Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "More dismissal, distortion, and denigration. How sad." IF only you'd quit doing it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I responded in what I thought was a respectful way to your post, Douglas, and got no response. Is that dismissal?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Let's face it. We've all provided him with solid argument. His rote response, for the lack of anything else, is "more dismissal, distortion, and denigration." How sad indeed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh First X, you distorted by saying, "The whole "what's best for society" argument hinges on the notion that gays getting married somehow means that everyone else will stop making babies." That's not what it hinges on. There's two main components - one is that more children will be born out of wedlock and raised in single parent homes. The other is that there will be a significant decrease in the birth rate (not "everyone" - many people will continue to have kids). You then dismissed and denigrated by saying, "In other words, it's a stupid argument." Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it stupid. If it were truly stupid, you could present evidence that it is wrong. There's no need for derogatory adjectives in honest debate.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I responded in what I thought was a respectful way to your post, Douglas, and got no response.> Well, for the record, it wasn't totally respectful, since it called the Yes on 8's valid concerns "scare tactics". But it was respectful enough that I didn't feel the need to respond to it. In spite of what some believe, I don't have to have the last word. I can let someone say they disagree with my opinion without feeling the need to insist I'm right or slam them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>more children will be born out of wedlock<< Gay marriage will have no affect on this. Millions of children are already born out of wedlock. And if we're back to the Netherlands business again, correlation is not causation. >>there will be a significant decrease in the birth rate<< In general, primarily for economic reasons, Americans tend to have less children these days than they did 100 years ago. The argument here is that people will somehow feel that marriage and families are meaningless and will simply choose not to participate if gays can marry, too. Of all the arguments against gay marriage, this is by far the weakest. (Am I denigrating or dismissing it? I guess I am, as it has been addressed countless times before in these threads.) Lesbian couples could produce children via artificial insemination, so among that sector of the population, birth rates could go up if families are allowed to be stable and viable.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>called the Yes on 8's valid concerns "scare tactics"<< I know you don't live in California, so perhaps you didn't see the TV ads or hear the radio commercials for Prop 8. They were indeed scare tactics -- the messages were all g\eared around "protecting our children" from being "taught" about gay marriage. They're probably still on YouTube if you care to search for them ). I'm not about to give a link to that stuff, as I find those ads to be disrespectful to a large segment of the LP community and many of us were subjected to them for months. Is that a valid concern, that kids would be "taught" about gay marriage? I don't think so, but even if it is, it was presented via dramatized scare tactics. Calling a tactic what it is isn't "disrespectful".
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And guess what- the use of the phrase "scare tactics" is not disrespectful. Period. Especially when sonme who objects to the term doesn't know what he's talking about as it relates to the use here.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh < I guess I am, as it has been addressed countless times before in these threads.> It's been dismissed with platitudes and sometimes distorted.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And guess what- the use of the phrase "scare tactics" is not disrespectful. Period. Especially when sonme who objects to the term doesn't know what he's talking about as it relates to the use here.> See what I mean? Some posters cannot accept opposing opinions. They are declared wrong, and those making them are slammed.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I don't have to have the last word. I can let someone say they disagree with my opinion without feeling the need to insist I'm right or slam them." Really?
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "More dismissal, distortion, and denigration. How sad." Willful ignorance. Pure and simple.
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"Douglas - do you really believe that if only the truth was told for Prop 8 - and I am not saying that the no side ads weren't creative too - but if only the truth was put out there... that the outcome might not have been much different!"<<< LOL! According to you gottaluv-pro 8 told "lies" and no 8 was creative! LOL!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "LOL! According to you gottaluv-pro 8 told "lies" and no 8 was creative! LOL!" Yes on 8 most definitely lied their backsides off and No on 8 wasn't creative enough. Laugh about that.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No." "I don't have to have the last word. I can let someone say they disagree with my opinion without feeling the need to insist I'm right or slam them."
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains Yes I do believe that - No on H8 came up with the one with the missionaries ransacking a house for the Married Lesbian's wedding licence. That was creative - wrong and unfair yes - but creative. The yes on H8 side stated things that were untrue and claimed them to be facts. That is lying...No creativity in that at all.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains Obviously 179 for 176 - but thought I should clarify as not to confuse some people!
