

    Quote Originally Posted by MDougie
    I don't know if you are RWA. You show some tendency, but I can't be certain at the moment. I would say your propensity to exaggerate, see conspiracy and be overly emotional suggests that you are.
    So the use of rhetorical techniques to illustrate a point, the accurate observation of real events that have actually happened, and a justified sense of outrage at what I believe is an injustice perpetrated by the group you defend makes me more likely to be RWA. Gotcha.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    Equality under the law means that gays have the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals do. That the laws for marriage be applied to them.
    See? You're saying that there's only one way to solve the problem, and people that disagree with your One True Way are bigots. You are doing it again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie
    If you think it is good that government excludes homosexuals from equality than you are likely RWA.
    If I think that it's good that government "excludes homosexuals from equality" as you understand it, I'm RWA. Right. As far as I can tell, Ibelsd is right. Your position excludes any possibility of meaningful dialogue, because you have automatically characterized any deviation from your position as nothing but bigotry and hatred. Debating you with your current set of positions is therefore useless and a total waste of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    You're an RWA for sure. Those responses show very high value for authority, submission, and aggression, and a psyche that is prejudiced. I get why you don't like these traits exposed as being bad, but I am sorry they are indeed bad. Your need to bully and control others is not conducive to free society.

    Don't take this as an insult or attack. Just like you are frank with the "pervert" I am being frank with an RWA, who asked me directly if they were RWA. Now I can see by the lack of any semblance of of what we non RWA call compassion or empathy. So take those emotions you feel when someone points out acting like a psychopath online is bad and think. Hey do other people feel bad when I say despicable things to them? That is called empathy. That is something RWA is not good at. You obviously have emotion so use it in a positive way to display non psychopathic traits.
    So, despite any validity to any point that cstamford has made - and I'm not making an argument either way - you have just written him off as nothing but RWA, which necessarily entails, by your own accusations, that he is a hate-filled, bigoted sociopath who actively desires to repress, control, and cause to suffer the minority group about which he disagrees with you. You seem to think that you can now safely write off everything he has said without addressing any of it, because it's all hate-filled nonsense that doesn't deserve a response except to call him a hateful bigot. It doesn't matter why he feels that way, whether or not he has a good reason to have the opinions he has, or whether there are flaws in the position you have taken... all that's gone now, because it comes from someone you have labeled as a RWA.

    What you've done is a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy. So is every single instance of your invocation of this ill-defined, intentionally nebulous group of people you call RWA.

    You really need to examine whether or not you are capable of having a meaningful discussion with someone with whom you disagree. If you resort to calling everyone who disagrees with you on any matter of real substance a RWA, then I argue that the answer is "no, you aren't capable of discussing things rationally and meaningfully."

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I think you're wrong here because the link between the two are social conservatism. In nearly all struggles - women's rights, black rights and gay rights, it is the same group of people who seek to maintain the status quo or revert things to where they were. So it's not really against bigotry per se but being against those stalling social progress. That's where the two struggles begin.
    The two situations don't have parity in a meaningful sense, because there are extensive laws and social groups who provide support and legal standing to gays as a group that the black people in America did not have. In fact, gay people use these laws on a regular basis to punish dissent against their social ideals by prosecuting people who disagree with them. There is no segregation or Jim Crow for gays... no inability to vote. No poll taxes, no slavery. None of the terrible injustices that the blacks in this country once endured are being foisted upon the gay community, except perhaps the occasional hate crime, which is aggressively prosecuted and the perpetrator's name so blackened that their lives are ruined... and we've seen several instances where those were hoaxes perpetrated by people hoping to drum up sympathy for the cause. This is nothing like the civil rights movement, and I think that making the comparison should be taken as an affront by every black person who went through that struggle.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    What kind of power is maintained over homosexuals in denying them the right to marry?
    You are making a faulty assumption by presuming that people who disagree with gay marriage are doing it to maintain some kind of power, instead of the real reason, which is that they want to be left alone and free to exercise their consciences as they see fit. This question is loaded and biased on its face and distorts the entire discussion into something meaningless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    Arbitrary power for the right wing authoritarian and the churches can claim political authority, power and relevance.
    How many RWA do you think there are? One minute you are talking about RWA being only composed of fascists, bigots, persecutors, and sadistic psychopaths. The next, you're talking about whole groups that can claim political authority, power and relevance. This is the problem with your ill-defined term. Until you start speaking in specifics, please stop referring to this concept which you still refuse to adequately define in clear, unambiguous terms.

    ---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    You miss understand. I didn't call you a bigot. It was an if then statement. If you think blacks or gays don't deserve equal protection and benefits from government then you are a bigot.

    If you don't think that way you are not a bigot.
    So, to restate: "if you think blacks or gays don't deserve equal protection and benefits as you understand them to exist, then he is a bigot. Is this right?
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

 

 
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 116
    Last Post: January 26th, 2013, 05:38 PM
  2. Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 17th, 2011, 06:43 AM
  3. Marriage better for children
    By chadn737 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: July 5th, 2009, 05:19 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 1st, 2007, 08:27 PM
  5. Do you have, or want children?
    By Jamie in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 24th, 2005, 06:36 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
  •