David Koch

[paperburn1]

Getting back on topic of our chat

Your final answer to the gay marriage question is that a hetero marriage solely provides positive role models for children?

Because I am wondering how you are determining what constitutes a 'positive' role model and also why gay marriages can't provide whatever 'that' happens to be.

It all makes sense now, gay marriage and marijuana being legalized in Washington State on the same day. Leviticus 20:13: If a man lays with another man he should be stoned. We were just interpreting it wrong."

[Diogenes]

Why would I say you are a horrible person?I think you are only misguided. You don't come across as feeling they are diseased, that if only somehow they accept Jesus as their Saviour and really really pray, that they will be magically restored to heterosexuality. That thin veiled religious website is full of hateful crap.

Why do you keep mentioning Jesus? The only person bringing him up is you. I'm more of an old Testament sort of guy myself.

I don't know why you think gay people can't make good parents.
Do you think that adoption would be some sort of recruiting mechanism for gay people?

People who think they are Napoleon might make good parents, but betting on insanity turning out okay is not really sensible is it?

And what is this about marriage? Are you saying that homosexuals are incapable of a life time commitment? Tell you what, we will call it Life Time Commitment, give them the tax benefits any other committed bonded pair have and problem solved.

No. Society has a vested interest in Men and Women being in a committed relationship. It creates future citizens to pay the taxes and defend the society from attack. It tames the aggressive nature of unattached males, and sets examples for them. It establishes the lawful legacy for inheritance, and the distribution and ownership of property is very much in the interest of the law and society.

What do you think about black people's attempts to be more mainstream back in the 60s? Were they just 'uppity niggers' that didn't know their place in your mainstream society? I view them as people tired of being judged for something they have no control over

What is your definition of 'mainstream society'?

Funny thing, I have read many accounts that allege black society was improving in wealth and stability during the time when they were persecuted by the Democrat's Jim Crow repression. Families were headed by married couples and Fathers behaved like Fathers ought. Apparently giving them a common enemy caused them to bond together for mutual strength.

Now, that society is falling apart, with the white demographic following close behind. Almost half the children nowadays are born out of wedlock.

[Diogenes]

D
i am not going to address any of the 'points' as you call them.

Not surprised. I didn't really expect much from you. You strike me as being in way over your head amongst the intellectual firepower on this website.

you can pick and choose any number of stats and stories that seemingly satisfy your position.

And you could refute them, but for reality being what it is.

Stubby wrote:

I was more interested in whether you knew who they are. It seems like you do and from your tone i would say you probably believe what they say about the age of the earth i.e. they take a hyper literal view of the bible. This tells me you are willing to suspend rational thought to make yourself feel good.

I actually have no idea who they are, I had never heard of them. It's just that I argue with partisans all the time, and when they start quoting names back at me on a subject they supposedly don't know anything about, it means that they have already studied the issue, and are not objective or open minded. They are just pretending to be reasonable.

What the hell does 'involved partisan' mean?


You are a bigot and and a waste of my time.

(It seems I had a little more time to waste)

I think explaining anything to you is a waste of time. You haven't the depth or the inclination to understand anything I say.

[Stubby]

I have given you several answers. You're merely ignoring those you don't like and mischaracterizing those you want to respond to.

It sounds like you're building up to some convoluted argument about how men can be good female role models, and women can be good male role models. I have to tell you, I have no interest or patience for such a crazy explanation.

Seriously Stubby, I see no end to this. You're continuing to misquote and mischaracterize me at each turn. You're never contented with the answers given you, even when they are direct and clear. You appear at every turn to have no interest in understanding my position, but rather that you think somehow you're going to change my mind? Each time you mischaracterize my position, you do so deliberately, which says to me there can be nothing gained in continuing this. You lack the requisite honesty for any serious discussion. I'm sure you feel you're very clever, but you appear to me to just be twisted.

Back to name calling I see. Now you impugn my honesty.
You are right though I see no end of this either, since you keep bouncing around deliberately ignoring or rejecting anything that doesn't fit your presumptions despite evidence to the contrary.

[Diogenes]

It's when gays assert they have a right to adopt, or to marry and otherwise make their behavior seem mainstream that there are problems.

We may disagree more than you think then.

I do think heterosexual couples should be preferred as adoptive parents. I do not think, however, that homosexual couples should be categorically excluded from adopting (and neither should single parents).

And this is an opinion expressed from what knowledge base? It is one thing to suggest that heterosexual couples should adopted children because this model has been tested for thousands of years. Occasionally it works out badly, but by and large it has been a proven system.

By what track record, or what theory do you conclude that Homosexuals should not be excluded from adopting?

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5466526/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/famous- ... -gay-dads/

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2008/ ... 1997-2002/

I also think marriage shouldn't be regulated by the state. However, where government extends certain benefits to people committed to sharing a life together, that should be available to all regardless of their gender. Similarly, such benefits concerning families should apply to all families.

Marriage is an issue of interest to the state because of property and inheritance. It is in the state's interest to insure a lawful and peaceful transfer of assets, and the Marriage certificate determines to whom that shall be.

[Stubby]

D:

Intellectual firepower in the General section.
Oh that is rich.
True I don't have the necessary training or education to fully discuss fusion or Polywell but this is not the design or theory section now is it?

Again the name calling. So anyone not agreeing with you is just too stupid to understand the 'true nature of things.' Most people here have disagreed with you on one subject or another. I guess that makes you the most intelligent person here.

And as i have said, I will not discuss anything with you. You are a true believer, a person who takes things on faith and feeling without evidence. Strange to find you here on a science forum with people who believe in evidence and observation.

[Teahive]

However, the tax breaks and special status of "married" relates to the huge benefits all society obtains when a man and woman agree to marry and raise children.

Why not simply apply this special status to families instead of married couples, then?

By what track record, or what theory do you conclude that Homosexuals should not be excluded from adopting?

By what track record, and I mean full track record not anecdotal evidence, do you exclude them from adopting?

Marriage is an issue of interest to the state because of property and inheritance. It is in the state's interest to insure a lawful and peaceful transfer of assets, and the Marriage certificate determines to whom that shall be.

Please explain
a) what part of this cannot be expressed with a will and/or private contract, and
b) what this has to do with sexuality.

[Stubby]

Family Research Institute

Paul Cameron , founder FRI

Disavowed quacks are not good sources.

[GIThruster]

However, the tax breaks and special status of "married" relates to the huge benefits all society obtains when a man and woman agree to marry and raise children.

Why not simply apply this special status to families instead of married couples, then?

That's a good question. I'm not sure how to answer. I wasn't a part of the process to generate this special benefit from the start, so I don't know all the reasoning that went into the decision the lawmakers made.

Were I to try to answer that question, I'd want to start with a list of all the similar tax breaks available to various groups and try to treat them all afresh. I'm not sure this is the time for that. Eventually, we need to see the special benefits awarded to various historically disenfranchised groups reappraised. The benefits awarded indigenous peoples seem to me have run their reasonable course. Special benefits just for being a woman, or a racial minority eventually all need to be reappraised. That is however the place of a lawmaker, not a science and technology researcher.

[Diogenes]

D:

Intellectual firepower in the General section.
Oh that is rich.
True I don't have the necessary training or education to fully discuss fusion or Polywell but this is not the design or theory section now is it?

Not much has been going on in there for a long time. It won't get interesting till some experimental data is released. I have heard all I want to about theory, now I want to see some data.

Again the name calling. So anyone not agreeing with you is just too stupid to understand the 'true nature of things.'

Is it name calling when it's true? I have honestly never seen anything you've written which I considered to be insightful or even consistent with ordinary common sense. There are several on this website about which I feel likewise. There are also several that I think are quite intelligent, but who have kooky notions about reality. There are Several who I think are quite intelligent and for the most part have a reasonable world view.

Most people here have disagreed with you on one subject or another. I guess that makes you the most intelligent person here.

I think there are many here who are my equal, and many here who are more intelligent and some who are more knowledgeable about some things. I don't count disagreement as a measure of intelligence unless it is in view of facts which contradict the disagreeing opinion.

I think the Libertarian crowd here all suffer from exclusive exposure to agreeable opinions and really never get the good solid questioning of their philosophy they need to think critically about it. As a result I think they go through their lives with many false assumptions accepted as true in their opinion.

And as i have said, I will not discuss anything with you. You are a true believer, a person who takes things on faith and feeling without evidence. Strange to find you here on a science forum with people who believe in evidence and observation.

And this is one more reason why I think you are a special class of dumb. You keep trying to poke me into that hole, and had you read much of what I have written, you would realize I don't fit. I, and others have pointed this out to you before, but you are still trying to incorrectly pigeonhole me.

I am a believer in facts, reality and history. It is people such as yourself who don't have nearly enough exposure to these things.

[Diogenes]

Family Research Institute

The Family Research Institute is designated an anti-gay hate group[4] by the nonprofit civil rights organization[5][6][7] Southern Poverty Law Center[8][9] because of Cameron's discredited research and claims about LGBT people.

Well, that's all I need to know about them to consider them credible. Anybody labeled a "hate group" by the Nuts and Kooks running the Southern Poverty Law Center is above reproach in my book.

[Stubby]

Typical of you.
Keep digging your hole deeper.
As for claiming to being a man of fact or reality, you make me laugh.
You should claim to be a comedian as it is more plausible and appropriate.

Criticism [ of your credible group's founder]

For the most part, official scientific organisations have paid very little attention to Cameron's studies, and thus extensive scientific analysis of his claims have not been widely available. However Cameron's research, public statements and legal testimony have received criticism from researchers and organizations over methodologies they view as academically dishonest and misleading.

From professional organizations:
The American Psychological Association (APA) launched an investigation into Cameron after receiving complaints about his work from members.[2][3] The APA President Max Seigel sent Cameron a letter on December 2, 1983 stating that the Board of Directors had decided to drop him from membership for failure to cooperate with their investigation.[21] FRI has contended that Cameron had already resigned from the organization in November 1982, citing correspondence from before his formal expulsion.[22] In a letter published in the March 1983 edition of the APA Monitor, Cameron stated that his reasons for leaving included his opinion that the organization was becoming more of a "liberal PAC" than a professional society.[23] An APA spokesperson told The Boston Globe in 2005, "We are concerned about Dr. Cameron because we do believe that his methodology is weak."[3]

In 1984 the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement disassociating itself "from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron".[3] In 1986 the American Sociological Association passed a resolution condemning Cameron for "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research".[24] This was based on a report from the ASA's Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, which summarised Cameron's inflammatory statements and commented, "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work."[25] In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".[26]

[Stubby]

Family Research Institute

The Family Research Institute is designated an anti-gay hate group[4] by the nonprofit civil rights organization[5][6][7] Southern Poverty Law Center[8][9] because of Cameron's discredited research and claims about LGBT people.

Well, that's all I need to know about them to consider them credible. Anybody labeled a "hate group" by the Nuts and Kooks running the Southern Poverty Law Center is above reproach in my book.

I can understand why you feel you can't continue to preach your ideas here. And it is nice of you to confirm who we all are talking to when you do sprout your foul ideas.

And that other website your posted (H.O.M.E.) is also on the list.
'
List of Organisations deemed to be 'above reproach' and considered 'credible' by Diogenes

The SPLC reported that there were 926 active hate groups in the United States in 2008, up from 888 in 2007. That number did not include hate groups that appear to exist only on the Internet. The groups included:

186 separate Ku Klux Klan (KKK) groups with 52 websites
196 neo-Nazi groups with 89 websites
111 white nationalist groups with 190 websites
98 white power skinhead groups with 25 websites
39 Christian Identity groups with 37 websites
93 neo-Confederate groups with 25 websites
113 black separatist groups with 40 websites
159 patriot movement groups
90 general hate groups (subdivided into anti-gay, anti-immigrant, Holocaust denial, racist music, radical traditionalist Catholic and others)[9][10] with 172 hate websites.[11]

FULL LIST

[choff]

One thing with alternative media, a lot of websites providing good whistleblowing news that the mainstream won't cover. But they still have to eat, and running alt news sites cost money, so I suspect some of them bow to sponsor pressure and slant reporting accordingly.

So with some of them, for example, you get inciteful legit coverage on the issues of the day, mixed in with a little anti-Israel propaganda nudging. None of them are on the list, they don't go far enough to make it, but you have to use your own judgement in evaluating what you read. Like my mom used to say, 'only believe half of what you see and nothing that you hear.'

[MSimon]

Well stubby,

I don't care much for SPLC either.