Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

soccerboy22 · Jul 13, 2010

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Hicup said:
CC, for short. You invalidated nothing. You simply redefined things, and once I figure out how to quote, I'll show you the error of your ways.

Tim-

Hit reply with quote and if you want to break up the quote you do this. [ QUOTE ] at the start of it and [ /QUOTE] at the end of it minus the spaces.

Redress · Jul 13, 2010

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Hicup said:
Quick question how does one use quote tags? Are they BB code? I can't address you without being able to quote you, and to put it in full context.

By the way, you don't know me.. The liberal comments are merely a jest, no real offense is meant.

Tim-

Couple ways. Lower right hand corner of a post is a reply with quote button that will quote the entire post. I used it for this post. The other way is with a quote tag, <quote> and </quote>, except replace the <> with [].

Deuce · Jul 13, 2010

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Hicup said:
That said, here it is:
1. Homosexuality is not innate, nor is it immutable, it, by all definitions manifest itself as no more than a fetish, and although not necessarily terrible, nothing certainly worthy of regulation, or legislation. Certainly nothing that should be institutionalized, or forced upon an otherwise ill equipped mind.

It appears to be a combination of environmental factors beyond the control of the individual, with a possible genetic link as well. While not "innate," it's not a conscious decision either. People don't choose to be gay any more than they choose to be straight. It's more than a fetish. People like you always make the mistake of assuming that homosexuality is entirely about sex.

2. To my next point - By regulating, and legislating homosexual marriage, the State invariably endorses the behavior, and, by direct consequence, proponents of said behavior force it upon the society by way of the schools, and the workplace.

And by banning it, they force homosexuals into a shunned, second class group. It is the State saying "Your love is not as good as the love of other people."

3. The beef I have is in the schools aspect of it all. Consenting adults are free to make up their own minds, and if it stopped at the adult level, say a restriction on teaching the morality of homosexuality to kids, then I would be i favor of it. but we both know that will not happen. Much like a ban on the commercialization, or marketing of the product, like with alcohol, and tobacco to children, then by all means, have at er.

This implies that homosexuality is wrong or negative somehow, but you have yet to demonstrate how this knowledge might harm children. Or anyone else for that matter.

4. Children, in fact up until the age of roughly 20 have an immature pre frontal cortex. It means that they do not have the ability to reason the way adults do. It is why the military like em young, it is why sex with children, even consenting ones is prohibited. It is why most kids right up until they join the adult population, are generally liberal in their thinking. Adult liberals are simply immature conservatives.

And conservatives are bigoted bible thumpers trying to force their own views onto the rest of the population. Generalizing is fun! Again I have to iterate that there is no evidence that knowledge about the existence of homosexuals, or endorsement of homosexuality, harms children in any way. In fact, studies show children of same-sex couples do exactly as well as children of straight couples in any reasonable way of measuring. That is to say, no better, and no worse.

5. Homosexuality is demonstrably harmful to the homosexual, both females and males. They have a much higher incidence of many negative behaviors, and circumstances. The list is extensive, but I suspect you might already know what they are, so can we please stipulate on this point? Given this to be demonstrably true, why would anyone want to promote homosexuality? Promotion of homosexuality will be the norm, through the public schools, if it is deemed gay marriage legal. You can count on it.

"I don't have any evidence to back up what I'm saying, but I'm hoping you'll just accept it at face value." No, actually, I'm not going to just take this "point" of yours. Provide some evidence of this or retract it.

6. What's the upside of legalizing gay marriage? if you say it's the right thing to do, then I refer you to my authority of morality argument.

The upside is upholding the very American value of not having religious beliefs thrust upon us, and equal treatment of all people.

Go ahead, convince me that gay marriage is the right thing to do. I'm all ears.

Two people who love eachother should be able to express that love in the form of marriage like anybody else. To say otherwise is to hold the belief that their love is not as real or as important as yours.

Oh, this part - Also, your "very conservative" tag isn't sufficient. We need a tag for "Would prefer to reinstitute segregation." comment. Interesting, could you elaborate more on this?

About the point you implied that desegregation had negative, unintended consequences.

Edit: CC does it faster and better

Hicup · Jul 13, 2010

Redress-

This is incorrect. Homosexuality is an orientation, just like heterosexuality. Or are you saying that heterosexuality is a no more than a fetish?

Is it now? If there was no heterosexuality, how could there be homosexuality? Sexuality, in humans, and all other species I know of, is for one single purpose; to procreate, and pass on one's DNA through the expression of genes. The fundamental goal of sex is to this end. Sexual orientation is word-speak, designed primarily to promote importance in the meaning of homosexual behavior - relative to the design of human procreative function. In short, designed to give standing to that which is less important, and undesirable in terms of any reasonable measure of humanity.

So the state endorses alcohol and tobacco?

Of course they do!

So the state does not endorse alcohol and tobacco. You have some problem with telling kids that they are OK being what they are?

I argue that kids aren't homosexual by design, or "born that way". In fact no study, not a single one proves it to be otherwise. So without evidence of said innate homosexuality, am I to conclude otherwise? Says who? You?

Very good, you manage to not make any point, but be insulting anyways

Well I am new, so a little joke here and there is nothing to be offended by, I assure you. Feel free to lob the softballs in my direction anytime you choose. I have thicker skin than that.

I said that Homosexuality is demonstrably harmful to the homosexual, and you say:

This is false. Feel free to try and document it, it should be fun.

Are you kidding me? Lets see,

1. Higher incidence of HIV, and almost every other sexually transmitted disease in males.
2. Gay men have a 1 in 4 chance of contracting AIDS in their short lifetime.
3. Gay men have a life expectancy of 50.
4. Both gay men, and women have a much higher incidence of suicide.
5. Both gay men and women have a disproportionate percentage level of drug abuse, and alcohol abuse.
6. Both gay men and women have a much higher level of domestic abuse.
7. 35% of children raised in gay households from birth identify as homosexual as adults, this compared to the national level of homosexuality at 4 - 6% correlates to the notion that homosexuality is "catchy".
8. Both gay men, and women have a much higher incidence of psychological abnormalities as defined by the DSM.
9. Both gay men, and women have many more sexual partners, compared to their heterosexual counter-parts.

I can go on, but I feel you've gotten the point by now. So I ask again, why would you want to promote homosexuality?

Gays increasingly are raising children. Marriage is the most stable type of environment to raise children. There are no logical arguments against gay marriage, and without some evidence of harm, should be allowed. Marriage promotes stable homes, which are good for society.

Hehe, well, let's correct you here. Marriage between a man, and a woman is the best environment to raise healthy children. Marriage does promote stable homes, however not so much in the gay home. The average gay marriage (Taken from the 10 year study in the Netherlands) last 1.5 years, compared to the average heterosexual marriage lasting 22 years. No comparison, however it should be noted that in female gay marriages the statistic is higher, lasting 3.6 years.

CC wrote -

This is going to be easy. Watch

Awesome, I'm glad you're enthusiastic, it is good for debate.

1. Heterosexuality is not innate, nor is it immutable. Sexual orientation. ALL sexual orientations fall under the same category. Researchers believe that they are created through a combination of genetics/biology/biochemistry-hormones/environment.

Really? Wow, what an epiphany? Sorry was being sarcastic. Ok, show me one, just one study by a researcher that concludes this? Couldn't you simply substitute sexual orientation with, oh I dunno, say the word "behavior", and be equally correct?

Sort of like, preferring milk to water, or steak to chicken? LOL

Your opinion that is is defined as a fetish is inaccurate. It is a sexual orientation. Please get your definitions correct.

Oh, I assure you I have it correct.

No, the state does not force it on anything. By legislating homosexual marriage, you are not required to marry a homosexual. The is no force nor endorcement. It's called regulation. Again, get your defintions correct.

You appear ill-equipped to debate me on this subject. You thought process is bewildering?

Further, the state DOES have reason to endorse marriage... all marriage. Plenty of reasons, all of which apply to both hetero and homosexual marriage

Perhaps, however, if only for the way in which the consequence of gay marriage would wrought the society were limited, then I wouldn't be at all in opposition. I'm pretty sure I made that clear? My opposition to homosexuality isn't so much about homosexuality, it is in the way homosexuality manifest itself in a society that worries me. Namely how it is brought about, and to whom. I want my kids to live a long and healthy life, some of it I cannot control, but the things I can, I will. Legislating homosexual marriage is something I have the ability to fight, and I am.

No morality should be taught in schools. Information should. Proving information does just that. Provides information

Ah, if only that were the case my good man.. if only it were.

We also know that as one gets older, the brain, memory, and the ability to make decisions, weaken. Conservatives are just liberals with Alzheimers. See? I can play the partisan hack card, too. Try not to do that around here. You'll get chewed up real fast.

Chewed up.. LOL Ok.. Sure.

Certain sexual BEHAVIORS can be dangerous. You don't seem to understand the difference between orientation and behavior. I have now clarified that and demonstrated that the point you made is invalid. You can thank me later.

You did nothing of the sort. Your liberal mind is incapable of objectively realizing your position is inferior.

That would not be my argument as there is no evidence to it. Kinda like your argument.

So what is the upside?

For some reason, I doubt that. None of your points are accurate. Took me all of 10 minutes to invalidate all of them.

I see.. Well then I hope you won't object to me responding to anyone else that might disagree with me?

Tim-

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 13, 2010

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Hicup said:
Quick question how does one use quote tags? Are they BB code? I can't address you without being able to quote you, and to put it in full context.

By the way, you don't know me.. The liberal comments are merely a jest, no real offense is meant.

Tim-

You're right. I don't know you. We have too many conservatives around here who make obnxious, innacurate comments like that. I tend to not let them go without a similarly snarky response, letting them know that their comments are obnoxious and inaccurate. I did put a

after my comment, to let you know that my comment was also in jest. One's intelligence is not based on political ideology.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 13, 2010

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Hicup said:
CC, for short. You invalidated nothing. You simply redefined things, and once I figure out how to quote, I'll show you the error of your ways.

Tim-

I'm certain that will not occur... but you can try.

Hicup · Jul 13, 2010

Deuse -

It appears to be a combination of environmental factors beyond the control of the individual, with a possible genetic link as well. While not "innate," it's not a conscious decision either. People don't choose to be gay any more than they choose to be straight.

I would stipulate for the time being that it might be in some cases beyond the control of the individual, but that is exactly my point why it shouldn't be promoted to children who are the most vulnerable.

It's more than a fetish. People like you always make the mistake of assuming that homosexuality is entirely about sex.

Actions speak louder than words. It is homosexuals that create the impression that homosexuality is about sex. If it isn't then what else is it about?

And by banning it, they force homosexuals into a shunned, second class group. It is the State saying "Your love is not as good as the love of other people."

It is the people (which is the state) that says that homosexuality is less important, and by definition second fiddle. I happen to agree with this standpoint. By all measures it is.

This implies that homosexuality is wrong or negative somehow, but you have yet to demonstrate how this knowledge might harm children. Or anyone else for that matter

See above post for starters...

And conservatives are bigoted bible thumpers

Really now? Funny, I'm a conservative yet I do not believe in God. How's that come about?

Again I have to iterate that there is no evidence that knowledge about the existence of homosexuals, or endorsement of homosexuality, harms children in any way.

The very action of being homosexual is harmful to the one being homosexual? Was that not clear?

In fact, studies show children of same-sex couples do exactly as well as children of straight couples in any reasonable way of measuring. That is to say, no better, and no worse.

How about the measure of how many of those kids grow up gay?

No, actually, I'm not going to just take this "point" of yours. Provide some evidence of this or retract it.

See above list for starters. Unless, of course you dispute those allegations? If so, I can provide evidence, but does it really matter? Wouldn't you simply argue the semantics, as most gay proponents always do? You would invariably question the veracity of the studies, and or proof, and we would be off in another direction, so shall we dispense with the formalities, and simply agree to disagree?

The upside is upholding the very American value of not having religious beliefs thrust upon us, and equal treatment of all people.

Ah the slippery slope..

Two people who love eachother should be able to express that love in the form of marriage like anybody else.

Why? Says who? What if society decides it doesn't want to recognize gay marriage as viable?

To say otherwise is to hold the belief that their love is not as real or as important as yours

In the context in which I frame this debate, it simply doesn't have equal standing.

About the point you implied that desegregation had negative, unintended consequences

Another debate perhaps, but in short, it can be argued that desegregation has had a negative effect on American black culture.

Tim-

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 13, 2010

I'll take this, Redress. Again... too easy to pass up.

Hicup said:
Redress-

Is it now? If there was no heterosexuality, how could there be homosexuality? Sexuality, in humans, and all other species I know of, is for one single purpose; to procreate, and pass on one's DNA through the expression of genes. The fundamental goal of sex is to this end. Sexual orientation is word-speak, designed primarily to promote importance in the meaning of homosexual behavior - relative to the design of human procreative function. In short, designed to give standing to that which is less important, and undesirable in terms of any reasonable measure of humanity.

You confuse procreation with sexual orientation. They are not the same. One does not have to be a sexual being in order to procreate. All one has to have is working parts. Sexual orientation is about attraction. Procreation is about the production of offspring. Again, you need to brush up on your definitions.

And as far as "design" goes, point me to the designer's website to confirm what each part is designed to do. Until that happens, design is nothing but speculation. Use is a completely different matter, which is what you are talking about.

Of course they do!

No they do not. They legalize it. Do you know what endorse means? It means to express approval of or to recommend. Please provide direct evidence where the government is expressing approval of or recommending the consumption of alchohol or tobacco. I know that I can show you evidence to the contrary.

I argue that kids aren't homosexual by design, or "born that way". In fact no study, not a single one proves it to be otherwise. So without evidence of said innate homosexuality, am I to conclude otherwise? Says who? You?

And since heterosexuality is also a sexual orientation, ]I argue that kids aren't heterosexual by design, or "born that way". In fact no study, not a single one proves it to be otherwise. So without evidence of said innate heterosexuality, am I to conclude otherwise? Says who? You? If you do, please provide the location of the genetic coding for heterosexuality.

I said that Homosexuality is demonstrably harmful to the homosexual, and you say:

Are you kidding me? Lets see,

1. Higher incidence of HIV, and almost every other sexually transmitted disease in males.
2. Gay men have a 1 in 4 chance of contracting AIDS in their short lifetime.
3. Gay men have a life expectancy of 50.
4. Both gay men, and women have a much higher incidence of suicide.
5. Both gay men and women have a disproportionate percentage level of drug abuse, and alcohol abuse.
6. Both gay men and women have a much higher level of domestic abuse.
7. 35% of children raised in gay households from birth identify as homosexual as adults, this compared to the national level of homosexuality at 4 - 6% correlates to the notion that homosexuality is "catchy".
8. Both gay men, and women have a much higher incidence of psychological abnormalities as defined by the DSM.
9. Both gay men, and women have many more sexual partners, compared to their heterosexual counter-parts.

I can go on, but I feel you've gotten the point by now. So I ask again, why would you want to promote homosexuality?

All of your examples are examples of correlation, not causation, a logical fallacy. The issues you present are due to dangerous sexual behavior. Homosexuality does not cause this. So, the only point that you have made is that of a logical fallacy.

Hehe, well, let's correct you here. Marriage between a man, and a woman is the best environment to raise healthy children.

Incorrect. The best relationship in which to raise a child is in a stable two parent household REGARDLESS of the sexual orientation of the parents. I have a dozen studies that I have posted here many times that prove this. So, no, the evidence proves this assertion of yours wrong.

Marriage does promote stable homes, however not so much in the gay home. The average gay marriage (Taken from the 10 year study in the Netherlands) last 1.5 years, compared to the average heterosexual marriage lasting 22 years. No comparison, however it should be noted that in female gay marriages the statistic is higher, lasting 3.6 years.

Your information is not applicable. Do you know what the average length of a marriage in the US is? 7.5 years. There is no reason to believe that if GM is legalized that this would not apply to gays, too. Your information is based in the Netherlands. We are talking about the US.

CC wrote -

Awesome, I'm glad you're enthusiastic, it is good for debate.

Always about this issue.

Really? Wow, what an epiphany? Sorry was being sarcastic. Ok, show me one, just one study by a researcher that concludes this? Couldn't you simply substitute sexual orientation with, oh I dunno, say the word "behavior", and be equally correct? Sort of like, preferring milk to water, or steak to chicken? LOL

Show me one study that identifies the genetic structure of heterosexuality. Just one. As far as your request for links, I have them on my home computer. I'll post them later.

Oh, I assure you I have it correct.

And I assure you that you do not. The DSM-IV, the manual that identifies fetishes, proves you wrong.

You appear ill-equipped to debate me on this subject. You thought process is bewildering?

You appear to have no accurate knowledge on this topic. Your lack of understanding relates to this.

Perhaps, however, if only for the way in which the consequence of gay marriage would wrought the society were limited, then I wouldn't be at all in opposition. I'm pretty sure I made that clear? My opposition to homosexuality isn't so much about homosexuality, it is in the way homosexuality manifest itself in a society that worries me. Namely how it is brought about, and to whom. I want my kids to live a long and healthy life, some of it I cannot control, but the things I can, I will. Legislating homosexual marriage is something I have the ability to fight, and I am.

You have the right to fight against GM. Just as I will fight for it. I have the evidence on my side. All you have is morality and opinion. I'm right, but that doesn't mean I'll win... outside of this debate of course.

Ah, if only that were the case my good man.. if only it were.

Guess what? If morality IS taught in schools, and you do not like that morality, you can remove your kids. Just as I can.

Chewed up.. LOL Ok.. Sure.

Absolutely.

You did nothing of the sort. Your liberal mind is incapable of objectively realizing your position is inferior.

Of course I did. But your conservative mind is incapable of understanding the argument, much less that your position has no validity.

So what is the upside?

Positive rearing of children... as evidence shows. Relationship stablity... as evidence shows. Improved health of those who are married... as evidence shows. All of this impoves society. A healthy population where chidren are being reared in a postive way makes for a heathy society. See, I have evidence on my side. You have nothing.

I see.. Well then I hope you won't object to me responding to anyone else that might disagree with me?

Tim-

Ok, with me. I warn you that you will not fare any better; your positions will be shown to be just as invalid by others, but feel free.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 13, 2010

I'll take a couple of these, too. They are far to easy to pass up.

Hicup said:
The very action of being homosexual is harmful to the one being homosexual? Was that not clear?

Notice your word. ACTION. Behavior. Not being. You have no proven yourself incorrect. Thank you.

How about the measure of how many of those kids grow up gay?

In households where children are raised with homosexual parents, studies show there is no difference in the percentage that are gay. Further, since it has already been demonstrated by me, by research... and by you above, that there is nothing worng with being gay, this is, ultimately, and irrelevant point.

See above list for starters. Unless, of course you dispute those allegations? If so, I can provide evidence, but does it really matter? Wouldn't you simply argue the semantics, as most gay proponents always do? You would invariably question the veracity of the studies, and or proof, and we would be off in another direction, so shall we dispense with the formalities, and simply agree to disagree?

Present your studies. I will demostrate that they are methodologically unsound. I've done it before, and I doubt you will present anything new.

See? I told you this would be easy.

Redress · Jul 13, 2010

Hicup said:
Redress-

Is it now? If there was no heterosexuality, how could there be homosexuality? Sexuality, in humans, and all other species I know of, is for one single purpose; to procreate, and pass on one's DNA through the expression of genes. The fundamental goal of sex is to this end. Sexual orientation is word-speak, designed primarily to promote importance in the meaning of homosexual behavior - relative to the design of human procreative function. In short, designed to give standing to that which is less important, and undesirable in terms of any reasonable measure of humanity.

You are assuming some grand design. Otherwise, statements such as "one single purpose" do not work. Since you cannot prove that grand design, your point is moot.

Of course they do!

You are confusing regulate with promote.

I argue that kids aren't homosexual by design, or "born that way". In fact no study, not a single one proves it to be otherwise. So without evidence of said innate homosexuality, am I to conclude otherwise? Says who? You?

I have not claimed that homosexuality is innate. It is however most likely in place by the time kids hit puberty. High school kids are still kids, and can very well be gay.

Well I am new, so a little joke here and there is nothing to be offended by, I assure you. Feel free to lob the softballs in my direction anytime you choose. I have thicker skin than that.

I don't play those games...much.

I said that Homosexuality is demonstrably harmful to the homosexual, and you say:

Are you kidding me? Lets see,

1. Higher incidence of HIV, and almost every other sexually transmitted disease in males.
2. Gay men have a 1 in 4 chance of contracting AIDS in their short lifetime.

Actually, it's a higher incidence for those who have promiscuous sex and anal sex. Orientation is irrelevant.

3. Gay men have a life expectancy of 50.

Part of that is due to the explosion of HIV early on before we knew and understood the disease. Those where scary times.

4. Both gay men, and women have a much higher incidence of suicide.
5. Both gay men and women have a disproportionate percentage level of drug abuse, and alcohol abuse.

Based largely upon the extra societal pressure of being gay in a primarily strait society. The **** that gay people went through in the 70's and 80's, and to a lesser extent still, is unreal.

6. Both gay men and women have a much higher level of domestic abuse.

Source please. I need more information to formulate a rebuttal.

7. 35% of children raised in gay households from birth identify as homosexual as adults, this compared to the national level of homosexuality at 4 - 6% correlates to the notion that homosexuality is "catchy".

Again, source please.

8. Both gay men, and women have a much higher incidence of psychological abnormalities as defined by the DSM.

I need to see your data again. I am pretty sure this has been proven wrong, but I need more details to look it up properly. Google is just giving me NARTH pages on this, and NARTH is a joke.

9. Both gay men, and women have many more sexual partners, compared to their heterosexual counter-parts.

Maybe because they do not have the stabilizing influence of marriage?

I can go on, but I feel you've gotten the point by now. So I ask again, why would you want to promote homosexuality?

I do not promote homosexuality, I simply accept it.

Hehe, well, let's correct you here. Marriage between a man, and a woman is the best environment to raise healthy children. Marriage does promote stable homes, however not so much in the gay home. The average gay marriage (Taken from the 10 year study in the Netherlands) last 1.5 years, compared to the average heterosexual marriage lasting 22 years. No comparison, however it should be noted that in female gay marriages the statistic is higher, lasting 3.6 years.

Oh look, this is why you should include sources. Here is one: Straight From The Source: What the "Dutch Study" Really Says About Gay Couples

Dr. Xiridou and her colleagues based their research article on the Amsterdam Cohort Studies of HIV infection and AIDS among homosexually active men.6 These studies began in 1984, and had several different protocols in their lifetime:

* Oct 1984-1985: Gay men aged 18-65 with at least two sexual partners in the previous six months. In other words, monogamous partners were explicitly excluded.
* April 1985-Feb 1988: Study enrollment was continued, except HIV-negative men were now excluded. Only HIV-positive men were added.
* Feb 1988 – Dec 1988: The study was re-opened to HIV-negative men.
* Various additional enrollments continued from through 1998. Especially notable was a special recruitment campaign for men under the age of thirty beginning in 1995. After 1996, all HIV-negative men above the age of thirty were dropped from the study. Their data was excluded from subsequent analyses.
* Nobody outside of Amsterdam was accepted into the study except for AIDS patients who attended clinics in Amsterdam for treatment. This makes the study almost exclusively an urban one.

Holy hell, we have a huge problem...

Redress · Jul 13, 2010

CaptainCourtesy said:
I'll take this, Redress. Again... too easy to pass up.

I type slower than you, so I got my replies in too. I did catch the Netherlands study that he tried to pass off though...check that link out...

Hicup · Jul 13, 2010

Ok guys.. I see where this is going. I'll be back in a bit, I'm going to the store to grab a six pack, I have a feeling that this might take some time. Again for those on the sidelines please be careful when reading Redress, and especially CC's posts and retorts to my points. He's parsing words, setting up starwmen, and redefining things. Not that I had to point it out, but some might need a little coaching on how to spot how a liberal argues.

When I return I'll post links, and or studies. No doubt you'll post links and studies to back up your position. This much I expected and why i wanted to avoid it altogether, but you both seem to distrust my level of experience on this issue, so it must be done. CC claims he can point out the methodological imperfections of any of "those" studies, well, in part he's correct, any student of research science can do this, as the inherant nature of human studies is flawed to begin with. So no big surprise. In the end we will go back and forth, all claiming to be on the right side, and nothing will be accomplished. I wanted to avoid this level of committment as I haven't explored this site fully yet, and although it may be hard to believe, I have other political interests.

In the end the only thing that matters is this. My whole arguement towards gays, and or gay marriage revolves around one basic premise. That premise is that homosexuality is not in-born, had very little if anything to do with gene(s), and is something that, although not influential enough to affect every unsuspecting mind, enough that it can influence some. It is this some that totals to be about 4 - 6% of the human population. The other basic tenent is that of morality. There are two kinds, the first is individual morality, which is deep, and very personal, the other is the collective morality. The collective morality can loosely be defined as the State, or society. In democratic societies it is this collective morality that by definition cannot be wrong, it is always correct, for good, or for bad. I argue that as a state we have the responsibility to our own posterity. Our posterity is dependant on the family, and the states version of the most ideal family is that of a man and a woman, period!

Some here will agree with that sattement, some will not. I can live with either one. It is my right to form that opinion, and I have, with very careful thought.

Tim-

Redress · Jul 13, 2010

Hicup said:
Ok guys.. I see where this is going. I'll be back in a bit, I'm going to the store to grab a six pack, I have a feeling that this might take some time. Again for those on the sidelines please be careful when reading Redress, and especially CC's posts and retorts to my points. He's parsing words, setting up starwmen, and redefining things. Not that I had to point it out, but some might need a little coaching on how to spot how a liberal argues.

When I return I'll post links, and or studies. No doubt you'll post links and studies to back up your position. This much I expected and why i wanted to avoid it altogether, but you both seem to distrust my level of experience on this issue, so it must be done. CC claims he can point out the methodological imperfections of any of "those" studies, well, in part he's correct, any student of research science can do this, as the inherant nature of human studies is flawed to begin with. So no big surprise. In the end we will go back and forth, all claiming to be on the right side, and nothing will be accomplished. I wanted to avoid this level of committment as I haven't explored this site fully yet, and although it may be hard to believe, I have other political interests.

In the end the only thing that matters is this. My whole arguement towards gays, and or gay marriage revolves around one basic premise. That premise is that homosexuality is not in-born, had very little if anything to do with gene(s), and is something that, although not influential enough to affect every unsuspecting mind, enough that it can influence some. It is this some that totals to be about 4 - 6% of the human population. The other basic tenent is that of morality. There are two kinds, the first is individual morality, which is deep, and very personal, the other is the collective morality. The collective morality can loosely be defined as the State, or society. In democratic societies it is this collective morality that by definition cannot be wrong, it is always correct, for good, or for bad. I argue that as a state we have the responsibility to our own posterity. Our posterity is dependant on the family, and the states version of the most ideal family is that of a man and a woman, period!

Some here will agree with that sattement, some will not. I can live with either one. It is my right to form that opinion, and I have, with very careful thought.

Tim-

You may have plenty of experience, but you can make mistakes like with the Netherlands study. Take your time, All Star game is on.

rivrrat · Jul 13, 2010

Hicup said:
Ok guys.. I see where this is going. I'll be back in a bit, I'm going to the store to grab a six pack, I have a feeling that this might take some time. Again for those on the sidelines please be careful when reading Redress, and especially CC's posts and retorts to my points. He's parsing words, setting up starwmen, and redefining things. Not that I had to point it out, but some might need a little coaching on how to spot how a liberal argues.

The partisan thing really isn't going to fly well. I'm by no means a liberal, but CC is 100% correct.

In the end the only thing that matters is this. My whole arguement towards gays, and or gay marriage revolves around one basic premise. That premise is that homosexuality is not in-born, had very little if anything to do with gene(s),

The same can be said for heterosexuality. So that kind of voids the whole premise.

and is something that, although not influential enough to affect every unsuspecting mind, enough that it can influence some.

Was your sexual orientation "influenced"? By whom?

The other basic tenent is that of morality. There are two kinds, the first is individual morality, which is deep, and very personal, the other is the collective morality. The collective morality can loosely be defined as the State, or society. In democratic societies it is this collective morality that by definition cannot be wrong, it is always correct, for good, or for bad.

Holy ****. What? First off, morality should never be legislated, and secondly, laws are NOT always right or correct. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I argue that as a state we have the responsibility to our own posterity. Our posterity is dependant on the family, and the states version of the most ideal family is that of a man and a woman, period!

No, YOUR version of the "ideal family" is that of a man and a woman.

Some here will agree with that sattement, some will not. I can live with either one. It is my right to form that opinion, and I have, with very careful thought.

Of course you have the right to form your own opinion. You have every right to feel it's "correct" and "right" to legislate gender discrimination, just as they used to in the past with voting, property ownership, etc. And we have every right to tell you that you can take your gender discrimination and stick it where the sun don't shine. :mrgreen:

Redress · Jul 13, 2010

Things I learned today:

Never trust claims without sources
Rivvrat is a liberal

rivrrat · Jul 13, 2010

Redress said:
Things I learned today:

Never trust claims without sources
Rivvrat is a liberal

I'm reporting you for calling me bad names. You big meanie.

:2razz:

Redress · Jul 13, 2010

rivrrat said:
I'm reporting you for calling me bad names. You big meanie.

:2razz:

"Liberal" is something to take pride in. It's not a bad name.

Redress · Jul 13, 2010

Finally finished the Netherlands Study referenced by Hicup. For reference, here is the study: The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the in... : AIDS

I found this amusing. The study ran from 1995 to 1999. Sam sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 2001. Woops!

Zyphlin · Jul 13, 2010

Hicup...

When you INCORRECTLY define things someone coming by and CORRECTING you is not "redefining" it, they're actually simply giving you the right definition.

While your post may've been the first in this string of arguments, that does not automatically mean you "defined" the words. Indeed, your error filled use of the words is the actual redefinition as you're taking something that has an actual definition and saying its something else, such as reclassifying Homosexuality as a fetish rather than a orientation. While you said the argument first in this thread, YOU were actually the one "redefining" as you declared it something other than what its defined as.

Nice attempted strawman though.

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

Ok it is saying that I have to shorten this post, so I'll split it up into two pieces. This is part one.

CC -

You confuse procreation with sexual orientation.

I do.. Well gee.. Come on, I confuse nothing. This is what I said - " Is it now? If there was no heterosexuality, how could there be homosexuality? Sexuality, in humans, and all other species I know of, is for one single purpose; to procreate, and pass on one's DNA through the expression of genes. The fundamental goal of sex is to this end. Sexual orientation is word-speak, designed primarily to promote importance in the meaning of homosexual behavior - relative to the design of human procreative function. In short, designed to give standing to that which is less important, and undesirable in terms of any reasonable measure of humanity."

So, to recap what it is I am saying: Sexual orientation doesn't exist from a fundamental pinning. It is meaningless, Sir! Given the absurdity of the term, there could be literally hundreds of sexual orientations. Now place them in context, and place significance on each of them, on their own merit, and tell me when you start to approach "heterosexuality" Should be somewhere near the top my good man. Homosexuality is profoundly dependant on the proliferation of practicing heterosexuals. The mating of sexual matter from the opposite sex! So what came first? The gay or the straight?

And as far as "design" goes, point me to the designer's website to confirm what each part is designed to do. Until that happens, design is nothing but speculation. Use is a completely different matter, which is what you are talking about

As predicted.. Semantics.. Sheesh, do you all go to the same school. I cannot, no matter how much I try, convince someone like you that, that which is crystal clear, physiologically consistent, and demonstrably axiomatic, yet, you'd choose to bicker about this point? My Lord!! Ok, so you're saying that the penis isn't designed for the vagina? If it isn't then perhaps you could enlighten us all to what it should be used for?

No they do not. They legalize it. Do you know what endorse means? It means to express approval of or to recommend. Please provide direct evidence where the government is expressing approval of or recommending the consumption of alchohol or tobacco. I know that I can show you evidence to the contrary

Easy, there was a time in this fair land when the tap did not run. What do you suppose we would call the prohibition of alcohol? An act of endorsement, or perhaps it was an act of disapproval?

Are you from a different country? I ask only because your arguments are causing me great pain to try and understand your logic? When the people (remember them we are the people and when we elect representatives to make law, we either endorse them, or we do not)

And since heterosexuality is also a sexual orientation

What I'm arguing is that the term, sexual orientation/i] is a mere word-speak distraction from the fundamental understanding of human design. The design that matters most to the proliferation, and the posterity of humanity. Heterosexuality, any "other" orientation is demonstrably meaningless to that end, period. Thus, as a result, it is less worthy of any attention. Are you suggesting that homosexuality is as important to the proliferation, and posterity of a society as is heterosexuality?

All of your examples are examples of correlation, not causation, a logical fallacy

Click to expand...

It's only a fallacy if I present the premise in that way. I do no such thing. Do you make a habit of setting up strawmen to knock over?

The issues you present are due to dangerous sexual behavior. Homosexuality does not cause this. So, the only point that you have made is that of a logical fallacy.

Click to expand...

hehe.. Ok.. Gee lets see. Hmmm. Ok try this. Homosexual behavior is dangerous. Without a condom I have a statistically zero chance of contracting HIV from a woman in the USA. A gay man has a 1 in 4 chance of contracting HIV from having sex with other gay men, period! Also, one could argue that culture of male homosexuality is indeed the cause of "dangerous" sex among other gay men, however, the same cannot be said of the culture of heterosexuals.

Incorrect. The best relationship in which to raise a child is in a stable two parent household REGARDLESS of the sexual orientation of the parents. I have a dozen studies that I have posted here many times that prove this. So, no, the evidence proves this assertion of yours wrong.

Click to expand...

No doubt. And of the "dozens" of studies that make this claim, no doubt a few of them were sampled here: Link
and also here: Link

Conclusion: Ultimately, my claim stands! Now I don't want to get into a study-war with any of you, I've been down that road too many times, I think at this point in my experience on debating this issue, I have come to the conclusion that what I'm saying makes perfect sense. It is observably consistent with what I have seen, and come to understand about homosexuality. Others can form their own opinions based on any criterion they decide to choose. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else that I am right. Only that I am pretty darn sure I have this called the right way. I'll debate you on any merits of a particular opinion, of course; especially those I find egregious. Like you, I won't allow you to "get away with anything"..

Do you know what the average length of a marriage in the US is? 7.5 years

Click to expand...

Oh really? And just how did you come up with that number? Do you understand the difficulties in determining that actual number? Mine at 22 years was a guess, based on a combination of other guesses, so a 7.5 "firm" claim by you would be news to my ears.

Show me one study that identifies the genetic structure of heterosexuality. Just one. As far as your request for links, I have them on my home computer. I'll post them later.

Click to expand...

Don't bother yourself. You're not going to show me something I haven't seen before. I prefer you simply argue for your position on this issue. Casual claims I let slip, only egregious ones I call you on. I and you know that there are no studies to conclude that homosexuality IS caused by physiological, and or biological means.

And I assure you that you do not. The DSM-IV, the manual that identifies fetishes, proves you wrong

Click to expand...

Ah, well, fetish this, fetish that, who cares. Just not in front of my kids on my watch!

You appear to have no accurate knowledge on this topic. Your lack of understanding relates to this

Click to expand...

Did I hurt your feelings? All I meant was that you were using liberal reasoning in some of the statements you made. I could get into a massive debate on how the liberal mind works, and how it debates, but that's another topic, and another day.

You have the right to fight against GM. Just as I will fight for it. I have the evidence on my side. All you have is morality and opinion. I'm right, but that doesn't mean I'll win... outside of this debate of course

Click to expand...

Boy, you really are full of yourself, huh? Good, I think that's great, keep up the good work.

Guess what? If morality IS taught in schools, and you do not like that morality, you can remove your kids. Just as I can

Click to expand...

Well of course I can.. No argument there my good man!~

I say - " So what is the upside? " to which:

Positive rearing of children... as evidence shows. Relationship stablity... as evidence shows. Improved health of those who are married... as evidence shows. All of this impoves society. A healthy population where chidren are being reared in a postive way makes for a heathy society. See, I have evidence on my side. You have nothing

Click to expand...

Can I ask the members here if you do this all the time? Is this, claiming victory, something you do often? The only thing I agree with here is that positive rearing of children improves society. All that other magical stuff you're claiming, is, well .... Magic land!

Here: try this one on for size.. Oops it's from a pro family site.. MUST be those evil conservative propagandists at it again, and is thus deemed irrelevant by you, and other liberal gay apologists.
Link

Ok, with me. I warn you that you will not fare any better; your positions will be shown to be just as invalid by others, but feel free.

Click to expand...

Hey thanks, man!

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

Oh, I see you're not done with me yet?

I said " The very action of being homosexual is harmful to the one being homosexual? Was that not clear?

You say -

Notice your word. ACTION. Behavior. Not being. You have no proven yourself incorrect. Thank you

LOL, can you think of another way to make the statement I made without sounding incoherent? I guess I could have simply said that being homosexual is harmful to the one being homosexual, and left out the "action" part, but I was trying to be illustrative. I had no ulterior motive, I assure you.

In households where children are raised with homosexual parents, studies show there is no difference in the percentage that are gay

Well now, that's not entirely true now is it?

Present your studies. I will demostrate that they are methodologically unsound. I've done it before, and I doubt you will present anything new.

See? I told you this would be easy.

I'm really, really glad you're having a good time.

Redress wrote -

You are assuming some grand design. Otherwise, statements such as "one single purpose" do not work. Since you cannot prove that grand design, your point is moot

I don't need to prove it. I simply need to make the statement, and you can either accept it has merit, and validity, or you may not. If it makes no sense to you, then I suspect you would disagree. Is it that my statement doesn't make sense, that Sexuality, in humans, and all other species I know of, is for one single purpose; to procreate, and pass on one's DNA through the expression of genes. The fundamental goal of sex is to this end

If so, please state your opinion on the goal of humanity, and evolution? I'm all ears.

You are confusing regulate with promote

I'm not confusing anything? You're just like CC. Is it your ultimate measure of victory to parse words? Regulate, legislate, are all matters of a group of representatives promoting the will of some constituency on the population, either specifically, or broadly. Care to give another example?

Actually, it's a higher incidence for those who have promiscuous sex and anal sex. Orientation is irrelevant

It's irrelevant? Wait, what? Orientation is the only relevance when one group can ONLY have intercourse one way.

Based largely upon the extra societal pressure of being gay in a primarily strait society. The **** that gay people went through in the 70's and 80's, and to a lesser extent still, is unreal

Is it? So the thoughts that run through the minds of gay people are exclusively the result of a largely homophobic society? Or.. Could it be possible that the human psyche has a built in mechanism to resist homosexual tendencies? Just a thought?

Source please. I need more information to formulate a rebuttal

I'll let you google them yourself, but the conclusion I have formed is that roughly 40 to 50% of both female, and male relationship meet the criteria for domestic abuse. Whereas, only 5% of heterosexual relationship[s experience the same measure.

Cameron, P., Playfair, W. L., Wellum, S. The longevity of homosexuals. Omega, 1994, 29, 249 272.
Holt S. Ending the cycle of domestic violence. Gay Lesbian Times, 9126196, p. 39.
Sorenson, J, et al.. Amer I Public Health. 1996, 86, 3540.
Ellis, D. Violence Victims, 1989, 4, 235-255.
Gardner, R. Method of conflict resolution correlates af physical aggression victimization in heterosezual, lesbian, gay male couples. Unpub Doc Dis, U Georgia, 1988.
Waterman, C.K, et al. J Sel Research 1989, 26, 118 124.
Lockhart, L.L., et al. I Interpersonal Violence, 1994, 9, 469492.
Coleman, V. Violence in lesbian couples: a between groups comparison. Unpub Doc Dis, CA Sch Prof Psych:LA, 1990.
Merrill, G. Press release from National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, October 22, 1996 from San Francisco various inteniews in November, 1996 with senior author Memll, Jem Lynn Fields in Chicago, Bea Hanson in New York

Now, I know you're going to paint Cameron as a gay hater.. Well that might be true it might not, but in all the "rebuttals" I've seen of his work, I am yet to see them actually rebut his conclusions based on his research. Cameron is hated by the left, and the gay movement in America. It surprises me not that an vicious campaign is out to discredit his work.

Again, source please

http://www.soc.iastate.edu/soc522a/PDF readings/Stacey.pdf
See above link.

I need to see your data again. I am pretty sure this has been proven wrong, but I need more details to look it up properly. Google is just giving me NARTH pages on this, and NARTH is a joke

Are they, why? what makes them a "joke".. Per se..

Maybe because they do not have the stabilizing influence of marriage?

Not so, the "Netherlands" study of studies says otherwise, moreover, am I to believe that you seem to care so much about this issue that you are incapable of making the leap in, and with your own observations of gay culture? Ya know, it isn't at all, or not primarily all hugs and kisses ya know. You know the gay life seen in the MSM, and pop culture.. No, no, there is a whole other world to the gay lifestyle you're missing.

Oh look, this is why you should include sources. Here is one: Straight From The Source: What the "Dutch Study" Really Says About Gay Couples

Ah, but this only goes so far, and cherry picks. Did you read the entire study. Remember that some form of accepted homosexual union has been available in Holland since 1989. In any regard, let's turn the dial. Why don't you provide proof that directly refutes my claim that homosexual marriages last on average 1.5 years. I can't find any, so all I have to go on is this data. You rebuttal link is from a site where the author is clearly pro gay, and provides no direct refutation of the conclusion from the sample, only what he thinks the sample should be to form their conclusions. Well, if he feels that way, why doesn't he do his own research on the matter?

Holy hell, we have a huge problem...

No we don't. It's been a while since I've argued this matter with such intensity. A long time actually, and some of my dates, and even statistical data may have been slightly off, but the premise is true regardless. At least I think it is.

Whew, ok this is a long post, so I'm going to stop here for now, unless in the time it has teken me to write this up, someone else has chimed in..

Tim-

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

Zyphlin said:
Hicup...

When you INCORRECTLY define things someone coming by and CORRECTING you is not "redefining" it, they're actually simply giving you the right definition.

While your post may've been the first in this string of arguments, that does not automatically mean you "defined" the words. Indeed, your error filled use of the words is the actual redefinition as you're taking something that has an actual definition and saying its something else, such as reclassifying Homosexuality as a fetish rather than a orientation. While you said the argument first in this thread, YOU were actually the one "redefining" as you declared it something other than what its defined as.

Nice attempted strawman though.

Nonesense.. I'm making an argument to that fact. When something is wrong, such as classifying homosexuality as a sexual orietation, which by the way I am not necessrily disputing for illustrative purpose, only the veracity of what constitutes a sexul orientation in the first place; then it seems plausable to use other descriptors in my reasoning. Descriptors that are specifially useful in challenging the stated meaning and understanding. Moreover, Ziphlin, where have I redefined anything. The literal meaning of homosexuality is the sexuality of oneself. Not very useful in a discussion about the veracity of the situation now is it.

Tim-

Redress · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
Redress wrote -

I don't need to prove it. I simply need to make the statement, and you can either accept it has merit, and validity, or you may not. If it makes no sense to you, then I suspect you would disagree. Is it that my statement doesn't make sense, that Sexuality, in humans, and all other species I know of, is for one single purpose; to procreate, and pass on one's DNA through the expression of genes. The fundamental goal of sex is to this end

If so, please state your opinion on the goal of humanity, and evolution? I'm all ears.

Evolution does not have a "goal". A goal requires a conscious desire. Evolution just is, kinda like gravity. Does gravity have a goal? That is the problem with the whole "designed" premise. Sex was not designed, sex is simply a more successful survival strategy. Things can be used for purposes other than those found in nature even...thankfully, since my apartment is largely made of wood, and trees where not "designed" to be harvested for wood.

I'm not confusing anything? You're just like CC. Is it your ultimate measure of victory to parse words? Regulate, legislate, are all matters of a group of representatives promoting the will of some constituency on the population, either specifically, or broadly. Care to give another example?

Legislate and regulate are completely different than promote. We regulate tobacco, and parts of that regulation include high taxes to discourage use, not allowing advertising in some media, and so on. We regulate, but we do not promote. This is a large, unsubtle distinction. It's not careful parsing to try and make words mean what I want, it's an entirely different meaning.

It's irrelevant? Wait, what? Orientation is the only relevance when one group can ONLY have intercourse one way.

Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals can have sex only one way. Both can be promiscuous(high risk), both can engage in anal sex(high risk, and not including lesbians as much). Gays can also engage in such activities as Frotting, Mutual masturbation, oral sex, Dutch Rudders, and a host of others.

Is it? So the thoughts that run through the minds of gay people are exclusively the result of a largely homophobic society? Or.. Could it be possible that the human psyche has a built in mechanism to resist homosexual tendencies? Just a thought?

Several things wrong here. I did not refer to homophobia. I did say that society in general did, for whatever reason, **** all over gays. I have a close relative who came out in the 70's. She lost her job over it, she lost her home over it, she was banned from her church, and she had to leave town just to have a chance of a semi-normal life. She was told, by a judge, that she had to have supervised visitation of her kids to ensure she did not pervert them. Now, do you think that might have an effect on some one?

You can claim the possibility of some "built in mechanism", but I bet you cannot document it. I can document the troubles that gay people have had to deal with.

I'll let you google them yourself, but the conclusion I have formed is that roughly 40 to 50% of both female, and male relationship meet the criteria for domestic abuse. Whereas, only 5% of heterosexual relationship[s experience the same measure.

Cameron, P., Playfair, W. L., Wellum, S. The longevity of homosexuals. Omega, 1994, 29, 249 272.
Holt S. Ending the cycle of domestic violence. Gay Lesbian Times, 9126196, p. 39.
Sorenson, J, et al.. Amer I Public Health. 1996, 86, 3540.
Ellis, D. Violence Victims, 1989, 4, 235-255.
Gardner, R. Method of conflict resolution correlates af physical aggression victimization in heterosezual, lesbian, gay male couples. Unpub Doc Dis, U Georgia, 1988.
Waterman, C.K, et al. J Sel Research 1989, 26, 118 124.
Lockhart, L.L., et al. I Interpersonal Violence, 1994, 9, 469492.
Coleman, V. Violence in lesbian couples: a between groups comparison. Unpub Doc Dis, CA Sch Prof Psych:LA, 1990.
Merrill, G. Press release from National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, October 22, 1996 from San Francisco various inteniews in November, 1996 with senior author Memll, Jem Lynn Fields in Chicago, Bea Hanson in New York

Now, I know you're going to paint Cameron as a gay hater.. Well that might be true it might not, but in all the "rebuttals" I've seen of his work, I am yet to see them actually rebut his conclusions based on his research. Cameron is hated by the left, and the gay movement in America. It surprises me not that an vicious campaign is out to discredit his work.

Hey look, it's Paul Cameron and crew. HINT: using Cameron is an automatic fail. Totally discredited. One example: Critique of "Obituary Study" by the Paul Cameron Group

Cameron, Playfair, and Wellum (1994) counted obituaries in various gay community publications and claimed to be able to use them to calculate the average life expectancy for homosexuals.

Their conclusion – that homosexual men and women have a shorter life span than heterosexual men and women – provides a textbook example of the perils of using data from a convenience sample to generalize to an entire population.

The problem is not that Cameron is a gay hater, the problem is Cameron is an idiot and does not know how to research, and does not hesitate to lie.

http://www.soc.iastate.edu/soc522a/PDF readings/Stacey.pdf
See above link.

Old data from when gays where more in the closet. By the way, Judith Stacy has complained about the misuse of her research, with people claiming it showed that gays where not as good a parents as straits, when she says it shows no such thing(YouTube - Dr. Judith Stacey on James Dobson's Distortions

Are they, why? what makes them a "joke".. Per se..

Conversion therapy. Totally discredited. NARTH has tried to get homosexuality classified as a disorder, which it clearly is not.

Not so, the "Netherlands" study of studies says otherwise, moreover, am I to believe that you seem to care so much about this issue that you are incapable of making the leap in, and with your own observations of gay culture? Ya know, it isn't at all, or not primarily all hugs and kisses ya know. You know the gay life seen in the MSM, and pop culture.. No, no, there is a whole other world to the gay lifestyle you're missing.

Ah, but this only goes so far, and cherry picks. Did you read the entire study. Remember that some form of accepted homosexual union has been available in Holland since 1989. In any regard, let's turn the dial. Why don't you provide proof that directly refutes my claim that homosexual marriages last on average 1.5 years. I can't find any, so all I have to go on is this data. You rebuttal link is from a site where the author is clearly pro gay, and provides no direct refutation of the conclusion from the sample, only what he thinks the sample should be to form their conclusions. Well, if he feels that way, why doesn't he do his own research on the matter?

I did in fact read the whole study. First and foremost, do you realize it is not a study of gay marriage, but a study of AIDS? Next, do you know that the study is of people under the age of 30(hard to have long term relationships when you are young)? Did you know that two groups where selected to the exclusion of others in the first part of the study? Those two groups: promiscuous gays and gays with AIDS. So what kind of results do you think you are going to get if you only look at promiscuous people under the age of 30....

No we don't. It's been a while since I've argued this matter with such intensity. A long time actually, and some of my dates, and even statistical data may have been slightly off, but the premise is true regardless. At least I think it is.

Whew, ok this is a long post, so I'm going to stop here for now, unless in the time it has teken me to write this up, someone else has chimed in..

Tim-

No, the premise is entirely wrong. It's a recurring problem with gay research. It's like the research that showed gays had more emotional problems that straits. The problem was, they based in on gays who where seeking mental help...hello....

Time and again, the problem with gay research is in how the data is gathered and analyzed. In a recent discussion on gay marriage, some one made the claim about gays and pedophilia, using once again Cameron(surprise!). The problem was that Cameron was measuring same sex molestation as homosexual molestation, which it it now. Pedophiles are not really gay or strait, they are primarily attracted to youths of either gender. In fact, research of men in prison for pedophilia showed that out of ~150 people, not one was primarily homosexual. Most where either uninterested in sex with either gender of adult, or where exclusively strait.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 14, 2010

Redress said:
I type slower than you, so I got my replies in too. I did catch the Netherlands study that he tried to pass off though...check that link out...

I didn't have time to check out the study... I was at work and needing to get back to it. Obviously, the flaws in the study are significant enough to make it invalid in applying to what Hicup is attempting to apply it to. The larger issue, however, is that he is committing the correlation without causation logical fallacy. The entire basis of all of his "data" is part of this fallacy; therefore, all of it can be dismissed without much examination.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
Ok guys.. I see where this is going. I'll be back in a bit, I'm going to the store to grab a six pack, I have a feeling that this might take some time. Again for those on the sidelines please be careful when reading Redress, and especially CC's posts and retorts to my points. He's parsing words, setting up starwmen, and redefining things. Not that I had to point it out, but some might need a little coaching on how to spot how a liberal argues.

When I return I'll post links, and or studies. No doubt you'll post links and studies to back up your position. This much I expected and why i wanted to avoid it altogether, but you both seem to distrust my level of experience on this issue, so it must be done. CC claims he can point out the methodological imperfections of any of "those" studies, well, in part he's correct, any student of research science can do this, as the inherant nature of human studies is flawed to begin with. So no big surprise. In the end we will go back and forth, all claiming to be on the right side, and nothing will be accomplished. I wanted to avoid this level of committment as I haven't explored this site fully yet, and although it may be hard to believe, I have other political interests.

In the end the only thing that matters is this. My whole arguement towards gays, and or gay marriage revolves around one basic premise. That premise is that homosexuality is not in-born, had very little if anything to do with gene(s), and is something that, although not influential enough to affect every unsuspecting mind, enough that it can influence some. It is this some that totals to be about 4 - 6% of the human population. The other basic tenent is that of morality. There are two kinds, the first is individual morality, which is deep, and very personal, the other is the collective morality. The collective morality can loosely be defined as the State, or society. In democratic societies it is this collective morality that by definition cannot be wrong, it is always correct, for good, or for bad. I argue that as a state we have the responsibility to our own posterity. Our posterity is dependant on the family, and the states version of the most ideal family is that of a man and a woman, period!

Some here will agree with that sattement, some will not. I can live with either one. It is my right to form that opinion, and I have, with very careful thought.

Tim-

You make a basic mistake at the very beginning of your position that renders everything that flows from it invalid. You fail to recognize that sexual orientation encompasses both homosexuality and heterosexuality. What applies to one applies to the other. Because you fail to recognize this simple fact, everything that follows is inaccurate.

Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Outer space potato man

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Goddess of Bacon

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Goddess of Bacon

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo