Religious Right Wing Bigots Still Obsessing About Marriage-Get a Life!

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.

Structure of a Logical Argument

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:

Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C

In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

Learn this and try again fool.

And many of your premises are false.


For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.


That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.




Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.

What !! I "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?

Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that, and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!! I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.

Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?


(Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)

What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege. Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!

Your position is not credible.


If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.

You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of what. ? Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something

Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.


YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.

Begging the question Logical Fallacy
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

You're SOOOOO lousy at this!!

I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.


My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.

Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.

Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.

Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.


(rare exceptions for humor, but what you did there was not funny)




My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.


And you are dishonest.

Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A bigot has been defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I don't subscribe to that. ....

I'm sure you don't. Liberals love to redefine words, so that they give themselves a pass.

Indeed. That's what this thread is about, after all—redefining “marriage” to mean something that it has never meant in all of human history.

He is all over the place. He makes claims about the foundation of marriage, and then is completely confused when I respond with references to when and how marriage, Western Marriage was developed.


Talking to a lib, is like trying to nail fog to a wall.

Talking to you is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how I move, you shit all over the board and strut around as though you won.

Enjoy your banter with your fuck buddy Bob. You deserve each other

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

3. I never stated that my opposition to gay marriage was because they do not reproduce. The voices in your head, are yours, and have nothing to do with me.

Oh really?? You didn’t post this quote in # 636??

Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.

The Evolution of Marriage

At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.

And....

Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.

If you didn’t say it yourself, it sure sounds like you are in agreement with the notoriously anti gay Heritage Foundation who most certainly believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman for the purpose of birthing and nurturing children

And in your post 652 you wrote-in response to my comments on the Heritage Foundation's position

No, it is not "inclusive" for gays. It is inclusive for people who have no planned (plans? ) to have children, even though it was developed with a lot of focus on children. And it has always been open to people who "adapt" no (non) traditional gender roles".

You had asked me what position being put forth by the Heritage Foundation I disagreed with and one of my problems with it was that it excludes gay people- and you agreed that it does. Then you stupidly go on to say that it does include those who do not plan to have children.

In addition, now your saying that you don't have a problem with marriage for people who do not adhere to traditional gender roles - while clinging to the issue of gender roles for justification to oppose same sex marriage!! As I said before, this more than anything exposed your bigotry and hypocrisy


I’m not finished with you . In post 698 you wrote regarding the Heritage piece:

One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces."

Are you still going to deny that at least part of your objection to same sex marriage is they can’t reproduce one on one as a man and a woman does? But instead of saying it directly, you try to disguise it by wrapping in all of this gibberish about tradition and the purpose of marriage. You are so fucking busted on yet another lie!

1. My point, as I have repeatedly explained to you, for many days now, over and over again, was to show that the development of the structure of Marriage, had strong reasons, based on biology and gender roles and the needs of society to see children cared for.


Thus your claim of "arbitrary" is false.



2. That an institution was created for a specific purpose, but is not limited to only those that successful fulfill that purpose, does not change the fact that the Institution was created for that purpose(s).


I can't see why you are having trouble with this idea. You certainly have not explained your issue with it very clearly. YOu seem to think that expressing your disbelief strongly, and repeatedly is an argument.


Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?




3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone.

Is this load of horseshit somehow supposed to be a response to the fact that I exposed you hypocrisy and bigotry by showing that you think that gays should not marry because they can't reproduce, but have not problems with straight couples who can't have a child naturally getting married.?

And you ask:

Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?

I told you -I never said that!! It is not something that I believe. You are creating a strawman and grossly misrepresenting me!

And you state:

3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone

Another logical fallacy. This time a false equivalency!! And stupid! Are you saying that gays being part of "the marriage club" do not serve that interest of marriage? Another admission of bigotry!

Dude. Just calling shit, "an admission of bigotry, is not an argument.


I seriously addressed your points, and you mostly just ranted.


AND, I know that, in your mind, you refuted everything I said, and will be referencing this later, as " I dealt with those issues," or " i proved you were a bigot" or some such shit.

 

[Crixus]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

But you are the only one who ever says anything about it. Maybe you got a problem with gay marriage?

 

[Correll]

And many of your premises are false.


For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.


That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.




Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.

What !! I "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?

Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that, and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!! I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.

Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?


(Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)

What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege. Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!

Your position is not credible.


If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.

You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.

I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.


If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?

 

[Correll]

Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.


YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.

Begging the question Logical Fallacy
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

You're SOOOOO lousy at this!!

I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.


My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.

Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.

Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.

Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.


(rare exceptions for humor, but what you did there was not funny)




My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.


And you are dishonest.

Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit

You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.


Your spin on it is noted.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist [sic] my time on your stupid shit

It's notable that you somehow think you can cover for the inherent wrongness of your position, by presuming to manipulate the rules by which your position is to be debated.

It doesn't work. Your position is simply wrong. It's wrong logically, it's wrong ethically, it's wrong morally—in every way that it is possible to be wrong, it is wrong. It doesn't matter by what rules you try to defend or debate it; it's still just as wrong.

About your only argument is to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot; ironic since everyone can see that you are by far, one of the very worst bigots on this entire forum; driven by a rather extreme form of the Dunning-Kruger effect that makes you perceive your intellectual and moral vapidity as some form of superiority.

This thread, alone, is now approaching a thousand posts, with you trying to argue that black is white, that down is up, that darkness is light, that evil is good; continuing to lose the argument as it is impossible to do otherwise; and yet in your hubris and in your madness, you imagine that you are winning.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What !! I "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?

Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that, and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!! I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.

Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?


(Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)

What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege. Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!

Your position is not credible.


If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.

You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.

I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.


If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?

You're not going to cut and past because there is nothing to cut and past to support your moronic allegation. This is just another diversion in a failed attempt to mask your incompetence and stupidity

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Begging the question Logical Fallacy
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

You're SOOOOO lousy at this!!

I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.


My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.

Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.

Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.

Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.


(rare exceptions for humor, but what you did there was not funny)




My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.


And you are dishonest.

Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit

You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.


Your spin on it is noted.

YOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.

 

[Correll]

Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?


(Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)

What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege. Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!

Your position is not credible.


If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.

You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.

I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.


If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?

You're not going to cut and past because there is nothing to cut and past to support your moronic allegation. This is just another diversion in a failed attempt to mask your incompetence and stupidity

I'm not going to cut and paste, because I am not interesting in playing gotcha games.


You claim that was not your intended point. Fine. I take you at your word.


So, what was your intended point? (in repeatedly bringing up childless married couples)

 

[Correll]

I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.


My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.

Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.

Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.

Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.


(rare exceptions for humor, but what you did there was not funny)




My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.


And you are dishonest.

Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit

You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.


Your spin on it is noted.

YOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.

Well, I have my skepticism, and I can point to the mass hysteria that is often coming out of the universities on other issues.

That is not "nothing".


Not sure why you are so focused on this. If you are really sure that they can, it would make more sense for you to present the details of the studies you cited and defend them.



Course, digging into the details of the studies, is a risky business. If I'm right....



SO, your tactic of just ranting, and making personal attacks, makes sense, if at some level, you agree with me about liberals and "science".

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Most Liberals are low class amoral people.
They want to force their backwards culture on to mainstream society.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege. Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!

Your position is not credible.


If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.

You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.

I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.


If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?

You're not going to cut and past because there is nothing to cut and past to support your moronic allegation. This is just another diversion in a failed attempt to mask your incompetence and stupidity

I'm not going to cut and paste, because I am not interesting in playing gotcha games.


You claim that was not your intended point. Fine. I take you at your word.


So, what was your intended point? (in repeatedly bringing up childless married couples)

My point, which I think that you got -but are to dishonest to admit- was to expose your hypocrisy . You have been blathering about how a man and a women making babies together in central to marriage. The was the point of the Heritage Foundation screed that you posted and endorsed. But when it comes to heterosexual couples who do not or cannot have children, you have no problem with them getting married. You promote a double standard for straights and gays

 

[Correll]

Your position is not credible.


If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.

You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.

I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.


If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?

You're not going to cut and past because there is nothing to cut and past to support your moronic allegation. This is just another diversion in a failed attempt to mask your incompetence and stupidity

I'm not going to cut and paste, because I am not interesting in playing gotcha games.


You claim that was not your intended point. Fine. I take you at your word.


So, what was your intended point? (in repeatedly bringing up childless married couples)

My point, which I think that you got -but are to dishonest to admit- was to expose your hypocrisy . You have been blathering about how a man and a women making babies together in central to marriage. The was the point of the Heritage Foundation screed that you posted and endorsed. But when it comes to heterosexual couples who do not or cannot have children, you have no problem with them getting married. You promote a double standard for straights and gays

Why are you unable to accurately address what I actually say?


1. I said that Marriage is about getting the Father to stay and provide.

2. That that is what Marriage is about, does not require that every married couple have children. Just how ignorant of history are you pretending to be?


You are trying to take a founding idea, and pretend that it is a set of regulations, and then claim any imagined violation, is somehow invalidating the founding idea.



I have netflix for my family. That sometimes, visitors watch it too, does not challenge the fact that I got netflix and pay for it, for my family.


Your logic, has no logic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.

I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.


If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?

You're not going to cut and past because there is nothing to cut and past to support your moronic allegation. This is just another diversion in a failed attempt to mask your incompetence and stupidity

I'm not going to cut and paste, because I am not interesting in playing gotcha games.


You claim that was not your intended point. Fine. I take you at your word.


So, what was your intended point? (in repeatedly bringing up childless married couples)

My point, which I think that you got -but are to dishonest to admit- was to expose your hypocrisy . You have been blathering about how a man and a women making babies together in central to marriage. The was the point of the Heritage Foundation screed that you posted and endorsed. But when it comes to heterosexual couples who do not or cannot have children, you have no problem with them getting married. You promote a double standard for straights and gays

Why are you unable to accurately address what I actually say?


1. I said that Marriage is about getting the Father to stay and provide.

2. That that is what Marriage is about, does not require that every married couple have children. Just how ignorant of history are you pretending to be?


You are trying to take a founding idea, and pretend that it is a set of regulations, and then claim any imagined violation, is somehow invalidating the founding idea.



I have netflix for my family. That sometimes, visitors watch it too, does not challenge the fact that I got netflix and pay for it, for my family.


Your logic, has no logic.

Cut the crap already ! It's really very simple. You endorsed the idea that same sex couples should not be able to marry because they don't reproduce, but give opposite sex coupes who can't reproduce a pass when it comes to that. You have been exposed for the bigot and hypocrite that you are and you can't squirm out of it.

Now I expect that you will fall back on your gender role horseshit which represents yet another disconnect between the standards that you apply to gay vs. straight couples.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.

Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.

Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.


(rare exceptions for humor, but what you did there was not funny)




My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.


And you are dishonest.

Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit

You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.


Your spin on it is noted.

YOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.

Well, I have my skepticism, and I can point to the mass hysteria that is often coming out of the universities on other issues.

That is not "nothing".


Not sure why you are so focused on this. If you are really sure that they can, it would make more sense for you to present the details of the studies you cited and defend them.



Course, digging into the details of the studies, is a risky business. If I'm right....



SO, your tactic of just ranting, and making personal attacks, makes sense, if at some level, you agree with me about liberals and "science".

This is truly a pathetic attempt to win this argument which you started by "doubting" that same sex couples could nurture children as hetero couples do. That is not an attack -that is an observation

I'm willing to bet that you did not bother to read the study that I previously posted, did you. I think that you are afraid to learn anything, or perhaps unable to. There were plenty of details there but you did not address any of them or even attempt to refute the findings

Here is more - complete with links and references. I don't have to defend them ,they speak for themselves. What do you have??

1. The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:

An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along. World’s Largest Study Of Same-Sex Parenting Finds That Children Are Thriving

Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.

"It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the Journal of Marriage and Family. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm


o 1997-APR: Three 3 recent studies from the US, Britain and the Netherlands were presented at the national meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development during 1997-APR .

Charlotte Patterson, a research psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of one of the new studies, said "When you look at kids with standard psychological assessments, you can't tell who has a lesbian parent and who has a heterosexual parent...That's really the main finding from these studies." She agreed that the studies to date are relatively few and open to criticism.

There may be indications that children benefit from having two lesbian parents. Fiona Tasker of Birkbeck College in the Netherlands, "...found that the non-biological lesbian parent was usually more involved with the children than are the fathers of heterosexual couples." There is also anecdotal evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents tend to be less prejudiced.

o 1999-APR: Researcher Fiona Tasker at Birkbeck College, UK, published an article in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. A summary reads: "There are an increasing number of children who are being brought up in lesbian-led families. Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families. In other respects there are important distinctions, such as different types of family forms and the impact of social stigma on the family, that may influence how clinicians approach therapeutic work with children in lesbian mother families." 14

o 2001-APR: Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the American Sociological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. 1 They :

§ Discussed "...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date."

§ Examined 21 studies which "almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.

Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.

Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.


(rare exceptions for humor, but what you did there was not funny)




My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.


And you are dishonest.

Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit

You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.


Your spin on it is noted.

YOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.

Well, I have my skepticism, and I can point to the mass hysteria that is often coming out of the universities on other issues.

That is not "nothing".


Not sure why you are so focused on this. If you are really sure that they can, it would make more sense for you to present the details of the studies you cited and defend them.



Course, digging into the details of the studies, is a risky business. If I'm right....



SO, your tactic of just ranting, and making personal attacks, makes sense, if at some level, you agree with me about liberals and "science".

New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents

by David Perry

Contributor

Monday Jul 29, 2013

A recently released study by the Williams Institute confirms there is no difference in the behavioral outcomes of adopted children raised in same-sex households when compared to those raised by heterosexual couples.

"Parents’ sexual orientation is not related to children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes," confirms Williams Visiting Scholar Abbie Goldberg, who co-authored the study with JuliAnna Z. Smith of the University of Massachusetts. A national think tank at University of California, Los Angeles Law, the Williams Institute conducts independent research relating to sexual orientation, gender identity law, and public policy.

The study, "Predictors of Psychological Adjustment in Early Placed Adopted Children With Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Parents," analyzed 120 two-parent adoptive families, comprising of 40 same-sex female couples, 35 same-sex male, and 45 different-sex couples, looking at aspects of the pre- and post-adoptive developments of the children.

For all couples, the child was under 1.5 years of age, and was the first and only child adopted. The findings are consistent with an emerging body of research showing that parents’ sexual orientation are not related to children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes, and the Williams Institute study is unique in that it is longitudinal - i.e. follows couples over time - and includes adopted children, as well as includes three types of parents: gay, lesbian, and heterosexual (Goldberg explains how past same-sex parent studies tended to focus on lesbian parents).

 

[Correll]

I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.


If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?

You're not going to cut and past because there is nothing to cut and past to support your moronic allegation. This is just another diversion in a failed attempt to mask your incompetence and stupidity

I'm not going to cut and paste, because I am not interesting in playing gotcha games.


You claim that was not your intended point. Fine. I take you at your word.


So, what was your intended point? (in repeatedly bringing up childless married couples)

My point, which I think that you got -but are to dishonest to admit- was to expose your hypocrisy . You have been blathering about how a man and a women making babies together in central to marriage. The was the point of the Heritage Foundation screed that you posted and endorsed. But when it comes to heterosexual couples who do not or cannot have children, you have no problem with them getting married. You promote a double standard for straights and gays

Why are you unable to accurately address what I actually say?


1. I said that Marriage is about getting the Father to stay and provide.

2. That that is what Marriage is about, does not require that every married couple have children. Just how ignorant of history are you pretending to be?


You are trying to take a founding idea, and pretend that it is a set of regulations, and then claim any imagined violation, is somehow invalidating the founding idea.



I have netflix for my family. That sometimes, visitors watch it too, does not challenge the fact that I got netflix and pay for it, for my family.


Your logic, has no logic.

Cut the crap already ! It's really very simple. You endorsed the idea that same sex couples should not be able to marry because they don't reproduce, but give opposite sex coupes who can't reproduce a pass when it comes to that. You have been exposed for the bigot and hypocrite that you are and you can't squirm out of it.

Now I expect that you will fall back on your gender role horseshit which represents yet another disconnect between the standards that you apply to gay vs. straight couples.

I respect that you disagree with me. I don't respect that you will not honestly state what my position is, and you insist on misrepresenting it, over and over again.


Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.


You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.


I didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.


Upon that misrepresentation of my position, you then build, your "argument" and declare yourself the "winner" and call me all sorts of names.


But it is all an imbecilic lie.


KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF.

 

[Correll]

Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.


(rare exceptions for humor, but what you did there was not funny)




My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.


And you are dishonest.

Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit

You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.


Your spin on it is noted.

YOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.

Well, I have my skepticism, and I can point to the mass hysteria that is often coming out of the universities on other issues.

That is not "nothing".


Not sure why you are so focused on this. If you are really sure that they can, it would make more sense for you to present the details of the studies you cited and defend them.



Course, digging into the details of the studies, is a risky business. If I'm right....



SO, your tactic of just ranting, and making personal attacks, makes sense, if at some level, you agree with me about liberals and "science".

This is truly a pathetic attempt to win this argument which you started by "doubting" that same sex couples could nurture children as hetero couples do. That is not an attack -that is an observation

I'm willing to bet that you did not bother to read the study that I previously posted, did you. I think that you are afraid to learn anything, or perhaps unable to. There were plenty of details there but you did not address any of them or even attempt to refute the findings
......"

No, by the time we got to this point, I'm more about just getting you to be clear about what my and your position is.


Why argue about supporting facts, when we can't even agree about what our positions are?


There is no point.