CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Is that because the studies done may actually disagree with you? No, I explained why earlier. Read back.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 No, I explained why earlier. Read back.The studies are flaky. Got it. Therefore, no study from either camp, no matter how "objective" they claim, is flaky and not really worth consideration. Got that also. But examination of history in a general is not a sufficient argument or evidence either because there are much more factors to consider.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) The studies are flaky.No that is not the reason I gave. Its because of compromise, confusion and -- argument by proxy -- all of which I find is useless. Edited March 30, 2013 by CASteinman
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 No that is not the reason I gave. Its because of compromise, confusion and -- argument by proxy -- all of which I find is useless.Fine. Then you don't have an evidentiary argument to justify without it being tested. Anything less is worthless.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) Fine. Then you don't have an evidentiary argument to justify without it being tested. Anything less is worthless.I don't know what you are talking about. Edited March 30, 2013 by CASteinman
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Is this a court of law? I just don't want to go back and forth with googled studies. Its a waste of time. You can google the stuff as well as I can.Again, that's fine. But just because you believe conservatively about families and relationships and cite religious persons or writings is insufficient. That is hearsay. Therefore, you still don't have an argument.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Is this a court of law?You're evading. Typical of a non-argument position.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) You're evading. Typical of a non-argument position.This is an example of why I don't want to argue studies.http://www.foxnews.c...3,29901,00.htmlIf I am evading.. its not evidence I am evading but an endless droning, useless back and forth of one vs the other.There are a lot of screwed up studies out there -- its the nature of this kind of study. But the ones that say Same Sex Parents are better --- are more screwed up than most. However, that's just going to result in more back and forth. Would you like me to go out, get google, find the articles going back and forth .. both sides and so we can just get over this? Cause that's all it is going to be. Nonsensical googling and posting studies. Edited March 30, 2013 by CASteinman 1
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 This is an example of why I don't want to argue studies.http://www.foxnews.c...3,29901,00.htmlIf I am evading.. its not evidence I am evading but an endless droning, useless back and forth of one vs the other.There's an even bigger problem...you used Fox News. Why didn't you just use National Enquirer?The Fox article was worthless.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 There's an even bigger problem...you used Fox News. Why didn't you just use National Enquirer?The Fox article was worthless.Look you wanted something, I gave it to you, now you argue about the source. I could have just gotten someone else's source. (or do you really think that Fox News is the only one who covered this?) This is exactly what I was talking about. Its not a discussion. Its just so much twisting about the sources. That's useless. And what you just did is EXACTLY why I did not want to get into going back and forth with studies. You will always object to the source or the study or what have you. 1
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Look you wanted something, I gave it to you, now you argue about the source. I could have just gotten someone else's source. (or do you really think that Fox News is the only one who covered this?) This is exactly what I was talking about. Its not a discussion. Its just so much twisting about the sources. That's useless. And what you just did is EXACTLY why I did not want to get into going back and forth with studies. You will always object to the source or the study or what have you. I criticized the source because its unreliable. If you want to look at the studies then you need to look at who did the study. Go straight to the actual source and not a source reporting on that source.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 In the end, Steinman, you still don't have an argument to support your position.
Ron Beron Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Myth #6: Allowing SSM in California adversely affects either you or me.And 1970's feminism and abortion has had zero affect today? Small pebbles make big ripples. 2
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I criticized the source because its unreliable. If you want to look at the studies then you need to look at who did the study. Go straight to the actual source and not a source reporting on that source.Everything will be unreliable. How about this:http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/06/gay_parents_are_they_really_no_different_.htmlThe question is not whether you will dismiss this... it is only how. Will you declare it unreliable? Contested? What will you do?This is an all nighter of me running off to get things and you saying "No that's not good enough". 1
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) In the end, Steinman, you still don't have an argument to support your position.Wrong. I have one. I just don't want to play "go find a rock" with you.http://www.randomaccesshumor.com/bestrah/giverock.php Edited March 30, 2013 by CASteinman
Ron Beron Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 In the end, Steinman, you still don't have an argument to support your position.Similar to global change studies there are those scientists who argue that there are problems and those who argue that there aren't. Unfortunately many reports, pro or con, are skewed so politically as to resemble any truth. The bottom line I have is that, all things being equal it is better to raise a child in two sex loving family than a same sex family, but given the absence of the former than SS couples is better than molding away in foster or orphanage care. 1
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I'd rather a child be raised in a home with a loving family, stability and comfort. Same sex couple or opposite sex couple aside, as long as that child is given the opportunity to know love and pass the love and learnings on to the next generation then that's good enough for me.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) One of the problems that often remains unspoken is the transience of homosexual relationships. (This is another potential avenue of marriage being injured as an institution -- beyond what heterosexuals have already done). http://www.frc.org/i...m/IS04C02_3.gifTwo very large studies, one in 1978 and the other in 1997 indicate that the relationships are fleeting and frequent -- with the majority of gay men having had between 100 and 500 partners.In my opinion, this is not a good environment to put children in and is also not the basis of good marriage policy for our country.But really, there needs to be a new feeling about marriage all around. Marriage needs to be taken far more seriously and our society needs to value it more. We have gotten pretty far away from that and it hurts us as a country. I don't know what we can do to fix it. Edited March 30, 2013 by CASteinman 1
Shanky82 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Again, apologies. I more specifically assumed that you wanted government to recognize families according to your preferred ideals. Thankfully, marriage ain't about gender or procreation.Huh?
Shanky82 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Preferred according to whom? Certainly not the American majority. Americans are better and smarter than that.But I thought that a majority of Americans believe ssm okay...
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Huh?Was I not clear in my post about something?
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 But I thought that a majority of Americans believe ssm okay...You're not keeping up. Steinman, approved of government regulated "Preferred Family Units". I said that the American majority iisn't ddumb enough to go along with something like that.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 One of the problems that often remains unspoken is the transience of homosexual relationships. (This is another potential avenue of marriage being injured as an institution -- beyond what heterosexuals have already done). http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_3.gifTwo very large studies, one in 1978 and the other in 1997 indicate that the relationships are fleeting and frequent -- with the majority of gay men having had between 100 and 500 partners.In my opinion, this is not a good environment to put children in and is also not the basis of good marriage policy for our country.But really, there needs to be a new feeling about marriage all around. Marriage needs to be taken far more seriously and our society needs to value it more. We have gotten pretty far away from that as and it hurts us as a country. I don't know what we can do to fix it. I'd like to see the full documentation, audio and video used to produce this stuff. I'm not asking for the impossible. I just wanna make sure there isn't any intentional misrepresentation to satisfy a complicated bias.
Shanky82 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Was I not clear in my post about something?No. I just find your statement about marriage not being about gender or procreating mind boggling. Exactly who's marriage isn't about gender or procreating? Cause I'm pretty sure when I get get married, gender and procreation will be a big part of it.
Recommended Posts