Debates
07 Jun 06
08 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerHe didn't imply a correlation. He made his statement as a matter of fact. I have no idea whether it is or not.
Since Wulebgr seems to be implying a correlation between child molestation and being married, male, white and Christian, I see no reason to exclude sexual orientation from the list.
But being married, male, white and christian has nothing to do with sexual orientation either. Don't believe me? Find a really good looking gay guy and ask him how many married "straight" guys he's had sex with.
Might want to clutch your bible tightly before you do though. 🙂
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by wibWhich is why I asked for the incidence within the respective populations. To say that most child molesters are married, male, white and Christian (let's just call them MMWC) means little if one doesn't know what proportion of the population is MMWC. If 80% of your population is MMWC and 80% of your child molesters are MMWC, then his statement means nothing more than 80% of the population is MMWC.
He didn't imply a correlation. He made his statement as a matter of fact. I have no idea whether it is or not.
But being married, male, white and christian has nothing to do with sexual orientation either. Don't believe me? Find a really good looking gay guy and ask him how many married "straight" guys he's had sex with.
Might want to clutch your bible tightly before you do though. 🙂
08 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerEr...yes. Far be it from Stanley Kurtz to look for alternate explanations from actual demographers, or worry about inferring a causal claim from correlations.
Er... no:
http://nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200405250927.asp
http://www.iglss.org/media/files/briefing.pdf
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr; "State A grants homosexuals the right to marry.
No, the point is that this is false. Here's a counterexample:
State A grants homosexuals the right to marry.
State A does not grant sets of persons with more than two members the right to marry.
See, easy! Now, if you want to claim that the reasons homosexuals have provided in support of marriage equality also apply to polygamous relationships, then y ...[text shortened]... fficient to make it true. You claim that there is a slippery slope, then justify your claim.
State A does not grant sets of persons with more than two members the right to marry.
See, easy! "
Ha ha ha ....... 😀
Bbarr: "You claim that there is a slippery slope, then justify your claim."
Bbarr, you still don't see the difference between a probable societal development and a fallacy in reasoning. You probably never will.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm asking him to justify the claim that granting homosexuals the right to marry must lead to legalizing polygamous marriages. To do that, he would have to show the following:
Bbarr; "State A grants homosexuals the right to marry.
State A does not grant sets of persons with more than two members the right to marry.
See, easy! "
Ha ha ha ....... 😀
Bbarr: "You claim that there is a slippery slope, then justify your claim."
Bbarr, you still don't see the difference between a probable societal development and a fallacy in reasoning. You probably never will.
1) The reasons used in support of homosexual marriage also apply to polygamous marriage.
2) There are no compelling state interests in prohibiting polygamous marriage that do not also apply to homosexual marriage.
I'm not asking him to justify a formal fallacy (that would be dumb). I'm asking him to justify his claim that considerations of equal treatment require the extension of marriage rights to polygamists.
See the difference?
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by sasquatch672your missing the point and I'm getting tired head explaining it over and over. If a homosexual couple want to adopt a child (assuming there is not a father/mother couple to adopt the child) and raise it that is GREAT!!! I'm all for civil unions and homosexual families, and they can love a child just as well as a straight person, etc, etc, etc. What I'm not for is watering down marriage by saying it's open for anyone of any lifestyle. IN countries that have done that the marriage rate has dropped significantly. Also, as i have already said equal protection provides that if one alternative lifestyle has the right to marry than they all do. All you have to do is look at where the standards on marriage have been removed and what those societies are like.
"Why do you have a problem thinking?" I like this. The phrasing gave me a chuckle.
Ok, let's go through your logic. In my world of no standards the inevitable product is chaos. I do agree with you there. My world has standards. They're just not based on discrimination.
"A married person who has a child and goes to work every day to suppo ...[text shortened]... 've made the case for allowing gay marriage better than I ever could have.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by newdad27Terminology seems to be at the heart of this debate. From what I can gather, most opponents of gay marriages are opposed to the use of the term 'marriage', rather than being opposed to allowing same sex couples the same substantive rights.
If a homosexual couple want to adopt a child (assuming there is not a father/mother couple to adopt the child) and raise it that is GREAT!!! I'm all for civil unions and homosexual families, and they can love a child just as well as a straight person, etc, etc, etc. What I'm not for is watering down marriage by saying it's open for anyone of any lifestyle.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by newdad27So long as those civil unions give the same protection and rights as in a marriage to same-sex relationships, then no one here disagrees.
your missing the point and I'm getting tired head explaining it over and over. If a homosexual couple want to adopt a child (assuming there is not a father/mother couple to adopt the child) and raise it that is GREAT!!! I'm all for civil unions and homosexual families, and they can love a child just as well as a straight person, etc, etc, etc. What I'm n ...[text shortened]... look at where the standards on marriage have been removed and what those societies are like.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by sasquatch672It is widely believed within academic circles that the human race is biologically, and so innately, androgenous. Within the contemporary world due to the hetronomativity template, homosexuality is out of favour and so there is a big debate when something happens, -such as a gay marriage - to question that template, when in fact homosexuality is perfectly normal and was seen as such with ancient Greek society.
For my European friends who might not be familiar with some of the intricacies of American politics, even-year politics differ from odd-year politics in that Republicans trot out the "ban the gay marriage" constitutional amendment because they know this will get social conservatives riled up. It's like a child's game. Tell social conservatives that ga ...[text shortened]...
Can anybody help me out?
(See further, Judith Butler or the Queer theory)
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI do. There is no reason to call something that grants the same benefits as marriage by some other name just because homosexuals are the ones entering into the marriage. This is just blatant discrimination for no rational reason.
So long as those civil unions give the same protection and rights as in a marriage to same-sex relationships, then no one here disagrees.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI disagree. Why should the term marriage be special and reserved for heterosexual couples only? If you make up a new term, it may be looked down on as inferior. Will it fell just as good for someone to tell their family and friends they are getting a civil union as to tell them they are getting married? I don't think it would. Having different words for the same thing depending on whether they are homosexual or heterosexual is discrimination plain and simple.
So long as those civil unions give the same protection and rights as in a marriage to same-sex relationships, then no one here disagrees.