Study shows Prop 8 exit polls wrong about level of support amongst Blacks.

[Lincoln Republican]

Some of you have voiced your total devotion to the gay marriage cause.

In some states, gay marriage is recognized.

Many lesbian couples have been married in these states, and many of these women want to have a baby, for her and her same sex partner to raise.  Are any of you willing to donate sperm with which a lesbian could be artificially inseminated in order to conceive a baby, so this woman and her same sex partner could have a child to raise together?

Or are none of you really that devoted to the cause of gay marriage, gay relationships, and fulfillment in gay marriage?

This is a natural extension of the gay marriage issue.

[Sbane]

Some of you have voiced your total devotion to the gay marriage cause.

In some states, gay marriage is recognized.

Many lesbian couples have been married in these states, and many of these women want to have a baby, for her and her same sex partner to raise.  Are any of you willing to donate sperm with which a lesbian could be artificially inseminated in order to conceive a baby, so this woman and her same sex partner could have a child to raise together?

Or are none of you really that devoted to the cause of gay marriage, gay relationships, and fulfillment in gay marriage?

This is a natural extension of the gay marriage issue.

If I need money for sperm someday, I wouldn't mind giving some to lesbians....especially if I can do it in person.

[Alcon]

In fact, Alcon, because of my views on gay marriage and the gay agenda, you have called me bigoted and incredibly ignorant.

So don't pull that holier than thou attitude with me.

To be fair, you're not making the phrases up.  You're just shamelessly misrepresenting their context.

I called the argument that gay people are intentionally out to "debase and demean" marriage "bigoted...or incredibly ignorant" (emphasis mine, source here.)  "Ignorant" means "lacking knowledge."  It's not a personal attack.  How can you be offended at someone accusing you of lacking knowledge, while you argued that:

America should not have to cow tow to the twisted, radical, gay agenda, just because the gay community wants to subvert, debase, and demean real marriage.

So, those of us who support the "radical gay agenda" (gay marriage, apparently) should be OK with you saying that we want to "subvert, debase and demean real marriage," but if I call your argument lacking in knowledge, that's a personal attack?  What.  The.  Heck.

This is poisoning the well, anyway.  You or I could be the worst human being in the world, and still have our position be morally just while the other's isn't.  Arguments are about substance.  And for whatever reason, based on your failure to respond to this...

I just said I understand your argument, but that it isn't a response to my reductio ad absurdum argument.  It isn't a response to my rebuttal of your misunderstanding of my argument.  I understand that your opinion is that "my position isn't immoral, the gay agenda is."  That's an opinion; not a counter-argument to anything I've presented.

If you understand what my argument is, why not point out the specific flaw for me?  If you don't, are you so convinced that you couldn't be wrong that you're unwilling to give it hearing?

...you are reluctant to defend your argument on its substance.

[Alcon]

Some of you have voiced your total devotion to the gay marriage cause.

In some states, gay marriage is recognized.

Many lesbian couples have been married in these states, and many of these women want to have a baby, for her and her same sex partner to raise.  Are any of you willing to donate sperm with which a lesbian could be artificially inseminated in order to conceive a baby, so this woman and her same sex partner could have a child to raise together?

Or are none of you really that devoted to the cause of gay marriage, gay relationships, and fulfillment in gay marriage?

This is a natural extension of the gay marriage issue.

I wouldn't be any less willing to donate my sperm to a lesbian couple I thought would make good parents, than a straight couple I thought would make good parents.  If I didn't have a way to judge their quality as parents, I probably wouldn't donate my sperm.  I haven't exactly thought through the ethics of sperm distribution in great detail, but "lesbian/not lesbian" wouldn't be an important variable in my moral math.

I don't know what answer you expected...

[Joe Republic]

For Winfield's benefit:

I'd just like to know how the act of two people whom you've never met getting married could have any effect on your daily life.  I can't count the number of times I've asked it.

-----

Many lesbian couples have been married in these states, and many of these women want to have a baby, for her and her same sex partner to raise.  Are any of you willing to donate sperm with which a lesbian could be artificially inseminated in order to conceive a baby, so this woman and her same sex partner could have a child to raise together?

Provided that I know and/or trust the couple, then of course I would.  It'd give me great pleasure to make them happy.  That's what humanity is all about.

[Ebowed]

Some of you have voiced your total devotion to the gay marriage cause.

In some states, gay marriage is recognized.

Many lesbian couples have been married in these states, and many of these women want to have a baby, for her and her same sex partner to raise.  Are any of you willing to donate sperm with which a lesbian could be artificially inseminated in order to conceive a baby, so this woman and her same sex partner could have a child to raise together?

Or are none of you really that devoted to the cause of gay marriage, gay relationships, and fulfillment in gay marriage?

This is a natural extension of the gay marriage issue.

Well, based off this post, I do wonder what your view on this issue possibly could be...

It doesn't sound like you've made up your mind at all!  (And if the quoted post is truly your "smoking gun" to the gay marriage argument, then... ouch)

[Lincoln Republican]

Alcon, when you used the terms bigoted and incredibly ignorant, you were aiming them directly at me, because I was the one who made the statements that you took exception to, and I was the one who put into writing the ideas that you found so objectionable.

And by the way, I make no apologies for my statements about the gay agenda and gay marriage, but at the same time, let me be clear, I bear no personal ill will towards gays and lesbians.

[Joe Republic]

So Winfield, do you feel like answering my question?

[Lincoln Republican]

Joe, you have asked a question about how two people of the same sex getting married to each other could have any effect on my daily life.

Clearly, it would have no direct effect on my life in the sense that I would not have to make any changes in my daily life in order to accommodate the fact that a gay couple got married.

Where the broader ramifications lie, Joe, are in society as a whole, in particular the negative impact that same sex marriage will have on children.

Consult some scientific studies to see what I am talking about.

I do not wish to become involved in another lengthy discussion about the societal impact of gay marriage.

[Lincoln Republican]

Some of you have voiced your total devotion to the gay marriage cause.

In some states, gay marriage is recognized.

Many lesbian couples have been married in these states, and many of these women want to have a baby, for her and her same sex partner to raise.  Are any of you willing to donate sperm with which a lesbian could be artificially inseminated in order to conceive a baby, so this woman and her same sex partner could have a child to raise together?

Or are none of you really that devoted to the cause of gay marriage, gay relationships, and fulfillment in gay marriage?

This is a natural extension of the gay marriage issue.

Well, based off this post, I do wonder what your view on this issue possibly could be...

It doesn't sound like you've made up your mind at all!  (And if the quoted post is truly your "smoking gun" to the gay marriage argument, then... ouch)

Ebowed, my view on this issue is that I would not under any circumstances donate sperm so a lesbian could be artificially inseminated and have a baby.

As well, I do not support gay adoption.

[Franzl]

Some of you have voiced your total devotion to the gay marriage cause.

In some states, gay marriage is recognized.

Many lesbian couples have been married in these states, and many of these women want to have a baby, for her and her same sex partner to raise.  Are any of you willing to donate sperm with which a lesbian could be artificially inseminated in order to conceive a baby, so this woman and her same sex partner could have a child to raise together?

Or are none of you really that devoted to the cause of gay marriage, gay relationships, and fulfillment in gay marriage?

This is a natural extension of the gay marriage issue.

Well, based off this post, I do wonder what your view on this issue possibly could be...

It doesn't sound like you've made up your mind at all!  (And if the quoted post is truly your "smoking gun" to the gay marriage argument, then... ouch)

Ebowed, my view on this issue is that I would not under any circumstances donate sperm so a lesbian could be artificially inseminated and have a baby.

As well, I do not support gay adoption.

Hey, it's your sperm...but I find that incredibly hateful.

[Lincoln Republican]

Some of you have voiced your total devotion to the gay marriage cause.

In some states, gay marriage is recognized.

Many lesbian couples have been married in these states, and many of these women want to have a baby, for her and her same sex partner to raise.  Are any of you willing to donate sperm with which a lesbian could be artificially inseminated in order to conceive a baby, so this woman and her same sex partner could have a child to raise together?

Or are none of you really that devoted to the cause of gay marriage, gay relationships, and fulfillment in gay marriage?

This is a natural extension of the gay marriage issue.

Well, based off this post, I do wonder what your view on this issue possibly could be...

It doesn't sound like you've made up your mind at all!  (And if the quoted post is truly your "smoking gun" to the gay marriage argument, then... ouch)

Ebowed, my view on this issue is that I would not under any circumstances donate sperm so a lesbian could be artificially inseminated and have a baby.

As well, I do not support gay adoption.

Hey, it's your sperm...but I find that incredibly hateful.

Now that is ridiculous.  Hateful is a very strong word, and completely out of place.

I fail to follow your logic.  Why on earth would someone who does not support gay marriage, someone who does believe it is in the best interests of children to be raised by a mother and a father, donate sperm so a lesbian woman could have a baby?

Besides that, I have ethical issues with sperm donations.

As well, I would never desire to be the father of a child who I would never raise and never see.   

There is as well the possibility that somewhere down the line the sperm donor could be sued for child support.

There is nothing hateful about any of these statements and there is nothing hateful about any of this reasoning.

Your use of the word hateful is inflammatory and completely inappropriate.

[Sbane]

Some of you have voiced your total devotion to the gay marriage cause.

In some states, gay marriage is recognized.

Many lesbian couples have been married in these states, and many of these women want to have a baby, for her and her same sex partner to raise.  Are any of you willing to donate sperm with which a lesbian could be artificially inseminated in order to conceive a baby, so this woman and her same sex partner could have a child to raise together?

Or are none of you really that devoted to the cause of gay marriage, gay relationships, and fulfillment in gay marriage?

This is a natural extension of the gay marriage issue.

Well, based off this post, I do wonder what your view on this issue possibly could be...

It doesn't sound like you've made up your mind at all!  (And if the quoted post is truly your "smoking gun" to the gay marriage argument, then... ouch)

Ebowed, my view on this issue is that I would not under any circumstances donate sperm so a lesbian could be artificially inseminated and have a baby.

As well, I do not support gay adoption.

Hey, it's your sperm...but I find that incredibly hateful.

Now that is ridiculous.  Hateful is a very strong word, and completely out of place.

I fail to follow your logic.  Why on earth would someone who does not support gay marriage, someone who does believe it is in the best interests of children to be raised by a mother and a father, donate sperm so a lesbian woman could have a baby?

Besides that, I have ethical issues with sperm donations.

As well, I would never desire to be the father of a child who I would never raise and never see.   

There is as well the possibility that somewhere down the line the sperm donor could be sued for child support.

There is nothing hateful about any of these statements and there is nothing hateful about any of this reasoning.

Your use of the word hateful is inflammatory and completely inappropriate.

Studies have only shown that two parents are required to provide the best environment for a child to grow up. It doesn't necessarily have to be a male and a female. As for adoption, it is of course best if a child is raised by their natural parents but it is not possible in all cases. These children need a good, stable home and I don't see why two lesbians or gays couldn't provide it.

[Alcon]

Alcon, when you used the terms bigoted and incredibly ignorant, you were aiming them directly at me, because I was the one who made the statements that you took exception to, and I was the one who put into writing the ideas that you found so objectionable.

And by the way, I make no apologies for my statements about the gay agenda and gay marriage, but at the same time, let me be clear, I bear no personal ill will towards gays and lesbians.

I was calling your position incredibly ignorant, sure.  I'll take responsibility for it.  I stand by it, and it's not a personal attack.  It means I think your position is incredibly misinformed, and ignores information.  And you seemingly claimed that I'm out to destroy marriage on purpose.  So, I say that you are (intentionally or recklessly) ignoring information, and you say that I am intentionally destroying the institution of marriage.  How is the latter not a personal attack, and how is the former?

Now, unless you want to terminate the discussion on that point, you still need to answer the question you have now been dodging for three straight posts:

This is poisoning the well, anyway.  You or I could be the worst human being in the world, and still have our position be morally just while the other's isn't.  Arguments are about substance.  And for whatever reason, based on your failure to respond to this...

I just said I understand your argument, but that it isn't a response to my reductio ad absurdum argument.  It isn't a response to my rebuttal of your misunderstanding of my argument.  I understand that your opinion is that "my position isn't immoral, the gay agenda is."  That's an opinion; not a counter-argument to anything I've presented.

If you understand what my argument is, why not point out the specific flaw for me?  If you don't, are you so convinced that you couldn't be wrong that you're unwilling to give it hearing?

...you are reluctant to defend your argument on its substance.

...and you could answer Joe, too.  I know you are capable of addressing more than one point at a time.  That begs the question of why you are dodging and pretending to have been victimized instead.

[Lincoln Republican]

Alcon, did you not see on page 4 wherein I replied forthrightly to Joe's question?

[Alcon]

Alcon, did you not see on page 4 wherein I replied forthrightly to Joe's question?

I did not.  My apologies.

However, you still have not replied to my question about what on earth your "your use of reductio is absurdum" post meant.  How is it "absurdum"?  You got so upset about it, and this is the fifth time you have dodged explaining how it was flawed in any formal logic.

This is the fifth post you have made without responding to that issue.  You also did not respond to the rebuttal of your accusation that I was personally attacking you.

[Lincoln Republican]

Franzl, since you made such an issue of the lesbian/sperm donor issue with me, let me ask you, would you be willing to donate your sperm to a lesbian with which she could be artificially inseminated, so that she could have a baby, who would be raised by her and her same sex partner?

[Joe Republic]

Joe, you have asked a question about how two people of the same sex getting married to each other could have any effect on my daily life.

Clearly, it would have no direct effect on my life in the sense that I would not have to make any changes in my daily life in order to accommodate the fact that a gay couple got married.

Where the broader ramifications lie, Joe, are in society as a whole, in particular the negative impact that same sex marriage will have on children.

Consult some scientific studies to see what I am talking about.

I do not wish to become involved in another lengthy discussion about the societal impact of gay marriage.

Firstly, thank you for eventually answering my question.

Given that gay adoption is a separate issue to marriage, and we've already established that two gay people cannot naturally reproduce, how does gay marriage in and of itself affect children?

[Joe Republic]

Franzl, since you made such an issue of the lesbian/sperm donor issue with me, let me ask you, would you be willing to donate your sperm to a lesbian with which she could be artificially inseminated, so that she could have a baby, who would be raised by her and her same sex partner?

Even though I'm not Franzl, I'd like to answer this question anyway.  If the lesbian couple were friends of mine, or at the very least I could tell that they would be responsible parents, then yes I would.

[Lincoln Republican]

Joe, you have asked a question about how two people of the same sex getting married to each other could have any effect on my daily life.

Clearly, it would have no direct effect on my life in the sense that I would not have to make any changes in my daily life in order to accommodate the fact that a gay couple got married.

Where the broader ramifications lie, Joe, are in society as a whole, in particular the negative impact that same sex marriage will have on children.

Consult some scientific studies to see what I am talking about.

I do not wish to become involved in another lengthy discussion about the societal impact of gay marriage.

Firstly, thank you for eventually answering my question.

Given that gay adoption is a separate issue to marriage, and we've already established that two gay people cannot naturally reproduce, how does gay marriage in and of itself affect children?

Joe, when I talk about the negative impact that same sex marriage will have on children, I am talking about children raised within the confines of a same sex relationship, not children generally.

With all due respect, not that I am evading the issue, however, in my reply, I did suggest that you consult some of the scientific studies in this matter, and also stated that I did not wish to become involved in another lengthy discussion about the societal impact of gay marriage.

There are some very interesting articles in this matter that you can Google or Bing.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

Not to further encourage your evading my reply (seven posts and running now), but what specific studies have you found most compelling?  And what in the white papers (I assume you read more than the abstracts/press releases) most influenced your position?  I have seen meta-studies on this, including one regarded widely as definitive, and they seem to come to conclusions that are incompatible with your position.

Also:  Maybe you would have time to be involved in a lengthy discussion of substance if you spent less time taking offense at phantom personal attacks and repetitively reiterating your opinion.

[Joe Republic]

Joe, when I talk about the negative impact that same sex marriage will have on children, I am talking about children raised within the confines of a same sex relationship, not children generally.

But as I've already said, the raising of children within any kind of relationship is a separate issue from whether gay people should be allowed to marry.

I'll ask a slightly different question here to clarify my point:  Let's say that two gay people wish to marry, but have no intention of raising children (by however means).  How does this affect society?

With all due respect, not that I am evading the issue, however, in my reply, I did suggest that you consult some of the scientific studies in this matter, and also stated that I did not wish to become involved in another lengthy discussion about the societal impact of gay marriage.

There are some very interesting articles in this matter that you can Google or Bing.

I typed "effect of gay parents on children" into Google Scholar, and here are extracts from the first three studies it found:

• "To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances."
  
  
• "The author's study found that adult-aged daughters of lesbian mothers did not significantly differ from adult daughters of heterosexual mothers on gender identity, gender role, sexual orientation, and social adjustment."
  
  
• "The results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren). In other words, the data fail to support the continuation of a bias against homosexual parents by any court."

[Lincoln Republican]

Here are two links to two excellent articles

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0090.html

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

[Lincoln Republican]

Alcon, I will accept your explanation that you were calling my arguments, and not me personally, bigoted and ignorant, although I disagree with your premise that my arguments were bigoted and ignorant. 

I will also accept your explanation that you were not slurring my parents with your brick wall and press release remarks, and therefore, I withdraw my subsequent remarks calling you an ignorant sap.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

I appreciate that.  I'm sorry if my cadence was off, although admittedly, you still haven't withdrawn the whole "attempting to destroy marriage" thing.  I don't know how I can take that as anything but a personal attack, but whatever.  That's not my point.  My point is:  You have not replied to my question, now for eight posts.

---

As for your FRC link, do you notice that they are comparing married heterosexual couples to homosexual couples who aren't necessarily even in a long-term relationship?  Look in the white paper for their working definition of "relationship" for gays.  Why are they comparing married heterosexuals to gays who are in any sort of relationship whatseover?

It was also written by a man who is not accredited in sociology.  I also checked its citations.  Several of them are over 30 years old, and contain caveats about sample issues (it was 1978 -- how many steady gay couples did you expect?) that Dailey outright ignored.  The authors of numerous quoted studies have claimed that Dailey distorted their findings.  His central claim is based on part around a study in Amsterdam, which was an intentionally non-random sample, which he completely failed to disclose.  Can you tell me that isn't manipulative, shoddy science?

There are certainly a few reputable studies that point to qualms with homosexual parenting.  However, they are the minority.  And this study was conducted unscientifically and with a clear bias in mind.  Even if it weren't a horrible study, on what basis do you prefer the FRC's studies to the meta-studies available or the sort of studies that Joe listed?  Because you want its conclusions to be true?

---

But, please, actually explain the flaw in my reductio ad absurdum first.  Let's not make this nine posts in a row.  Thank you.