2014: the year Ellen Page made scores of neckbeards cry out in psychic anguish

is this topic still going. do we hate gays less yet.

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:58 AM, luke viia said:

itt: an oilman who is both "interested in" collapsism as a means for social change and is also "agnostic" about climate change argues that gay marriage is going to accelerate societal collapse. well bring it on then, right shea? :D

 

lel

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:59 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:23 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Also, please explain to me the positive benefit of the institution of marriage, and why that positive benefit is not applicable to any marriage that is not between strictly a man and a woman.

 

to me, this question is completely off-topic. the only serious question that must be asked is what do the people want. remember we're talking about democratic regimes.

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:46 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Marriage between men and women still exists. The institution is still available to them. All marriages that happened previous to that are still recognized. Their institution is still valid. Nothing is ending.

 

from your pont of view, yeah.

 

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:46 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

You are saying that marriage has no purpose other than honoring an unchanging tradition. What is the purpose of marriage other than honoring a tradition?

 

i didn't say this. i just want you to deal with the fact that some people don't want their traditions to end. refusing them that under the pretext of tolerance, is intolerance. deal with it. lol

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:46 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

The political behavior of your country is not relevant to this discussion for me.

 

too bad, because that's what's really at stake, to me. the gay rights debate is only distraction from the bigger picture.

 

 

You can do better than this. You are only supporting my argument with these replies.

 

Please don't dodge questions and change the subject.

 

My point of view? My point of view is based in reality. Yours obviously is not.

 

Once again nothing is ending it is only changing. It is literally only a definition that changes as well. The physical union of a man and woman is completely and utterly unchanged.

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:06 AM, gmanyo said:

is this topic still going. do we hate gays less yet.

 

Nope

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:56 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 2:26 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:32 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:22 AM, sheatheman said:

Adieu, stop saying people are insane because they say things you disagree with.

 

On that note, you are insane if you think there is no debate to be had on the rights of children and homosexual adoption.

 

 

If you want to give children full rights in the case of their own adoption give them the opportunity to choose to accept or disqualify any of their potential adopters. That is having all of your rights. To determine that people are not capable of being a guardian to children due to an arbitrary personality trait is pretty insane

 

 

 

 

I'm not taking a side in this argument. But I'm pretty sure there are thousands of studies spanning at least a century regarding gender roles in raising a child. Taking a gender out of the equation (child raising) likely has consequences. No idea what the consequences are.

 

 

Everything has consequences.

 

A highly irrelevant proposition in my opinion.

 

Divorce has a high likelihood of damaging children's development. Maybe we should make divorce illegal. It does say in the vows, "Until death do us part, for better or for worse". Yet, I don't see people lobbying to enforce those words.

 

 

Irrelevant? My statement is in rebuttal to you saying "arbitrary personality traits". Gender is hardly arbitrary, based on the thousands if not 10s of thousands of supporting studies. How is that somehow irrelevant?

 

Your last statement is just a logical fallacy.

Edited February 19, 2014 by StephenG

Gays being allowed to marry has angered people

 

in exactly the same way that women being allowed to vote angered people

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:09 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:56 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 2:26 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:32 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:22 AM, sheatheman said:

Adieu, stop saying people are insane because they say things you disagree with.

 

On that note, you are insane if you think there is no debate to be had on the rights of children and homosexual adoption.

 

 

If you want to give children full rights in the case of their own adoption give them the opportunity to choose to accept or disqualify any of their potential adopters. That is having all of your rights. To determine that people are not capable of being a guardian to children due to an arbitrary personality trait is pretty insane

 

 

 

 

I'm not taking a side in this argument. But I'm pretty sure there are thousands of studies spanning at least a century regarding gender roles in raising a child. Taking a gender out of the equation (child raising) likely has consequences. No idea what the consequences are.

 

 

Everything has consequences.

 

A highly irrelevant proposition in my opinion.

 

Divorce has a high likelihood of damaging children's development. Maybe we should make divorce illegal. It does say in the vows, "Until death do us part, for better or for worse". Yet, I don't see people lobbying to enforce those words.

 

 

Irrelevant? My statement is in rebuttal to you saying "arbitrary personality traits". Gender is hardly arbitrary, based on the thousands if not 10s of thousands of supporting studies. How is that somehow irrelevant?

 

 

Gender is relevant in various ways. Sexual orientation is not relevant to ones parenting abilities in a meaningful way. At least it has not been proven as such. But it's very misleading to say "well these things likely have consequences" when in reality the consequences are not known. Opening an argument in question of something with evidence to suggest that questioning is valid is sort of important. It sets the foundation for which we should not make any changes to anything for fear of any negative consequences. It also promotes inflexibility to change which will always be detriment.

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:09 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

My point of view? My point of view is based in reality. Yours obviously is not.

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:09 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:56 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 2:26 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:32 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:22 AM, sheatheman said:

Adieu, stop saying people are insane because they say things you disagree with.

 

On that note, you are insane if you think there is no debate to be had on the rights of children and homosexual adoption.

 

 

If you want to give children full rights in the case of their own adoption give them the opportunity to choose to accept or disqualify any of their potential adopters. That is having all of your rights. To determine that people are not capable of being a guardian to children due to an arbitrary personality trait is pretty insane

 

 

 

 

I'm not taking a side in this argument. But I'm pretty sure there are thousands of studies spanning at least a century regarding gender roles in raising a child. Taking a gender out of the equation (child raising) likely has consequences. No idea what the consequences are.

 

 

Everything has consequences.

 

A highly irrelevant proposition in my opinion.

 

Divorce has a high likelihood of damaging children's development. Maybe we should make divorce illegal. It does say in the vows, "Until death do us part, for better or for worse". Yet, I don't see people lobbying to enforce those words.

 

 

Irrelevant? My statement is in rebuttal to you saying "arbitrary personality traits". Gender is hardly arbitrary, based on the thousands if not 10s of thousands of supporting studies. How is that somehow irrelevant?

 

Your last statement is just a logical fallacy.

 

 

Why is it a logical fallacy to question why people believe that they need to enforce only specific lines of the bible? These same people don't take time to recognize the roles of divorce in marriage and how it to has evolved over time.

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:19 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:09 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

My point of view? My point of view is based in reality. Yours obviously is not.

 

 

 

You got nothin kid. Leave the thread.

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:16 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:09 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:56 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 2:26 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:32 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:22 AM, sheatheman said:

Adieu, stop saying people are insane because they say things you disagree with.

 

On that note, you are insane if you think there is no debate to be had on the rights of children and homosexual adoption.

 

 

If you want to give children full rights in the case of their own adoption give them the opportunity to choose to accept or disqualify any of their potential adopters. That is having all of your rights. To determine that people are not capable of being a guardian to children due to an arbitrary personality trait is pretty insane

 

 

 

 

I'm not taking a side in this argument. But I'm pretty sure there are thousands of studies spanning at least a century regarding gender roles in raising a child. Taking a gender out of the equation (child raising) likely has consequences. No idea what the consequences are.

 

 

Everything has consequences.

 

A highly irrelevant proposition in my opinion.

 

Divorce has a high likelihood of damaging children's development. Maybe we should make divorce illegal. It does say in the vows, "Until death do us part, for better or for worse". Yet, I don't see people lobbying to enforce those words.

 

 

Irrelevant? My statement is in rebuttal to you saying "arbitrary personality traits". Gender is hardly arbitrary, based on the thousands if not 10s of thousands of supporting studies. How is that somehow irrelevant?

 

 

Gender is relevant in various ways. Sexual orientation is not relevant to ones parenting abilities in a meaningful way. At least it has not been proven as such. But it's very misleading to say "well these things likely have consequences" when in reality the consequences are not known. Opening an argument in question of something with evidence to suggest that questioning is valid is sort of important. It sets the foundation for which we should not make any changes to anything for fear of any negative consequences. It also promotes inflexibility to change which will always be detriment.

 

 

There are several thousand studies citing severe consequences of absence of a male or female parental figure. These things are basically proven (it's pretty colloquial at this point to refer to people as having "daddy issues" or having a parental complex). Gay parents are of the same gender. Thus there is the absence of either a male or female parental figure. Therefore there are consequences. Yes there are outliers here; gay couples that can raise a proper child etc.

 

But it's ignorant to just afford them this right when there are very likely consequences. The field needs to be explored further.

 

To be clear I have nothing against gay people and quite frankly it's none of my fucking business what gay or straight people are doing in their bedroom or personal life. But to afford them the right to raise a child when there are significant amounts of studies indicating that there might be problems is a little ignorant.. =/

 

Edit: your last statement was a logical fallacy by definition. It is a faulty analogy. You are equating two very different things.

Edited February 19, 2014 by StephenG

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:19 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:19 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:09 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

My point of view? My point of view is based in reality. Yours obviously is not.

 

 

You got nothin kid. Leave the thread.

 

I like my societies collapsed and gay.

 

edit: oh shit MisterE is writing a post, BAILING

Edited February 19, 2014 by usagi

lol

lol

lol

Fucking lol.

 

StephenG, the studies you're talking about are on one-parent families. You're comparing coming from a broken home to coming from same-sex parents. To me, that's the ignorant position.

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:20 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:16 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:09 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:56 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 2:26 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:32 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:22 AM, sheatheman said:

Adieu, stop saying people are insane because they say things you disagree with.

 

On that note, you are insane if you think there is no debate to be had on the rights of children and homosexual adoption.

 

 

If you want to give children full rights in the case of their own adoption give them the opportunity to choose to accept or disqualify any of their potential adopters. That is having all of your rights. To determine that people are not capable of being a guardian to children due to an arbitrary personality trait is pretty insane

 

 

 

 

I'm not taking a side in this argument. But I'm pretty sure there are thousands of studies spanning at least a century regarding gender roles in raising a child. Taking a gender out of the equation (child raising) likely has consequences. No idea what the consequences are.

 

 

Everything has consequences.

 

A highly irrelevant proposition in my opinion.

 

Divorce has a high likelihood of damaging children's development. Maybe we should make divorce illegal. It does say in the vows, "Until death do us part, for better or for worse". Yet, I don't see people lobbying to enforce those words.

 

 

Irrelevant? My statement is in rebuttal to you saying "arbitrary personality traits". Gender is hardly arbitrary, based on the thousands if not 10s of thousands of supporting studies. How is that somehow irrelevant?

 

 

Gender is relevant in various ways. Sexual orientation is not relevant to ones parenting abilities in a meaningful way. At least it has not been proven as such. But it's very misleading to say "well these things likely have consequences" when in reality the consequences are not known. Opening an argument in question of something with evidence to suggest that questioning is valid is sort of important. It sets the foundation for which we should not make any changes to anything for fear of any negative consequences. It also promotes inflexibility to change which will always be detriment.

 

 

There are several thousand studies citing severe consequences of absence of a male or female parental figure. These things are basically proven (it's pretty colloquial at this point to refer to people as having "daddy issues" or having a parental complex). Gay parents are of the same gender. Thus there is the absence of either a male or female parental figure. Therefore there are consequences. Yes there are outliers here; gay couples that can raise a proper child etc.

 

But it's ignorant to just afford them this right when there are very likely consequences. The field needs to be explored further.

 

To be clear I have nothing against gay people and quite frankly it's none of my fucking business what gay or straight people are doing in their bedroom or personal life. But to afford them the right to raise a child when there are significant amounts of studies indicating that there might be problems is a little ignorant.. =/

 

Edit: your last statement was a logical fallacy by definition. It is a faulty analogy. You are equating two very different things.

 

 

 

Is there though? Please show me one that accounts for the numerous variables that exist within such an environment. Please show me how these relate to a homosexual family unit as well. Please show me how they relate to a homosexual family unit when their lifestyle is accepted as legitimate by society.

 

daddy issues doesn't = absence of daddy necessarily

 

Is it ignorant? I mean heterosexuals are doing a brilliant job. If we let the homos raise children then they might cause problems.

 

The only way to accurately study the effects of this are to allow it.

 

Once again show me the significant studies before you claim such studies accurately indicate this possible problems.

 

My equating the inconsistent nature of enforcing something with no evidence to suggest it as detriment, but legally allowing such a thing as divorce, which can very accurately be shown to have detrimental effects is not a fallacy. Furthermore, I was only using that point to show the inconsistency of those opposing for religious reasons and their selective enforcement of the bible.

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:14 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Gays being allowed to marry has angered people

 

in exactly the same way that women being allowed to vote angered people

This.

im an accelerationist which is why i think we should all be gay so that everyone dies and the world is over the end

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:32 AM, usagi said:

I like my societies collapsed and gay.

 

edit: oh shit MisterE is writing a post, BAILING

heh. nah i'm just admiring adieu's incessant strawmen. very watmmy.

  AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

duuuuurrr daaaaahhh doooooaaaahahhh i dont geeeeeet ittttttttt. how am you be saying men and womenz cant get married aduhhhhhh dooooooeeeerrrr duuuuhhh

funny but im looking through their posts and i never saw either of them say that. weird.

I kind of think anyone who shouts "straw man" or "fallacy" should have to show their work. It's an easy way to dismiss someone, but I'm seeing them used broadly at best in this thread.

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:42 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:20 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:16 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:09 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 3:56 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 2:26 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:32 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:22 AM, sheatheman said:

Adieu, stop saying people are insane because they say things you disagree with.

 

On that note, you are insane if you think there is no debate to be had on the rights of children and homosexual adoption.

 

 

If you want to give children full rights in the case of their own adoption give them the opportunity to choose to accept or disqualify any of their potential adopters. That is having all of your rights. To determine that people are not capable of being a guardian to children due to an arbitrary personality trait is pretty insane

 

 

 

 

I'm not taking a side in this argument. But I'm pretty sure there are thousands of studies spanning at least a century regarding gender roles in raising a child. Taking a gender out of the equation (child raising) likely has consequences. No idea what the consequences are.

 

 

Everything has consequences.

 

A highly irrelevant proposition in my opinion.

 

Divorce has a high likelihood of damaging children's development. Maybe we should make divorce illegal. It does say in the vows, "Until death do us part, for better or for worse". Yet, I don't see people lobbying to enforce those words.

 

 

Irrelevant? My statement is in rebuttal to you saying "arbitrary personality traits". Gender is hardly arbitrary, based on the thousands if not 10s of thousands of supporting studies. How is that somehow irrelevant?

 

 

Gender is relevant in various ways. Sexual orientation is not relevant to ones parenting abilities in a meaningful way. At least it has not been proven as such. But it's very misleading to say "well these things likely have consequences" when in reality the consequences are not known. Opening an argument in question of something with evidence to suggest that questioning is valid is sort of important. It sets the foundation for which we should not make any changes to anything for fear of any negative consequences. It also promotes inflexibility to change which will always be detriment.

 

 

There are several thousand studies citing severe consequences of absence of a male or female parental figure. These things are basically proven (it's pretty colloquial at this point to refer to people as having "daddy issues" or having a parental complex). Gay parents are of the same gender. Thus there is the absence of either a male or female parental figure. Therefore there are consequences. Yes there are outliers here; gay couples that can raise a proper child etc.

 

But it's ignorant to just afford them this right when there are very likely consequences. The field needs to be explored further.

 

To be clear I have nothing against gay people and quite frankly it's none of my fucking business what gay or straight people are doing in their bedroom or personal life. But to afford them the right to raise a child when there are significant amounts of studies indicating that there might be problems is a little ignorant.. =/

 

Edit: your last statement was a logical fallacy by definition. It is a faulty analogy. You are equating two very different things.

 

 

 

Is there though? Please show me one that accounts for the numerous variables that exist within such an environment. Please show me how these relate to a homosexual family unit as well. Please show me how they relate to a homosexual family unit when their lifestyle is accepted as legitimate by society.

 

daddy issues doesn't = absence of daddy necessarily

 

Is it ignorant? I mean heterosexuals are doing a brilliant job. If we let the homos raise children then they might cause problems.

 

The only way to accurately study the effects of this are to allow it.

 

Once again show me the significant studies before you claim such studies accurately indicate this possible problems.

 

My equating the inconsistent nature of enforcing something with no evidence to suggest it as detriment, but legally allowing such a thing as divorce, which can very accurately be shown to have detrimental effects is not a fallacy. Furthermore, I was only using that point to show the inconsistency of those opposing for religious reasons and their selective enforcement of the bible.

 

 

Why is the burden of proof on me? Why don't you cite the significant studies showing that there aren't possible problems? What a shit argument you've made.

 

I've got nothing against you but quite frankly, none of us on this INTERNET MUSIC FORUM are authorities on the issue and everyone should stop acting like they are.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but rights should not be afforded when there is ambiguity surrounding the issue. If a guy wants to be with another guy, that's none of my business. But there is significant ambiguity around homosexual couples raising children and the effects thereof. To just afford them the right to raise children without exploring this ambiguity further is silly.

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:48 AM, A/D said:

I kind of think anyone who shouts "straw man" or "fallacy" should have to show their work. It's an easy way to dismiss someone, but I'm seeing them used broadly at best in this thread.

 

Google is your friend. You will be linked to several thousand scholarly articles stating problems with homosexual couples, and several thousand articles contesting this evidence. Fact of the matter is, there is no definitive proof on the matter so it should be approached carefully and objectively, not with the approach of "gay couples should get whatever they want".

 

I don't think most hetero couples deserve children either. So many irresponsible hetero couples.

So..we outlaw ambiguity? How do we study it then?

 

Can you point us to some relevant studies?

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:48 AM, A/D said:

I kind of think anyone who shouts "straw man" or "fallacy" should have to show their work. It's an easy way to dismiss someone, but I'm seeing them used broadly at best in this thread.

my work? he's asked numerous times for sheath and brian to explain how gay marriage destroys marriage between a man and a woman, but neither of them said that. there. how's that?

 

unless...

 

you can show me YOUR work? show me where they said that.

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:51 AM, A/D said:

So..we outlaw ambiguity? How do we study it then?

 

Can you point us to some relevant studies?

 

Again with the fallacies. I didn't say outlaw it. Approach it cautiously is what I said. Where did I say outlaw?

 

Use google. I feel like I'm repeating myself. THERE ARE SEVERAL THOUSAND SCHOLARLY ARTICLES ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT.

 

It's absolutely foolhardy to say any one solution is best. This is a complex topic that needs further exploration so anyone that has made their conclusion already is simply wrong. Research in the field is inconclusive.

 

It would be irresponsible to take a prescription drug where research on the side effects is inconclusive. Why would it be any different for homo/hetero parenting?

Edited February 19, 2014 by StephenG

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:46 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:32 AM, usagi said:

I like my societies collapsed and gay.

 

edit: oh shit MisterE is writing a post, BAILING

heh. nah i'm just admiring adieu's incessant strawmen. very watmmy.

  AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

duuuuurrr daaaaahhh doooooaaaahahhh i dont geeeeeet ittttttttt. how am you be saying men and womenz cant get married aduhhhhhh dooooooeeeerrrr duuuuhhh

funny but im looking through their posts and i never saw either of them say that. weird.

 

 

Please son. I don't strawman. The only reason I changed the subject from "this does not destroy the institution of marriage" to all the EXTREMELY RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT subjects and questions was because we are at an impasse. My purpose here is only to convert and create a questioning internal dialogue for those in opposition to my views. The premise of whether changing a tradition in anyway destroys said tradition is irrelevant to all of us. I most definitely wasn't strawmaning. You cannot prove or disprove an opinion. I gave them facts they ignored them. It is what it is.

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:51 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:48 AM, A/D said:

I kind of think anyone who shouts "straw man" or "fallacy" should have to show their work. It's an easy way to dismiss someone, but I'm seeing them used broadly at best in this thread.

 

Google is your friend. You will be linked to several thousand scholarly articles stating problems with homosexual couples, and several thousand articles contesting this evidence. Fact of the matter is, there is no definitive proof on the matter so it should be approached carefully and objectively, not with the approach of "gay couples should get whatever they want".

 

I don't think most hetero couples deserve children either. So many irresponsible hetero couples.

 

 

You just proved my point.

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:51 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 4:48 AM, A/D said:

I kind of think anyone who shouts "straw man" or "fallacy" should have to show their work. It's an easy way to dismiss someone, but I'm seeing them used broadly at best in this thread.

my work? he's asked numerous times for sheath and brian to explain how gay marriage destroys marriage between a man and a woman, but neither of them said that. there. how's that?

 

unless...

 

you can show me YOUR work? show me where they said that.

 

 

Actually, the word REVOKE and ERADICATE were very clearly used.