Well, der trihs tried to advance an expert’s opinion that was based on a study including non-married couples, broken families etc. That were non-gay as the alternative to gay and compared the two.
Do you know of a study that has been replicated in peer review where natural nuclear families ALONE were compared to gay families ALONE? The study der trihs advanced as proof of the propositon is really nothing more than saying one bad situation is equally bad to another, or no more harmful, whichever way you like to put it.
It appears that you grant that my specific point is correct—that the more restricted the meaning of the word the more “special” it is semantically. Basically, if I have the Tall Person’s Club, which has existed for over a hundred years and has always consisted of people over seven feet tall, and then suddenly begin to allow in people 6’8", 6’5", 6’1", and (shudder) 5’11" or 5’9", the meaning of the club changes. The idea of it is no longer the same. It is no longer as “special”.
How come I haven’t alerted the moderator about anyone else then? After all, there are several here who are against my view, why didn’t I try to silence them?
and I’d have only said it once if you didn’t keep bringing it up.
PLEASE TAKE IT AT FACE VALUE: Stop the ad hominems concerning my character.
It seems to me you are desperate to make this an issue of whether or not I am a good guy, and if I’m found to be bad, the gay marriagers win! YAY!
This is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I’ve had the misfortune to read. If you can only feel special by marginalizing others, then I pity you.
Well you are alittle late getting in on the discussion. I think it is back on page three maybe, where I make it clear that I am just as against broken families as I am gay marriage.
If the goal of the study is to show that gay families are no worse off than broken families, then there is of course no reason to leave broken families out.
But to show how gays rate against broken families is no evidence when the argument isn’t that broken families are superior to gay families. The argument is that natural nuclear families are preferable to gay families in terms of child rearing. To be relevant to that argument, the study would have to compare natural nuclear families to gay families. Sorry that wasn’t clear!
Nonsense. The institutionalized racism of the past ran counter to the founding principles of the country. Really, you can look it up! There is no meaningful distinction between blacks and whites. Proof of this is the countless times there have been black/white couples who have started families. It’s not the same with men and women:
I’ve responded to you the most. And if you started flinging those threats at everyone, it would be even more blatant what you are doing. Having them silence me would serve to intimidate the others though. Although you’ll note that the mods haven’t shown any interest in racing to your rescue, for some odd reason.
Guess they’re part of that Gay Social Agenda you are so worried about.
29 states already secured a ban and of the last four it was tried in, it failed in three. And in the six states it is legal, it was done by legislatures or courts. Everytime the people have voted on it, gay marriage failed or banning it approved. Seems most of the dominoes have fallen against it. I always appreciate optimism, but where is your optimism coming from?
Like the one that declared black slaves to count for only 3/5? And didn’t let free blacks, or women or the unpropertied, vote at all? *Those *founding principles? :D:D:D
Oh. You meant that ironically.
Or maybe you didn’t. Black/white marriages were illegal in Virginia and Florida until 1967, and it took a Supreme Court ruling to fix it; did you look *that *up?
Maybe someday you can address the problem of marriage being allowed to people who cannot or will not have children. It is, you know.
I’m not complaining of anyone else, not because of your tricky reasoning, but because they do not insist on going on and on and on about the issue of what kind of guy I am.
Here is the text of the sticky:
MEBuckner
Charter Member Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,855
NO DIRECT PERSONAL INSULTS OR “FLAMING” IN GREAT DEBATES
Moderator’s Note:
Direct personal insults of other posters and “flaming” are not permitted in Great Debates (or, indeed, in any SDMB forum outside of The BBQ Pit). The general rule is to attack the other poster’s arguments, rather than the other poster him- or herself. If you feel you must “flame” someone, please open a thread in The BBQ Pit. (Although be advised that even the BBQ Pit does have some rules.)
It is permissible to post a link here in Great Debates to the Pit thread you have started in order to let the other poster that he or she has been “Pitted”, although you should of course refrain from using over insults or flames in doing so; i.e., So-and-so, I have opened a Pit thread on you rather than So-and-so, you moronic cretin, I have opened a thread in the Pit to express what contemptible scum you are.
If you have any questions about what does or does not constitute a personal insult or “flame”, contact a moderator or ask in the About This Message Board forum. If you disagree with a moderator’s decision as to what does or does not constitute a personal insult or “flame”, contact the moderator or open a Pit thread. Finally, if you think someone has violated the rules, the most productive thing to do is to report the post using the “Report this post to a moderator” link in the bottom right corner of the post.
If the moderators ignore violations of the rules because they favor gay marriage, then there IS a social agenda in place here. I’m new here you know, so I have no examples of how they have behaved in the past.
But can’t you get it? I’d just like for you to stop insulting me personally. Have I called you names, or anyone else, or speculated on your personal motivations?
I’m a little confused, David42. You’ve said, repeatedly, that marriage is the best environment for raising children. Okay, I’m willing to accept that argument on face value. Should you not, therefore, be fighting to legalize gay marriage, to help all those children out there being raised by gay couples? Aren’t those children being deprived of the vital influence of being raised by a married couple? Or does that influence not count when the couple is of the same gender? What aspect, specifically, of a homosexual relationship invalidates the beneficial aura of state-sanctioned matrimony?
And also the fact that gay marriage has vastly greater support among younger people. I used to think that we’d just have to wait for the oldster homophobes to die off and stop voting before gay marriage became reality, but as Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, D.C., and New York have shown us, we probably won’t even have to wait that long.