Give me a definiton of dilute that you will accept and your source.
I stopped talking to you yesterday, if you recall, and since you’re starting in again like you don’t speak english, I’m not answering any of your other posts after this
UNLESS YOU BECOME REASONABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE.
If you can’t undertsand common speech don’t bother me about it, and please don’t clutter the board because you don’t know how to use a dictionary or won’t.
:rolleyes: It’s your term, not mine.
He’s asking you an entirely reasonable question. From where I sit, the problem is that you can’t believe anyone wouldn’t see your point. How does allowing people who want to get married to get married dilute marriage, and how does one dilute marriage?
I’m tired of listening to it. You are asserting gibberish and are running away and hand waving when asked to substantiate it. This is Great Debates, not a bitching about the gays in your corner bar. If you assert something, you are expected to be able to show that it is true.
You are confusing your prejudices and gut instinct with fact, they are not the same thing. Everybody knows it’s true would have been an argument for the inferiority of blacks in the 1940s southern united states.
Cite or withdraw. It’s what an honest debater would do.
I’m not asking for precognition. I’m asking to show previous things that support your assertion.
Again, the definition of marriage has changed time and again.
The Europeans are fostering human rights. Freedom is an American thing. The trouble is, we’re full of morons who want freedom just for themselves. The promise of America is that someday we’ll fully live up to our ideals. It took a century to cast off slavery. And more than another to tamp down racism. The allowing of Gay Marriage is the next step to attain what the founders promised.
I’m also against the DOMA. The government should enforce SSM at a federal level. Like the civil rights legislation in the '60s.
Please, don’t attempt to catch me in a fallacy when you think, “Everybody knows it” is a valid cite. I am asking why this particular restriction on marriage is more important than outlawing polygamy, allowing interracial couples or letting a daughter choose her own partner?
What is special about same sex marriage that you are advocating keeping Americans from having the right to marry. What is the downside, other than your feeling that it “dilutes” marriage. Your anger at other people getting married isn’t a reason to deny other people rights. Don’t you think racists seethed in anger when interracial marriage was allowed?
In what way is it not like the others?
Stupid people have the right to live their lives as long as they don’t hurt anyone else.
continued
link 4 is ludicrous to prove I am wrong. This is a news article about studies showing that intact families are better than broken ones. It fails to offer evidence of studies that compare intact natural nuclear married families to their gay counterparts. The story is that two religious leaders were a bit mistaken in statements they had made. The fact that two guys are wrong about something said in a particular study is not evidence that I am wrong because I did not say what they did.
Link 5 is better because it identifies the study. But there is still a fatal flaw in that it studied too small a sample as to be statistically significant. Larger numbers and replication are what is needed, not the beginnings of a series of studies that may someday be staitstically significant.
Every thing I have said is within common knowledge, as I said. Since you cannot accept that, you are doing no more than playing games. Again I direct you toward page three or four where I lay out all you say I didn’t.
Since your refusal results in impasse, I suggest you stop responding to my posts. I am going to stop responding to yours.
Fundamentally it is on the gays to prove their demand can be implemnented without doing further harm. It’s you who will not provide proof and has the burden.
You clearly don’t know what statistical significance means. It has nothing to do with the raw size of the study. It’s a statistical measurement of the difference in results between the two groups (which the study has to be designed to detect) and how confident the researchers are that the difference would be repeated in other studies. And when I say confidence, I mean confidence as measured statistically, not how someone feels. Again, please don’t assume you know what these terms mean. I suppose it’s possible I’m being premature if you have seen the actual study and it says the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant, but since there is nothing like that in the article, I’m guessing not.
Can you please cite or retract your assertions? All I ask is that you try to debate honestly. All you’re doing is asserting that you’re right.
You have repeatedly refused to cite things, because you can’t. It appears that you would rather live with the delusion that your opinions are factual than actually try to find out if they are.
That isn’t debating, it’s the recitation of liturgy.
I will respond to your uninformed rantings and misinformation as I have the free time to. Hopefully, someday you will care that you believe things that are not true.
No. I hereby declare that Dave42 cannot own a house. Prove to me that it will do no harm to society. :rolleyes:
But, please. Keep running away and pretending you’re winning.
My, at this rate you’ll end up responding to nobody.
Nonsense. The default is that you have the right to do as you wish, including get married. It’s people like yourself who wish to limit freedom who need to justify it by demonstrating harm. Something you’ve failed utterly at.
Marley, yesterday this guy went on for hours yesterday saying no harm before it was discovered that he doesn’t think broken families are harm generally, on a one-is-bad-so-all-are-bad argument. It was obvious that I couldn’t use the word harm around him without an exercise in nonsense.
If I define “dilute” he’ll say I’m wrong, so I want HIS definiton of dilute from a credible source, one that he agrees with. That way we can speak the same language.
Ordinary English is like common knowledge if the debate is in english of course.
It is the contentious person demanding clarification of ordinary words in a debate setting who must suggest the acceptable definition, otherwise the game is palyed endlessly…“what does ‘IS’ mean?” In order to discourage this tactic, the one having trouble with ordinary english is called upon to provide the acceptable definiton from a credible source. He can’t just make it up.
I’m not playing his game.
However, I don’t think you are playing word games, so I don’t mind explaining that dilution means a watering down, a lessening of potency, becoming weaker.
Dilution of a concept means that it becomes less meaningful or more meaningless, as it is made weaker and less potent.
I know the dictionary definition of dilution. I’m asking how it applies to marriage.
Um, no. You made an assertion, therefore it is up to you to provide evidence of your assertion. Otherwise, you’re just blowing it out your ass and anyone can do that and then say, “Hey, Google is your friend.” I reject that your assertion and if it were common knowledge, as you say, you would have no problem submitting evidence in its favor, just like if you asserted that the sky is blue or water is wet or fire will burn you. See how that works? Now, you try it. Here’s your assertion:
[QUOTE=David42]
I don’t know about loonies, but the gay activists have certainly advocated that all gay couples adopt so they can prove that children raised in gay families are just as well off as those raised in straight families, or better off, they like to claim, as though gays are perfect.
[/QUOTE]
Now this is not presented as opinion, it is a statement of fact. It is your duty in this debate to provide evidence of your assertion that gay activists advocate adoption by gay couples for the purpose of proving their equal value as parents to straight parents. In other words, cite. I’m not inclined to do your work for you.
Who cares? Your hypothetical regarding the motives people have for adopting children is not relevant as to whether homosexual couples ought to have the right to marry one another. All you’re doing is avoiding rational justification for opposing same sex marriage. Your hypothetical, by the way, is not common knowledge.
What other interests? If you think it’s optimum for child-rearers to be married then it stands to reason that its optimum that gay couples raising children to be legally married. If it’s not optimum, why? If people in general aren’t perfect and the system isn’t perfect, why are you so worried that gay parents aren’t perfect?
Don’t know where you get the idea that I think gay couples should be treated differently than straight couples in matters of adoption. On the contrary, I think gay couples should have the same rights and duties that straight couples have without regard to their sexual orientation. If you feel the same, I agree with you.
Is there any evidence **that you are able to cite **that gay couples are more likely to molest children than straight couples?
I did? How about this: I’m not interested in hythotheticals that have no relevance with regard to SSM. I’m interested in facts. Let’s stick to facts, shall we?
You are not answering my questions. Let me repeat them for you:
The reason I’m asking this question is because you have stated that
[QUOTE=David42]
…most tax breaks for married couples are in recognition of the huge expense of raising a child. If you deliberately never raise a child then you have no need and should pay your fair share of taxes like other people.
[/QUOTE]
I’m trying to figure out what “most tax breaks” you are referring to that married people without children are getting that they shouldn’t be getting.
I’d also like to know, based on this statement:
[QUOTE=David42]
Marriage deductions should only belong to those with a hardship that society has an interest oin supporting.
[/QUOTE]
I tell you what, let’s make it easy. I’ll provide a list of benefits that all straight couples are eligible for upon marrying and you tell me why gay couples should be barred for becoming eligible for them and why.
You’ll note that none of these benefits require married couples to have children.
[ul]
[li]Workplace health and pension benefits coverage. Though some companies offer health coverage to domestic partners, this benefit is typically taxable as income. When spouses are covered, the benefit is tax-free.[/li][li]Social Security retirement and survivor benefits. A husband or wife is entitled to one-half of the spouse’s Social Security benefits and to additional benefits in the event of death.[/li][li]Lower insurance rates. Married people usually get a discount on auto insurance and may pay less for other types of insurance.[/li][li]Automatic inheritance rights. Die without a will, and your spouse gets your stuff. In many states, the surviving spouse has a legal right to at least one-third to one-half of your estate.[/li][li]Preferential estate-tax treatment. The richer you are, the better the deal this is. Essentially, estates worth more than a certain amount are subject to estate taxes – if you don’t die in 2010. After taking a year off, thanks to tussles in Washington, the estate tax returns in 2011 on inheritance above $1 million. But this exemption amount doesn’t apply to married people: You can leave an unlimited amount to a spouse without generating a penny of estate tax. In certain states, this benefit is multiplied by special capital-gains-tax treatment for homes and other assets held by married couples as community property.[/li][/ul]
This debate is so tiresome. Look, it’s quite simple:
In modern western culture, society is organized around nuclear family units, and familial relationships carry with them certain legal recognitions. This is unavoidable, as the state is fairly routinely called in to resolve disputes as the arbiter of last resort. Specifically, familial relationships are relevant to the legal issues of surrogate decision-making, inheritance of property, and yes, custody of and responsibility for children.
But in addition to relationships of blood, we also form familial relationships of choice. And we do so in such a regular fashion that we’ve legally codified two of these: marriage and adoption. From the perspective of the state, a civil marriage is just a proclamation the state recognizes as being legally binding on society as a whole that two adults have chosen each other as being the primary surrogate decision-maker and inheritor of the other. Should children be in or enter into the picture, the proclamation also gives the two joint responsibility for and custody of those children.
Of course, in many of the religious traditions in our society marriage has further significance, but the state doesn’t (or shouldn’t) give a rip about any of that.
So what of gay marriage? Well, as gays have won from society the recognition that they are not freaks, or criminal deviants, or mentally ill, and have been able to live in society as themselves, they have like the rest of society tended to choose another adult with whom to form a new family. They’ve said, "This person, and not my parents or siblings, shall be the person who makes decisions for me when I am not able to make them for myself. This person and not my parents or siblings shall be the person who gets my stuff. This person and not my parents or siblings shall share in the parenting duties and privileges of my children.
This is a particularly poignant issue for many gays and lesbians precisely because there’s been a history of blood family members using the civil legal system to disinherit gay partners, to push them aside in medical decision-making, and other such things. Sure, gays can get a lawyer to draw up wills and power of attorney and etc, but those things can be fought by blood family members in ways that marital rights and privileges cannot be. And there can’t be much more heart-rending than first losing your beloved and then having their family who disowned them for being gay come out of the woodwork and steal from you the only things you have left from your love.
This is not about the state encouraging procreation of any of that claptrap. This is, pure and simple, the right to choose for yourself who shall be your adult next-of-kin. And it is a complete travesty that anyone thinks it reasonable to restrict gays and lesbians from that right.
And yes, you’re right, that’s not the traditional conception of marriage. The traditional conception of marriage was the transferring of a woman from the ownership of her father to the ownership of her husband. That conception of marriage is dead, and good riddance.
Guessing is guessing. Anyway it is only one study, not the several needed, whether your guess is right ot wrong. A good news article about science is really about when results are replicated but what we tend to hear about is the very first time some evidence supports some conclusion prematurely. Usually the breaking news is told and the final word later ignored, based on replication or lack thereof.
OK what you leave out about statistical significance is that it is arbitrary anyway. It doesn’t really mean much whether I am right or wrong about it, because the only proof that it really contains is what value the researcher chose. But I should have avoided the term due to that.
I’m not conceding the point on one small study alone, when dozens through the seventies eighties and nineties showed such importance on the natural nuclear family vs all other comers.
It’s not a guess.
There were five.
Again, you should stop arguing about terms you don’t understand. You plainly do not know how a scientific study is created. Statistical significance, p-values, and randomization are not guesses.
Again, he linked to articles about five different studies. You previously acknowledged that another one was valid, and with the others, you’re just making excuses.
The rest of your post was a frivolous exercise in removing the context to play games about burden of proof.
But I will bite for the last bit.
I think gay couples should be eligible for all those things as married couples are. That does not mean I will accept a dilution of marriage in order to achieve it.
I think if you read my posts instead of nitpicking them, you’d have gathered that already.
Three weren’t relevant to the subject. One did not cite a study at all but talked in generalizations about a study we cannot know what was because it doesn’t tell us.
5-3-1=1
1 study was offered and some distracting fluff along with it. 1 small study.
Wikipedia in their “statistical significance” article states: “The lower the significance level, the stronger the evidence required. Choosing level of significance is an arbitrary task, but for many applications, a level of 5% is chosen, for no better reason than that it is conventional.[3][4]”
No, that’s because it makes it easier for people to get divorced. Whenever you make it easier to do something, more people are going to do it. What happened was, before no-fault divorce, you had a bunch of people who didn’t much like each other and would have gotten divorced if they could have, but didn’t want to have to jump through all the legal hoops and spend all the time and money in long, drawnout divorce cases. Then, no-fault divorce laws passed, getting a divorce made things easier, and all of a sudden, those people were able to follow through on their divorce.
It wouldn’t matter if you did see the study because you don’t know what the terms mean. The study that is being discussed tracked 154 families for a long period of time, and you’re saying it’s not good enough because it’s too small. It’s pretty clear to me that you’re shifting the goalposts.
And what do you think this means? This means that most studies are designed to achieve a level of 95 percent confidence in the results. Do you understand that? Typically a study is designed so that the researchers are 95% confident that if you repeated their work (on a larger population, for example) you would get the same result. Tell me why this is a problem for you.
It makes the concept, what we think of marriage, weaker through loss of potency and authority, when we talk of diluted concepts of marriage.