waltermitty (r) vs. carlhayden(d)

[CARLHAYDEN]

You support a 45% estate tax? Definitely stay with the Democrats, then.

Sorry, I should have been somewhat clearer, I do think the value of assets excluded from the tax should be substantially increased, and the tax rate itself should be reduced to somewhere around 20 - 25% (federal).

[Alcon]

First, lets first start with definitions:

Malicious - given to, marked by or arising from malice

Malice - desire to cause pain, injury or distress to another

Now, I don't believe most liberals who support 'gay marriage' actually want dammage, but I do think that most liberals who support 'gay marriage' because they recognize that it will distress conservatives.

Then why did you say, I quote, "liberals generally favor 'gay marriage' because it is a deliberate, intentional and malicious assault on the traditional family"?  That does not mean that they want it to distress conservatives; it means exactly what it says, and what you said does directly state that they want to cause damage.

Second, I suggest you reread my original posts. Obviously, since I clearly limited my observation as to the rationale for those liberals who do support
'gay marriage' (as opposed to those liberals who do NOT support ''gay marriage), my statement did not on its face apply to all liberals.  I appologize that this was not made clearer.

Again, I never said that you were applying it to all liberals.  I am glad you are making that clear, though.

Third, I repeat it is important to understand the motivation of those proposed a particular matter of public policy.   Sometimes it is merely the case of people not being adequately informed concerning a subject.  So, if the alledged rationale for supporting 'gay marriage' would be to obtain certain tax and other tangible benefits for homosexuals, if those benefits could be obtained by civil unions, would that be acceptable?  If the answer is in the affirmative, then the person was being honest in their rationale, and an accomodation can be reached.  However, if the answer is "no," then it is clear that the originally proffered explanation was bogus.

Many believe that, no matter what practical reasons are involved, the emotional implications of being married as opposed to being in a civil union are significant; this is the same reason many people oppose gay marriage, and the same reason many support it.

In the context of those who wish to disarm the American people, I trust you will concur that the overwhelming majority of conservatives (and yes, moderates) are opposed to such a proposition whereas a majority of self-identified liberals do support such a proposal.  Why?  Recently in my state the legislature voted (19-10 in the State Senate) to probibit the Governor from seizing privately owned firearms (as occured in Louisiana last year).  The conservatives and moderates of both parties voted for the proposal, the liberals voted against it.  Hmm.

Yes, I think that pretty much everyone knows that liberals generally support gun control, but I'm not sure what your point is there in response to what I said.

[CARLHAYDEN]

No, I don't believe most liberals want to "damage" the traditional family (most liberals are too shallow to think that far) but that most of those liberals who do support gay marriage do so to indicate their contempt for real marriage.  The same people would support 'marriage' between a man and a sheep, a woman and a dog, etc. simply because it will outrage the majority of human beings.  Doubtless they will protest about the right of interspecies 'marriage' and how unfair and heartless people are to oppose such 'marriage,'  Such protests would be simple lies.

As to the "emotional" argument, you either do NOT understand what was posted or are deliberately misreprenting again.  Let me be specific that some are desperate for official sanction that their actions are the same as the actions of others.  I repeat, the purpose of civil marriage is to protect the children of such a union, and hence marriage is an institution  soley for a man and a woman.

Finally, I am perplexed why liberals have such an attachment to homosexuality.  Why must homosexuality be sanctioned, not merely tolerated?
 
Oh, and if you gave it some though, I think you would recognize that:

(a) liberals favor big brother government,
(b) the majority of the population does not favor big brother government,
(c) liberals believe in forcing others to do what liberals want them to do, and
(d) where people are armed, they can and have sucessfully resisted imposition of the kind or regime that liberals would foist on the.

[Alcon]

No, I don't believe most liberals want to "damage" the traditional family (most liberals are too shallow to think that far) but that most of those liberals who do support gay marriage do so to indicate their contempt for real marriage.  The same people would support 'marriage' between a man and a sheep, a woman and a dog, etc. simply because it will outrage the majority of human beings.  Doubtless they will protest about the right of interspecies 'marriage' and how unfair and heartless people are to oppose such 'marriage,'  Such protests would be simple lies.

You may say that now, but that's different from what you said before.

You are arguing slippery slope fallacy.  Besides, animals cannot agree to be married.  Do you really believe that there is support for that?

As to the "emotional" argument, you either do NOT understand what was posted or are deliberately misreprenting again.  Let me be specific that some are desperate for official sanction that their actions are the same as the actions of others.  I repeat, the purpose of civil marriage is to protect the children of such a union, and hence marriage is an institution  soley for a man and a woman.

How does marriage protect children?

Finally, I am perplexed why liberals have such an attachment to homosexuality.  Why must homosexuality be sanctioned, not merely tolerated?

Why must heterosexuality be sanctioned, not merely tolerated, by the government?  Is the government instituting marriage as a breeding program?  Why not the same recognition for homosexuals?
 

Oh, and if you gave it some though, I think you would recognize that:

Dude, what is it?  You think that anyone who disagrees with you has never thought?  I have heard your arguments dozens of times before, as I'm sure you have heard mine.

(a) liberals favor big brother government,

So do today's so-called "conservatives."

(b) the majority of the population does not favor big brother government,

This may be true, but then again, if you've ever seen polling on abortions, you know in what regard I hold the majority opinion in this country.

(c) liberals believe in forcing others to do what liberals want them to do, and

And "conservatives" believe in forcing others to not do what they don't want them to do.

(d) where people are armed, they can and have sucessfully resisted imposition of the kind or regime that liberals would foist on the.

Where is the indication of the impending liberal regime change?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon,

1.) Marriage is designed to protect the rights of children.

2.) Those rights are listed in your state's statutes.

3.) Homosexuals cannot (without outside asistance) create children.

4.) Calling a homosexual relationship "marriage" is merely intended to denigrate real marriage.

5.) Apparently you do not comprehend that granting homosexuals the 'right' to 'marry' is an attempt to provide official sanction for such a relationship.

[Max Power]

Hahaha, wow, your argument sucks.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Another example of liberalism.

I'm sorry, but you're just a second rate version of "nelson" on the simpsons.

[ilikeverin]

4.) Calling a homosexual relationship "marriage" is merely intended to denigrate real marriage.

Yeah, I suppose that's true.  There has never been a record of a liberal ever getting married.

...oh wait...

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, non sequitur.

Second, not all liberals support 'gay marriage.'

[ilikeverin]

First, non sequitur.

Second, not all liberals support 'gay marriage.'

If the intent of gay marriage was to denigrate "real marriage", then why would anyone who supported gay marriage get married?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Now, let me see if I correctly understand what you are trying to say.

If I understand you correctly, you are asking why a non-homosexual would marry today if they support 'gay marriage.'

Well, I can think of a couple of reasons, right off:

First, the sexual partner insists on the marriage license.

Second, the state in which the person resides may not currently offer 'civil unions' as an alternative (I advocate making civil unions available both for homosexuals and heterosexuals), and wish to obtain certain legal benefits which come with marriage.

Oh, and btw, if you bother to check, you will see that the 'approval' of 'gay marriage' is far lower among married people than among unmarried.

[Alcon]

Alcon,

1.) Marriage is designed to protect the rights of children.

2.) Those rights are listed in your state's statutes.

Looking at my state statue now, I can see only a few differentiations: civil unions do not allow immigration, and no tax benefits,  but nothing to protect the children.  You are obviously more familiar with the Arizona statue; please name these benefits to children.

3.) Homosexuals cannot (without outside asistance) create children.

Plenty of people get married but do not have children and have no intent to at the time.  Why are you not working to get that banned?

4.) Calling a homosexual relationship "marriage" is merely intended to denigrate real marriage.

I do not think that is true.  Some people disagree that marriage should be for children-raising again, and instead believe it should be used to celebrate the love and devotion of two people.  You may disagree with that perception, but that certainly makes it not just intended to denegrate real marriage.

5.) Apparently you do not comprehend that granting homosexuals the 'right' to 'marry' is an attempt to provide official sanction for such a relationship.

Personally, I think the churches should be allowed to decide what they consider marriage, and the government should get the hell out of the practise, so the point is moot to me.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon,

1.) Marriage is designed to protect the rights of children.

2.) Those rights are listed in your state's statutes.

Looking at my state statue now, I can see only a few differentiations: civil unions do not allow immigration, and no tax benefits,  but nothing to protect the children.  You are obviously more familiar with the Arizona statue; please name these benefits to children.

3.) Homosexuals cannot (without outside asistance) create children.

Plenty of people get married but do not have children and have no intent to at the time.  Why are you not working to get that banned?

4.) Calling a homosexual relationship "marriage" is merely intended to denigrate real marriage.

I do not think that is true.  Some people disagree that marriage should be for children-raising again, and instead believe it should be used to celebrate the love and devotion of two people.  You may disagree with that perception, but that certainly makes it not just intended to denegrate real marriage.

5.) Apparently you do not comprehend that granting homosexuals the 'right' to 'marry' is an attempt to provide official sanction for such a relationship.

Personally, I think the churches should be allowed to decide what they consider marriage, and the government should get the hell out of the practise, so the point is moot to me.

With respect to the rights of children in marriage, let me start out with inheritance laws.  In the event that a will or other instrument is unavailable, the natural (and adopted) children of a couple inherit upon the death of both parents as established by law.

With respect to those who are capable of bearing children, but deline to do so, they should also be offered the opportunity for civil union.  I believe I made this point previously.

Next you assert that 'some people believe' (which may be true), but will you acknowledge that some liberals real rationale for support for 'gay marriage' is simply to show their contempt for the institution of marriage?

Finally, given the interest in protecting the rights of children, and recognizing that some people are NOT religious, I believe that civil marriage should continue to be available for persons capable of bearing children.

[Alcon]

With respect to the rights of children in marriage, let me start out with inheritance laws.  In the event that a will or other instrument is unavailable, the natural (and adopted) children of a couple inherit upon the death of both parents as established by law.

And why can this not be extended to adoption, and thus homosexual couples?

Next you assert that 'some people believe' (which may be true), but will you acknowledge that some liberals real rationale for support for 'gay marriage' is simply to show their contempt for the institution of marriage?

I'm sure it is, but there are plenty of similarly nefarious views on the Republican side of things.  That does not make the overall argument null and void.

Finally, given the interest in protecting the rights of children, and recognizing that some people are NOT religious, I believe that civil marriage should continue to be available for persons capable of bearing children.

I myself am not religious.  Of course, I meant ordaining official.  If the government removes the political shackles surrounding marriage, it effectively removes the need for any of these petty issues.  Leave it up to individual churches and individual ordained officials to decide whom they will and will not marry.  As it is, marriage seems effectively the government's way of designated who is and is not trying to produce children.  Of course, you don't have to give birth to a child to have children whom you love, so this is basely useless.  It just reeks of more big government.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I'm sorry, but you 'reply' to my first point makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. You had previously asked for an example of rights provided for children under marriage. I gave you a basic one which exists in every state.  As to homosexuals "adopting" children, such practices may be approved of by NAMBA and such, but ARE despicable, and should NOT be allowed.

With respect to your second point, finally we are getting somewhere.  It seems that you have admitted that some liberals DO support 'gay marriage' as a means by which to demostrate their contempt for real marriage.   So our difference here is with respect to how widespread this position is among liberals.

With respect to civil marriage, I would note that the family is THE foundation of civilized society, and a government which is interested in the welfare of its populace will promote that institution, not denigrate it by diseignating other relationships with the same title.

[Alcon]

I'm sorry, but you 'reply' to my first point makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. You had previously asked for an example of rights provided for children under marriage. I gave you a basic one which exists in every state.  As to homosexuals "adopting" children, such practices may be approved of by NAMBA and such, but ARE despicable, and should NOT be allowed.

What does NAMBLA have to do with this?  Pedophilia and homosexuality are entirely different things.  I will also point out that there are plenty of people in heterosexual relationships who are pedophiles.

With respect to your second point, finally we are getting somewhere.  It seems that you have admitted that some liberals DO support 'gay marriage' as a means by which to demostrate their contempt for real marriage.   So our difference here is with respect to how widespread this position is among liberals.

I suppose so.

With respect to civil marriage, I would note that the family is THE foundation of civilized society, and a government which is interested in the welfare of its populace will promote that institution, not denigrate it by diseignating other relationships with the same title.

I agree that the nuclear family is extremely important.  However, I disagree with the connection between pedophilia and homosexuality and would appreciate it if you would link to a single reputable study which makes the connection in any significant way.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, lets start with the point on the nature of the importance of the family. Its nice to see you concede that the family is extremely important, but, I would argue that one of the great declines in the United States over the past couple of generations is the EXTENDED family (grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) which filled a vital role in society.

Next, lets lets look a pedophilia.  While the data is largely hidden about this despicable crime. let me ask you if adult males who sexually molest minor boys are heterosexual or homosexual.  If you can answer this question honestly, then we can proceed.

Oh, and BTW, its a rate heterosexual who will NOT denounce child molesters, but, its a rare homosexual who WILL denounce childr molesters. 

[Alcon]

Well, lets start with the point on the nature of the importance of the family. Its nice to see you concede that the family is extremely important, but, I would argue that one of the great declines in the United States over the past couple of generations is the EXTENDED family (grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) which filled a vital role in society.

OK.

Next, lets lets look a pedophilia.  While the data is largely hidden about this despicable crime. let me ask you if adult males who sexually molest minor boys are heterosexual or homosexual.  If you can answer this question honestly, then we can proceed.

Uh, most adult males who molest young boys would be homosexual.  They are molesting boys.  Let me ask you this: are most adult males who sexually molest minor girls heterosexual or homosexual?

Oh, and BTW, its a rate heterosexual who will NOT denounce child molesters, but, its a rare homosexual who WILL denounce childr molesters.

What in the hell?  I bet I can collect every gay person on the Atlas Forum and each and one of them will strongly, strongly denounce child molestation.  In fact, the only person who won't is a heterosexual.  What has led to you believing this?

[afleitch]

Oh, and BTW, its a rate heterosexual who will NOT denounce child molesters, but, its a rare homosexual who WILL denounce childr molesters. 

Oh what an utter projectile of putrid, steaming horse crap that just flowed out of your mind, and soiled the virgin white page of the forum Carl.

Seriously. There I dencounce child molestation. You happy now?

If you had ever read into pedophilia you would realise that they target boys and or girls not because of their sex, but because they are children. They can be 'straight' - marry, have kids and be an upstanding member of their community but molest boys. Doesn't make them gay, doesnt make the family members involved in 9 of 10 cases of molestation within the so called 'loving nuclear family' gay either.

Go do some research and keep your nonsensical conclusions to yourself.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, lets start with the point on the nature of the importance of the family. Its nice to see you concede that the family is extremely important, but, I would argue that one of the great declines in the United States over the past couple of generations is the EXTENDED family (grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) which filled a vital role in society.

OK.

Next, lets lets look a pedophilia.  While the data is largely hidden about this despicable crime. let me ask you if adult males who sexually molest minor boys are heterosexual or homosexual.  If you can answer this question honestly, then we can proceed.

Uh, most adult males who molest young boys would be homosexual.  They are molesting boys.  Let me ask you this: are most adult males who sexually molest minor girls heterosexual or homosexual?

Oh, and BTW, its a rate heterosexual who will NOT denounce child molesters, but, its a rare homosexual who WILL denounce childr molesters.

What in the hell?  I bet I can collect every gay person on the Atlas Forum and each and one of them will strongly, strongly denounce child molestation.  In fact, the only person who won't is a heterosexual.  What has led to you believing this?

Well, one and a half out of three, an improvement.

Now, when occasions occur in which an adult has sexually molested a minor female, I have been rather vocal in denouncing the slimebag, and criticized lenient sentences for such trash (I still think the judges in Vermont and Ohio who barely slapped the monsters on the wrist should be removed from office and disbarred).

Next, the truth of the matter is that whether it is NAMBA or other child molesting homosexuals, homosexuals generally will NOT criticize such slime.

As to statistics on homosexual moletation of minor boys, the data is deliberatedly not collected.

Most government agencies are terrified of being attacked by homosexuals.

However, to give you one class of homsexual child molesters, I cite the rather substantial number of catholic priests over the past few years.   

Oh, and BTW, I cited a group with supports homosexual child molestation (NAMBA), can you cite a heterosexual group which supports child molestatio9n?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oh, and BTW, its a rate heterosexual who will NOT denounce child molesters, but, its a rare homosexual who WILL denounce childr molesters. 

Oh what an utter projectile of putrid, steaming horse crap that just flowed out of your mind, and soiled the virgin white page of the forum Carl.

Seriously. There I dencounce child molestation. You happy now?

If you had ever read into pedophilia you would realise that they target boys and or girls not because of their sex, but because they are children. They can be 'straight' - marry, have kids and be an upstanding member of their community but molest boys. Doesn't make them gay, doesnt make the family members involved in 9 of 10 cases of molestation within the so called 'loving nuclear family' gay either.

Go do some research and keep your nonsensical conclusions to yourself.

First, its nice to see one of the rare homosexuals who will denounce child molesting.

Second, your use of slurs is to be expected (I consider the source).

Third, your assertions are worth just about as much as your slurs.

[Max Power]

First, its nice to see one of the rare homosexuals who will denounce child molesting.

Yet we're still waiting for you to prove you're not a complete moron. Good luck with that, with the idiocy you spew onto our forum.

[Alcon]

Well, one and a half out of three, an improvement.

You need to stop saying things like this.  It is rude and constitutes behaviour often consider trollish.

Now, when occasions occur in which an adult has sexually molested a minor female, I have been rather vocal in denouncing the slimebag, and criticized lenient sentences for such trash (I still think the judges in Vermont and Ohio who barely slapped the monsters on the wrist should be removed from office and disbarred).

Good for you.  Now prove the statement that most homosexuals do not denounce NAMBLA.

Next, the truth of the matter is that whether it is NAMBA or other child molesting homosexuals, homosexuals generally will NOT criticize such slime.

As to statistics on homosexual moletation of minor boys, the data is deliberatedly not collected.

Most government agencies are terrified of being attacked by homosexuals.

Then how do you know this?

However, to give you one class of homsexual child molesters, I cite the rather substantial number of catholic priests over the past few years.

Could that be because they are closer to boys than girls with a great frequency and most pedophiles in general tend to be homosexuals, not the other way around?

Oh, and BTW, I cited a group with supports homosexual child molestation (NAMBA), can you cite a heterosexual group which supports child molestatio9n?

No, but that does not mean that it does not happen, certainly.

USA Today did an article on this about ten years ago.  There was a survey at the Denver Children's Hospital.  The statistics were resoundingly clear:

80% of girls were molested by a man who was or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child's mother or another relative; 75% of boys were abused by males in heterosexual relationships with female relatives.  Only 1 of 219 girls was molested by a lesbian; 1 out of 50 boys by a gay male.

No offense, but I'll take scientific evidence over your wild conjectures.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, one and a half out of three, an improvement.

You need to stop saying things like this.  It is rude and constitutes behaviour often consider trollish.

Now, when occasions occur in which an adult has sexually molested a minor female, I have been rather vocal in denouncing the slimebag, and criticized lenient sentences for such trash (I still think the judges in Vermont and Ohio who barely slapped the monsters on the wrist should be removed from office and disbarred).

Good for you.  Now prove the statement that most homosexuals do not denounce NAMBLA.

Next, the truth of the matter is that whether it is NAMBA or other child molesting homosexuals, homosexuals generally will NOT criticize such slime.

As to statistics on homosexual moletation of minor boys, the data is deliberatedly not collected.

Most government agencies are terrified of being attacked by homosexuals.

Then how do you know this?

However, to give you one class of homsexual child molesters, I cite the rather substantial number of catholic priests over the past few years.

Could that be because they are closer to boys than girls with a great frequency and most pedophiles in general tend to be homosexuals, not the other way around?

Oh, and BTW, I cited a group with supports homosexual child molestation (NAMBA), can you cite a heterosexual group which supports child molestatio9n?

No, but that does not mean that it does not happen, certainly.

USA Today did an article on this about ten years ago.  There was a survey at the Denver Children's Hospital.  The statistics were resoundingly clear:

80% of girls were molested by a man who was or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child's mother or another relative; 75% of boys were abused by males in heterosexual relationships with female relatives.  Only 1 of 219 girls was molested by a lesbian; 1 out of 50 boys by a gay male.

No offense, but I'll take scientific evidence over your wild conjectures.

Lets start at the begining.

First, what is being "trollish."  When I note that you are haltinglylyg conceding some points, or when others engage in ad hominen attacks?  I note that I have yet to see an example of where YOU have critiqued anyone who has launched ad hominem attacks on me, or other conservatives?Hmm.

Second, I stand by my statement that most homosexuals do NOT denounce NAMBA.  I suggest you open your eyes and look around.

Third, I note that you indrectly acknowledge the accounts of catholic priests sexually molesting boys, but try to discount such occurances with the allegation that they merely molest the most covenient targets.

Fourth, I cited a homosexual group which endoreses sexual child molesting.  I challenged you to cite a heterosexual group which advocates sexeual child molesting.  You condeded that you could not name such a group/organization.

Finally, as I earlier noted , accurate statistics are NOT kept of homosexual child molesting because of understandable fear of attacks by homosexuals.  Now you can cite statistics from pro-homosexual groups/organizations which will proport to 'prove' that ther is little/no child molesting done by homosexuals.  If you stop and examine these studies, and their alledged "proof," you will see they are phonyh.

Now, once again I think you are operating under several misperceptions and false assumptionsl/.

First, I do NOT suggest that most homosexuals are child molesters.

Second, I DO suggest that child molesting is (as a percentage of population) more prevelant among homosexuals than heterosecuals.

Third, I DO state clearly that most homosexuals are reluctant to denounce NAMBA.

 

[afleitch]

What homosexuals Carl? What homosexuals refuse to denouce child abuse, NAMBLA and others? Who where they, where were they? Did you meet them to discuss it, or do they just inhabit your over active imagination?

You really have got it in for gay people don't you Carl, the very fact that you believe most gay people support child molestaion how utterly sick is that? You may not consider yourself to be homophobic, but by god you sound it. You just disguise it with flippant remarks and playing fast and loose with so called 'facts' even when Alcon reports the results of a factual study and when I do the same (I was a student of sociology- i've seen the stats and I understand them) Saying that most homosexuals approve of child molestation is like saying most Germans approve of the Nazi's. It's a ludicrous untruth.