The problem with that logic is you also can’t show that SSM isn’t neutral or beneficial. You are just assuming that any effect it has will be a bad one, because assuming that fits your hatred of homosexuals.
Something isn’t “common knowledge” just because you say it is. You are making a lot of empty claims and refusing to even try to substantiate them.
It’s not a done deal. Some of those states will be changing their laws soon enough.
I didn’t make that claim.
Then prove there’s a missing word here.
It’s starting to look like you are refusing to read cites so you don’t have to acknowledge the evidence against your argument. The fifth link said an analysis of 67 studies indicates that heterosexual marriage does not provide a superior environment for children. And then I linked to the position of the American Psychological Association. Their position contains numerous cites. Read it.
I don’t know it’s any such thing. Please prove it.
hmmm, while we’re talking about a marriage breakdown you’re talking about a societal breakdown. similar, but not quite the same.
So what is happening in the netherlands?
Even though what’s best in the netherlands isn’t necessarily whats best for the United States. I see no need to model the U.S. any further on Europe other than a racial preference for whites.
I have put this and another question to the test so far with two people.
I asked my drummer doug (extremely liberal, believes in gay marriage) this question:
Do you recall news stories where gay activists called for gay parents to participate in studies? Answer YES. With a long speech about how gays are good parents.
Do you think that is within the common knowledge of our people?
“If they are news watchers it is.”
I asked my mom the same questions. Yes and Yes. More liberal philosophy.
Have you asked anybody, Marley, a good faith effort to see if tis common knowledge, or to google it and see if its been in the news? Did you even try?
Marley, real debates have judges who would settle stuff like whether something is common knowledge or not. If they decided one way or the other we’d have to abide or lose a lot of points.
We don’t have a judge. If you are fair ask a few people around you those two questions. If you report back to me that you asked three people (I won’t doubt your word) and at least two said they do not recall that in the news, or at least two say it is not in the common knowledge of average americans, I will get your cite. I won’t stop at three, and if a majority wind up telling me that it is not common knowledge or they do not remember it, I will get a cite.
Don’t pick the people, just the next three with a moment to ask a couple questions. Picking the people could skew it. You don’t have to go out of your way, I’ll be here tomorrow.
Can we make that deal and abide by it?
:rolleyes: Second hand quotes from random people we don’t even know actually exist aren’t evidence of anything.
David42, this is just ridiculous. I’ve never read about this, and I’ve never heard of it in conversation with anyone, straight or gay. And what you’re proposing is a worthless waste of time. Find cites, find facts. Don’t tell me to go annoy people to find out if maybe somebody told something. Prove what you’re saying is true if you’re so sure it is true. I think it’s nonsense. And you’ve still never explained how legalizing gay marriage dilutes marriage and you’re not ignoring a large number of studies.
OK. Show the marriage breakdown that has occurred in the Netherlands in the last 10 years. And what in the crap are you talking about with this “racial preference” stuff?
Ok, so you finally defined what you meant by dilution. Loss of potency and authority. Right. Now perhaps you can explain what the hell that means since neither of those words leap into my mind when I think of marriage.
I found you a study done to determine the effects, if any, on different-sex marriage after the introduction of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands. Hint: there was no impact.
If you don’t like comparisons to European countries (I’m not even going to touch the white supremacist crap), then show us how marriage has been diluted in Canada, which is as close to the US as it gets. Good luck.
Well, not to alarm anyone, but since gay marriage was made legal here my parents who are rapidly closing in on 50 years have seen their marriage become homeopathic. :eek:
Can you provide just one, single, solitary, linkable cite to your claim about gay activists urging gay couples to adopt children simply to look normal? :rolleyes: One cite; that’s all I’m asking. Just one, not two, not three, just one.
In A debate, if one party claims common knowledge,the opponent either agrees it is common knowledge or not. If not, the judge of the debate will decide if it is common knowledge. If it is decided it is common knowledge, the declaring opponent does not need to prove it.
We have no judge, and I have made a proposition on how to get around this impasse.
I am sorry if you feel casual conversation is an annoyance, but apparently YOUR APPEAL TO YOUR OWN AUTHORITY (I haven’t heard this, therefore most people cannot know it) is your reasoning to deny my claim of common knowledge.
Only if you are an expert in the area being debated is an appeal to your own authority a legitimate debate tactic. But you have to prove your authority.
Are you an expert in the subject?
If not, do you have a proposal to get around such an impasse?
I do not need a cite when I assert common knowledge.
Yes. I also posted a definiton of strict scrutiny. Do you agree to that definition, or if not, do you have a better one to propose?
Yes, you do. Now throw down, son.
I move that MsWhatsit be declared Judge since she’s the one who started this thread. Anyone care to second my motion?
You’re saying it has the word “disgusting” when I ask you to show that He said I said it. I think you might be saying I am disgusting, since apparently the word disgusting serves in the stead of my name to link this somehow to me.
If Mrs. Whatsit understands the logical fallacies and rules of debate, and can demonstrate it. I suppose we’d have to agree on what parts to use. Some rules of debate could be relaxed, since structured debates are usually timed, and we do not need to time ourselves here.
But there is the obvious objection that she is on your side. there should be some surety that a judge is impartial. I’d prefer three judges, actually, but I’m not trying to formalize the forum. I really expected Marley to agree to my proposal and say it was fair enough, but I guess not.
I’m really close to thinking that valid debate can’t be had here.
Or simply debating one individual alone who can be reasonable on how to solve problems of who has to prove what and whether arguments are fallacious.
Passion gets in the way.
I wish I could debate Cecil…
No, you do not. No need to prove the sky blue, that women bear babies, that hair grows on heads, that fire will burn you, or that car accidents can be fatal, or anything that has been in the news multiple times to a degree that most people you ask tell you so.
“I do not know about this” is the logical fallacy of appealing to your own authority. After all, you know everything. IF I DON’T KNOW IT NO-ONE CAN. You never missed any news stories in your life; you have never been surprised that a bunch of other people knew something you didn’t, because, Ah-ha! I do not know that fire will burn you, therefore your claim that it can is false!
NEVERMIND the fact, long forgotten, that it was never my claim to begin with that gays are bad parents.
I googled gay foster agenda. That was a depressing half hour of skimming. Bigots everywhere. Grand Old Party states banning gay foster parents (and the bans often being struck down by the courts later), christian foster and adoption agencies declining to place foster children with all unmarried couples, so they wouldn’t have to deal with same sex couples, etc. The only bright spot was that opposite sex foster parents have been recruited specifically in NY, NJ, and California for placement of abused gay teens. I found nothing at all about this mythical call for gay couples to rush out and foster as many children as possible to further the gay agenda.