No, I’m not taking your assertion that it’s common knowledge seriously. Because if it was actually common knowledge as opposed to a bunch of nonsense you heard from some uninformed nitwit, it would have been easy for you to post a cite instead of shucking and jiving for a couple of pages. So until you can prove it, I’m going to say it’s not common knowledge and it isn’t happening. And that the ideas that were associated with it - that the surveys were unreliable because gays were manipulating the results, and that gay couples were adopting children just to affect survey data - is just stupid.
This game is too transparent even for you. Try the one I’ve quoted several times already. If you’re still trying to puzzle out which one I’m talking about, go back and read *my *posts.
What exactly do you think you win? You haven’t exactly dazzled many posters here with your keen intellect and razor sharp debate skills. I will concede I have no information, knowledge or proof of gay activists encouraging all gay couples to adopt for the purpose of proving their children are just as well adjusted as those of straight parents. You got me. Now, since you’re still here bleating about debate, why don’t you enlighten me. Provide some proof of this “common knowledge” that you seem to be the only one in this thread is aware of. That way I can be in the know as well.
Funny, I’ve been here long enough to know that the debaters should always be prepared provide evidence of their assertions in order to be considered credible. Like this. See how that works? I make an assertion and then I provide a citation as evidence that corroborates my assertion.
Now your turn.
I never asked you for a cite on divorce trends. In fact, I never mentioned divorce trends. Your obfuscation only reinforces your lack of credibility. And that’s common knowledge, my friend.
I really do think it was another’s claim before I said anything about equal protection that I responded to. I don’t think sexual orientation is the right question for anything I said anyway. Same sex marriage is what I am talking about and really do not give a hoot about sexual orientation in the matter, I don’t care about why you want to do it, just whether the government can prohibit it, in the context of this question
If you want to present a strict scrutiny analysis in favor of same sex marriage I will appropriately rebut. Wasn’t my issue, this is the issue of others that I commented on.
Maybe not offensive per se, but pretty un-PC. I just find it funny people are making a multi-page trainwreck over your imo innocuous claim that gay activists called upon gay couples to adopt to prove they’re as good as straight couples when you dropped the following in this thread when asked about Europe:
I think I mentioned I didn’t know which of the various things various people have been asking me to prove you meant. It’d be nice to say which one it was rahter than which one it wasn’t.
At least I provided cites. Unlike you.
They weren’t “trash,” they simply disagreed with you, and so you felt the need to devalue them. Even when other posters supplied multiple cites to the same effect, you have ignored them.
We clearly do NOT all know it is true. In fact, no one else in this thread knows it is true, or has heard anyone else say it, apparently.
Yes, yes you do. Especially when it ISN’T common knowledge. At all.
YOU made the assertion. Therefore, YOU are the one required to pony up a cite, or withdraw it.
BTW, I’m a she, not a he. Also married, to a man, childless and will never be bearing children. Someday, Mr. Rat and I may adopt. However, our marriage’s validity has never had a single bloody thing to do with whether or not I pump a humanlarvae out of my womb.
Yeah to tell the truth I’d prove more if they didn’t all gang up with multiple simultaneous demands that I am losing track of, as to who wants what, and trying to sort out who really wants intellectual stimulation from people who like to bully those who disagree.
I really can’t believe it either.
I’ve told you guys what circumstances I will provide citations in. Either quit asking or agree to the conditions already.
For the third time:
[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]
And for good measure:
[QUOTE=David42]
Those couples arguably do so to save the child’s life. I refer to gay activists who publish articles urging gay couples to adopt for the purpose of normalizing the gay lifestyle, rather than adoptions for the child’s best interest.
Adopting to save the child’s life is world’s apart from adopting in order to prove you are normal.
[/QUOTE]
I did you a favor and bolded the parts you need to provide evidence of. Or retract these assertions (and, optionally, admit you are full of shit – though not completely necessary), if you are unable to do so.
Look: you’ve been here for a couple of days. Has it occurred to you that maybe it’s not a great idea to order everybody around and tell them you won’t deign to talk to them unless they play by your rules? There’s an SDMB style and it places a high priority on backing up your arguments with factual citations. The people arguing with you have used citations to support their arguments, and you haven’t. The closest thing you have to a cite is Doug, and that really doesn’t cut it. If you don’t want to have an argument, just say so and I’ll close this thread. But if you don’t want to participate in a conversation, you’ve come to the wrong place.
But sexual orientation and strict scrutiny have a lot to do with whether the government can prohibit same sex marriage. Not allowing same sex marriage discriminates against gays, because straight people can get married whether gay marriage is allowed or not, so they’re not directly affected by the law. Gay people are, because if gay marriage is allowed, they can get married. If it isn’t, they can’t.
Therefore, banning gay marriage has an unequal impact on gay people. And under strict scrutiny, laws that have an unequal impact on a suspect class, whether they have that impact intentionally or not, are unconstitutional.
Sexual orientation is very much what you’re talking about, because you’re arguing that gay people should be discriminated against.
Four out of five of your “cites” did not prove me “wrong.”
I know what Cecil meant when he complained of the “unwashed masses.”
If you will follow, briefly, “I don’t know about that” is not a valid rebuttal to a claim of common knowledge. The people all telling me it isn’t common knowledge are not IMPARTIAL JUDGES but instead my OPPONENTS. All the people claiming to not know what most know (and it is several different things, not just one) aren’t here to be impartial, and refuse any suggestion or to make any suggestion for how to handle a common knowledge doctrine other than to refuse to acknowledge it.
One was even willing to google for proof for the sky being blue but not for the issue. I suppose she wants to be prepared for the debate about the color of the sky, but not about domestic issues, which makes me wonder why even bother to come into the thread, but hey, to each her own her reasons are her own.
You haven’t proven anything. You haven’t even tried. You’ve just made baseless and generally ridiculous claims, tried to distract people, distorted what they said, and tried to shift the blame to them.
EDIT: And as Marley23 says, issued a bunch of commands like this was the David42 Message Board.
According to whom, if you don’t mind? You’ve wasted a ton of time and effort arguing whether or not this is common knowledge, and I don’t think anyone except you ever gave a damn about that. The question is whether or not it’s true, and you’ve failed to give anyone even a reason to believe that it is. The fact that one other person told you it’s common knowledge is not convincing and it doesn’t even come close to passing muster in a debate. If it were true, you would be able to cite it - especially since you’ve said it was in print. Since you can’t, it’s obvious that it’s not true. “Common knowledge” can say whatever it wants.
I never argued for any discrimination against gays because they are gay anywhere EVER in this thread. Not a single thing of substance that I wouldn’t also do with straights.
Ok, let me clarify, are we going to do strict scrutiny on gays as a suspect class, or on marriage between two people of the same sex? One is slightly broader than the other. Is it the right of gays to marry, or the right of two people of the same sex to marry?
Anyways lets agree specifcally before we start on what suspect group it is.
Will it include two men who don’t want to have sex but want some benefit of marriage? Or are we limiting it strictly to gays?
Right. If the knowledge is so common, then you should be able to find a cite. There’s nothing wrong with not citing everything you state. Some things are, as you say, common knowledge. If I cay, “The freezing point of water is 32 Farenheit”, I don’t have to cite that. But if somebody questions that, then I should at least be able to cite it.
First of all, that’s exactly what you’re arguing. When you’re saying that same sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed, you’re saying that gays should be discriminated against.
Strict scrutiny only applies to groups of people, not to events. But yes, we can agree, I think, that the issue in question is sexual orientation, and it’s gays and lesbians we’re talking about as the suspect class, in our hypothetical.
Yes you do, when you support the banning of same sex marriage. There’s no other basis for it - something you demonstrate with your complete inability to come up with any genuine reason for the ban. You just come up with baseless, vague and generally outright silly claims about imaginary dooms that will occur if it is allowed.
The funny thing is, the first result a google search turns up is… this thread. Not so common, I guess.
You mean the harassment on this issue is FRIVOLOUS from people who don’t care about it?
Its not that I can’t. It is mostly being overwhelmed by multiple posts all at the same time all denying various things we all should know. At the same time I deal with misstated quotes like der trihs saying I said gay marriage must not be allowed because it is disgusting.
Can’t you see its flying in a hundred directions at once and at least some of it is frivolous?
They refer to “what you said” without saying what and demand a cite. They will google for proof of a blue sky, but not (whatever).
Not one single person here can remember a host of things I do and everyone I ask WHO ISN’T OPPOSED TO ME IN THIS DEBATE.
I would assume if one person knows something other than what they ask me about, that they’d assure another of it being commonly known.
But nobody will say they know it is known that the bible says be frutiful and multiply. I got asked to prove that. Nobody knows that divorce rates steadily went up for decades while the crime rate also went up and all the experts on the news talked about the cause and effect of broken homes on crime. I’m supposed to prove that. I’m supposed to prove gay aprents are bad when I never claimed it. And you seriously believe gay activists do not encourage other gays.
I don’t believe any of you guys know nothing about any of those things.
If a more debate like environment were fostered here, I’d be more willing to believe you really think its not true, but excepting a couple, this really isn’t much like debate. Its more like a thourough confusing of all issues and who said what and who didn’t and no one to decide who needs to prove what.
I don’t think that’s relevant in the least. That’s one outdated religion, while in this country we are supposed to be upholding a separation of church and state. Why would what the Bible says make any difference in a legal debate?
Oh, and yes, I knew the Bible says that. It’s just completely irrelevant.
Cite?
I believe the cite that’s been repeatedly asked for is NOT that “gay activists encourage other gays.” That’s pretty much like saying “gay activists breathe.”
You’ve been asked to cite that gay activists have, in print, encouraged gay people to adopt SPECIFICALLY and deliberately in order to make themselves appear normal, not because they want to raise children.
The part where this is a debate is that you put forward assertions, you are asked for a cite, and then you provide links.
Go to it!