Same sex marrige opposers: bigots or spirtually devout

[Gaugingcatenate]

Sure if you want to use the phrase in an entirely different context you end up with a different situation.

Unless you literally meant a penis physically fitting inside a vagina is a key factor in marriage. Did you mean that?

Well, that is a good point and would have to be added as one of the deciding factors on this side.

That is not the only thing that does not fit. If you have two children, one each of the genders, then one, with same sex partners, is not going to have the intimate understanding afforded with hetro couple families. And the other will only have the gender they already know, without the potential insights of the other gender, with their best interests at heart, to help them foundationally. There would be tremendous insights and learning experiences lost. That is just not right.

Does not fit with American tradition. Just doesn't nor should it. Families are the building blocks of the nation and strong families are necessary to a strong America and a strong America is necessary, at least into the foreseeable future, to a free world.

However, since you mention it, penis in anus is not even close to optimal, much less good. You can look up the CDC numbers on that yourself.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Airplanes have two control seats. And they're better than cars.
*mic drop*

I didnt say two control seats, didn't say airplanes...but even if I had then the opposite same sex couples would, invariably, have the equivalent of two passenger seats.

Undeniable.

 

[Cephus]

And that in no way invalidates the validity of the belief.

Absolutely it does. If the object of said belief doesn't exist, the belief is invalid.

No, that's now what I'm saying. That's what YOU'RE saying. What I'm saying is that what you are saying is black and white thinking and a value judgment, a value judgment that you can only prove based on your opinion... a proof that lacks logic.

It isn't an opinion. The fact remains, either God exists or God does not exist. It is one or the other. If God does not exist, all the faith in the world won't change that. It is a false belief. Stop trying to make it otherwise.

 

[Cephus]

Since that's not what I argued in the post in which you responded, there is no reason to answer your question. The dichotomy that I was dispatching is that one either has faith and ignores rational/scientific evidence or one does the opposite. Those are not the only two options, as I have shown.

But that's exactly the point I keep making and you keep trying to sidestep it. If God does not exist, then all the faith in the world won't make God exist. It is faith in something that isn't real. Now I can't prove for an absolute, demonstrable fact that gods aren't real, any more than I can prove for an absolute demonstrable fact that unicorns aren't real. However, the burden of proof is always on the positive claimant. Always. And with the complete and utter absence of any objective evidence whatsoever, gods are no more real than unicorns are. Someone who believes in unicorns will properly be thought of as delusional.

Guess what? People who believe in gods are as well.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Looks like somebody musta got all tangled up in their mainsail.

Cap'n, you, conveniently for your arguments, leave portions out. You know you are doing so which comes under the heading: disingenuous.

Shame shame shame.

I said it was for the protection of children that might be created. You know, by the heterosexual couples having sex. Same sex couples do not run this same risk nor are on the same mission. So the choice to procreate or not in not in their, ummm, wheelhouse.

Cool. Then we go back to procreation not being a determinant in any way for people to get married... an argument that I have used to successfully sink you on a couple of occasions already.[qiote]\

Get my drift, or have we lost anchor once again, have we? The silly attempt at misdirection on the "procreation argument" has been properly identified, targeted, fired upon and dang, she sank like the Lusitania.

Also then obvious, cannot leave us with only the child rearing component as you claim. Yet, based on your assertion that child rearing "IS a purpose of marriage", then it would be PRESUPPOSED that having children, which you feebly deny, would also be a purpose of marriage. In fact it is a primary purpose of marriage as described and detailed many times, see above....I mean, one does actually have to have children to rear children, doesn't one?

Yesssss.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. This is not surprising since each of your arguments has been shredded, you are probably having trouble keeping up with how bad you have been battered. That's OK. I have no problem repeating arguments that have already dismantled you. I have focused on PROCREATION as not being a requirement for marriage. Children, in and of themselves are not either a requirement or THE reason for marriage, though the rearing of children may be a reason. However, what you were arguing was an important purpose for marriage it is primarily for the benefit and protection of offspring that may be created as a result of the union of a male and a female. Now, this is just an alternative way of making the procreation argument, which we know is fallacious. So, after this has been destroyed, you added stuff like this: that children have a need for legitimacy and an allocation of rights and obligations. Now, this sounds like some legal stuff. So, firstly, we know that children, biological or adopted, need this. What we also know is that there are reasons why the government sanctions marriage, and the need for legitimacy and an allocation of rights and obligations to the parents are part of it. Also, a part of it is the successful rearing of these children, helping them to make a successful transition into society and adulthood. This combination creates a need for the government to sanction marriage. THAT is what I am arguing... using your words to prove my position. AND since we know that SSM can accomplish the successful rearing of children as well as opposite sex couples, there is no reason to not sanction SSM. Child rearing is not THE reason for people to get married. I never made that argument. But it is A reason for the government to sanction marriage.

I would like to thank you for providing just enough information for me to use so I can successfully defeat you on this issue. Again.

Ancillary to that, you proved only to your own confirmationally biased self that child rearing by same sex couples is the equivalent of straight couples. The agencies from which you get your confirmation bias showed their hands, their own bias, way before the studies were even commissioned, much less conducted. Studies which are not even longitudinally sufficient to make the representations they made, thus confirming their bias for all but the blind and/or ideologically super unglued.

No, I have successfully proven my position on the consistency between children raised by SSM and by opposite sex couples... easily and without valid challenge from you. I have already destroyed you by schooling you on the appeal to authority logical fallacy and already taught you exactly how to debunk research, something that I have done to anything you posted, and something that you have been incapable of doing to anything that I posted. Your only evidence to the contrary regarding my position is that you don't like it. That's not much of an argument, but it's all you usually have.

I've done the right thing, put out a radio distress call for your post, for any salvage vessels in the neighborhood if available to come by. However, I think that effort to be futile as all the flotsam and jetsam left in my wake looks, well, pretty dang useless.

And once again, your false bravado is betrayed by your lack of ability to debate this topic. You have, once again, been humiliated completely. All of your arguments have been shown to lack logic, facts, or substance.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Maybe come back when you are up to speed?

Maybe come back when you become educated on this topic?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Absolutely it does. If the object of said belief doesn't exist, the belief is invalid.

And since that is not a certainty, it doesn't invalidate the belief.

It isn't an opinion. The fact remains, either God exists or God does not exist. It is one or the other. If God does not exist, all the faith in the world won't change that. It is a false belief. Stop trying to make it otherwise.

And again, that's not what I'm saying. That's your strawman. I am not making any definitive argument over the existence of God. YOU made the argument around whether religion is good or bad and I am saying THAT is a value judgment. Stop altering the argument to your agenda.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

But that's exactly the point I keep making and you keep trying to sidestep it. If God does not exist, then all the faith in the world won't make God exist. It is faith in something that isn't real. Now I can't prove for an absolute, demonstrable fact that gods aren't real, any more than I can prove for an absolute demonstrable fact that unicorns aren't real. However, the burden of proof is always on the positive claimant. Always. And with the complete and utter absence of any objective evidence whatsoever, gods are no more real than unicorns are. Someone who believes in unicorns will properly be thought of as delusional.

Guess what? People who believe in gods are as well.

Firstly, I am not sidestepping anything. You are creating a strawman. I am not arguing the existence of God. Further, since I am not arguing that existence, and you ARE arguing the lack of existence, the burden of proof is now on YOU. YOU'RE making the claim, not I. I have told you that in the past and it hasn't changed. You want to prove that God doesn't exist? Go ahead. I'm uninterested in proving God's existence. So, go to it, Cephus. Let's see you prove your position.

And with no proof, definitively believing something doesn't exist without any evidence would be considered delusional or a conspiracy theory.

 

[blarg]

Yes.

Since you were talking cars earlier, I will put it this way. If I am planning a road trip to Panama City in my sports car, I do not want a car with identical side by side front passenger compartments. No, see that won't work. I want one driver side, one passenger side for my girl.

You know.

No doubt you could have a car with those two passenger seats, but you would end up having to push it all the way to the city. And without the steering wheel, well...

Just not practical. Why do that when you could have a perfectly good and normal car that actually works?

that analogy brakes down fast a same sex couple has all the function we demand from a hetero couple more like you dont want 4 wheel drive

 

[chromium]

American tradition, best family building structure, creating the most well rounded individuals, fitting that mold. Best practices.

yes, there's nothing more american than sham marriages

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

...
Apparently you haven't been paying attention. This is not surprising since each of your arguments has been shredded, you are probably having trouble keeping up with how bad you have been battered. That's OK. I have no problem repeating arguments that have already dismantled you. I have focused on PROCREATION as not being a requirement for marriage. Children, in and of themselves are not either a requirement or THE reason for marriage, though the rearing of children may be a reason. However, what you were arguing was an important purpose for marriage it is primarily for the benefit and protection of offspring that may be created as a result of the union of a male and a female. Now, this is just an alternative way of making the procreation argument, which we know is fallacious. So, after this has been destroyed, you added stuff like this: that children have a need for legitimacy and an allocation of rights and obligations. Now, this sounds like some legal stuff. So, firstly, we know that children, biological or adopted, need this. What we also know is that there are reasons why the government sanctions marriage, and the need for legitimacy and an allocation of rights and obligations to the parents are part of it. Also, a part of it is the successful rearing of these children, helping them to make a successful transition into society and adulthood. This combination creates a need for the government to sanction marriage. THAT is what I am arguing... using your words to prove my position. AND since we know that SSM can accomplish the successful rearing of children as well as opposite sex couples, there is no reason to not sanction SSM. Child rearing is not THE reason for people to get married...

Like the Big Bad Wolf, you sure gotta lotta huff and puff, but unlike the BBWolf, ya got no real blow to your arguments, Cap'n.

You can and do go on and on and on about a primary reason for marriage not being about the potential creation of children, yet instead it somehow being about rearing children, though you backed off that a bit now, when caught, saying child rearing may be a reason. The reason it is, not may be, a reason, is because children are ubiquitously created by heterosexual couples in heterosexual marriages.

You persist denying that, and there is no earthly way, regrettably, to stop such accompanying inane drivel about shredding my arguments, already proven, blah blah banal blah. Then, not so subtly you try to slip back in my argument that you just dismissed on its face, as part of why the state sanctions marriage [it being a primary reason]. So yeah, you did use my arguments to ultimately prove my argument.

Hat tip, thanks.

Additionally, the idea of marriage was created prior to SScouples and would be based, of course, on the requirements of hetero couples, primarily in the endowment of offspring creation. Otherwise you are merely glorified versions of boyfriend girlfriend. Marriage would be nice, actually unnecessary and oftentimes cumbersome/problematical.

No, I have successfully proven my position on the consistency between children raised by SSM and by opposite sex couples... easily and without valid challenge from you. I have already destroyed you by schooling you on the appeal to authority logical fallacy and already taught you exactly how to debunk research, something that I have done to anything you posted, and something that you have been incapable of doing to anything that I posted. Your only evidence to the contrary regarding my position is that you don't like it. That's not much of an argument, but it's all you usually have.

We know nothing of the sort about SScouples being on par with hetero couples. Common sense tells any sane person otherwise. Try making a cake with all the same ingredients, doesnt work, you need the proper mix. Your sources are proven biased by their own unproven proclamations from incomplete studies and their admittedly prejudiced stance previous to those studies.

As a pertinent aside, you may be familiar with the studies that call the entire psychological field into question http://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/10/share-reproducibility.aspx Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science | Science

Add that to the prejudging done as per our little discussion here, guilty.

And once again, your false bravado is betrayed by your lack of ability to debate this topic. You have, once again, been humiliated completely. All of your arguments have been shown to lack logic, facts, or substance.

Ahhh, there we go again, this is where you go on to crown yourself King of the Monotonous Mundaners of Self-Aggrandizement.

Oh the tyranny.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Maybe come back when you become educated on this topic?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, good one. You can be quite funny, especially when you are trying to be serious it seems.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

yes, there's nothing more american than sham marriages

Uh huh. America has done pretty damn well with an abundance of these "sham marriages", eh?

 

[chromium]

Uh huh. America has done pretty damn well with an abundance of these "sham marriages", eh?

It's a lot better with gay marriages because there *isn't* so many sham marriages, in addition to gay people no longer face widespread discrimination

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

It's a lot better with gay marriages because there *isn't* so many sham marriages, in addition to gay people no longer face widespread discrimination

SSM can be nothing but a sham marriage.

 

[blarg]

SSM can be nothing but a sham marriage.

whats the difference between them and hetero sexual marriages? they seem to worck the same way

 

[Deuce]

I didnt say two control seats, didn't say airplanes...but even if I had then the opposite same sex couples would, invariably, have the equivalent of two passenger seats.

Undeniable.

No, man. You brought this stupid car analogy in as if seats in a vehicle were comparable to the vast complexities of human romantic relationships. So let's keep going with it. I fly planes for a living, so I'm keeping my airplane. Your car has a control-dick seat and a passenger-vagina seat for you girl. My airplane has two control-dick seats. Two dicks. But unlike your dickseat and vaginaseat, our two dicks are a team. In "your girl's" seat sits a passenger: a passive individual who serves little purpose. They can't steer the car. Theoretically they can read a map, but come on. You're a man. Like that's gonna happen. (Plus your phone does that these days) Passengers take up space and take up gas and have little impact on the overall outcome of the journey.

But my two dicks? Operated together. While only one pilot operates the actual dick at a time, we take turns doing that, while the other one handles all the other myriad tasks required to maintain an airplane-relationship. Radio communications, navigation, operating other systems. And by doing this as a two-dick team, we are faster, safer, more efficient, and more effective than your one-dick, one-vagina car. And each of our two dicks is capable of taking on the roles of the other as needed in an emergency. But your vagina passenger? She's pretty stuck if you keel over suddenly.

We've just proven the superiority of two dudes getting married, at least with your stupid analogy as a basis. My two dicks will get you there faster and safer, they accomplish more in less time. They manage to perform a task much, much more complicated than your silly one-dick car.

Ok, so you mention rear passenger seats. Those are either more "girls," which means we're going into polygamy here now, or maybe they're kids. (the analogy works out. mostly dead weight that complains all the time and sucks up resources)

Maybe you should have considered the possibility that not everybody has a need for an identical sedan like you want to force them all into. Some people want different vehicles for different reasons.

 

[Cephus]

And since that is not a certainty, it doesn't invalidate the belief.

There's no such thing as absolute certainty in anything. We can't even be absolutely certain we exist. It is an unreasonable standard. Yet we consider anyone who believes in leprechauns or unicorns or fairies to be nuts, even though we can't be absolutely certain such things do not exist. Why are you so insistent in making God an exception to that rule? Because it's the culturally dominant delusion?

And again, that's not what I'm saying. That's your strawman. I am not making any definitive argument over the existence of God. YOU made the argument around whether religion is good or bad and I am saying THAT is a value judgment. Stop altering the argument to your agenda.

There's no strawman in it. It is a fundamental fact. Something either exists or it does not exist. It cannot sort of exist. It cannot almost exist. It is a binary proposition. You keep refusing to acknowledge this. If someone believes in something that does not exist, their belief is wrong. Period. It doesn't matter how much joy that belief brings to their life, they are still wrong. Now maybe you don't care if people believe in complete BS, maybe all you care about is emotional comfort and maybe so long as things make people feel good, even if it is totally false, that's all that matters to you, I don't know. If that's the case, we're just not going to agree. It doesn't change the fact that people are believing things for which they have no good reason to think are actually true, they are believing for entirely emotional reasons, not intellectual ones. It is no different than astrology or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.

 

[Cephus]

Firstly, I am not sidestepping anything. You are creating a strawman. I am not arguing the existence of God. Further, since I am not arguing that existence, and you ARE arguing the lack of existence, the burden of proof is now on YOU. YOU'RE making the claim, not I. I have told you that in the past and it hasn't changed. You want to prove that God doesn't exist? Go ahead. I'm uninterested in proving God's existence. So, go to it, Cephus. Let's see you prove your position.

And with no proof, definitively believing something doesn't exist without any evidence would be considered delusional or a conspiracy theory.

You're certainly trying to defend the practice though. You're trying to make religion the exception to the rule. And I'm not arguing the lack of existence, I'm arguing the lack of evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of any gods. There is nothing we can measure. There is nothing we can examine. There is nothing we can evaluate. It is all just wishful thinking. If there was any evidence, it would be trumpeted by apologists from the mountain tops. There just isn't and because there isn't, we can only go by what we currently know to be true and reject things that we cannot determine to be reasonable beliefs. That includes religion.

Now sure, maybe you don't care about people being reasonable. Maybe you don't care about people being rational. Maybe you don't care about people being intellectual. Maybe you like people being stupid. I don't know. I have higher expectations though.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

No, man. You brought this stupid car analogy in as if seats in a vehicle were comparable to the vast complexities of human romantic relationships. So let's keep going with it. I fly planes for a living, so I'm keeping my airplane. Your car has a control-dick seat and a passenger-vagina seat for you girl. My airplane has two control-dick seats. Two dicks. But unlike your dickseat and vaginaseat, our two dicks are a team. In "your girl's" seat sits a passenger: a passive individual who serves little purpose. They can't steer the car. Theoretically they can read a map, but come on. You're a man. Like that's gonna happen. (Plus your phone does that these days) Passengers take up space and take up gas and have little impact on the overall outcome of the journey.

But my two dicks? Operated together. While only one pilot operates the actual dick at a time, we take turns doing that, while the other one handles all the other myriad tasks required to maintain an airplane-relationship. Radio communications, navigation, operating other systems. And by doing this as a two-dick team, we are faster, safer, more efficient, and more effective than your one-dick, one-vagina car. And each of our two dicks is capable of taking on the roles of the other as needed in an emergency. But your vagina passenger? She's pretty stuck if you keel over suddenly.

We've just proven the superiority of two dudes getting married, at least with your stupid analogy as a basis. My two dicks will get you there faster and safer, they accomplish more in less time. They manage to perform a task much, much more complicated than your silly one-dick car.

Ok, so you mention rear passenger seats. Those are either more "girls," which means we're going into polygamy here now, or maybe they're kids. (the analogy works out. mostly dead weight that complains all the time and sucks up resources)

Maybe you should have considered the possibility that not everybody has a need for an identical sedan like you want to force them all into. Some people want different vehicles for different reasons.

Don't know what altitude your altimeter is registering, but the car analogy went right over your two dick heads. Btw, my girl is hardly passive, she serves great purpose . She does the, you know, trix.

Speaking of which, we, my girl and I, can make a bunch of little cars which your two dicks plane and simple cannot. Yet maybe you want some little cars of your very own... sorry, you see we are the silly rabbits and our trix are for kids...

Dicks are for planes, eh?

 

[Deuce]

Don't what altitude your altimeter is registering, but the car analogy went right over your two dick heads. Btw, my girl is hardly passive, she serves great purpose . She does the, you know, trix.

Speaking of which, we, my girl and I, can make a bunch of little cars which your two dicks plane and simple cannot. Yet maybe you want some little cars of your very own... sorry, you see we are the silly rabbits and our trix are for kids...

Dicks are for planes, eh?

Which, again, brings us back around to the discussion of infertile and elderly couples who you, for some reason, still consider married.

 

[Cardinal]

Don't know what altitude your altimeter is registering, but the car analogy went right over your two dick heads. Btw, my girl is hardly passive, she serves great purpose . She does the, you know, trix.

Speaking of which, we, my girl and I, can make a bunch of little cars which your two dicks plane and simple cannot. Yet maybe you want some little cars of your very own... sorry, you see we are the silly rabbits and our trix are for kids...

Dicks are for planes, eh?

9am, even if it is a Sunday, is a little early to be starting, don't you think?

 

[Cardinal]

SSM can be nothing but a sham marriage.

Religiously, that depends on the religion and the congregation. As the state sees it, your statement is demonstrably false.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Which, again, brings us back around to the discussion of infertile and elderly couples who you, for some reason, still consider married.

They are still cars you see, older cars but still fit for the highway, properly licensible, tags where they should be. No planes on our roads, please.

 

[Cardinal]

They are still cars you see, older cars but still fit for the highway, properly licensible, tags where they should be. No planes on our roads, please.

They aren't fit for the roads if they don't pass smog emission tests. Also, it's perfectly legal for a plane to land on an unoccupied road in the event of an emergency.