• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-gay marriage rallies as NY ceremonies begin

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
5,967
Reaction score
1,523
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

"Wow, you ignored Critical Thought so blatantly that I am actually quite amazed..." - Bodhisattva

That's nuthin'!

Now watch me ignore you.
 
Last edited:

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
5,967
Reaction score
1,523
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
“I would love to see your studies that show that gay parents do less well than strait parents and that a mommy and daddy is better than two mommies or daddies. I will show you mine if you show me yours.” - Redress

“The evaluation looks at how each study carries out six key research tasks: (1) formulating a hypothesis and research design; (2) controlling for unrelated effects; (3) measuring concepts (bias, reliability and validity); (4) sampling; (5) statistical testing; and (6) addressing the problem of false negatives (statistical power)…. Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all forty-nine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy.”
The Marriage Law Project at The Catholic University of America


Also consider:

http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/childrenastrophies.pdf

Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

The following is my letter which told the truth about homosexual parenting, (reference a search of any objective reporting of

Homosexual Parenting

Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D. -- Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk

Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence - Conservapedia

Is Homosexuality Healthy?

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1275961/posts


There is a helluva lot more but this got pretty boring pretty quick but it should keep you busy for a minute.

“And again with the diversions. Compare breakup rates of those not married to those who are just as one example.” - Redress

Uh…my comment was about divorce rates…unmarried couples don’t get divorced…get it?
 

ender1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
142
Political Leaning
Libertarian
“I would love to see your studies that show that gay parents do less well than strait parents and that a mommy and daddy is better than two mommies or daddies. I will show you mine if you show me yours.” - Redress

“The evaluation looks at how each study carries out six key research tasks: (1) formulating a hypothesis and research design; (2) controlling for unrelated effects; (3) measuring concepts (bias, reliability and validity); (4) sampling; (5) statistical testing; and (6) addressing the problem of false negatives (statistical power)…. Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all forty-nine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy.”
The Marriage Law Project at The Catholic University of America


Also consider:

http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/childrenastrophies.pdf

Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

The following is my letter which told the truth about homosexual parenting, (reference a search of any objective reporting of

Homosexual Parenting

Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D. -- Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk

Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence - Conservapedia

Is Homosexuality Healthy?

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality

Why Allowing Same-Sex Marriage Would Be Disastrous For America. Numerous Scientific Studies Cited.


There is a helluva lot more but this got pretty boring pretty quick but it should keep you busy for a minute.

“And again with the diversions. Compare breakup rates of those not married to those who are just as one example.” - Redress

Uh…my comment was about divorce rates…unmarried couples don’t get divorced…get it?

You seem to do a lot of reading about homosexual lifestyle. Are you sure the closet door isn't just a littel bit open?
 

ender1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
142
Political Leaning
Libertarian
“I would love to see your studies that show that gay parents do less well than strait parents and that a mommy and daddy is better than two mommies or daddies. I will show you mine if you show me yours.” - Redress

“The evaluation looks at how each study carries out six key research tasks: (1) formulating a hypothesis and research design; (2) controlling for unrelated effects; (3) measuring concepts (bias, reliability and validity); (4) sampling; (5) statistical testing; and (6) addressing the problem of false negatives (statistical power)…. Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all forty-nine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy.”
The Marriage Law Project at The Catholic University of America


Also consider:

http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/childrenastrophies.pdf

Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

The following is my letter which told the truth about homosexual parenting, (reference a search of any objective reporting of

Homosexual Parenting

Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D. -- Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk

Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence - Conservapedia

Is Homosexuality Healthy?

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality

Why Allowing Same-Sex Marriage Would Be Disastrous For America. Numerous Scientific Studies Cited.


There is a helluva lot more but this got pretty boring pretty quick but it should keep you busy for a minute.

“And again with the diversions. Compare breakup rates of those not married to those who are just as one example.” - Redress

Uh…my comment was about divorce rates…unmarried couples don’t get divorced…get it?

You seem to do a lot of reading about homosexual lifestyle. Are you sure the closet door isn't just a littel bit open?
 

DemonMyst

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
727
Reaction score
299
Location
Seattle WA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
“I would love to see your studies that show that gay parents do less well than strait parents and that a mommy and daddy is better than two mommies or daddies. I will show you mine if you show me yours.” - Redress

“The evaluation looks at how each study carries out six key research tasks: (1) formulating a hypothesis and research design; (2) controlling for unrelated effects; (3) measuring concepts (bias, reliability and validity); (4) sampling; (5) statistical testing; and (6) addressing the problem of false negatives (statistical power)…. Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all forty-nine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy.”
The Marriage Law Project at The Catholic University of America


Also consider:

http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/childrenastrophies.pdf

Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

The following is my letter which told the truth about homosexual parenting, (reference a search of any objective reporting of

Homosexual Parenting

Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D. -- Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk

Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence - Conservapedia

Is Homosexuality Healthy?

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality

Why Allowing Same-Sex Marriage Would Be Disastrous For America. Numerous Scientific Studies Cited.


There is a helluva lot more but this got pretty boring pretty quick but it should keep you busy for a minute.

“And again with the diversions. Compare breakup rates of those not married to those who are just as one example.” - Redress

Uh…my comment was about divorce rates…unmarried couples don’t get divorced…get it?

Other than a bunch of religious crap which is irrelevent.. Do you have anything relevent to add to the discussion?? Any peer reviewed studies by actual scientists??

I mean seriously dude!! You are simply showing that you have no arguement.. Religion is no arguement and does not matter.. Anything from a religous source is irrelevent as it is bias and has an agenda.. Don't think for a minute we all forgot what religion attempted to do in California and Prop 8..

All your sources there are simply crap.. None of it is peer reviewed, and none of it is from a respected and non-bias source..

Descrimintation is wrong.. Period.. If you have issues or problems with that then why the hell are you an american?? Equality is one of the founding principles of our nation.. Get over it!!
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well sourced posts will be casually dismissed.

This should be a maxim or 'law' of some kind.

It's why I generally don't bother.

Edit:

Oh, there is, Rule 11: All your carefully picked arguments can easily be ignored :lol: My bad, I totaly forgot :doh

File:Rulesoftheinternet.jpg - Oh Internet
 
Last edited:

Dustmop

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
128
Reaction score
142
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Your first source “The Marriage Law Project at The Catholic University of America” doesn’t actually show which studies it is about, and does not show how they actually violate each claim. Also, bias much? This is not scientific literature, it is not peer-reviewed, and so is completely useless.

http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpubli...astrophies.pdf
Really, another Christian, non-scientific publication? No, this is not science. Also, I this only evaluates the outcomes of children raised by their original parents, compared to broken homes, single parents, etc. It does not in any way compare children raised by their original parents to children adopted and raised by a gay couple, or children who are born to a gay couple by IVF and then raised by that couple. So, aside from being uselessly biased drivel, this article does nothing to support your point.

Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk
Family Research Council? I’m beginning to think you don’t actually know what an unbiased, scientific source is. Also, this does not show that children raised by homosexual parents are worse off. It simply criticizes a subset of the research that is out there. Again, does not support your conclusion.
The following is my letter which told the truth about homosexual parenting, (reference a search of any objective reporting of
This is a letter. It is not scientific in any way and does not provide any evidence for its claims. Useless.

Homosexual Parenting
I don’t have time to check all of the sources this document sites but I checked a couple. The first one said having homosexual fathers does not have an effect on a child, and another study said that being raised by lesbians had no effect on the sexual orientation of the children. So, this author is misusing sources, assuming that if there is a citation no one will bother to check. Another useless source. You cannot say something, and then cite as evidence an article which contradicts what you have said.

Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D. -- Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk

This one is a religious blog that does the same thing as the others, making broad sweeping criticisms of research without actually showing the studies it is criticizing, and without making any argument that the studies they looked at encompass the entirety of research into the subject. Just because someone has a Ph.D. does not make them right.

Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence - Conservapedia
Conservapedia? When I thought the useless drivel could not get any more useless…this is not a scientific source, it has nothing to do with child rearing, and it’s not even remotely related to a process of peer review.

Is Homosexuality Healthy?
This one is by the Exodus Global Alliance. It says nothing about raising children. Same bias as the rest. Do you know what science is?

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
Again, the Family Research Council is a biased religious source. This is useless and says nothing about children raised by homosexual parents.


Why Allowing Same-Sex Marriage Would Be Disastrous For America. Numerous Scientific Studies Cited.
Conservative non-scientific BS, citing more conservative non-scientific BS. You cited articles which point out scientific flaws in some research about gay parentage, and then post an entire page of scientifically invalid, non-peer reviewed “research” that speaks against gays. Do you see how ridiculous that is?

I think there is a bigger issue here than gay marriage. Someone, anyone, needs to teach you what science means and what it is. When you can post evidence from a scientific, non-biased, peer-reviewed journal that supports your argument, I will give credence to it. Until then, it doesn’t matter how many useless links you post. They are still useless. Give an argument, give valid supporting evidence, and then people will believe you. That's how this logic thing works. In your quest to understand science, I would also advise looking up and pondering the word "propaganda".
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well sourced posts will be casually dismissed.

This should be a maxim or 'law' of some kind.

It's why I generally don't bother.

Edit:

Oh, there is, Rule 11: All your carefully picked arguments can easily be ignored :lol: My bad, I totaly forgot :doh

File:Rulesoftheinternet.jpg - Oh Internet

The sources listed are known for lacking credibility. FreeRepublic, the catholic church, etc have all proven to be liars.
 

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
5,967
Reaction score
1,523
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"Other than a bunch of religious crap which is irrelevent.. Do you have anything relevent to add to the discussion?? Any peer reviewed studies by actual scientists??

I mean seriously dude..."
- DemonMyst

Look, child! You do not skim a few articles and dimsiss them because you don't like the sources. You examine them and debunk the argument. That's how adults do it!

Perhaps you would be more at home here!

And exactly who in the country-fried-hell are you to lecture me about me an American when you don't even know what in the hell you're talking about.

Grow-up, Scooter!
 

SlackMaster

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
598
Reaction score
399
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Look, child! You do not skim a few articles and dimsiss them because you don't like the sources. You examine them and debunk the argument. That's how adults do it!

I recently read an article about a guy who was riding his motorcycle in a parade to protest helmet laws; he crashed during that parade and died from a head wound that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet.

That is now the second most tragically ironic thing that I've read.
 

Aderleth

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,294
Reaction score
2,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well sourced posts will be casually dismissed.

This should be a maxim or 'law' of some kind.

It's why I generally don't bother.

Edit:

Oh, there is, Rule 11: All your carefully picked arguments can easily be ignored :lol: My bad, I totaly forgot :doh

File:Rulesoftheinternet.jpg - Oh Internet

Jerry. Stop being such a monumental coward, and tell me what the hell you're talking about. I was talking about the Constitution. Please tell me what the **** you're talking about. If I think you're right, I will tell you as much. If I think you're wrong, I'll tell you that, as well. Either your idea will stand up to criticism or it won't. But we won't have an answer to that until you actually tell me what in the name of **** you are talking about.
 

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I dont claim to be a bible expert but from my research homosexual behavior is mentioned six times. Being drunk, as a sin, is mentioned hundreds. By percentages that means we should have a few hundred "National Organization for Sobriety" rallies for each one against Gays. Guess its easy when you can pick which sins YOU dont like.

Terrible argument.

You probably don't live a Christian lifestyle, which is why you can so easily dismiss Christian principles.
 
Last edited:

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Jerry. Stop being such a monumental coward, and tell me what the hell you're talking about. I was talking about the Constitution. Please tell me what the **** you're talking about. If I think you're right, I will tell you as much. If I think you're wrong, I'll tell you that, as well. Either your idea will stand up to criticism or it won't. But we won't have an answer to that until you actually tell me what in the name of **** you are talking about.

It's nothing a simply Wiki can't tell you, so stop being so ****ing lazy:
Same-sex marriage in New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In June 2011, the Marriage Equality Act, another bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, was passed by the state Assembly. In the Republican-controlled Senate, three Democrats and two Republicans who had voted against the 2009 bill indicated their support for legalizing same-sex marriage. On June 24, the bill was passed in the New York Senate by a 33–29 vote; 29 Democrats and four Republicans voted in favor.[5] The Gotham Gazette reported that the Senate rules were changed by the Democratic conference in a backroom agreement before the day's session to prevent Democrat Ruben Diaz, Sr., an opponent of same-sex marriage, from motioning to lay the bill aside for debate; the rules were changed again during the vote to ensure it would conclude in time to make the 11 pm EDT newscasts.[37]

Lawsuits are pending because the rules were broken to pass the bill. The law is illegitimate, regardless of whether one supports ssm or not.

All this talk of natural rights and what marriage has always been etc is fine academically, but irrelevant to this piece of legislation.

Yes, I personally oppose SSM, but overriding that opinion is the reality that marriage is a State issue as per the 10th Amendment as it's not 'specifically enumerated' in the Constitution. IMO if NY wants to allow SSM, that's their business. Marriage is a state issue, what they do in their house, is in their house. I wasn't planning on moving back to NY anyway, for unrelated reasons.

However, whatever NY decides to do regarding SSM, it needs to do legitimately. In this case, it did not, and that's the problem.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You probably don't live a Christian lifestyle, which is why you can so easily dismiss Christian principles.

Ah looky there. The pot is calling the kettle black. That is adorable.
 

SlackMaster

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
598
Reaction score
399
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's nothing a simply Wiki can't tell you, so stop being so ****ing lazy:
Same-sex marriage in New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lawsuits are pending because the rules were broken to pass the bill. The law is illegitimate, regardless of whether one supports ssm or not.

All this talk of natural rights and what marriage has always been etc is fine academically, but irrelevant to this piece of legislation.

Yes, I personally oppose SSM, but overriding that opinion is the reality that marriage is a State issue as per the 10th Amendment as it's not 'specifically enumerated' in the Constitution. IMO if NY wants to allow SSM, that's their business. Marriage is a state issue, what they do in their house, is in their house. I wasn't planning on moving back to NY anyway, for unrelated reasons.

However, whatever NY decides to do regarding SSM, it needs to do legitimately. In this case, it did not, and that's the problem.

That's true. If the Dems didn't follow the proper channels, they should have to go back and do it right.

That wasn't my original criticism though. NOMA was saying that they should "let the people vote" which is unconstitutional. The entire idea of the bill of rights is to protect the minority from the whims of the majority.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
86,495
Reaction score
56,507
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Иосиф Сталин;1059684169 said:
You don't understand because you grew up amidst that multicultural propaganda that gays are OK, minorities should be given preference all the time, and every citizen should own a gun.

And why should they be allowed to marry? Who says they can? Who says two men can marry each other? That is disgusting. In the future, anybody who doesn't approve of gay marriage or doesn't act gay is going to be persecuted.

Don't forget that. Only one mentality can prevail. It's either them or us. We cannot co-exist, because they want to destroy normal people. You have to become like them, if you are to progress in the future world. Well, not under my watch. I'm not becoming another gay. Quit dreaming about all those happy-end movies. This is not Hollywood. This is real life.

We can already witness this in colleges, where a certain degree of gayness makes you cool and appreciated, whereas if you don't tolerate that behavior you're immediately marginalized.

Yeah, I'm watching you, buddies. This is not MTV.

I think kimchi is pretty damned disgusting too, but I'm not going to outlaw it. I don't see gay marriage as being strong enough to destroy the Republic. Fascist jerks who somehow get in power and have their voices heard....now they're a real threat.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Terrible argument.

You probably don't live a Christian lifestyle, which is why you can so easily dismiss Christian principles.

IMO, most christians do not live a christian lifestyle. My understanding is that they have a diverse range of lifestyles
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's nothing a simply Wiki can't tell you, so stop being so ****ing lazy:
Same-sex marriage in New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lawsuits are pending because the rules were broken to pass the bill. The law is illegitimate, regardless of whether one supports ssm or not.

All this talk of natural rights and what marriage has always been etc is fine academically, but irrelevant to this piece of legislation.

Yes, I personally oppose SSM, but overriding that opinion is the reality that marriage is a State issue as per the 10th Amendment as it's not 'specifically enumerated' in the Constitution. IMO if NY wants to allow SSM, that's their business. Marriage is a state issue, what they do in their house, is in their house. I wasn't planning on moving back to NY anyway, for unrelated reasons.

However, whatever NY decides to do regarding SSM, it needs to do legitimately. In this case, it did not, and that's the problem.

I don't see anything about the rules being broken. It says the rules were changed.

It may be that the rules were changed using an illegal/inappropriate manner, but your link offers no proof of that
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't see anything about the rules being broken. It says the rules were changed.

It may be that the rules were changed using an illegal/inappropriate manner, but your link offers no proof of that

It wasn't supposed to be. It's Wiki. It's only good for giving you a basic idea of what I was talking about.
 

ender1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
142
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Terrible argument.

You probably don't live a Christian lifestyle, which is why you can so easily dismiss Christian principles.

Terrible argument.

Either I live a Christian lifestyle and you have just insulted me or dont and would not care.

I do in fact live my life by principles of a Christian lifestyle. I just disapprove of hypocrits who claim to love God but have so much hate in their hearts.

They bible and God dont hate gays. Men with weak minds use the bible to hate gays.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's nothing a simply Wiki can't tell you, so stop being so ****ing lazy:
Same-sex marriage in New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lawsuits are pending because the rules were broken to pass the bill. The law is illegitimate, regardless of whether one supports ssm or not.

I seen nothing in there that showed any proof of any illegal activity to pass that law other than a claim by NYCF.

Of course the fact that it is or may be taken to court does not necessarily mean that it is illegal. It is just under review to see if it is/was passed illegally.

All this talk of natural rights and what marriage has always been etc is fine academically, but irrelevant to this piece of legislation.

Not really if those arguements are used in the court room.

Yes, I personally oppose SSM, but overriding that opinion is the reality that marriage is a State issue as per the 10th Amendment as it's not 'specifically enumerated' in the Constitution. IMO if NY wants to allow SSM, that's their business. Marriage is a state issue, what they do in their house, is in their house. I wasn't planning on moving back to NY anyway, for unrelated reasons.

I don't see the federal goverment passing the law in NY...I did notice that the state government did....In anycase you are wrong here. The 10th Amendment is about powers. Not rights. However the 9th Amendment does pertain to rights. Read the difference...

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Protecting rights is the responsibility of the federal government. Be it a right enumerated within the Constitution or not.

However, whatever NY decides to do regarding SSM, it needs to do legitimately. In this case, it did not, and that's the problem.

Prove that they did not pass the law legitimately please.
 
Top Bottom