Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 93
  1. #21  
    Super Moderator BadCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In your dreams
    Posts
    15,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    What an absurd allegation on your part; I would never have maintained that monogamy was the statistical majority in marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual. As such the degree to which that is applicable is irrelevant, since the norm is that there is a spectrum. All I have ever emphasized is that those who oppose marriage equality, in their attempt to do so without sounding like religious idiots generally promote a best (in their opinion) case scenario for heterosexual marriage against a worst case scenario for gay marriage. Of course what they can't do is demonstrate why it's any of their business if two people of the same sex get married and enjoy equal status in that marriage to heterosexuals. Instead, the bigots jump through hoops to try to justify their position which is simply and inarguably based in what has to be deliberate ignorance.

    Then we have folks like yourself, who so desperately seek the acceptance of your acquired tribe that you eschew your native intellectual and objective approach in exchange for the admiration of those raised in a culture of ignorance.
    Did you get a new thesaurus, princess?

    rm -rf obama*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    What an absurd allegation on your part; I would never have maintained that monogamy was the statistical majority in marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual. As such the degree to which that is applicable is irrelevant, since the norm is that there is a spectrum. All I have ever emphasized is that those who oppose marriage equality, in their attempt to do so without sounding like religious idiots generally promote a best (in their opinion) case scenario for heterosexual marriage against a worst case scenario for gay marriage. Of course what they can't do is demonstrate why it's any of their business if two people of the same sex get married and enjoy equal status in that marriage to heterosexuals. Instead, the bigots jump through hoops to try to justify their position which is simply and inarguably based in what has to be deliberate ignorance.

    Then we have folks like yourself, who so desperately seek the acceptance of your acquired tribe that you eschew your native intellectual and objective approach in exchange for the admiration of those raised in a culture of ignorance.
    You're pretty free with the runaway generalizations, absolutisms, conclusory statements, and ad hominem attacks yourself. And that's in addition to the fundamental straw man flaw you constructed into your argument, which omits any economic policy or property rights considerations from your opponents' positions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    6,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post

    Then we have folks like yourself, who so desperately seek the acceptance of your acquired tribe that you eschew your native intellectual and objective approach in exchange for the admiration of those raised in a culture of ignorance.
    the man hag speaks of ignorance? that's rich!
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Eupher View Post
    Far be it from me to intrude on yet another advocate for homosexual "marriage", but I'm intrigued by this statement.

    You mean to say that there is no "normal" or statistical "average" when examining heterosexual marriage and monogamy?
    As I said, in this case normal is a spectrum. A statistical average really wouldn't tell you anything useful as a chart showing the spectrum would. If your point is that a minority of heterosexual couples are monogamous but it's still more than gay couples, then you would need to explain the legal and practical relevance of that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    Projection? Thy name is Novaidiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by BadCat View Post
    Did you get a new thesaurus, princess?
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    the man hag speaks of ignorance? that's rich!
    See, Ody?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,972
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    Do you consider Bill Maher to be a legitimate political commentator? He's a comedian who makes political jokes on a network in which he isn't censored. I don't expect him to apologize to Rush or Rush to apologize to him for anything either one says. Except for Maher's profanity, he and Rush are really not so different in any way except their political leanings. They're both blowhards and druggies, they just have different drugs of choice.
    You just made me think of Maher's comment about Tim Tebow. Maher is definitely the left's Rush and yet no one on the left called him out on his anti-Tebow and anti-God comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    You just made me think of Maher's comment about Tim Tebow. Maher is definitely the left's Rush and yet no one on the left called him out on his anti-Tebow and anti-God comment.
    Sandra Fluke is real. Women are real. God isn't real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Super Moderator BadCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In your dreams
    Posts
    15,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Sandra Fluke is real. Women are real. God isn't real.
    How would you know a real woman if you met one?

    rm -rf obama*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member Eupher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mizz-uhr-ah
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    As I said, in this case normal is a spectrum. A statistical average really wouldn't tell you anything useful as a chart showing the spectrum would. If your point is that a minority of heterosexual couples are monogamous but it's still more than gay couples, then you would need to explain the legal and practical relevance of that.
    Generally speaking, identifying a statistical average is a beginning point in determining trends and other statistical-related analyses. It can go much further than that and usually does.

    The term "normal" as applied here, I believe, indicates an average. We could debate the term "average" all day long, but it is what it is -- unless you have some other kind of definition for it.

    It's really not complicated. The term "spectrum" appears to inject complexity where none is needed.

    As to conclusions regarding heterosexual/homosexual couples and what their monogamy rates are, I'm not discussing that whatsoever. Please don't put words in my mouth.

    Let me get to the point -- on what basis do you make this claim:

    I would never have maintained that monogamy was the statistical majority in marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual. As such the degree to which that is applicable is irrelevant, since the norm is that there is a spectrum.
    Do you have some sort of data that says that homo/hetero couples' monogamy rates achieve a statistical minority? In other words, that most people in a committed, legal marriage routinely have sex outside of their relationship?

    That's a pretty definitive data point there, seems to me.

    I'd like to see where what you're basing that statement on -- a link to a credible source would be appreciated.
    U.S. Army, Retired
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Sandra Fluke is real. Women are real. God isn't real.


    Ok twinkly toes whatever you say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •