| # | Author | Message |
361
| DouglasDubh
Wed 5/28/2008 8:08p | <I don't like to throw the "l" word out casually, but here you're simply lying (or more charitably, misremembering). Because that's exactly what you said.>
No, it wasn't. You've shown many times that you remember things how you want to remember them, and not as they actually happened. You should not be telling people they are lying.
|
362
| DouglasDubh
Wed 5/28/2008 8:11p | <The "study" in question is idiotic on the face of it, as Dabob points out.>
What "study" are you referring to?
<Given that fact, would you be in favor of fertility testing as a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license?>
No, and if you go back a few posts from where you posted this, you'll see I already explained why.
|
363
| DouglasDubh
Wed 5/28/2008 8:23p | <Meanwhile, as SPP noted, the case in Massachusetts (certainly a better indication of how the rest of US society might go) shows none of Kurtz's predicted effects.>
Maybe, maybe not. We'd have to look at all the data, and not just a couple picked out by a proponent, to be sure.
<He chalks it up to gay marriage, of course, as a causative factor. Classic logical fallacy, but wait, it gets better.>
Why is it a logical fallacy? Because you say so? And he doesn't "chalk it up" to gay marriage. He clearly states that gay marriage is only one factor contributing to the Netherland's out of wedlock birth rate.
<And then he ignores the fact that out-of-wedlock births have increased steadily in the Netherlands since 1995, before EITHER the change in legal status for co-habiting straights OR gay marriage went into effect.>
Again, no he doesn't. What he notes is that the rate was going up about 1% per year prior to gay marriage, and started going up 2% per year thereafter. You really don't appear to understand what you are reading. Or are you purposely distorting what he said? |
364
| DouglasDubh
Wed 5/28/2008 8:26p | <I say that with complete conviction. If there really is a god, He will really be angry about this.>
What arrogance. Do you really presume to know what God feels? |
365
| SingleParkPassholder
Wed 5/28/2008 8:32p | "Well no, they didn't concluded that. That you claim so means you really didn't understand what you read."
If someone said this to you, you'd be whining about personal attacks. |
366
| DouglasDubh
Wed 5/28/2008 8:52p | <If someone said this to you, you'd be whining about personal attacks.>
One, I don't whine. Two, I wouldn't have called the person a liar in the post before it. As I've stated before, I'm not the one that swings first, but I might jab back.
|
367
| SingleParkPassholder
Wed 5/28/2008 9:22p | Weilding that spork of spin, no doubt. |
368
| SingleParkPassholder
Wed 5/28/2008 9:31p | Wield
damn fat thumbs |
369
| X-san
Wed 5/28/2008 10:37p | ***What arrogance. Do you really presume to know what God feels?***
Why not? They do.
Actually don't really presume such a thing cause god doesn't exist.
But if he did I'm certain, no doubt whatsoever, that he wouldn't care for people excusing racism as "god's will".
You disagree with that? |
370
| BlueDevilSF
Thu 5/29/2008 4:52a | Unless a penis goes into a vagina, it's not marriage:
http://www.examiner.com/a-1397...ble.html
"So regarding marriage, why wouldn't it be a reasonable solution simply to apply the same rules to all couples -- to say that unless a relationship can be consummated by a specific act, it cannot qualify as marriage?" |
