User Tag List

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 98

Thread: Why marriage matters

  1. #76
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    17,592
    Thanks
    7,702
    Thanked 25,063 Times in 12,679 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147730
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDante View Post
    When you put up your OP and its numerous false claims *cough* lies *cough* you were admitting to (actually since it is written it is libel)and harming people.
    What a drama queen....*cough* *cough*

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 5th, 2017),Tambora (July 4th, 2017)

  3. #77
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,627
    Thanks
    4,110
    Thanked 1,892 Times in 1,433 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    678589
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDante View Post
    When you put up your OP and its numerous false claims *cough* lies *cough* you were admitting to (actually since it is written it is libel)and harming people.
    Those are not false claims and therefore not libel.

    Everything in that OP is true about traditional marriage versus SSM. None of the statements are an attack on any individual or group of people. To say SSM is inferior to traditional marriage is not an attack on gay people. The OP makes no dispersions on people who decide SSM is what they want. The OP never states that gay people are bad for choosing SSM, so you cannot even make that charge.

  4. #78
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,627
    Thanks
    4,110
    Thanked 1,892 Times in 1,433 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    678589
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDante View Post
    Yeah you did just that with yoru OP


    I noticed remarkably few facts in your OP. Loads of unsupported opinions but not facts.


    The lack of supporting evidence or reason make them falsehoods
    It's not advocating discrimination no matter how much you wish that were true.

  5. #79
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,627
    Thanks
    4,110
    Thanked 1,892 Times in 1,433 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    678589
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDante View Post
    Yeah you did just that with yoru OP


    I noticed remarkably few facts in your OP. Loads of unsupported opinions but not facts.


    The lack of supporting evidence or reason make them falsehoods
    They are all facts in my OP. I'm sorry your too adle to recognize that.

  6. #80
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,627
    Thanks
    4,110
    Thanked 1,892 Times in 1,433 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    678589
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDante View Post
    Yeah you did just that with yoru OP


    I noticed remarkably few facts in your OP. Loads of unsupported opinions but not facts.


    The lack of supporting evidence or reason make them falsehoods
    No evidence? The OP is loaded with evidence.

  7. #81
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,763
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 657 Times in 473 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    184850
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    What a drama queen....*cough* *cough*
    just posting the facts

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to MrDante For Your Post:

    Rusha (July 4th, 2017)

  9. #82
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,763
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 657 Times in 473 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    184850
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    Those are not false claims and therefore not libel.

    Everything in that OP is true about traditional marriage versus SSM. None of the statements are an attack on any individual or group of people. To say SSM is inferior to traditional marriage is not an attack on gay people. The OP makes no dispersions on people who decide SSM is what they want. The OP never states that gay people are bad for choosing SSM, so you cannot even make that charge.

    Just grabbing a couple paragraphs from your OP:

    Social science claiming to show that there are “no differences” in outcomes for children raised in same-sex households does not change this reality. In fact, the most recent, sophisticated studies suggest that prior research is inadequate to support the assertion that it makes “no difference” whether a child was raised by same-sex parents.[15]*A survey of 59 of the most prominent studies often cited for this claim shows that they drew primarily from small convenience samples that are not appropriate for generalizations to the whole population.[16]
    Meanwhile, recent studies using rigorous methods and robust samples confirm that children do better when raised by a married mother and father. These include the New Family Structures Study by Professor Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas–Austin
    The claim that "sophisticated studies suggest that prior research is inadequate" is unsupported by the OP and its reference source. The inclusion of the word "sophisticated" was a nice tough though as it sets up the conclusion that studies the author does no like are unsophisiticated.

    What is truly hilarious here is that the cited reference -- Jason Richwine and Jennifer A. Marshall, “The Regnerus Study: Social Science and New Family Structures Met with Intolerance,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2726, October 2, 2012 -- is a puff piece in support of Mark Regnerus, 2012 “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research is itself a study derived from a convenience sample that was smaller than any of the studies the authors dismissed as "inadequate".

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to MrDante For Your Post:

    Rusha (July 4th, 2017)

  11. #83
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,763
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 657 Times in 473 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    184850
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    No evidence? The OP is loaded with evidence.
    "Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces."
    unsupported opinion.



    "It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary,"
    DIffernt and complementary is a meaningless statement.


    " the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father." the first statement may be factual but the second opinion.



    " Marriage predates government."

    This depends on what one is calling marriage and how one defines government


    " It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization." Unsupported opinion

    " Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes." Unsupported opinion

    "This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman." again an opinion and one that shows author bias.


    It is a remarkable coincidence that 41 states also had at one time in their history laws that affirmed that marriage was between two people of the same race.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MrDante For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (July 6th, 2017),Rusha (July 4th, 2017)

  13. #84
    Over 1000 post club eider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    523
    Thanked 676 Times in 469 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    237063
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    You and your pals charged me with bigotry.
    Ha ha! ....me and my pals.

    Look.... If the hat fits... Put it on!

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to eider For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (July 4th, 2017),Rusha (July 4th, 2017)

  15. #85
    Over 1000 post club eider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    523
    Thanked 676 Times in 469 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    237063
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    I am not advocating discrimination. What I listed is facts. Just because they disturb you, doesn't make them falsehoods.
    No you did not. You advocated a dogma.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to eider For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (July 6th, 2017),Rusha (July 4th, 2017)

  17. #86
    Over 1000 post club eider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    523
    Thanked 676 Times in 469 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    237063
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    I never hate free speech. You must be letting your imagination run wild again.

    Popping people on the back over your charge that I am somehow assaulting SSM people? What does that even mean?
    It means you deceived readers by adding words which I never wrote.

    You did not produce the OP with the intention of promoting family through marriage, you produced it to have a SSM row, I reckon....

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to eider For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (July 4th, 2017),MrDante (July 4th, 2017),Rusha (July 4th, 2017)

  19. #87
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,627
    Thanks
    4,110
    Thanked 1,892 Times in 1,433 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    678589
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDante View Post
    "Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces."
    unsupported opinion.



    "It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary,"
    DIffernt and complementary is a meaningless statement.


    " the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father." the first statement may be factual but the second opinion.



    " Marriage predates government."

    This depends on what one is calling marriage and how one defines government


    " It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization." Unsupported opinion

    " Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes." Unsupported opinion

    "This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman." again an opinion and one that shows author bias.


    It is a remarkable coincidence that 41 states also had at one time in their history laws that affirmed that marriage was between two people of the same race.
    Every quote you posted of mine is a fact. You know it's true.

  20. #88
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,627
    Thanks
    4,110
    Thanked 1,892 Times in 1,433 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    678589
    Quote Originally Posted by eider View Post
    No you did not. You advocated a dogma.
    I advocated facts. Sorry, you lose.

  21. #89
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,627
    Thanks
    4,110
    Thanked 1,892 Times in 1,433 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    678589
    Quote Originally Posted by eider View Post
    It means you deceived readers by adding words which I never wrote.

    You did not produce the OP with the intention of promoting family through marriage, you produced it to have a SSM row, I reckon....
    What words? You have no idea what my intentions were. You lefties sure think you have mind reading capabilities.

  22. #90
    Over 5000 post club ClimateSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,627
    Thanks
    4,110
    Thanked 1,892 Times in 1,433 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    678589
    The claim that "sophisticated studies suggest that prior research is inadequate" is unsupported by the OP and its reference source. The inclusion of the word "sophisticated" was a nice tough though as it sets up the conclusion that studies the author does no like are unsophisiticated.....Dante.

    That's your opinion. You know good and well that prior research is indeed inadequate.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us