4/2/2013 3:17 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
I think you know better than that.   If I didn't want gays to marry, I'm pretty sure you'd know it.

I'm just waiting for something better than your "doesn't affect you", "makes more people happy" and "doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights" guidelines.

They are as valid, IMO, as tec's "A traditional marriage is a man and a woman."   Which I find to be just as poor a reason to be against gay marriage.

Honestly, neither side has a valid reason in support of their viewpoint.
Should the default position then be less individual rights or more individual rights?
I'll go with "status quo" or "tradition".   

I don't think we're moving in the right direction, as a people, with regards to rights.   As you can tell "I ain't hurting nobody" isn't a "right" I agree with.
So you're for less individual freedom. Good to know.
4/2/2013 3:18 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 3:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Are children better served being raised in gay-parent households or straight-parent households?
ASA and APA say there is no difference.
Are you capable of independent, critical thought?  Or are you just going to blindly take what some random organization says at face value?
The American Sociological Association probably knows better than you or me.
4/2/2013 3:23 PM
Has the American Sociological Association ever backtracked on a finding?  Are they infallible?
4/2/2013 3:23 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
I think you know better than that.   If I didn't want gays to marry, I'm pretty sure you'd know it.

I'm just waiting for something better than your "doesn't affect you", "makes more people happy" and "doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights" guidelines.

They are as valid, IMO, as tec's "A traditional marriage is a man and a woman."   Which I find to be just as poor a reason to be against gay marriage.

Honestly, neither side has a valid reason in support of their viewpoint.
Should the default position then be less individual rights or more individual rights?
I'll go with "status quo" or "tradition".   

I don't think we're moving in the right direction, as a people, with regards to rights.   As you can tell "I ain't hurting nobody" isn't a "right" I agree with.
So you're for less individual freedom. Good to know.
You sound surprised.   Not caring if people have abortions doesn't make me a liberal.    I'm just not on the religious right.   Which is why I don't care if gays get married.   I do think allowing gay marriage in the name of "equality" creates a slippery slope to polygamy.   I haven't put a lot of thought into it but "marriage communes" seem like a bad idea. 
4/2/2013 3:25 PM
Slippery slope fallacies are good places for people with low brain power to rest.
4/2/2013 3:26 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has the American Sociological Association ever backtracked on a finding?  Are they infallible?
I'm sure they have. What's your point? There is evidence showing that children of gay couples are just as well off as children of straight couples.
4/2/2013 3:32 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Slippery slope fallacies are good places for people with low brain power to rest.
What part of "gays need equal rights to get married" is a slippery slope fallacy to polygamy?

Are you implying that a man can love a man but a man cannot love a man and a woman?

Who has the low brain power if that's what you believe?
4/2/2013 3:34 PM
It is unfortunate, when pushed into a corner, that you resort to insults.

That does show a lack of intelligence.

Sometimes you're just wrong.   Accept it.
4/2/2013 3:50 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Slippery slope fallacies are good places for people with low brain power to rest.
What part of "gays need equal rights to get married" is a slippery slope fallacy to polygamy?

Are you implying that a man can love a man but a man cannot love a man and a woman?

Who has the low brain power if that's what you believe?
So you don't think that's a slippery slope fallacy?

Interesting.
4/2/2013 3:54 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has the American Sociological Association ever backtracked on a finding?  Are they infallible?
I'm sure they have. What's your point? There is evidence showing that children of gay couples are just as well off as children of straight couples.
Swamp's favorite source indicates that gay couple adoption has been legal for less than 20 years. 

How much evidence can there be?
4/2/2013 3:57 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Slippery slope fallacies are good places for people with low brain power to rest.
What part of "gays need equal rights to get married" is a slippery slope fallacy to polygamy?

Are you implying that a man can love a man but a man cannot love a man and a woman?

Who has the low brain power if that's what you believe?
So you don't think that's a slippery slope fallacy?

Interesting.
Nope.   Care to take a shot at answering any of the three questions?   I'll post them in bold, and add a comment, to make sure you know which ones I'm talking about.

What part of "gays need equal rights to get married" is a slippery slope fallacy to polygamy?   Equal rights for all.

Are you implying that a man can love a man but a man cannot love a man and a woman?  The ability to love more than one person.

Who has the low brain power if that's what you believe?   Contradict either statement.

4/2/2013 4:00 PM
Honestly, if you want to deny polygamists, the only grounds I can think of is the "tradition" of marriage being between two people.    But that ***** gay marriage arguments all the hell.   Can't use "tradition" wrt SS marriage with a straight face.
4/2/2013 4:00 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has the American Sociological Association ever backtracked on a finding?  Are they infallible?
I'm sure they have. What's your point? There is evidence showing that children of gay couples are just as well off as children of straight couples.
Swamp's favorite source indicates that gay couple adoption has been legal for less than 20 years. 

How much evidence can there be?
Twenty years worth.

And anyway, we're allowing gay couples to adopt already. Allowing them to marry doesn't change the fact that they are raising children.
4/2/2013 4:04 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Slippery slope fallacies are good places for people with low brain power to rest.
What part of "gays need equal rights to get married" is a slippery slope fallacy to polygamy?

Are you implying that a man can love a man but a man cannot love a man and a woman?

Who has the low brain power if that's what you believe?
So you don't think that's a slippery slope fallacy?

Interesting.
Nope.   Care to take a shot at answering any of the three questions?   I'll post them in bold, and add a comment, to make sure you know which ones I'm talking about.

What part of "gays need equal rights to get married" is a slippery slope fallacy to polygamy?   Equal rights for all.

Are you implying that a man can love a man but a man cannot love a man and a woman?  The ability to love more than one person.

Who has the low brain power if that's what you believe?   Contradict either statement.

Your argument that allowing gay marriage on the grounds of equal rights then forces us to allow polygamy on the same grounds is the very definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

Good try, though.
4/2/2013 4:11 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has the American Sociological Association ever backtracked on a finding?  Are they infallible?
I'm sure they have. What's your point? There is evidence showing that children of gay couples are just as well off as children of straight couples.
Swamp's favorite source indicates that gay couple adoption has been legal for less than 20 years. 

How much evidence can there be?
Twenty years worth.

And anyway, we're allowing gay couples to adopt already. Allowing them to marry doesn't change the fact that they are raising children.
Well, even if the earth is only 10,000 years old, that's a pretty small sample size, right?
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.