Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[jwoodie]

Try again. This time without the fallacies of logic.

Here is the real fallacy of logic: Arguing some alleged harm to an infinitesimal percentage of children living with unmarried gay adults while ignoring the real epidemic of millions of children in one-parent homes because traditional marriage is increasingly viewed as a political statement rather than a solemn vow regarding biological family integrity.

Gay marriage is simply the latest iteration in the campaign to normalize alternative lifestyles. Ten years ago, the argument was about tax treatment and inheritance rights. Ten years from now it will be about encouraging students to consider homosexuality as a healthy way to avoid pregnancy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Try again. This time without the fallacies of logic.

Here is the real fallacy of logic: Arguing some alleged harm to an infinitesimal percentage of children living with unmarried gay adults while ignoring the real epidemic of millions of children in one-parent homes because traditional marriage is increasingly viewed as a political statement rather than a solemn vow regarding biological family integrity.

Gay marriage is simply the latest iteration in the campaign to normalize alternative lifestyles. Ten years ago, the argument was about tax treatment and inheritance rights. Ten years from now it will be about encouraging students to consider homosexuality as a healthy way to avoid pregnancy.

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, and that measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law violate the 14th Amendment, which is why these measures have been invalidated by the courts.

Indeed, for more than ten years now same-sex couples have been marrying, with no adverse affects to children, the institution of marriage, or society in general.

 

[Skylar]

Try again. This time without the fallacies of logic.

Here is the real fallacy of logic: Arguing some alleged harm to an infinitesimal percentage of children living with unmarried gay adults while ignoring the real epidemic of millions of children in one-parent homes because traditional marriage is increasingly viewed as a political statement rather than a solemn vow regarding biological family integrity.

The fallacy is that there is any relevance between them. I don't like people being homeless. I'm not a big fan of Ebola. But neither have any relevance to gay marriage.

And how small the percentage is isn't the basis of rights. But the harm caused to the individual. And gay marriage bans hurt tens of thousands. Which Kennedy lays out in detail:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

If your concern were 'children', why would you ever inflict this upon them?

Gay marriage is simply the latest iteration in the campaign to normalize alternative lifestyles. Ten years ago, the argument was about tax treatment and inheritance rights. Ten years from now it will be about encouraging students to consider homosexuality as a healthy way to avoid pregnancy.

Gay marriage is about rights.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ten years from now it will be about encouraging students to consider homosexuality as a healthy way to avoid pregnancy.

Not necessarily healthy but certainly effective.

 

[Silhouette]

You're not fooling anyone other than yourself. The instant you can't use children to harm gay people you toss them aside like last weeks leftovers. They are nothing more than pawns to you.

I think that's what psychologists (back in the old days when the APA existed intact as a credible institution) would call "projection", mdk...

With the differnce between a 'credible' APA and a 'non-credible' APA being that the the APA no longer agrees with you.....

That a boy benefits with a father and a girl with a mother is not "my" "theory"... Here's a study of over 2,000 young adults that contradicts what the Rainbow-non scientific method APA says: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

By the way....I didn't do the Prince's Trust Survey.

 

[Skylar]

You're not fooling anyone other than yourself. The instant you can't use children to harm gay people you toss them aside like last weeks leftovers. They are nothing more than pawns to you.

I think that's what psychologists (back in the old days when the APA existed intact as a credible institution) would call "projection", mdk...

With the differnce between a 'credible' APA and a 'non-credible' APA being that the the APA no longer agrees with you.....

That a boy benefits with a father and a girl with a mother is not "my" "theory"... Here's a study of over 2,000 young adults that contradicts what the Rainbow-non scientific method APA says: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

For perhaps the 50th time, the Prince Trust study doesn't say thing about gays. Or same sex parenting. Or measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Nor does it say that a positive same sex role model must be a parent.

You made all that up. And your hallucinations have no relevance to a rational discussion.

By the way....I didn't do the Prince's Trust Survey.

True. But you did do your hallucinations around it. As it doesn't say what you do.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and if these are your closing arguments.....its rather bad news for your argument that you can neither address nor resolve these enormous holes in your reason and logic:

1) You won't discuss the 14th amendment violations of excluding only gays from marriage for being unable to have children, but allowing any infertile straight couple to marry. Either the same standard applies to both or neither. And our law is clear: its neither. As no couple is excluded from marriage for being unable to have kids.

Destroying your argument.

2) You won't discuss how denying gay marriage hurts 10s of thousands of children and benefits no child. You don't even disagree. And his axiomatic pair of facts destroys any claim that your argument is 'for children'. Your proposal does nothing but hurt children.

Destroying your argument.

3) You won't discuss the littany of studies that contradict you, affirming that the children of same sex parents are fine. Large scale studies, small scale studies, longitudinal studies, studies done in the US, studies done abroad, they all contradict you.

Destroying your argument.

4) You won't discuss the fact that marriage is a fundamental civil right, instead insisting its 'only a priveledge'. The SCOTUS contradicts you repeatedly. The legality of gay marriage is a legal question. Logically, the standards of legal precedent and legal findings are the lens through which this debate should be had.

And through that lens, marriage is a right.

Destroying your argument.

5) You won't discuss the fact that the Windsor decision explicitly places state marriage laws as subordinate to constitutional guarantees. And cites as precedent a case where state marriage laws were overturned when they violated individual rights. Nor will you discuss Scalia's dissent on Windsor where he found that the court's position against gay marriage was 'beyond mistaking', and their application of windsor against state gay marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

Destroying your argument.

I can go on and on with factual errors in your argument, misrpresentations of the evidence, or calculated omissions (like every study that contradicts you) that demonstrate the absurdity of your claims.

Your argument just doesn't work. Which is why you ignore every hole in your reasoning, every legal contradiction, every study that contradicts you, every constitutional violation.

 

[Silhouette]

For perhaps the 50th time, the Prince Trust study doesn't say thing about gays. Or same sex parenting. Or measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Nor does it say that a positive same sex role model must be a parent.

You made all that up. And your hallucinations have no relevance to a rational discussion..

Apparently you don't understand logical connections. If 2,000 young adults report that growing up without their own gender as a role model in "parents' leaves them, what was it?, 60% drug addicted, indigent and feeling a lack of belonging to the world, then logic progresses like this: Gays don't have the physical makeup in their relationship to provide either a mother for daughters or a father for sons. It is physically-impossible. Even you cannot dispute that with your pretzel-logic Skylar.

So, a gay marriage would cause a child of the gender not represented, to experience that lack and the woes we can predict from it, from the Prince's Trust Survey.

I can do a study about how if you don't have a certain type of reinforced wheel bearing on Chevys, they will be prone to failure under stress. And if Fords don't have that same type of wheel bearing, even though my study was about Chevys, we can predict the Ford will likewise fail. You're saying we can't make that prediction. You're saying "nobody said in that study that Fords would fail from the same type of physical defect! The study was about Chevys!" And that of course is illogical. Of course we can predict Fords would fail from the same design flaw.

vv Below vv "Quick! A tangent! Send in danielpalos!!

 

[danielpalos]

Try again. This time without the fallacies of logic.

Here is the real fallacy of logic: Arguing some alleged harm to an infinitesimal percentage of children living with unmarried gay adults while ignoring the real epidemic of millions of children in one-parent homes because traditional marriage is increasingly viewed as a political statement rather than a solemn vow regarding biological family integrity.

Gay marriage is simply the latest iteration in the campaign to normalize alternative lifestyles. Ten years ago, the argument was about tax treatment and inheritance rights. Ten years from now it will be about encouraging students to consider homosexuality as a healthy way to avoid pregnancy.

That is an appeal to ignorance simply because it ignores Spartan policies public especially in regard to the common Defense.

The fame of Thermopylae is thus principally derived, not from its effect on the outcome of the war, but for the inspirational example it set.[119][122] Thermopylae is famous because of the heroism of the doomed rearguard, who, despite facing certain death, remained at the pass.[113] Ever since, the events of Thermopylae have been the source of effusive praise from many sources; e.g. "...the fairest sister-victories which the Sun has ever seen, yet they would never dare to compare their combined glory with the glorious defeat of King Leonidas and his men."[123] A second reason is the example it set of free men, fighting for their country and their freedom:

So almost immediately, contemporary Greeks saw Thermopylae as a critical moral and culture lesson. In universal terms, a small, free people had willingly outfought huge numbers of imperial subjects who advanced under the lash. More specifically, the Western idea that soldiers themselves decide where, how, and against whom they will fight was contrasted against the Eastern notion of despotism and monarchy—freedom proving the stronger idea as the more courageous fighting of the Greeks at Thermopylae, and their later victories at Salamis and Plataea attested.[124]

While this paradigm of "free men" outfighting "slaves" can be seen as a rather sweeping over-generalization (there are plenty of counter-examples), it is nevertheless true that many commentators have used Thermopylae to illustrate this point.[64]

Militarily, although the battle was actually not decisive in the context of the Persian invasion, Thermopylae is also of some significance, on the basis of the first two days of fighting. The performance of the defenders is used as an example of the advantages of training, equipment, and good use of terrain as force multipliers.[125]--Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae#Aftermath

And, a King Leonidas study outranks a Prince George's study.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ten years from now it will be about encouraging students to consider homosexuality as a healthy way to avoid pregnancy.

Not necessarily healthy but certainly effective.

But isn't abstinence education effective? Just say NO! kept billions of kids from taking drugs and the Catholic Church time honored efforts to convince tweens that masturbation would send them to hell all worked so well. Why than don't we teach kids to ignore their desires - for fear of hell - and Just say NO!

Isn't that a sure way to raise mentally healthy youngsters into the adult world? It did wonders for some Priests.

 

[Silhouette]

Ten years from now it will be about encouraging students to consider homosexuality as a healthy way to avoid pregnancy.

Not necessarily healthy but certainly effective.

But isn't abstinence education effective? Just say NO! kept billions of kids from taking drugs and the Catholic Church time honored efforts to convince tweens that masturbation would send them to hell all worked so well. Why than don't we teach kids to ignore their desires - for fear of hell - and Just say NO!

Isn't that a sure way to raise mentally healthy youngsters into the adult world? It did wonders for some Priests.

Your logic is flawed. Just because some kids become habitual to bulimia doesn't mean we for the sake of those few not feeling "outside the norm" teach all kids that bulimia "is just another healthy way of eating"...a different eating-orientation...

Habitual behaviors are sometimes good, but not always. Gay sex is a case in point. Not only is it not healthy for the individuals, especially boys, but this unhealthy habitual behavior is spreading one of the worst epidemics of the 20th & 21st Centuries...And that is because the colon is laden with danger and susceptible to immediate semen-to-blood transfer. It is the septic tank of the body. Whereas the vagina seeks to constantly cleanse itself and evolved to be resitant to invasion of microbes through its walls.

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010 CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Safe sex for all humans, young or old, is no sex or jerking off. Good luck promoting that.

 

[Silhouette]

That's a non sequitur.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That's a non sequitur.

Not at all, if you want to promote a truly healthy lifestyle that is. That's you point right, healthy lifestyles?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ten years from now it will be about encouraging students to consider homosexuality as a healthy way to avoid pregnancy.

Not necessarily healthy but certainly effective.

But isn't abstinence education effective? Just say NO! kept billions of kids from taking drugs and the Catholic Church time honored efforts to convince tweens that masturbation would send them to hell all worked so well. Why than don't we teach kids to ignore their desires - for fear of hell - and Just say NO!

Isn't that a sure way to raise mentally healthy youngsters into the adult world? It did wonders for some Priests.

Your logic is flawed. Just because some kids become habitual to bulimia doesn't mean we for the sake of those few not feeling "outside the norm" teach all kids that bulimia "is just another healthy way of eating"...a different eating-orientation...

Habitual behaviors are sometimes good, but not always. Gay sex is a case in point. Not only is it not healthy for the individuals, especially boys, but this unhealthy habitual behavior is spreading one of the worst epidemics of the 20th & 21st Centuries...And that is because the colon is laden with danger and susceptible to immediate semen-to-blood transfer. It is the septic tank of the body. Whereas the vagina seeks to constantly cleanse itself and evolved to be resitant to invasion of microbes through its walls.

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010 CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

You inferred a seriousness I did not intend. I am a long time supporter of age appropriate sex ed as part of a comprehensive health curriculum, which includes a non scare approach to the dangers of STD's as well as to tobacco products, illicit drugs and alcohol,an unhealthy diet and a sedentary life style.

 

[Syriusly]

Ten years from now it will be about encouraging students to consider homosexuality as a healthy way to avoid pregnancy.

Not necessarily healthy but certainly effective.

But isn't abstinence education effective? Just say NO! kept billions of kids from taking drugs and the Catholic Church time honored efforts to convince tweens that masturbation would send them to hell all worked so well. Why than don't we teach kids to ignore their desires - for fear of hell - and Just say NO!

Isn't that a sure way to raise mentally healthy youngsters into the adult world? It did wonders for some Priests.

. Gay sex is a case in point. Not only is it not healthy for the individuals, especially boys, but this unhealthy habitual behavior is spreading one of the worst epidemics of the 20th & 21st Centuries...And that is because the colon is laden with danger and susceptible to immediate semen-to-blood transfer. It is the septic tank of the body. Whereas the vagina seeks to constantly cleanse itself and evolved to be resitant to invasion of microbes through its walls.]

'gay sex'? What you are describing is 'anal sex' which is as risky when the recipient is a woman as it is when the recipient is a man- and has almost no risk if condoms are used.

It is a sex act that not all gay men participate in, that many hetero couples do, and that lesbians don't.

If this were just about risky sexual, then you would be promoting lesbian sex- as that is less risky than heterosexuals having anal sex......

 

[Silhouette]

Society being forced to approve of promoting the homosexual culture via marriage is unacceptable. That's my argument. And for all the reasons I've stated; for there are many. The skyrocketing rate in new HIV cases of monkey-see monkey-do "gay" youth is one of those excellent reasons to object.

Sons not having fathers and daughters not having mothers as a new forced-institution (by just 5 people in DC) is also wholly unacceptable. Marriage is an institution that no matter what the proposed radical redaction, MUST have the input of society; since it is society that this redaction is most poised to alter forever.

 

[Skylar]

For perhaps the 50th time, the Prince Trust study doesn't say thing about gays. Or same sex parenting. Or measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Nor does it say that a positive same sex role model must be a parent.

You made all that up. And your hallucinations have no relevance to a rational discussion..

Apparently you don't understand logical connections. If 2,000 young adults report that growing up without their own gender as a role model in "parents' leaves them, what was it?, 60% drug addicted, indigent and feeling a lack of belonging to the world, then logic progresses like this: Gays don't have the physical makeup in their relationship to provide either a mother for daughters or a father for sons. It is physically-impossible. Even you cannot dispute that with your pretzel-logic Skylar.

So you admit that it says nothing about gays, gay marriage, gay parenting, or measures the effects of parenting.

Good, that's progress.

Now, on to the 'logic' of your assumptions. Your argument is the lack of a same sex parent means that a child can't have an opposite sex role model. That's illogical gibber jabber. There's nothing in the Prince Trust study that says that a same sex role model must be a parent.

A same sex role model could be an uncle, an aunt, a cousin, a grandparent, a family friend, a member of one's church, a pastor, a coach, a mentor, a friend, a teacher, or a litany of other sources. You and ONLY you insist that an same sex role model must be a parent.

Logically, your argument fails. As there's no such requirement. And the Prince Trust study says no such thing.

Once again, your sources don't say ANY of what you claim they do. And you know this. You just really nope we don't. If your argument actually had merit, you wouldn't have to misrepresent your sources to support your claims.

Worse for your claims still, there have been numerous studies on the health of the children of same sex parents. And virtually all find that the kids are fine. Studies from different countries, different universities, using different sample sizes and different methodology. And the overwhelming consensus is that the children are fine.

You simply ignore any such study regardless of source, sample size or methodology. And then ignoring them, bizarrely cite the Prince Trust study which doesn't say ANYTHING you do.

So your claims are not only baseless, they're overwhelmingly contradicted by evidence. Your willful ignorance doesn't change that. Nor does your dismissal of any evidence that contradict you make the evidence go away. You're simply engaging in the fallacy of logic known as 'Confirmation Bias'. Where you ignore any result that doesn't conform to what you already believe.

That's not reality. That's you ignoring reality. No thank you.

 

[danielpalos]

Society being forced to approve of promoting the homosexual culture via marriage is unacceptable. That's my argument. And for all the reasons I've stated; for there are many. The skyrocketing rate in new HIV cases of monkey-see monkey-do "gay" youth is one of those excellent reasons to object.

Sons not having fathers and daughters not having mothers as a new forced-institution (by just 5 people in DC) is also wholly unacceptable. Marriage is an institution that no matter what the proposed radical redaction, MUST have the input of society; since it is society that this redaction is most poised to alter forever.

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

 

[Skylar]

That's my argument. And for all the reasons I've stated; for there are many. The skyrocketing rate in new HIV cases of monkey-see monkey-do "gay" youth is one of those excellent reasons to object.

Gay marriage is about monogamy. Finding one partner and sticking with that partner. Which is one of the best ways to prevent the spread of HIV. If you were genuinely motivated by HIV, then you'd be an avid proponent of gay marriage. As the monogamy of marriage is one of the finest tools we have against HIV.

Yet you fight same sex marriage. Demonstrating you don't give a fiddler's fuck about HIV. Its merely the latest excuse you're using to try and hurt gays.

Worse, you fight it for lesbians as well as gay men. Despite lesbians having lower than average rates of HIV. If HIV were your motivation, you wouldn't oppose lesbians getting married. As they have less to do with HIV than straights do.

Yet you fight lesbians being able to marry. Demonstrating yet again you don't care about HIV. Its merely another horse for you ride. Like children. The moment it doesn't match your argument, you dismiss it. Just like you did the 10s of thousands of children your proposals hurt. While benefiting no child.

Again, no thank you. Your proposals are simply awful, poorly thought through, and run counter to the very ills you claim you are trying to combat. Making your assertions worse than useless.