yguy

You're a liar.

keyser_soze

You are assuming he is using his OWN observations, which would make your's just as valid. He's not. He's using the observation of what everyone else seems to see, in essence, a LOT of opinions +his own. Whereas, you are just pulling a statement out of your uptight ass.

keyser_soze

Plus, it's not like it takes a lot of intelligence to not only see where DK is getting his arguments, but the amount of fallacious argument used to support his ideas. So, he's OBVIOUSLY committing the intellectual crime accused of him.

dk

Jinto: What it means is that you misread the post. He asks you to provide some evidence of your assertation, admonishes you against providing weak evidence (a thing that many of us are tired of), and then provides an extended commentary on your pattern of thinking. He does not "in his first breath claims to easily refute the numbers I've put up, then in the next breath claims I haven't put up any numbers."
dk: How many times must I repost the same references, “Nearly 6 of 10 children living with a single mother were near of below the poverty line. About 45% of divorced mothers and 69% of never married mothers lived near or below the poverty line.” ----- (Children with Single Parents -how they fare). In -1970, 12%- verses -1995, 30%- of children lived in a home with 1 or more parents missing. ----- (Census Brief: Americas Children at Risk ). keyser_soze begins his post by saying, “Please do provide some numbers to back this up….” keyser meant I hadn’t supported my assertion with numbers, and he was wrong. I thought I was almost generous with my response. It was my hope that keyser would review the threat and respond substantively, fat chance.

Jinto: In fact, the first half of that sentence directly contradicts the tense of his post. I don't understand what it is with you - you have this annoying habit of not answering the question (I refer you to your response to FOIL, where FOIL repeatedly asks you about your own beliefs about what should be the guiding principles behind family court rulings and you respond with commentary on what actually happened, without revealing your alternative). It's something that I've seen a lot, and frankly, one of the reasons why I stopped debating you.
dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about. I tried very hard to explain to FOIL why I had a problem with many of his questions. I asked him several times not to ask two questions in the same paragraph. I pointed out that he sometimes begged the question. I did answer some personal questions.
That said, it may seem like weak evidence…going from 12% to 30% rate of single parent home over 30 years, but this posits an astounding number quite damning of the War on Poverty. Single mothers clearly fare poorly economically where 6 of 10 survive on the poverty line. The Moynihan Report provided that strongest possible sociological evidence that social engineering destroyed the Black family as an unintended consequence. As for the underlying psychological factors offered, I found them speculative but generally consistent with the historical record. There’s just no way to put happy face on these numbers Jinto. This is what happens when politics and science collide, its called tragedy.

Jinto: What I object to specifically in your post here, is your implication (which you have repeated on numerous occasions) that because we are frustrated with your posts that it must be because they have merit. This is fallacious, and quite frankly insulting, as it implies that we should react emotionlessly to any amount of bullshit, no matter how annoying or ill-contrived, unless it has merit, and that being reasonably frustrated at someone who doesn't respond to logic constitutes a regognition of the correctness of their argument, which is baloney.
dk: No, I’m frustrated because nobody on this threat has addressed the implications, all bullshit aside.

Jinto: By the way, that would explain why you never really seem to really grasp the issue: we've been debating whether or not gay marriage ought to be made legal for the last 22 pages. Apparently, you've been debating something completely different. This would explain why there has been so little effective comunication here.
dk: It appears to me the PGM (Pro Gay Marriage) crowd runs in a pack blind to broad legal and sociological implications to play a game of political correctness.

keyser_soze

No, I think that most people just fall into the WSIGAFWTDIP(why should I give a fuck what they do in private), except for a bunch of morality police right wingers, who seem to have a problem with any change in our culture. Newsbreak, our culture was never ours in the first place. We are a melting pot, get used to it. No, it's not going to stay in leave it to beaver land, because we never were there in the first place. This is the whole reason I was getting an atlas shrugged vibe off of you, the whole "let's put laws and restrictions on anything we can" mentality just leads to trouble. Your whole basis for argument is that you think gay marriage is a slippery slope. Too damn bad. Have you ever noticed that the people who cry foul about slippery slope arguments are the nutjobs? NRA, yeah, cause gun restrictions have so led to a nazi regime in the last 35 years....yep, I see the thugs in the streets now. For nearly half a century they've been whining about the same crap, but no gestapo ever comes into existance. The pro-birthers whine about every will be getting abortions if they allow it. Has it happened? No. Just look at your argument logically, then find other arguments that it resembles, and you'll quickly find out why we think you're off your loop! You spout the same crap that the fundies, the racists, the survivalists, peta, and all the rest of the fringe dwellers spew out daily. Again, don't pray in my school(forum) and I won't think in your church.

dk

This contains nothing, absolutely nothing that has anything to do with SSM.

dk

The sustentative case against SSM (Same Sex Marriage).

To summarize the long and arduous thread, there are 3 basic arguments put forward by proponents of SSM. The first argument follows due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th Amendment, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” SSM is therefore a protected liberty under the 14th Amendment. The Second argument asserts that SSM will miraculously make , “every child a wanted child” by providing a nirvana of loving stable homes amongst newly wed SSM couples. The Third argument plays the sympathy card to assert SSM loving couples have been forced to live closeted lives on the fringes of society by the same Christian fanatics that institutionalized slavery, racism and sexism under religious dogma that civilization has simply outgrown.

The first argument for SSM has been found unsubstantial. I’ve demonstrated there is no due process and constitutional basis for SSM. 1) there is no historical basis for SSM, because the 14th Amendment only applies to core liberties, not general musing elevated by penumbra privacy rights found in the shadows of constitutional text. 2) All three cases upholding SSM marriage type unions have been found on the bases of provisions found in State Constitutions by State Courts that have been roundly dismissed by the US Supreme Court.

The second argument for SSM has been found unsubstantial. The at risk status accorded children raised in single parent homes indicates children need the examples of a father and mother. The Moynihan Report clearly showed the dangers social engineering poses to children documenting the disintegration of the black family. Studies that claim to show children raised by same sex parents have been roundly criticized in peer reviews and run against the grain of more substantive studies. SSM has broad and far reaching impacts upon family law, that affects all families.

The third argument for SSM has been found unsubstantial. Gay culture is laden with promiscuous values and pornographic landscapes that pose a substantive threat to children in the public square. The rate of HIV+ serotonin status, suicide, IDU, and other risky behaviors observed amongst kids in the trust of gays mentors has become unacceptable over the last decade. These so called support programs have been promulgated through public schools and local communities in hopes of providing support not expanding the killing ground. It was not and is not my intent to belittle the suffering within the gay community. The evidence is as stark as it is tragic. The trustees and leaders of these programs have betrayed the public trust, they use public schools, community services and education to introduce vulnerable youth to gay culture which promulgates values that put kids in harms way. My liberty rights end where the freedom rights of others begin, and everybody has an obligation to make the public square accessible and safe for youth and families.

I don’t really want to continue this thread but I thought I'd offer a summary. I didn’t mention the ad hominem chit chat that dominated the thread because none of it has any substance, much less relevance to the issue of SSM.

keyser_soze

What's wrong DK, nobody posted in your pet topic for two days so you had to resurrect it? Hint, everybody is tired of your mental gymnastics, and your inability to a)post any research, b)read any research presented, c)have a non-bigoted thought.

Get over it, this thread needs to die anyway...don't know why you just couldn't let it go. Unless you're one of those people that thinks they JUST HAVE to have the last word in. Such people often think that just because everyone else runs out of patience with them that they have won the argument. So, go ahead and reply to this, so you can have the last word, and let it die.

keyser_soze

BTW, it didn't need a summary, we KNOW what went on.:banghead:

dk

I'll take this ad hominem chit chat to indicate your bitter acceptance and emotional repugnance.