- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,958
- Reaction score
- 60,492
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Exactly right.
My bad then. Sowwy about that.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Np. Twas my bad actually I think. I had thought I had put Charles Martel's name in the post. Guess I didn't. :2wave: Sorry about that.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
CC: I want to change the law!
Texmaster: Why?
CC: Because I want to! Look I have a theory!
Texmaster: Where's your evidence to support your theory?
CC: But I have a theory!
Again, where is your evidence to support your theory? This is a law you want to change
CC: You're not smart enough to understand!
Texmaster: Still no evidence huh
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,958
- Reaction score
- 60,492
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
CC hs never presented a theory or made a claim as to the cause of orientation. When you have to stoop to entirely misrepresenting some one elses words, it shows you are grasping.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Don't cry textmaster. I'm sure it's sad when you can't debate, when your position is in ruins, and everyone sees that you've got nothing. But we just don't need to see this display of emotional frustration. I'm sure if you opened your mind just a crack, and read the thread, you might actually learn something about this issue...besides that you are wrong and have been shown that, logically. Give it a try.
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
But we've known he is grasping since his first post in the thread. All that post does is further validate that.
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
When thinking about this thread, I realized that I was remiss. Now, we all know that the position espoused by Charles Martel and textmaster has no credence, validity, or logic. But their are two questions that have not been asked but should be.
The first has been asked of me before: "Why continuously refute such obvious inaccuracies and irrelevancies? Doesn't that give their incorrect positions play and attention?"
The answer to this question is simple. Though most folks with the ability to understand and logically deduce the inaccuracy of the positions presented by Charles and textmaster, there is the possibility that one who is on the fence, or one who is fairly uneducated on this issue may wander by. Providing them with erroneous information, as these two do, is a great disservice to an important component of this site: education. You wouldn't want your kids going to school and being taught that 2+2=5. Hence, I see it as important to expose positions such as those presented by those two as what they are: invalid and inaccurate.
Now, the second question that comes to mind is why are their positions invalid and inaccurate. Well, to answer this question, one must go to the heart of what debating is. When one debates, a fairly standard procedure is followed. One chooses a position, or a premise and presents it. Once that premise is presented, in order to lend validity and accuracy to it, there are two possible methods that one can use: information substantiation (proof) or deductive logic. Now, the former method is quite obvious. Want to prove that someone's house is white? Get a picture of it. The second method is a bit more complicated. You are proving a position without direct evidence, but through logic. An example of this would be in math: we know that A=B; we also know that B=C; without being told, we therefore know that A=C. This is logical reasoning, and is an important component in debate.
Now when looking at the position and the debating tactics of textmaster and Charles Martel, one easily finds serious flaws in their debating that make their position invalid. Let us first look at Charles'.
There are two main flaws in Charles' position. Upon analysis, one notices that he actually has two premises: 1) One who engages in a heterosexual act is heterosexual and; 2) Procreation is the most important thing one can do.
The first one's flaw is easy to demonstrate. Charles does not distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. He refuses to address this issue, refuses to define the issue, and diverts when the issue is presented. Yet, his premise links the two...yet he refuses to address it. Since he cannot link these two things in any valid or definitive way, his position is not credible. This is why he refuses to define the issue: the definition would destroy his argument.
The second one's flaw is just as easy to demonstrate...to the trained eye. Charles does a very good job describing, logically, how and why procreation being the most important thing one can do proves that one who procreates is heterosexual. But here's the problem: he starts off with a false and unprovable premise. It would be like this. Let's say that my premise was that 2+2=5. I then deduced, quite accurately, that because the addition of two even numbers always equals another even number, 5 MUST be an even number. My deductive reasoning is completely sound and valid. Yet I am wrong. How is that? My initial premise was false and not provable. This is the essence of Charles' mistake. He offers no proof that procreating is the most important thing one can do. He offers it as a given...yet it is just an opinion, one of his. This is not proof and can therefore be dismissed even before examining his argument. His argument might be valid. Yet he is wrong and his position is not credible because he starts with a false premise. Sorry Charles, but 2+2 [FONT="]≠5. Therefore, based on the non-logic of BOTH of your premises, your position is invalid and has no credibility. I suppose you are going to have to create a new one, now, in order to present whatever your agenda is. This one didn't cut it.
Now, textmaster is far easier. Firstly, he also falls into the refusal to define the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation trap. Not surprising, since it would, too, destroy his position. But let's look at the premise he presents. Textmaster's position seems to be twofold: 1) Since only procreation can only occur through a heterosexual act, the only "inherited" orientation must be heterosexuality and; 2) Since we were designed to procreate, heterosexuality must be natural. Now, at first glance, you might say, "there is so much wrong with both of these statements, I wouldn't where to begin"...and you'd be right about that.
The first premise is circular reasoning. One must be heterosexual because one was created through a heterosexual act? It might be more than circular reasoning. I might just be pure nonsense. This demonstrates his inability to understand the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation. But it also illustrates the lack of understanding of sexual orientation itself. If one presumes that homosexual orientation may not be inherited, and since heterosexuality is just another form of a sexual orientation, deductive reasoning dictates that heterosexuality TOO may not be inherited. If it is unclear where sexual orientation originates, that INCLUDES heterosexuality. Notice that textmaster omits this point. And notice that his point has been shredded in two different logical ways.
The second point is far easier. It is a classic appeal to nature logical fallacy. First he presumes that humans were designed to procreate. He offers no evidence nor logic to substantiate this. This is, as with Charles, a false premise...already negating anything that comes afterward. But let's continue anyway. Because we are designed to procreate, heterosexuality, the act of procreation must be natural. This is the appeal to nature fallacy, stating that because something appears in nature, it must be right. There are two problems with this. First, even if it IS natural, that does not make it right. Second, homosexuality also occurs in nature, so on the right/wrong scale it is equivalent to heterosexuality. So, as one can see, there is no logic in this position. It is therefore invalid.
I hope this has been educational for you all...especially Charles and textmaster. I am always happy to instruct on how to debate correctly and not fall into the fallacies and inaccuracies that we have seen by these two posters. Correcting the lack of credibility that they presented is what I would consider a public service: it allows inaccurate information to be stamped as such so folks will know not to believe it.
I thank you for your attention. This post is worth 3 credits in Debate at your local Community College.
[/FONT]
The first has been asked of me before: "Why continuously refute such obvious inaccuracies and irrelevancies? Doesn't that give their incorrect positions play and attention?"
The answer to this question is simple. Though most folks with the ability to understand and logically deduce the inaccuracy of the positions presented by Charles and textmaster, there is the possibility that one who is on the fence, or one who is fairly uneducated on this issue may wander by. Providing them with erroneous information, as these two do, is a great disservice to an important component of this site: education. You wouldn't want your kids going to school and being taught that 2+2=5. Hence, I see it as important to expose positions such as those presented by those two as what they are: invalid and inaccurate.
Now, the second question that comes to mind is why are their positions invalid and inaccurate. Well, to answer this question, one must go to the heart of what debating is. When one debates, a fairly standard procedure is followed. One chooses a position, or a premise and presents it. Once that premise is presented, in order to lend validity and accuracy to it, there are two possible methods that one can use: information substantiation (proof) or deductive logic. Now, the former method is quite obvious. Want to prove that someone's house is white? Get a picture of it. The second method is a bit more complicated. You are proving a position without direct evidence, but through logic. An example of this would be in math: we know that A=B; we also know that B=C; without being told, we therefore know that A=C. This is logical reasoning, and is an important component in debate.
Now when looking at the position and the debating tactics of textmaster and Charles Martel, one easily finds serious flaws in their debating that make their position invalid. Let us first look at Charles'.
There are two main flaws in Charles' position. Upon analysis, one notices that he actually has two premises: 1) One who engages in a heterosexual act is heterosexual and; 2) Procreation is the most important thing one can do.
The first one's flaw is easy to demonstrate. Charles does not distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. He refuses to address this issue, refuses to define the issue, and diverts when the issue is presented. Yet, his premise links the two...yet he refuses to address it. Since he cannot link these two things in any valid or definitive way, his position is not credible. This is why he refuses to define the issue: the definition would destroy his argument.
The second one's flaw is just as easy to demonstrate...to the trained eye. Charles does a very good job describing, logically, how and why procreation being the most important thing one can do proves that one who procreates is heterosexual. But here's the problem: he starts off with a false and unprovable premise. It would be like this. Let's say that my premise was that 2+2=5. I then deduced, quite accurately, that because the addition of two even numbers always equals another even number, 5 MUST be an even number. My deductive reasoning is completely sound and valid. Yet I am wrong. How is that? My initial premise was false and not provable. This is the essence of Charles' mistake. He offers no proof that procreating is the most important thing one can do. He offers it as a given...yet it is just an opinion, one of his. This is not proof and can therefore be dismissed even before examining his argument. His argument might be valid. Yet he is wrong and his position is not credible because he starts with a false premise. Sorry Charles, but 2+2 [FONT="]≠5. Therefore, based on the non-logic of BOTH of your premises, your position is invalid and has no credibility. I suppose you are going to have to create a new one, now, in order to present whatever your agenda is. This one didn't cut it.
Now, textmaster is far easier. Firstly, he also falls into the refusal to define the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation trap. Not surprising, since it would, too, destroy his position. But let's look at the premise he presents. Textmaster's position seems to be twofold: 1) Since only procreation can only occur through a heterosexual act, the only "inherited" orientation must be heterosexuality and; 2) Since we were designed to procreate, heterosexuality must be natural. Now, at first glance, you might say, "there is so much wrong with both of these statements, I wouldn't where to begin"...and you'd be right about that.
The first premise is circular reasoning. One must be heterosexual because one was created through a heterosexual act? It might be more than circular reasoning. I might just be pure nonsense. This demonstrates his inability to understand the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation. But it also illustrates the lack of understanding of sexual orientation itself. If one presumes that homosexual orientation may not be inherited, and since heterosexuality is just another form of a sexual orientation, deductive reasoning dictates that heterosexuality TOO may not be inherited. If it is unclear where sexual orientation originates, that INCLUDES heterosexuality. Notice that textmaster omits this point. And notice that his point has been shredded in two different logical ways.
The second point is far easier. It is a classic appeal to nature logical fallacy. First he presumes that humans were designed to procreate. He offers no evidence nor logic to substantiate this. This is, as with Charles, a false premise...already negating anything that comes afterward. But let's continue anyway. Because we are designed to procreate, heterosexuality, the act of procreation must be natural. This is the appeal to nature fallacy, stating that because something appears in nature, it must be right. There are two problems with this. First, even if it IS natural, that does not make it right. Second, homosexuality also occurs in nature, so on the right/wrong scale it is equivalent to heterosexuality. So, as one can see, there is no logic in this position. It is therefore invalid.
I hope this has been educational for you all...especially Charles and textmaster. I am always happy to instruct on how to debate correctly and not fall into the fallacies and inaccuracies that we have seen by these two posters. Correcting the lack of credibility that they presented is what I would consider a public service: it allows inaccurate information to be stamped as such so folks will know not to believe it.
I thank you for your attention. This post is worth 3 credits in Debate at your local Community College.
[/FONT]
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
There is nothing to cry about.
You cannot support anything you have said with even a single study. That is the true definition of circular reasoning.
That is why your argument means nothing.
You want to change the law yet you cannot produce a single study to back up anything you are claiming about sexual orientation.
I find it particularly amusing you attack my side (the majority in the country no less) with delusional claims of not knowing how to debate.
Debating requires an argument supported by a listing of facts. Not from your own personal opinion, true facts. Studies backing your claims up.
Your inability to support your theories is painfully clear:
If my theory is correct it may make my argument correct.
To support your claim that sexual orientation has an equal chance of surfacing in any individual from birth you must provide some sort of evidence to support your claim. You cannot arrogantly think your act of faith can be used as justification for overturning written law.
Again just so you can't wiggle out again, your argument is pure theory.
If you wish to continue this fallacy of theory unsupported by even a single study, please explain why the sexual organs of male and female are designed for procreation.
Now please explain how for thousands of years even before written or oral language, males and females miraculously "figured out" their heterosexual orientation and propagated the species for thousands of years?
And since you do not understand what circular reasoning is, allow me to educate you. Circular reasoning is having no evidence to support your claims simply relying on "because it is". ie your argument.
You can't call my arguments circular since I can point to nature and traditional procreation being heterosexual. That is my evidence and I will provide more since you failed to grasp basic sex ed class in the 4th grade.
And if sexual orientation is heritary which you laughably claim without evidence, then why are homosexuals such an incredibly small number compared to heterosexuals? Do you have any evidence to explain this either or are you going to run back to the world of theory?
Since all life is designed to procreate this statement of yours shows how pathetic your position truly is.
But since you feel you need proof that humans were desiged to procreate, we'll go back to 4th grade science class. Amazing your denial of the most basic common knowledge.
THE HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM
You will find how the male inserts his penis into the womb of a woman, drops his seed and how that seed makes its way to her egg where life begins.
Now, unless you have evidence that denies human beings were designed for procreation, please end this ridiculous line of argument if you can even call it that.
So, there goes another one of your theories down the drain. 4th grade science class taught us how humans are designed for procreation.
Oh and how do you explain the menstrual cycle? Is that just another wild eyed theory of heterosexuality?
Just in case you need proof of the menstrual cycle,
Normal Menstrual Cycle Overview: What is a Menstrual Cycle?
The menstrual cycle is the series of changes a woman's body goes through to prepare for a pregnancy.
And how do women get pregnant again CC? It wouldn't be through heterosexual sex would it? Oh my!
Wrong again. The act of homosexuality has occurred throughout history, it has never been proven to be natural which goes to the core of your fallacy argument.
So, now that I've blown your sad theory away that heterosexual "orientation" or behavior or whatever other spin word you want to use to deflect away from homosexuality has been backed up with science and your inability to explain how the first humans "learned" how to procreate without oral or written language, please list all studies you have that show homosexual orientation has a natural history beyond the act being in history.
I will say it for the 9th time. You want to change the law as it is written. To do that, you need to back up your theories with documented facts, not your personal opinions.
The very fact you wrote 3 messages in a row shows your insatiable belief (and it is belief since you cannot support it with facts) you have to keep trying to convince me and others without any supporting facts actually shows how weak your case to change the law really is.
You use selective observation (ie the act of homosexuality is enough to claim it is equal to heterosexual behavior), circular reasoning (the inability to provide evidence to support your claim but drawing conclusions anyway), misdirection and false emphasis (your inability to address the very fact you want a law changed based on your theories) as your primary failed argument structure.
Its a sad web of falsehoods and castigation of your counterparts that displays the utter weakness in your case which is based on pure faith and a house of cards.
Last edited:
EpicDude86
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 4,384
- Reaction score
- 822
- Location
- Epic Mountain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that seem pretty natural then? If it's been happening throughout History, and possibly before recorded History...
Scorpion89
Banned
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,629
- Reaction score
- 527
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And this has what to do with the OP just asking CC. The OP is about the DC City Council stepping outside of there Charter to try to pass a moral Law with out allowing the Citz. of DC/Maryland/Virgina to vote on said item.
Now shall we discuss this or do you guys still want to talk about all the sillyness you have been dragging thru the past few page's.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I take it you have a limited understanding of how a conversation works...
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
There are many actions taken by humans throughout the centuries that have no basis in being natural. Cannibalism, human sacrifice, etc. All of these are actions throughout recorded history but to claim its natural without evidence makes for a very weak argument.
Is it natural in prison for men to be with men as well or simply a lack of options?
The point is it cannot be proven to be natural. Heterosexual activity and heterosexual behavior can and have.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
A conversation based on the subject at hand. That being the source of this thread and not the derailment you and others have tried.
All he is doing is following basic thread protocol. And for that you chastise him?
Scorpion89
Banned
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,629
- Reaction score
- 527
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Oh come on Jallman I understand very well but the OP is about what the City Council is trying to do not what is define to be a Homosexual, I believe we have a section for that in DP correct :2wave:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
No, the actual point is that appeal to nature is a fallacy. You take part in things that are "unnatural" all the time. That does not make them wrong, illegal, or worthy of moral disapproval. Though you are permitted to morally disapprove of anything you want, you are not permitted to codefy that moral disapproval into law without a vested state interest such as clear harm being done to a victim or to society.
You would be hard pressed to prove either of those points so your position and any attempt to defend it are utter failures.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Well when deciding whether to uphold that council decision or overturn it, these are all questions that come up. If you read the thread, I don't think you will find that Captain is the one who made the idiotic assertions that led to this conversation going to this place.
You may want to take that up with the ones who made the clueless, uneducated, and moronic assertions in the first place. Without their lack of ability or refusal to comprehend fact, this conversation would be taking place.
And I am also sure that if we were that far off topic, a mod would bring it back to topic so...
Scorpion89
Banned
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,629
- Reaction score
- 527
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I understand who and why it has got were it is but with that said lets try to get back on topic, as for you last part if a certain Mod who has been part of this discussion decide to push the thread back towards the topic then I would be very happy but then again I might get a Yellow Card for this posted.:roll:
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 59,337
- Reaction score
- 27,006
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Your examples are flawed.
Cannibalism is pretty natural. It happens in a myriad of species. Some mammals, insects and I'm pretty sure even some birds.
Human sacrifice is a cultural practice. It doesn't happen in EVERY culture or even in a majority. It doesn't even happen in nature.
Homosexuality happens in nature. Or at the very least same sex couplings can be found in the world of insects, mammals, birds etc.
Do you have any other flawed examples that are unable to distinguish between that which is 'natural' and that which isn't?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Why would he forcibly steer a conversation he is actively taking part in?
Another mod would do it if it were necessary. However, this is just as much a point of topic as the original question due to the issues that were raised by the dull duo.
Just because he's going through thanking your every post is not indicative of you having a real point or even being on the same side as him. He's losing this argument by a mile and he's latching to any ally he can. Desperation oozes from those who try to defend indefensible positions.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Are they acts that humans have taken throughout history? yes
That was all they were meant to represent.
As I said, an act taken throughout history alone does not make it natural.
Try reading more carefully next time.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Maybe you need to read more carefully. He pointed to several species in his answer to cannibalism. He conceded the unnatural points on the others.
Desperation smells bad. Go wash yourself.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 59,337
- Reaction score
- 27,006
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So what you're saying is that because 'acts' like cannibalism are natural but illegal then acts like homosexuality should be illegal too? What exactly is your basis for keeping gay marriage illegal?