Does anyone else think the phrase "tend to" indicates a generalization rather than an observation based on history?

Find the generalization:
A) "People tend to dislike the movie Gigli."
B) "Everyone hated Gigli."
C) "Every single person who saw Gigli hated it."

If you answered A, you're stupid. If you answered B, you might be correct, but popular usage gives you some leeway. Ergo, C is a generalization, because Billy Joe Bob Carl Tom Sam Dan Frank Frankson of Short Hairs, Georgia enjoyed Gigli.

And weren't we talking about gay marriage? Is there anything to debate? Come on, I want to see some people who have the guts to come out (no pun intended) against gay marriage and discuss it in a civil manner. Debate is pointless if we don't touch the issue.

Caligula married his horse. Rome fell into indefensible population slide that led to the collapse of western civilisation. People are basing their opinions on FACTS that have occured in the past.
Rome plummetting population was a direct cointributor in it's fall. Europe's has been falling for a fair while, as has Americas. That is where people draw similarities. Hedonism, leading to a culture of SELF SELF SELF, instread of looking out for each other, or the society as a whole. Giving homosexual marriages the same benefits and encouragements as hetrosexual ones, is a SYMPTOM of a situation, not the REASON for it. Again, very historical. Precedents abound. Rome and Greece in particular.

Also at issue, is that polygamists are being refused legal marriage licences. What is at issue is the defenition of marriage. Kept at one man, one woman, it is simple and clear cut. We will not see the end of this. Polygamy will be legal, just as homosexual marriages are legal. And then we will see bestial marriages, child brides (as has occured in history) and whatever else takes peoples fancy - BECAUSE IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.

America is not a vacuum. Learning how to develop society in isolation. You are not the posessors of unique experiences. Theses issues have occured before and will occur again.

Society NEEDS strong child-producing hetrosexual marriages if it is to perpetuate. When these are not encouraged and supported society DOES collapse. Every society that has lost sight of that has in fact collapsed.

But the world will go on. We'll just find that Roman Catholics and Muslims, who will end up outnumbering the rest of us, will be able to enforce their harsher brands of morality on us. ;)

Right on! No nation that recognizes polygamy can be anything but absolutely evil. :rolleyes: *cough* Can it? *cough*

Society NEEDS strong child-producing hetrosexual marriages if it is to perpetuate. When these are not encouraged and supported society DOES collapse. Every society that has lost sight of that has in fact collapsed.
</font>[/QUOTE]Polygamistic societies strongly favor procreation.

Quote:

But the world will go on. We'll just find that Roman Catholics and Muslims, who will end up outnumbering the rest of us, will be able to enforce their harsher brands of morality on us. ;)

Now, you've done it. You've tied the culture to their morality. I say we don't want the irresponsibly-propogating societies of the Earth -- including Catholics and Muslims -- to overcome the rest of us -- with that I can agree. However, in my mind gay marriages only fight AGAINST such a fate. Why? Because if gays can marry, they can adopt -- meaning they can "procreate" their ideas onto their children, making those children their own liberal-minded offspring -- even if they had to go adopt them from Azerbaijan or Indonesia. ;)

Wow. In case you didn't know, Santorum compared acts of homosexuality with bestiality and incest. I find all three deplorable: Bestiality, incest, and comparing homosexuality to these. Your non-arguments are warped in nature, and you've now more or less run *both* threads on homosexuality into the ground. Is there any reason at all I should listen to a word you say? Or should I just publicly call for your banning and call it a day?
Yeesh.
::wanders off until people decide to start debating again::

[ 08-08-2004, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

And yet none survived outside small enclaves in Tibet and Utah. It doesn't make for a strong society. Weakens the gene pool as well, as you have only one father (or mother in Tibets case) adding to the gene pool. My point stands.

Quote:

Because if gays can marry, they can adopt -- meaning they can "procreate" their ideas onto their children, making those children their own liberal-minded offspring -- even if they had to go adopt them from Azerbaijan or Indonesia. ;)

Ah yes. Where are these children going to come from? In America, abortion is legal, so unwanted children are killed, meaning there are not nearly enough children to satiate the demand for adoption meaning, yes, people go to China, or your aforementioned Indonesia to adopt. It doesn't make for a healthy perpetuating society if those within continually have to go without to simply perpetuate.

That's the beauty about a hetrosexual child producing family. It is it's own source of growth and sustainence.

I find you hypocritical.

You have a problem with incest and bestiality, and I preume paedophilia, yet take issue with someone having a problem with homosexuality. Seems semantic to me. ;) It's all a matter of where you draw the line, not having a line at all. You have a line between included and excluded tolerated sexual practices.

You are no different from Santorum, it's just that where you have placed your dividing line is different. Your excercise of judgement, condemnation and intolerance is exactly the same - hence, is hypocritical, as you are doing the same thing, just arguing about where the line should be.


Why should someone that loves their pet be derided and condemned? Why should two siblings that manifest their love in sexual expression be condemned? It's all love isn't it? What is your reasoning in condemning one, but not the other? Nature?

Cross species attempts at intercourse is natural. So is incest. If your argument is that homosexuality is natural, but theses others is not, you are deluded.

What other arguments are there? C'mon, you must have strong ones, seeing as you're so prepared to condemn them, and yet condemn condemnation of homosexual sex.

A dividing line exists between homosexuality and bestiality/paedophilia, Yorick -- it's called CONSENT.

Now, I argued against your point about a heterosexual couple being able to produce their own child long ago, and feel I won that little bout. In fact, when I pointed out that if only couples that could procreate should raise children, then we should deny adoptions to infertile couples. When you retorted with "well, they could procreate, if it weren't for the infertility" than I knew I'd won that one fair and square -- because it's equally true that a homosexual male couple could procreate so long as one had a working uterus. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] So, needless to say, I'm not going down that road again with you.

What I do want to address are the glaring factual mistakes you've made above.
Well, we are one world community, so as long as unwanted children are getting homes, who cares where the homes are located? More importantly, there are a lot of children in America to adopt -- not all unwanted children get aborted. I presume you realize that, but your post doesn't read that way. People will skip over unwanted children here and adopt elsewhere for several reasons, including (1) want to get a very young child, (2) don't want a crack baby, and (3) would prefer to circumvent annoying U.S. red tape in the adoption process. This does not, however, mean there are no children here to adopt.

Now, if your point is really that whitebread Americans are a dying breed, just like whitebread Euros, and they should procreate more to keep their kind from being bred out of existence, well you may have a point. I'll get my sheet, and we can continue the discussion. I did hear a funny comedian the other night say that he and all like-minded black men had a vested interest in making sure white men didn't die out, because they need us: no more white men, no more white women. ;)

Here's your other factual fallacy. You've ignored quite a large polygamistic society that exists in the Middle East, and has been quite successful. Just how many wives does one of Osama's 50 brothers have, I wonder? I'll send them and the Saudi royalty a note that this guy in NYC said they weren't a strong society. ;)

Consent exists in some forms of incest. How are we to know whether consent doesn't exist in bestial circumstances? I've seen rabbits try to hump consenting ducks. I've seen roosters try and hump nonconsenting ducks. (and nonconsenting hens mind you).

I'm waiting to hear Illuminas reasons in any case. I did not regard your arguments as hypocritical, jsut his, as he was so eager to condemn a process of judgement, despite having the same process, just a different dividing line.

Quote:

Now, I argued against your point about a heterosexual couple being able to produce their own child long ago, and feel I won that little bout. In fact, when I pointed out that if only couples that could procreate should raise children, then we should deny adoptions to infertile couples. When you retorted with "well, they could procreate, if it weren't for the infertility" than I knew I'd won that one fair and square -- because it's equally true that a homosexual male couple could procreate so long as one had a working uterus. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] So, needless to say, I'm not going down that road again with you.

Not at all. You certainly did not. I retorted that if you were going to be hard arsed about it, then you could easily only grant adoption rights to fertile procreating couples - so the child has siblings born from the two parents, and slots into a working family. It's quite an easy line of division. Why are the couple infertile? Age? Is it right to grant adoption rights to parents who will not be able to live to an age where they can raise their kids?

I move the adoption rights to couples, that, were they in normal health, could have children by natural means - ie. a child cannot adopt, nor can a post menopausal woman, nor a same sex couple, nor a human-animal couple. Really really simple, and uses the line of division nature already uses.

Quote:

What I do want to address are the glaring factual mistakes you've made above. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In America, abortion is legal, so unwanted children are killed, meaning there are not nearly enough children to satiate the demand for adoption meaning, yes, people go to China, or your aforementioned Indonesia to adopt.

Well, we are one world community, so as long as unwanted children are getting homes, who cares where the homes are located?
</font>[/QUOTE]It is quite distressing that levels of poverty should be so rampant that parents in the third world should feel a need to hand their children to western tourists to raise. I for one care about where those children come from, and the circumstances they are put up for adoption.

Quote:

More importantly, there are a lot of children in America to adopt -- not all unwanted children get aborted. I presume you realize that, but your post doesn't read that way. People will skip over unwanted children here and adopt elsewhere for several reasons, including (1) want to get a very young child, (2) don't want a crack baby, and (3) would prefer to circumvent annoying U.S. red tape in the adoption process. This does not, however, mean there are no children here to adopt.

Regardless, there are millions of babies being killed, and a decided lack of available children to adopt.

Quote:

Now, if your point is really that whitebread Americans are a dying breed, just like whitebread Euros, and they should procreate more to keep their kind from being bred out of existence, well you may have a point. I'll get my sheet, and we can continue the discussion. I did hear a funny comedian the other night say that he and all like-minded black men had a vested interest in making sure white men didn't die out, because they need us: no more white men, no more white women. ;)

I don't understand what you're saying. "I'll get my sheet?"

Quote:

]Here's your other factual fallacy. You've ignored quite a large polygamistic society that exists in the Middle East, and has been quite successful. Just how many wives does one of Osama's 50 brothers have, I wonder? I'll send them and the Saudi royalty a note that this guy in NYC said they weren't a strong society. ;)

Shall we compare western society to Islamic societies then? On what levels. Average income? Age expectancy? Social programs like health care? Average health of the citizenship? Literacy levels? Career options? Certainly it is a source of embarresment and shame to numbers of proud middle easterners, that the level of civilisation leadership attained in the middle ages, could have slipped to the level it did, so that the "decadent western civilisation" was so easily able to run all over the strongest military of the area. Twice.

Polygamy does not make a strong and functional society. In Islamic society, just as in preRoman middle eastern society, it is evidence of a lack of career options for women, rather than pure romantic choices. In Tibet, apparently it is again, economically driven. Two men for a woman.

In any case, in America, why is it illegal? If homosexuals can marry, why not three or more CONSENTING adults? Seeing as consent was your issue with paedophilia.

Yep. But, enough people in this country prefer to-may-toes to to-mah-toes that the gay rights movement is really buggering itself by making a big deal about the term "marriage."

If they just would be smart enough to go for "all the substantive rights of marriage, no matter what you bigots want to call it" then they would have the support of the vast majority, including both presidential candidates. And, it is my personal experience, from knowing a LOT of gay people, that by and large they just care about the substantive rights (if they care at all -- some don't give a rat's ass about marriage in the least).

But, it's the agenda of the extreme gay rights groups -- Lambda, B-GLAD, Rainbow Coalition -- that have hijacked the whole gay population and misrepresented the majority of what gays believe and want in order to pursue their more radical political agenda. It's currently backfiring on them.

A lot of people get pissed when you give someone an inch and they try to take a mile. For the majority of small-brained conservatives, civil unions are fine, but gay marriages aren't. That's a long way for small-brained conservatives to have come in the last decade or two. Unfortunately, that paradigmatical change in attitude in this country cannot be capitalized upon because the small group of small-brained gay rights groups insist that "that isn't enough."

Anyway, [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] over -- for now. </font>[/QUOTE]Preach it Brother T.L. Preach IT!!!! I vote for your original proposel(sp?) and call it "Bob" instead of marriage.

I believe it is funny to see there are those complaining about one side holding onto something YET they themselves hold on to something. I say hold on to what you want to hold on too, if you are able to keep ahold of IT great if you lose IT great. At least you are alive to try and hold on to something.