dk

dk: I agree gay culture’s promiscuous values and pornographic landscapes (pvpl) don’t describe all gay people anymore than neon lights describe all people that live in Los Vegas.
We spent a page discussing PP, I reviewed the page and found no substantive reply. SIECUS and PP have adismal performance record by any measure, and PP has a history checkered with scandals that begin with using Puerto Rico women as lab rats, to fraudulently marketing of Enron. If you can find one national leader PGM and critical of PP then I concede. That should be easy, except there aren’t any.
dk: We agree, everyone is obliged to respect the public square. I never said gays tried to destroy youth, so your response is a non sequitur. You’re arguing with yourself, not anything I said.
dk: Argue amongst yourselves, or with yourself, about anything you want, but it has nothing to with the case I put forward. non sequitur.

jinto: To clarify the analogy with proprietorships, your argument is "There are people in group X who do not desire relationship Y, therefore relationship y should not be allowed for group X." This is not a valid argument, period.
dk: Again, you’re arguing with yourself, not me. non-sequitur.
dk: Each of these sub items shows Gay leaders routinely scandalize children and families in the public square to promote themselves.
dk: An ad hominem attacks are fallacious, not substantial, whether you like me or not.
dk: I’ve made my case, If you refute it, I’m obliged to capitulate. When you talk about something else,, non sequitur

1. Jinto: Meanwhile, let me remind you that not only have we refuted your arguments,
   dk: You certainly keep saying you’ve completed refuted me.
2. Jinto: but I have also shown that there is a clear public policy reason to favor gay marriage: it increases the number of stable two-parent families available for taking care of the children that are already floating around in our foster care system.
   dk: Correction, saying gays couples are stable doesn’t prove squat. For every 2 married couples with children, 1 gay man died from an MSM incident, and 1 gay man waits to die from an MSM incident. That’s not very stable. .
3. Jinto: Further, it increases this number disproportionately: while a heterosexual couple is likely to consider adoption iff they are infertile, since by definition all gay couples are infertile, that means that all gay couples who are considering having children in the first place will consider adoption.
   dk: I challenge your claim, offer some evidence. Most children adopted domestically are from foster care, kept as the wards of the state after being taken away from their biological parents. The biological parent[s] hope to be reunite with their kid[s]. The claim is insubstantial without evidence, and you got zilch. .
4. Jinto: That in an ideal world there wouldn't be so many unadopted children is irrelevant.
   dk: I’ve never mentioned an ideal world, non sequitur. Gays Marriage would aggravate the problem by severing the bonds that hold together the nuclear family.
5. Jinto: The fact is that this is NOT an ideal world and that by prohibiting gay marriage we are denying children the potential for a loving and stable family. Now the validity of this argument is not required to establish that we should allow gay marriage - the simple fact that there is no valid reason not to is sufficient.
   dk: Non-sequitur, you’re arguing with yourself again, I never claimed this was an ideal world.
6. Jinto: But in this case, you are actually hurting more than just people who are unable to see their significant other in the hospital because they cant' actually marry them. You are hurting millions of American children who currently don't have families available to take care of them.
   dk: I challenge this statement, you can’t possibly show, know or imagine who gets hurt under circumstances beyond your own nose. Most kids are kept in foster care waiting in limbo to be reunited with their biological parent[s].

dk: Any evidence you’ve offered was weak at best. There’s reason to believe, “If pigs had wings they could fly?”. The problem is pigs don’t wings. All “reason” can establish is plausibility, and all things considered plausibility doesn’t stand up to scrutiny in the face of so many public scandals. If there was an outcry from the Gay Community about the Sex Museum gays opened in NYC 5th Ave. to promote pvpl, you would have a point, but gays leaders, publishers and artisans just don’t care. You climb out on limb to back the gay community, while gay leaders, intellectuals, artisans and patrons start up a buzz saw to cut the tree down.
Jinto: I don't expect you to ever agree, but I do expect you to stop using slippery slope fallacies and red herrings to justify yourself.
dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about. If I had a clue “what red hearing” or “what slippery slope” you were talking about I would respond. The ball’s in your court. What “red hearing” and what “slippery slope”?
dk: I’m happy to hear the nuclear family is not universal, but I said, “the nuclear family forms the universal archetype...“

Jinto: But that's perfectly irrelevant because Gay marriage does not necessarily even involve children
dk: Gay marriage dissolves the bonds that hold the nuclear family together, and the family archetype becomes the Xfamily archetype. To me, and a lot of people like me, everything familiar about civilization changes. I really don’t think you grasp the scope and magnitude of what I’ve said.

Jinto: In cases where it does involve children, these children are better off actually having a home than remaining in the state's foster care system (and don't tell me that that system shouldn't even exist in the first place if the "nuclear family" was working, because the fact is that the system does exist, and we live in reality)
dk: non sequitur, the xfamily archetype becomes the basis of society, you fundamentally changed all familiar relationships in society by changing the archetype. .

Jinto: Gay Marriage is a marital act. Two people coming together within the bonds of holy matrimony. There is no reason why the respective gender of the participants should make that any less valid
dk: non sequitur, in the nuclear family archetype marriages are consummated by an act of procreation, in the xfamily archetype acts of procreation become superfluous.

Jinto: Gay Marriage does not deconstruct any legal standing of families before the court. If the court is inclined to view family different because it can involve two people of similar sex, then perhaps that is indicitive of a problem with the court itself, since there is no logical necessity to dicriminate on the basis of relative gender.
dk: Sorry, the Census Bureau says many lesbians hide their sexual orientation, and perjure themselves in family court to take and keep custody from the father.

Jinto: In short, gay marriage and straight marriage are indeed compatable and there is no more reason to distinguish between the two than there is to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. The fact that conservatives will insist that the two aren't the same thing (for either marriage or evolution) is a reactionary response based on fear and not indicitive of any actual difference.
dk: Tell you what pops, if you want to teach your little boy and girl that MSM or WSW constitutes an act of procreative, you’re not only a liar but a fool. .But mark my words, the day PGM impose, by an act of law, this lie upon my children, is the day I start thinking about killing the enemy. Truth told, I can’t help it, that’s just how I am. I know you probably don’t understand this, but you need to understand for your sake and mine that there’s a lot of men like me. You and I don’t want go there, its a very bad place.
dk: Ok fine, scope and magnitude exist as scalars, context gives direction. I’m putting the scope and magnitude into context. Don’t turn family into an excuse to mess with kids, it is a very bad place to go, for all of us.
dk: I don’t live in Europe. I want my country safe for my family and kids. It has nothing to do with Europe because I don’t live in Europe. Gay marriage is a bad idea, because it takes us to a bad place beyond anyone’s control.
dk: Sorry Jinto but homosexuals can’t consummate their marriage with an act of procreation. gay marriage makes a mockery of family. There’s nothing you or I can do or say to change what it means to be a human being. I’m not going to lie about. You do what you want.
dk: I understand. For a decent person to commit themselves to a lie, they must dehumanize anyone that fails to go along with the charade. You want to hate me for the lie you’ve committed yourself. That’s why it feels good to call me a mindless bigot, that’s why the people call fetuses stds, and hitler called jews parasites. I know the drill, and I know the bad place it leads too, you don’t want go there with me.

Jinto: And where did I ever say anything about cancer?
dk: I hate cancer, because it killed my mother and grandfather. I could virtually rationalize any crime against a person I conceptualized as being cancerous. That’s how it works, for you, me and everybody else. I caution people about dehumanizing others, and try to avoid it myself for good reason.
dk: You said, “what you need do is remove from your brain whatever malfunctioning set of neurons...” People don’t undergo brain surgery to “change their mind”, but they do undergo brain surgery to remove a malignancy. What you meant was that people opposed to gay marriage are malignant and should be removed. If that’s not what you meant then you should apologize.
dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Jinto: P.P.S. - I'm still looking for a reason that the positive effects of allowing gay marriage in producing more stable families ready to adopt should be ignored.
dk: Whatever positive affects you’ve imagined are implausibility. Gay marriage literally treats the nuclear family with contempt and ridicule. Unless gays muster the character to reform Gay Culture the imaginary “gay stable family” has no substance. Since G&Ls deprive their children of a father and/or mother even your reason lacks plausibility.
dk: That’s no red herring. When a gay man copulates with a post pubescent kid he intends to make the kid a homosexual, the intent being consonant with the act. Suppose I’m the 12 kid that copulates with the gay man. My orgasms were absolutely real, and the experience bent to a homosexual orientation. As I matured I’d have to figure out what the experience meant. It a very substantial issue that there's no answer for, and lays a heavy burdon on PGMers.

yguy

Who are you to interfere with a mother's desire to exercise her reproductive rights by bearing her son's child?

And if there are ill effects from incestuous couplings that we know about because the experiment has been done, where has the experiment been done with regard to homosexual parenting, seeing how it is a novelty compared with incest?

And if we decide to enter this brave new world, and the experiment goes bad, will it be possible to fix it? After all, we're not talking about tweaking the ship's engine here, we're talking about modifying the hull below the waterline. If we modify the institution of marriage in a way that produces substantial numbers of children who are morally degenerate, and thus more prone to be enslaved, we'll eventually be sunk.

Possibly?? For crying out loud, it is what protects children from society's predators. If parents don't do it, the state will assume that authority. Is that what you want?

While it is technically true that her stint with the Big Creep is the only one on public record, I find it very difficult to believe he was the first.

Had I meant to make it sound like that, I'd have said it outright.

That's precisely the point. The child CAN'T, IMO, get proper rearing by someone who deliberately deprives them of the other. Such a minset is compelling evidence that the parent is predjudiced against the opposite sex. Is it really hard to imagine that a lesbian mom who took this route would unconsciously instill a disdain for masculinity in a boy?

tronvillain

Kimpatsu:
Ah, but polygamy and polyandry are not the same thing as "swinging." Besides, even then I suspect the potential for jealousy would still exist.

Salmon of Doubt

This seems to be to be an emotional statement with little to back it up. Beyond whos control? Yours? And anyway, why shouldn't Europe matter? Surely this "problem" that you seem to see in gay marriage applies to all people, even mere Europeans like me?


Ahh, so families require procreation otherwise it is a mockery? Tell that to the infertile couples. I'm sure they'll be happy to know that.


Pardon? Fetuses STDs? I have never heard anyone say that, ever. Where are you getting all this from?!


If I ever got married to another woman, it would be because I wanted to get married, not because I wanted to ridicule the idea of marriage. Anyone who wants to get married to another person obviously respects the ideals of monogamy, and therefore should be supported, no?

This is NOT about people having sex with kids! Stop bringing it up! No-one here is advocating sex with minors, or trying to force other people into being gay. So stop talking about it, as it it not relevant to this discussion. Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality.

dk, do you think it is better for a children to have 2 gay parents who love them and do the best they can for them, two straight parents who mistreat them, or no parents at all?

Moving on to yguy...
That is possibly the single most ridiculous statement I've heard so far. Gay marriage is not so hard to add. It still involves two people getting married to each other because they are in love. Gay parents do not necessarily produce kids who are morally degenerate, and I would demand your proof before you make accusations like that. And where's this crap about enslavement come from?!


Speaking as a lesbian here: Women do not become lesbians because they hate men. They simply feel sexually attracted towards other women. I have plenty of male friends, who I like just as much as my female friends. I have no disdain for masculinity, and would seriously hope I would never instill anything similar in any children. If I were to adopt a child in a lesbian relationship, I would ensure he grew up knowing plenty of other boys and male role models.

Incidentally, I see dk is less vocal on lesbians. Is this because there is no disease record to condemn us with? No biblical verses? Or that he feels no personal disgust at the idea?

Philosoft

I suppose I'm one of those who says, "Look, reproduction between individuals who share 50% of their genes increases the probability that the offspring will have genetic disorders by N%."

I'm not aware of any. What do you suggest we do in the absence of data? Accept your intuitive notions as fact?

Hold on. When did you demonstrate a difference between hetero- and homosexual morals?

I didn't say I wanted anything. I think the impetus for this sub-topic was your insistence that marriage had a non-scriptural origin. Marriage has obviously been usurped by the state for its own reasons, but I'm pretty sure it's originally a religious institution.

Okay, so how many does it take? Does a sitting president count more than Tom Green?

Yeah, I noticed you don't have many reservations talking about killing people for alleged social transgressions.

You do realize, do you not, that a universal statement such as this is falsifiable by a single counter-example?
Of course it's not hard to imagine. The question is, is it common? Per your continued egregious stereotyping, there are a number of mature, intellingent, sophisticated lesbians who post regularly on IIDB. I suggest you query some of them, to perhaps offset your overactive imagination.

yguy

No, "gay" parents don't necessarily produce kids who are more morally degenerate than the norm. There are certainly kids who would be better off with such parents than the parents they have.

The most striking example of this principle in action that I'm aware of is Holland, whose capital city is also the pedophilia capital of the world, and which is - perhaps not so paradoxically - in danger of falling under sharia law due to a huge influx of Islamic Arabs.

I believe you. What I doubt is whether you are completely aware of whatever level of hostility towards masculinity that you do have. This is not a problem peculiar to homosexuality, of course, as almost everyone has at one time or another hated someone of the opposite sex and repressed it. Why then, you will ask, the spotlight be cast on homosexuals? Because they make an issue of their sexuality by demanding acceptance. As a society, we can't condone things that erode our moral foundations. We have the right and the duty to determine what a legitimate marriage is; contrarily, homosexuals have no right to demand that their unions be deemed legitimate by society at large.

Kimpatsu

The potential might, but the practical result is very different.

yguy

How does this address the question of reproductive rights?

I did a 7 page thread on why assumptions are dangerous, and somehow nobody believes I meant it. Your assuming I am correct would be as silly as assuming I am not.

I'm not sure either of those terms have meaning, since there are obviously immoral heterosexuals. It's not a question of inculcated values so much as of the psychodynamics of parenting.

What I actually said was that its basis was independent of scripture, not that it was non-scriptural. IOW, the source of the scripture and the source of marriage are one and the same, just as the apple and the leaf spring from the same seed, though they are different things.

OK, let's stipulate for argument's sake that it is, from a sociologist's POV. What of it?

I don't know, but I suspect it took more than one for her to be brazenly slutty enough to flash her thong at the Prez.

I suppose it is, but we run into the problem of defining what proper rearing consists of, and by what standard we determine whether it has been given. If the kid grows up to be a Rhodes Scholar, does that falsify my claim? In light of Bill Clinton's treachery, I think not - but even beyond that, we can't think just one generation ahead. We need to produce children who are better than their parents, otherwise we will produce children who are worse - and that is unacceptable.

What would that prove? If there are any lesbians on this board who are even aware of any disdain they have of masculinity, will any admit it? Hardly.

And, BTW, I must object to your continued propensity to broaden my original provocative statement to include all homosexual parents, when I have repeatedly said it is those who deliberately conceive - or cause to be conceived - a child knowing it will be either motherless or fatherless that I have a problem with.

The Other Michael

First, would you cite your sources for your claim about Holland and pedophilia, and then relate that to your use of the term enslavement?

Second, jumping from the first part of your sentence to the second appears to be one of the largest non sequitors that I can recall seeing. What tortured point are you trying to make there?

cheers,
Michael

Kimpatsu

Yguy sounds like murdered Dutch right-winger Pym Fortune, making claims about the Netherlands (the most liberal country in the world!) falling under Sharia law.
It is typical of homophobes that they confuse homosexuality with paedophilia.