yguy

It certainly is. No way in the world can you compare race with family stability in terms of influence on the ability to prosper in a free society. To do so is utterly, insanely preposterous on its face. What you're really doing here is ascribing to me the error of equating correlation with causation because of the superficial similarity between the two correlations. You can't properly do that because we have plenty of reason to believe that stable family structures produce better character in children, which enables them to achieve. We have no reason to believe that about race.

Clutch

Getting closer...

Of course if "we" have these reasons, "we" should produce them. But notice that dk was attempting to argue for this very conclusion by offering the statistical correlation. Now you're saying (a) that the correlation itself doesn't establish the connection; and (b) there's a bunch of other reasons that do so. Well, (a) is of course what I've showed a few times now. And (b) is something you have asserted but not argued for.

yguy

Look in the mirror and repeat after me: "Stable families are not a causative factor in children's ability to prosper in society."

Sound idiotic? I thought so.

Clutch

If you knew it sounded idiotic to substitute 'stable' for 'nuclear', why did you do it? I agree that it's an idiotic change of topic, though.

Yet another missing argument, now: that nuclear = stable. Let me guess; the argument for this is a statistical correlation that's confounded 100 times over, but which turns out not really to be the argument after all... Wash, rinse, repeat, and never an actual argument in sight.

yguy

Because I am aware of the prejudices of my audience.

Again, the experiment has been done. The greatest country on the planet got to be that way with the nuclear family as an integral component - not to mention that the validity of the 10 C's was substantially unchallenged for the first hundred years or so.

IOW, the evidence is plain, but way too obvious for worshippers at the altar of empiricism like you to be able to understand.

Jinto

Let's see: you are either too lazy or too stupid to go back one post and see what you failed to respond to, and now you expect ME to go do your work for you? God, you're insensitive. Again: You have illustrated that you are unable to find any part of social science, sex education or multicultural ethics that actually promotes promiscuity. Even planned parenthood (your deamon, not mine) will tell you first and foremost that the only 100% effective protection against pregnancy and STDs is abstinence. Further, you have yet to establish the existence of a "gay marketing program," admitted that so called "Gay cultrue" does not describe the majority of gay people, and frankly made an ass out of yourself by continuously claiming to have established things that you have merely asserted To which you responded:
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 In other words, you concede the point. 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.

PP's performance record is not relevant to this point. I said that they do not advocate promiscuity, and you failed to refute that, instead bringing up this bullshit which is a fucking red herring. Of course, everyone else already figured that out. But you just love to bring up irrelevant points and ignore the obvious. In fact, right from the beginning you ignored this incredibly OBVIOUS fact.

even when you talk out of the other side of your face, two face. is most certainly an ad hominem, baka.

Thus the actions of one cannot be generalized to the other, which means that you admit that your whole fucking argument is based on a converse accident fallacy.

Gay culture (which Dr. Rick refuted the existence of, you might want to check that out when you decide to debate honestly) cannot be generalized to gay people, any more than the actions of the U.S. Government can be generalized to the U.S. public. The general public is generally honest, the government hasn't been honest since... well ever.

Of course not, you're not actually bothering to read it.

People, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, and the context is the fact that more children are in need of adoption than there are families willing to adopt. WHICH HAS BEEN MY POINT, WHICH YOU HAVE IGNORED FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THIS DEBATE, INSTEAD SUBSTITUTING FUCKING RED HERRINGS ABOUT THE ADOPTION SYSTEM ITSELF IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY IGNORING THIS ONE SIMPLE FACT. 10:1 that you don't bother to read that either, and instead ignore the point and criticize me for using all caps.

You just can't look at the point, can you? What part of There are more kids in need of adoption than there are families to adopt them do you not understand?

That's not what you said, flyboy. I submit, empathy hemorrhages from the guilt people feel when they commit themselves to a lie. You just can't admit that you are wrong, can you?

Where, pray tell, does this alleged misrepresentation occur?

No, you didn't. In fact, all you said is, essentially "Well if the supreme court tells state legislators to stop violating the 14th amendment, then I'll just whine that they don't have that right, even though the constitution specifically grants them that right." Essentially.

I did. You asked what a red herring was, I posted a link to a website answering your question, and you said "Read what?." My assumption was that you were too stupid to click on the hyperlink.

I have one, and mine actually works. If the only thing you can do is make unsupported assertations and ad hominems in response to actual evidence, then perhaps you should reconsider your position. And by the way, since you have demonstrated a habit of ignoring your own ad hominems, it's the GET A BRAIN comment that is an ad hominem.

Strawman. I said that it will not result in the domino effect that you seem to be postulating without support for your assertation. If the only thing you can do in response to my points is make strawmen out of them, then perhaps you should concede the debate.

Really? And just where is lesbian marriage recognized in the law, I'd like to see this.

No, you just blindly assert "but gay marriage has to be different, even though it follows the same exact form of a union of two people in holy matrimony." Gay marriage also takes exactly the same form as the so-called "nuclear family" by any reasonable definition. The problem is that you have defined "nuclear family" to mean "any marital act except marriage of two people of the same sex." which is NOT a reasonable definition. Also, I'd like you to answer a couple of questions:

What do you mean when you say "Interracial marriage was colloquial, not universal?" I can't figure that one out.

Inter-species? Where the hell did that come from?

I am proposing a change. You are resisting it for no other reason than that it has never been done before, and therefore your paranoia leads you to believe that everything in civilization will collapse if we do things differently, never mind that that "logic" has never been valid, and that the premises aren't even true. That is the precise fear of change that I am talking about, and you FUCKING know it.

You don't know what humanity is? And you can't grasp the point that the argument is INVALID? And you can't grasp inductively that not only is it invalid, it has been spectacularly unsuccessful? And you can't draw the logical and OBVIOUS conclusion from that? Please. The fact is that things should NEVER be rejected simply because they propose to do things differently than the way things have always been done. If humans followed your logic, we'd still be living in hunter-gatherer societies. In fact, I can hear the ancients speak: "The hunter-getherer tribe has formed the archetype of all civilization, and civilization will collapse if we ever settle down rather than following the herds."

And again: inter-species? Where the fuck did this come from?

What astonishes me is the number of fallacious statements you packed into a single paragraph Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

You say that you feel gay marriage is a mockery of non-gay marriage because it fails to produce children, yet do not condemn non-gay marriages which fail to produce children as a mockery of marriage. Clearly, it is not whether or not children are produced that leads to your condmnation.

And you can quote the rest of that sentece... oops, then it would reveal plainly that you aren't making sense. Well guess what? You still aren't making sense.

In other words, you cannot imagine a legitimate gay marriage. Experiment complete. My hypothesis is confirmed.

Non-sequitur. I believe that it won't result in dissolving your family, especially considering that it is derived directly from it. And how is it that you can equate "allowing gay people to marry" and "destroying the nuclear family, and/or having any effect whatsoever on your family?" That's like saying that if you step on a crack you'll break your mother's back.

WHAT threat to civilization? Again, your paranoia is obvious, if you want a threat to civilization you need look no farther than your local indoctrination facility a.k.a. baptist church, and see peole who actually are praying on innocent kids to spread their ideology, who actually are trying to force people into agreeing with them by circumventing the courts, whose power is already so prevalent that they have forced the government to print their ideology on your fucking money, and who are trying to outlaw or dilute the archetype that alowed our society to claw its way out of the dark ages: science. But you'll ignore this and say "oh, but we can't allow people to marry people of the same sex, because then everything changes." What will it change? People will still be allowed to marry peole of the opposite sex, people will still have the same family structure, and frankly, I don't see how legally recognizing gay marriage will do ANYTHING except maybe give gay people a chance to be with the people that they love. And that you would kill to prevent people from doing something that poses NO concievable threat to you, is an OBVIOUS sign of paranoia.

Your conspiracy theories don't even make sense. No one is killing anyone over this, except you.

In other words, you're letting your emotions allow you to dehumanize the enemy. You implied it earlier: you can dehumanize anyone by viewing them as a cancer, and that's exactly what you have done with gay people isn't it?

And you're not qualified to tell me what gays do or do not want, because you're not one of them and you have already demonstrated that you have no empathy.

I am neither familiar with Kinsey, nor do I wish to be. And you are the one who said I can’t understand homosexuality anymore than I can understand someone that sexually abuses a child. You made the analogy, now you fucking deal with it.

Hypothetical? It's been legal in the Netherlands since April 1, 2001 (and no, it wasn't an april fools joke). You will notice the distinct lack of the collapse of civilization. I'm just asking us to apply the same principle here. And frankly, your hypothetical situation has no grounding in reality.

I don't care if it concerns invisible pink unicorns, the fact that you would kill over the passing of a simple law is evidence enough of your paranoia.

In conclusion, dk has shown that he is unable to respond to any of my arguments and is being deliberately dense in order to avoid conceding the debate. You have relied on fallacies of misdirection, ad hominem, false generalizations, argument from emotion, argument from force, strawmen, slippery slope, tu quoque and the good old standby: the invincible wall of willful ignorance. Frankly, unless you can actually formulate a response without using any of these fallacies, I really don't see the point in continuing debate. Good fucking luck.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Jinto

The ten commandments are hardly a good guide to life, unless you are referring to the ten commandments of Solon.

And I wasn't aware that Japan had the nuclear family as an integral component.

Kimpatsu

The child is not "deprived of a father". The child has two parents, same as everyone else. Gay marriage is just like any other marriage: a stable union between two loving people. If you reject gay marriage, what else do you reject? Interracial marriage? Marriage between people of different religious faiths? A marriage between a Rupublican and a Democrat? Please enlighten us.

Kimpatsu

I'm sure the French would be delighted to hear you refer to them as the greatest country on the planet.

yguy

I wasn't aware that Japan was the spearhead of the Allied forces which saved Europe from the ravages of the Third Reich; and that, having achieved unquestioned military dominance, it refrained from doing to its enemies what they would have done to it.