Wow...talk about a double standard.
Actually, there is no double standard on my part, and you know it.
you cannot demonstrate one. However, there are plenty of double standards that can be demonstrated in your posts, as I have done so.
It is rather interesting that you guys on the fringe of the same-sex marriage side here keep mocking and trying to downplay my pointing out of their double standards and fallacious arguments, even when I make sure to point out how those are the case, and specifically what fallacious arguments are being used.
Yet you guys then see fit to accuse me of illogical arguments and double standard, yet consistently cannot provide specifics...
Kurtz is nothing more then a modern day Anita Bryant
Actually, you just have your own personal vendetta against Kurtz, it seems. Outside of his mention in the original article,
you were the first one to mention him in this thread (and accused
me of "spamming" him).
You have yet to be able to make an argument here, with regards to Kurtz, that
doesn't reek of some childlike attempt to smear someone.
You wanna talk about a double standard, fine...
Here is what you said in post number
163 in regards to Kurtz:
Stanley Kurtz is deep in bed with conservative think tanks what do you think he would write ? so marriage is outdated in Norway he just links gay marrage to it....it doesnt mean anything to me
When pressed about the ad hominem nature of this reason given from discrediting him, you wrote this in post
166:
Ah I was waiting for the ad homenim lets get this one right...to me what ever Stanly Kurtz has to say means nothing you can spam it post it 100 times .
And cited
this article as justification for your ad hominem disregard of Kurtz, which I showed was cherry picking, to which you replied in post
182 that it was simply "spam" and that "Kurtz is doing the same thing [cherry picking and taking info out of context] to fit his agenda", yet didn't show any other info to back that up. At least not until post 218. The only info you have given to dispute Kurtz argument is Badgett (I am still going through her work an comparing it to Kurtz). Let's look at Badgett's ties and background for a minute...
From that study of Badgett's you provided:
M. V. Lee Badgett is an associate professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She is also the research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies.
It should also be noted that Badgett is a lesbian.
So, if you are going to disregard Kurtz's for his ties to a "conservative think tank", as you tried to do in post 163, you have to disregard Badgett as well. She has just as strong of ties (if not more so) to the opposite end of this debate. She actually stands to gain more from successfully promoting that agenda, as a lesbian, then Kurtz does as an hetero.
Disregarding only Kurtz shows a blatant double standard on your part.
You also seem to think that discrediting Kurtz wins the debate on the issue of gay marriage, judging by your obsession with Kurtz and solely focusing on his work as opposed to anyone else brought up in this debate.
The opening article was chiefly focused on the work of David Blankenhorn. It is rather telling that you picked up on Kurtz and focused on him while ignoring Blankenhorn.
You might wanna start looking at Blankenhorn's work. I'll help ya get started...
Blankenhorn shows in
this article that, "Support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage" and that...
people in nations with gay marriage are less than half as likely as people in nations without gay unions to say that married people are happier. Perhaps most important, they are significantly less likely to say that people who want children ought to get married (38 percent vs. 60 percent). They are also significantly more likely to say that cohabiting without intending to marry is all right (83 percent vs. 50 percent), and are somewhat more likely to say that divorce is usually the best solution to marital problems. Respondents in the countries with gay marriage are significantly more likely than those in Australia and the United States to say that divorce is usually the best solution.
He then concludes:
By itself, the "conservative case" for gay marriage might be attractive. It would be gratifying to extend the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples--if gay marriage and marriage renewal somehow fit together. But they do not. As individuals and as a society, we can strive to maintain and strengthen marriage as a primary social institution and society's best welfare plan for children (some would say for men and women too). Or we can strive to implement same-sex marriage. But unless we are prepared to tear down with one hand what we are building up with the other, we cannot do both.
Now, can you show some evidence to dispute his argument, or are you gonna try and smear him, as you do Kurtz?
Wow again.... pull down your dress shag your arrogance is showing.
You draw this conclusion from two hand picked quotes of mine taken out of context and put together to give a wrong impression about what I am saying.
This is where your argument is still tainted. It is, at it's core, still a childish ad hominem smear against Kurtz, and by extention me. Which makes the main focus of it irrelevant to this discussion. Still the facts you cite (as far as I can tell reading what is in you post) are not merely a hit piece on Kurtz (unlike the Slate article you cited), and actually serve as a relevant critique of the argument against gay marriage...
Looking to make the debate about me again, it seems. Textbook ad hominem misdirection.
That last line had absolutely nothing to do with the preceding paragraph. It was a response to your claim:
Anything I post against him you start a rant "see post 166"
The paragraph
before that line was a response to a
different claim of yours:
Shag you only see the facts as you want to see them.
Kurtz's assertions are the only thing you keep hanging on to.
There is no evidence to claim I am arrogant, so you manufactured some. More proof of your lack of intellectual integrity, by cherry picking and taking info out of context; two methods of debate which are disturbingly common on your end of this issue.
FYI; if you knew me at all, you would know that I am actually a very
humble person.
Now this is more like the Shag I know, now I can get ready for the fallacious argument, red herring, straw man, ad hominem attack, false analogy, non sequitur, burden of proof, proof by assertion rant thats comming
Does characterizing my response as a "rant" somehow successfully dispute the claims I make about your arguments being fallacious? If so please show me how.
You have been consistently disrepectful, here. In addition to fallacious arguments, personal attacks and smears seem to be the modus operandi for you; calling me "arrogant" without proof that isn't manufactured, claims of "spamming" and "ranting", attempts to mock those who you disagree with on this forum, etc. etc.
I hope you will note I haven't commented yet on the two articles you cite in post number 218. I am still examining that info and formulating a response. However, just as I'm considering how to respond to your few valid points, you slip into personal attacks that convince me anew of the uselessness of devoting time to arguing with you.
It is rather clear that there is no chance for an honest, respectful, adult debate with you here.
