Huckabee: GOP Needs To Fight Gay Marriage Even More Or I'm Leaving

[GourmetDan]

No there isn't any such "general rule" anywhere outside your head Dan. There may have been a portion of the population that engaged in that sort of behavior, but the fact that you made up your mind about the entire population based on the actions of a portion of that population some twenty-five years ago, and are not willing to change your outlook this many years later is sad.

Certainly the existence of a portion of the heterosexual population that today engages in promiscuous, drug-enduced predatory sexual behavior does not warrant that the entirety of the whole heterosexual population be judge by their actions.

I actually feel bad for you.

Yes, there is a general rule for homosexuals Luis.  The lifestyle hasn't changed over the years.  The fact that you made up your mind about the entire population based on the acting of some portion of the population and are not willing to change you mind is the problem.

The portion of the homosexual population that engages in promiscuous, anonymous, predatory drug-fueled behavior is the majority, not the minority.

[Lando Lincoln]

Read the thread, Lando...

I did.  Can't find it.

[DCPatriot]

I did.  Can't find it.

Dan did in fact allude to it, but never expounded on the degree of assistance (nursing or social worker) or the number of patients involved.

[Lando Lincoln]

Dan did in fact allude to it, but never expounded on the degree of assistance (nursing or social worker) or the number of patients involved.

I still do not see it.  Inferring, alluding, suggesting, or otherwise.

[GourmetDan]

I still do not see it.  Inferring, alluding, suggesting, or otherwise.

It doesn't matter though, does it.

Just something... anything to distract from the eyewitness account that people don't want to believe...

[Lando Lincoln]

It doesn't matter though, does it.

Just something... anything to distract from the eyewitness account that people don't want to believe...

Dan - I never, not one time, ever suggested that your account was unimportant.  All I ever did was ask for the basis of your account after you repeatedly implied to having a first-hand experience.  I even framed my initial question with a polite intro - and you told me I would not accept the answer.

[GourmetDan]

Dan - I never, not one time, ever suggested that your account was unimportant.  All I ever did was ask for the basis of your account after you repeatedly implied to having a first-hand experience.  I even framed my initial question with a polite intro - and you told me I would not accept the answer.

Other people seem to be able to see it.

And you have not accepted the answer...

[Lando Lincoln]

Other people seem to be able to see it.

Help me.  I have looked.

[MACVSOG68]

It doesn't matter though, does it.

Just something... anything to distract from the eyewitness account that people don't want to believe...

The problem here Dan is that you've been making a fundamental point in the debate and so far have only backed it up with your personal interactions, better known as anecdotal evidence.  If we are to accept your "truth" that gays cannot engage in monogamous relationships, then how about some reliable studies about homosexuals and marriage compared with heterosexuals and marriage?  If you have worked with AIDs patients my hat's off to you.  But if I'm looking for balanced evidence of the longevity of a gay marriage, your experience and religious background may not provide that any more than a battered women's shelter worker could give me balanced data on successful hetero-marriages.

Just sayin'   

[massadvj]

I may be a little dense, I admit, but I am not clear on the connection between promiscuity among gays and gay marriage.  Does promiscuity among heterosexuals preclude them from having the "right" to get married? 

Don't get me wrong.  I am not advocating for (or against) gay marriage.  I am just trying to understand how rampant promiscuity among a group precludes that group from being able to exercise a "right" (if it is a right).  Would, by virtue of their promiscuity, they forfeit their right to bear arms?  Their right to free speech?  What is the nexus between their promiscuous lifestyle and gay marriage?

I understand that marriage is not a "right" per se, but advocates of gay marriage claim it is, so I use the term for their benefit.

[DCPatriot]

The problem here Dan is that you've been making a fundamental point in the debate and so far have only backed it up with your personal interactions, better known as anecdotal evidence.  If we are to accept your "truth" that gays cannot engage in monogamous relationships, then how about some reliable studies about homosexuals and marriage compared with heterosexuals and marriage?  If you have worked with AIDs patients my hat's off to you.  But if I'm looking for balanced evidence of the longevity of a gay marriage, your experience and religious background may not provide that any more than a battered women's shelter worker could give me balanced data on successful hetero-marriages.

Just sayin'   

Excellent point, MAC! 

Just as an aside here....trying to 'understand' Dan's rigidness....

During the illegal immigration debates during the GWB administration, I found myself very sympathetic to the illegal who ran the gauntlet at the border and settled in...getting jobs and raising their families.  I saluted them...those that worked rather than accept handouts, etc..

This was based upon my recognizing the country's unemployment figures were around 4-5%, which was considered "full employment".

Just like Dan...I based it solely upon my many firsthand relationships with them...during the course of my real estate business, where I would take a listing, and with only a handshake, make necessary improvements to the listing...carpet, paint, landscaping...taking extra furniture to storage, etc. (vanilla-ize) the listing in order to appeal to a larger audience.

Many of the men who did the work were employees of the general contractor I used.  I got to know them and their family and children.  Even had their children deliver flyers for me at $10 @ hr...off the books so to speak.

I argued against the tide on the forums....just like Dan....claiming that since I had intimate exposure to their world, I was right and everybody else needed to look at their respective POV from a different angle.

Today....with 93 Million Americans out of the job market, I wouldn't have the same POV I had back then.

Not meant as a derailment of the thread...merely trying to give Dan an excuse for his rigidness. 

[GourmetDan]

The problem here Dan is that you've been making a fundamental point in the debate and so far have only backed it up with your personal interactions, better known as anecdotal evidence.  If we are to accept your "truth" that gays cannot engage in monogamous relationships, then how about some reliable studies about homosexuals and marriage compared with heterosexuals and marriage?  If you have worked with AIDs patients my hat's off to you.  But if I'm looking for balanced evidence of the longevity of a gay marriage, your experience and religious background may not provide that any more than a battered women's shelter worker could give me balanced data on successful hetero-marriages.

Just sayin'   

OK, I can explain it again.  You're engaging in the fallacy of overwhelming exception by arguing such a narrow, minor point that it is irrelevant to the greater issue.  And you have to claim that I said things that I never said to do so.

While some may think that's an 'excellent' argument, it's actually incredibly weak...

[GourmetDan]

I may be a little dense, I admit, but I am not clear on the connection between promiscuity among gays and gay marriage.  Does promiscuity among heterosexuals preclude them from having the "right" to get married? 

Don't get me wrong.  I am not advocating for (or against) gay marriage.  I am just trying to understand how rampant promiscuity among a group precludes that group from being able to exercise a "right" (if it is a right).  Would, by virtue of their promiscuity, they forfeit their right to bear arms?  Their right to free speech?  What is the nexus between their promiscuous lifestyle and gay marriage?

I understand that marriage is not a "right" per se, but advocates of gay marriage claim it is, so I use the term for their benefit.

People like to use the argument that 'even one monogamous gay marriage' justifies the general desecration of the marriage covenant...

[GourmetDan]

Just as an aside here....trying to 'understand' Dan's rigidness....

I suppose if Pilate's 'truth' is negotiable and relative then real truth would appear rigid.

Insisting that 2+2=4 is incredibly 'rigid'...

[GourmetDan]

Not meant as a derailment of the thread...merely trying to give Dan an excuse for his rigidness.

Well DC, the fact that you were wrong then and became right doesn't mean that I am wrong now and need to become 'right'.

That's a ridiculous argument.

I could equally argue that, because some gays cared about their dying brethren that all gays are caring people.

And it would be an equally ridiculous argument...

[MACVSOG68]

OK, I can explain it again.  You're engaging in the fallacy of overwhelming exception by arguing such a narrow, minor point that it is irrelevant to the greater issue.  And you have to claim that I said things that I never said to do so.

While some may think that's an 'excellent' argument, it's actually incredibly weak...

They say the best defense is a good offense, and you are certainly fighting back.  But when you look to fallacious arguments, you shouldn't forget a few you are engaging in, such as argument by selective observation, appeal to anonymous authority, and especially argument by generalization.

Can't speak for anyone else Dan, but I just want to know the basis for your key assertion that gay men cannot be monogamous.  If you're correct, it would make a big difference.  If your generalization is wrong, then it simply puts gay marriages into the same boat as hetero-marriages and may at some point result in divorce, domestic abuse, child abuse, cheating and all the other issues facing heterosexual unions.  But that shouldn't bar them from the relationship any more than such problems should act as a bar to hetero-marriages.

[GourmetDan]

They say the best defense is a good offense, and you are certainly fighting back.  But when you look to fallacious arguments, you shouldn't forget a few you are engaging in, such as argument by selective observation, appeal to anonymous authority, and especially argument by generalization.

And you do the same thing... so?  If I pointed out all of the fallacious arguments in this thread, you guys would be crying 'fallacy, fallacy, all you claim is fallacy'.  Bottom line, it doesn't matter what the argument is, you guys simply don't want to admit the truth about homosexuality.

Can't speak for anyone else Dan, but I just want to know the basis for your key assertion that gay men cannot be monogamous.  If you're correct, it would make a big difference.  If your generalization is wrong, then it simply puts gay marriages into the same boat as hetero-marriages and may at some point result in divorce, domestic abuse, child abuse, cheating and all the other issues facing heterosexual unions.  But that shouldn't bar them from the relationship any more than such problems should act as a bar to hetero-marriages.

First you would need to show that I made that assertion when I have said the exact opposite...

[MACVSOG68]

And you do the same thing... so?  If I pointed out all of the fallacious arguments in this thread, you guys would be crying 'fallacy, fallacy, all you claim is fallacy'.  Bottom line, it doesn't matter what the argument is, you guys simply don't want to admit the truth about homosexuality.

Well...I just responded to your fallacy claim.  That old glass house thingy...

First you would need to show that I made that assertion when I have said the exact opposite...

I believe these are your words Dan:

Gays simply are not monogamous and never will be no matter what rights you bestow on them.  Instead, the gay lifestyle is being translated into the straight world and with disastrous consequences.

[DCPatriot]

GourmetDan said:

Gays simply are not monogamous and never will be no matter what rights you bestow on them.  Instead, the gay lifestyle is being translated into the straight world and with disastrous consequences.

Thanks for bringing that back to the light, MAC!   

[GourmetDan]

Well...I just responded to your fallacy claim.  That old glass house thingy...

And I responded to yours.  Same glass house thingy.

I believe these are your words Dan:

So how do you square that with these words:

The portion of the homosexual population that engages in promiscuous, anonymous, predatory drug-fueled behavior is the majority, not the minority.

And these:

People like to use the argument that 'even one monogamous gay marriage' justifies the general desecration of the marriage covenant...

And these:

Yes Luis, there is a general rule for the homosexual lifestyle.  It is promiscuous, anonymous, predatory and drug-fueled.

And these:

Except any 'loyal, faithful, monogamous relationship among gays' is appealing to the fallacy of overwhelming exception to overturn the general rule.

[GourmetDan]

GourmetDan said:

Thanks for bringing that back to the light, MAC!

That is the fallacy of division for insisting that a comment made of the group applies to each individual without exception.

What happens next is that the fallacy of overwhelming exception is invoked in an attempt to overturn the general rule.

[DCPatriot]

That is the fallacy of division for insisting that a comment made of the group applies to each individual without exception.

What happens next is that the fallacy of overwhelming exception is invoked in an attempt to overturn the general rule.

Can't speak for anyone else here, but IMO, for me, it's time to say, "We'll have to agree to disagree".

You're incorrigible. 

[Lando Lincoln]

[MACVSOG68]

And I responded to yours.  Same glass house thingy.

So how do you square that with these words:

And these:

And these:

And these:

So If I understand, what you asked me for and what I quoted wasn't exactly what you meant?  I suspect there was a reason you left your words out of my response.  So now, at least we can agree that some gays can engage in monogamous relationships?  That's a critical distinction from your earlier position.  How many in your mind would it take to agree that maybe society should accept those same-sex relationships?  I don't know the answer, but I do know that the history of hetero-marriage is far less of a long lasting, love-filled lifetime experience than we admit to.

Dan, I can't give you high marks for the argument, but you get an A+ for hanging in there!   

[Lando Lincoln]

Dan, I can't give you high marks for the argument, but you get an A+ for hanging in there!   

I think I need to resume the beer drinking that Dan and I started the other day.  We can talk football.