Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

Redress -

Evolution does not have a "goal

Quite right, this I know, it came out wrong. It wasn't how I meant it to sound when I was thinking it. Humanity however is another topic. It would depend on how one defines humanity, but IMO there is a conscious desire to procreate; not necessarily specific as an expression of humanity, but conscious none the less.

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

Legislate is to make into law, and regulate is to closely define said law. To regulate a lawful act is to put restrictions on the act, and provide for a penalty if the regulation isn't adhered to. However, endorsement is an extension in the full context in which I used it. Any meaningful law requires the endorsement of the people.

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.

Right, of course, so what's your point? So why then do gay men have a much higher incidence of STD's? Of course "orientation" matters.

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.

Ok, surely it must have an influence, all I'm saying is that it isn't always, or exclusively about the torment that others place upon you. Not all gay people kill themselves because their neighbor called them a fag.

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

From your link:

An accurate estimate of the life span of gay men and lesbians would have to count such people. By restricting their analysis to obituaries in gay newspapers, however, the Cameron group systematically excluded them from the sample.

Nice.. Now what does this really mean? Cameron claims that based off "his" sample, he concludes that the avg lifespan of a homosexual is X amount. The author is correct, and I agree, it probably isn't a great sample, however, it doesn't necessarily make Cameron wrong in his conclusions either.

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.

That might be true, however, can you provide proof he lies?

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

Oh come now.. Hehe.. Did you read the study? The fact that Stacey is backtracking is not unusual. The God damn study is ALL about the results of homosexual parenting vs. heterosexual parenting. Are you saying that the study is something other than what it is? This is why to the right, this is the perfect study, and source to use against the left. Ms. Stacey has no axe to grind, yet her results are very damaging to the gay parenting lobby.

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

Really? By whom exactly? I will be the first to say that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, especially if it's Pavlov's dog, but discredited by whom is what you have to ask yourself. Is getting off alcoholism discredited because a few jump back off the wagon. Please.

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....

As stated, it's all we have to go on. I'll repeat my challenge: Can you directly refute the claim?

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....

But what of the hetero's that needed mental help? To get an average, surely they sampled "straits"?

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

Hmm.. "Primarily homosexual", what does that mean? Also, using the measure of a homosexual act, is not the act of sex between a male youth by a male adult not still homosexual> If it isn't, then what is it? What about females?

Let me guess, it's about power right? (Waiting for that study that you folks usually post) I'll save you the time. Don't bother with the APA study, it is meaningless, and provides that the reader make huge leaps in logic. Why would the orientation of the offender, towards the victims sex, now suddenly become meaningless? So they are attracted to youth... Hmm, wait that doesn't work.. Ok, I'm all ears, please make the argument in your defense. I think I know why - it would be harmful to the gay movement if such a revelation made the mainstream, maybe that's why?

Tim-

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.

Why? I am not making a causation argument. To do so, would be to imply secret knowledge that has evaded science thus far? You're the one claiming my opinions are based on anything other than direct correlation, and observation. Why are you continuing to do this? Do you not understand what I am saying, or why?

Tim-

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.

Sexual "orientation" is merely a means to measure the value society might place on the two competing "orientations". In the context in which I am using it (Thought it was clear but apparently not to you) homosexuality is inherently less valuable to society than heterosexuality.

Tim-

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
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 -

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 all of this is irrelevant. Guess what? Homosexuals can procreate as long as the equipment works. There goes your entire position. Sexual orientation is a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions. Procreation is the act of begetting and/or conceiving offspring. One is a pattern of attractions. The other is an action. Two completely different concepts. LEARN DEFINITIONS. So... at the very beginning of your position, your position fails.

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?

Urinating. That required all of 3 seconds to invalidate THAT point of yours. Next...

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?

Neither. It was an act of law. It made something illegal. It did not say something was "bad". It made it illegal. Placing value judgements, which is what you are doing, is altering definitions, and committing the appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

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)

All you are doing is equivocating definitions, here. Old tactic. Easy to discover. Easy to dispel. Please try to learn definitions.

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?

What I'm saying is that you do not get to redefine words and concepts. These things are static. Just because the reality of their definitions destroy your position has no bearing on the actuality of their definitions. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations. Heterosexual BEHAVIOR equates to procreation. One of ANY sexual orientation can procreate. Very simple biology that you seem to have forgotten.

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?[/quote[

You did present them that way. Do you make a habit of presenting all of your positions in logical fallacy format? If so, let me know now. Make my job even easier than it currently is.

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.

Click to expand...

Proof with links.

A gay man has a 1 in 4 chance of contracting HIV from having sex with other gay men, period!

Click to expand...

You forgot part of your sentence. Here, I'll fix it for you:

A gay man has a 1 in 4 chance of contracting HIV from having sex with other gay men, period...IF he practices unsafe sex. If he does not, he has a near zero chance, statistically, of contracting HIV from other gay men.

Click to expand...

There. Much more accurate.

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.

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

Click to expand...

Much more than those.

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"..

Click to expand...

Conclusion: Ultimately my claim stands. Now, I don't want to get into a study war with you, but I have no problem doing so. Done it many times. My opponents have been vanquished and I'm still here. With my experience in debating this issue, I have concluded that, based on all of the evidence, I am correct, and anyone who depends on nothing but their opinion... which is what you are doing, has no leg to stand on in this debate. Now, I am certain that I am correct about this and you are wrong. And the evidence and defining of terms supports me and not you.

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.

Click to expand...

The data IS hard to figure out. All of the sources I've seen... mostly legal/divorce websites. What I have discovered from the US census is that nearly 60% of all marriages end prior to the 10th wedding anniversary. My number might be a little low, but your number is certainly way high.

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.

Click to expand...

Nor is there one that shows that heterosexuality IS cause by physiological and/or biological means. And remember... I am referring to the sexual orientation. So, we are back to your original inaccurate point. Again.

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

Click to expand...

Good. You concede the point. And btw, do you want your kids to watch a woman performing oral sex on a man? Or having intercourse? Or is that OK with you?

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.

Click to expand...

You didn't hurt my feelings. Did I hurt yours? I could get into a discussion about how the conservative mind works and how it debates. I've done so before. It doesn't turn out pretty for extreme conservatives.

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

Click to expand...

Confidence in that the facts are on my side always makes me feel full of myself. Like now.

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

Click to expand...

Good. We agree.

Can I ask the members here if you do this all the time? Is this, claiming victory, something you do often?

Click to expand...

Of course I do... when I'm right. Which I am.

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!

Click to expand...

And yet you provide no counter, no evidence. I thought you knew how to debate this topic. In debate, you produce evidence. I did. You didn't. I wonder what that means?

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

Click to expand...

When a site has this as these fundemental values:

Recognizes that good medical science cannot exist in a moral vacuum and pledges to promote such science.
Recognizes the fundamental mother-father family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for the development and nurturing of children and pledges to promote this unit.
Recognizes the unique value of every human life from the time of conception to natural death and pledges to promote research and clinical practice that provides for the healthiest outcome of the child from conception to adulthood.
Recognizes the essential role parents play in encouraging and correcting the child and pledges to protect and promote this role.
Recognizes the physical and emotional benefits of sexual abstinence until marriage and pledges to promote this behavior as the ideal for adolescence.

Click to expand...

It contradicts this... also one of their values:

Recognizes that there are absolutes and scientific truths that transcend relative social considerations of the day.

Click to expand...

Science is valueless. It is just information. The sites values present that any information it presents will be presented through those values' blinders. Anything it presents is then biased. If information is presented that contradicts those values, it will not present it.

You should know better than to present such invalid information in debate.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
Sexual "orientation" is merely a means to measure the value society might place on the two competing "orientations". In the context in which I am using it (Thought it was clear but apparently not to you) homosexuality is inherently less valuable to society than heterosexuality.

Tim-

Sexual orientation is defined precisely as I stated. If you want to go with "valuing" one over the other, you are entering the realm of opinion, not facts. From a factual standpoint, there is nothing inherently more valuable in regards to either sexual ORIENTATION. Offer proof to the contrary.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 14, 2010

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

Nope. Too easy to pass up.

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

Yup. Re-read your sentence. The very action of BEING homosexual is harmful... this is inaccurate. BEING, being the inaccurate word.

You say -

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.

Of course you have an ulterior motive. And you are really bad at hiding it. Your above statement is obviously what you meant and it is completely inaccurate. What I said IS. There is a difference between BEING and ACTION. I could be a drug addict. If I do not act on that, there is nothing wrong with me being a drug addict. For more information, read anything on AA or NA. BEING vs. ACTION. Do you understand the difference, now? Or are you going to continue to try twist sentences. You're REAL bad at it, and I'm catching you every time.

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

No, that's completely true.

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

I am. You're making this so easy. I suspect that you might be a pro-GMer trying to post as a really bad anti-GMer. Btw, it is laughable to use Cameron as source. All of his research has been refuted. He was thrown out of the APA for falsifying data, misrepresenting information, misusing and misquoting sources... all relating to his research regarding homosexuality. Just by using him, you demonstrate that your information is false, and your position is invalid. Cameron is despised by any valid researcher. You also understand that when research is methodologically flawed, no one has to refute the results. If the research is methodologically flawed... as Cameron's is, the results are automatically invalid.

Now... do you have anything factual to present? Thus far, for all your bluster, I've all I've seen is the following:
1) Lack of understanding of the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
2) Claims with no evidence, either factual or logical.
3) Opinions being falsely presented as facts.
4) Equivocation or outright misrepresentation of definitions.
5) Using researchers who have produced evidence by falsifying data.
6) Overall lack of understand of the issue.

You must some sort of newbie to the GM debate. You've hit all the classic anti-GM points... all the ones easily refuted. Only thing you haven't done... though you tried and backed off, is claiming that homosexuality is a disorder. If you did that, you'd be the perfect characticture of the anti-GM drone... one who just posts information that he has read supporting his position, rather than the body of work on the issue.

And I thought I might actually have a challenge, here.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
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-

When you start with an incorrect definition, everything that flows from that inaccuracy is invalid. If you are not going to debate honestly, by using accurate definitions of words, I'm not sure why you bother to debate the issue, other than to falsely present your opinions as facts.

TheGreatOne · Jul 14, 2010

great. yea, lets let them marry each other, then maybe they can start marrying ducks while they're at it.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 14, 2010

TheGreatOne said:
great. yea, lets let the queers marry each other, then maybe they can start marrying ducks while they're at it.

Moderator's Warning:

This will be your one warning. This is considered a rule 18, hate speech violation. Do it again, and you will find that you receive significant consequences.

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

And all of this is irrelevant. Guess what? Homosexuals can procreate as long as the equipment works.

They can, really, exactly how does that work, sunshine?

There goes your entire position

Wow, there you go again silly.

Sexual orientation is a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions. Procreation is the act of begetting and/or conceiving offspring. One is a pattern of attractions. The other is an action. Two completely different concepts. LEARN DEFINITIONS

Dude, come on now? First off, sexual and orientation are two separate meanings. "Sexual orientation" is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions. An "orientation" describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain. That said, it's important to recognize that the gay movement only recognizes four sexual orientations? Why is this? Why do you suspect it is CC? One can be sexually oriented with someone of the same sex, and yet have no feelings of emotion, or romance, what would we call it now? I could just well as easily say that procreation is the emotional, romantic, and or sexual result of heterosexuality. Do you see your error in reasoning?

Urinating. That required all of 3 seconds to invalidate THAT point of yours. Next...

But girls pee too. It comes out very much the same way, with only one difference, theirs is "usually" shorter in length? Now what Mr. smarty pants?

Neither. It was an act of law. It made something illegal. It did not say something was "bad". It made it illegal. Placing value judgements, which is what you are doing, is altering definitions, and committing the appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

Hehe.. So if it's not "bad" why is it illegal? Are you for real?

All you are doing is equivocating definitions, here. Old tactic. Easy to discover. Easy to dispel. Please try to learn definitions

I'll take it under advisement.

What I'm saying is that you do not get to redefine words and concepts. These things are static. Just because the reality of their definitions destroy your position has no bearing on the actuality of their definitions. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations. Heterosexual BEHAVIOR equates to procreation. One of ANY sexual orientation can procreate. Very simple biology that you seem to have forgotten

Words and meanings are static hmm..? Sure they are, tell that to congress or the supreme Court, or your average philosopher. Spare me the ignorance. One of ANY sexual orientation can procreate eh? Sure, just not with each other. Kinda ruins the whole concept doesn't it? Needless to say, homosexual behavior does not equate to procreation, and as such, AND as stated does not meet the equal importance measure for society. I stand by my assertions. You may continue to distract if you wish, but please do try to form an actual argument.

The data IS hard to figure out. All of the sources I've seen... mostly legal/divorce websites. What I have discovered from the US census is that nearly 60% of all marriages end prior to the 10th wedding anniversary. My number might be a little low, but your number is certainly way high.

So your guess is better than my guess? Ok, I can live with that? Next..

Nor is there one that shows that heterosexuality IS cause by physiological and/or biological means. And remember... I am referring to the sexual orientation. So, we are back to your original inaccurate point. Again

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing now? Is it your position that you must now oppose every point I make? Are you really suggesting that we heterosexuals aren't biologically made up for the purpose of opposite sex, and be "oriented" in that direction? Really?

Good. You concede the point.

Do you drink RedBull or something?

And btw, do you want your kids to watch a woman performing oral sex on a man? Or having intercourse? Or is that OK with you?

Huh?

You didn't hurt my feelings. Did I hurt yours? I could get into a discussion about how the conservative mind works and how it debates. I've done so before. It doesn't turn out pretty for extreme conservatives

No, you couldn't possibly know how my mind works; evidenced by your incoherent none sense already posted thus far. But do try, that would be entertainment of the highest order.

Confidence in that the facts are on my side always makes me feel full of myself. Like now

Did I miss something? What facts?

And yet you provide no counter, no evidence. I thought you knew how to debate this topic. In debate, you produce evidence. I did. You didn't. I wonder what that means?

The "evidence" on either side is as compelling as one decides it must be, both for the one using it, and for the one reading it for the first time. Evidence is not facts. You appear to be a victim of what you claim I am; that is, defining the terms.

When a site has this as these fundemental values:

Recognizes that good medical science cannot exist in a moral vacuum and pledges to promote such science.
Recognizes the fundamental mother-father family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for the development and nurturing of children and pledges to promote this unit.
Recognizes the unique value of every human life from the time of conception to natural death and pledges to promote research and clinical practice that provides for the healthiest outcome of the child from conception to adulthood.
Recognizes the essential role parents play in encouraging and correcting the child and pledges to protect and promote this role.
Recognizes the physical and emotional benefits of sexual abstinence until marriage and pledges to promote this behavior as the ideal for adolescence.
It contradicts this... also one of their values:

Recognizes that there are absolutes and scientific truths that transcend relative social considerations of the day.
Science is valueless. It is just information. The sites values present that any information it presents will be presented through those values' blinders. Anything it presents is then biased. If information is presented that contradicts those values, it will not present it.

You should know better than to present such invalid information in debate.

Now who's making the assumptions and HUGE leaps in logic? Hehe, you're a lightweight bud, hate to break it to ya. Hopefully my teasing of you will bring you to a more disciplined approach, until then you're obvious to me. Maybe others too, I simply haven't had time to look around yet.

Yup. Re-read your sentence. The very action of BEING homosexual is harmful... this is inaccurate. BEING, being the inaccurate word

So, one cannot be "being" a homosexual then? LOL

Of course you have an ulterior motive. And you are really bad at hiding it. Your above statement is obviously what you meant and it is completely inaccurate. What I said IS. There is a difference between BEING and ACTION. I could be a drug addict. If I do not act on that, there is nothing wrong with me being a drug addict

Huh? How can you be a drug addict if you don't do drugs? You could say that you were a drug addict, but that's kinda different now isn't it? "Being" is present tense, not past tense silly boy.. Sheesh..

For more information, read anything on AA or NA. BEING vs. ACTION. Do you understand the difference, now? Or are you going to continue to try twist sentences. You're REAL bad at it, and I'm catching you every time

They're not meant to mean the same thing?? AAARRGGHHH!!! Are you serious? Is this guy messing with me?

I am. You're making this so easy. I suspect that you might be a pro-GMer trying to post as a really bad anti-GMer. Btw, it is laughable to use Cameron as source. All of his research has been refuted.

No it hasn't! Maybe by your measure, but not really now, is it? You think I'm a pro GM'er? What would give you this impression? Is that I protest too much? Are you really going to go down that road?

He was thrown out of the APA for falsifying data, misrepresenting information, misusing and misquoting sources... all relating to his research regarding homosexuality. Just by using him, you demonstrate that your information is false, and your position is invalid. Cameron is despised by any valid researcher

Um, not actually no. Now who's not doing their due diligence? Anyway, ok, I see why Cameron pisses you off so much, what about the others? Care to paint them in the same light? Stacey perhaps? Please do, I'm all ears tiger.

Now... do you have anything factual to present? Thus far, for all your bluster, I've all I've seen is the following:
1) Lack of understanding of the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
2) Claims with no evidence, either factual or logical.
3) Opinions being falsely presented as facts.
4) Equivocation or outright misrepresentation of definitions.
5) Using researchers who have produced evidence by falsifying data.
6) Overall lack of understand of the issue.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you? I only submit that none of my claims are factual in the true sense. I am NOT claiming they are, you are claiming that I am claiming they are. Not worthy of the time I've already spent with you, frankly. But I am new to the site so I thought it would be polite to entertain your none sense.

You must some sort of newbie to the GM debate. You've hit all the classic anti-GM points...

You claim them to be "classic" points. I am unaware of any "other" points on the issue? Care to enlighten me veteran on the issue? LOL

all the ones easily refuted.

In your mind only, and maybe that of a few like minded, but not really now..

Only thing you haven't done... though you tried and backed off, is claiming that homosexuality is a disorder. If you did that, you'd be the perfect characticture of the anti-GM drone... one who just posts information that he has read supporting his position, rather than the body of work on the issue

But, but, homosexuality is a disorder. What kind, is up for debate - but by "definition" using heterosexuality as the norm, it is disordered, isn't it? Isn't it a deviation? Wait, let's see what ya got sonny.. Ah never mind, you only argue by putting words in my mouth anyway. You claim fallacy where none exists. You don't understand logical fallacy. The fact that you misused it several times proves this point. Do you seriously believe I'll be dragged into a position whereby you get to tell me what I think? Building strawmen whenever it suits you?

Not likely..

Tim-

Redress · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
Legislate is to make into law, and regulate is to closely define said law. To regulate a lawful act is to put restrictions on the act, and provide for a penalty if the regulation isn't adhered to. However, endorsement is an extension in the full context in which I used it. Any meaningful law requires the endorsement of the people.

So a prohibition of murder requires the endorsement of murder? I don't think so.

Right, of course, so what's your point? So why then do gay men have a much higher incidence of STD's? Of course "orientation" matters.

Orientation does not matter, actions matter. A promiscuous strait person is at higher risk than a monogamous gay person for STDs.

[quoe]Ok, surely it must have an influence, all I'm saying is that it isn't always, or exclusively about the torment that others place upon you. Not all gay people kill themselves because their neighbor called them a fag.[/quote]

What gays have gone through in the 70's and 80's was much more than being called fags. We still see it today on this very board, where people state that gays are pedophiles and perverts doomed to hell. Thankfully, legally, things have gotten much better.

From your link:

Nice.. Now what does this really mean? Cameron claims that based off "his" sample, he concludes that the avg lifespan of a homosexual is X amount. The author is correct, and I agree, it probably isn't a great sample, however, it doesn't necessarily make Cameron wrong in his conclusions either.

It means Cameron's conclusions are of zero value. When you have flawed data, you cannot make accurate predictions.

That might be true, however, can you provide proof he lies?

http://www.freewebs.com/palmettoumoja/Paul%20Cameron.pdf

Common thread in Cameron "research", people whose research he quotes point out that is not what their research shows.

Cameron's claims hinge on the incorrect assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron's paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed. For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231).

However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The "54%" statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.

Oh come now.. Hehe.. Did you read the study? The fact that Stacey is backtracking is not unusual. The God damn study is ALL about the results of homosexual parenting vs. heterosexual parenting. Are you saying that the study is something other than what it is? This is why to the right, this is the perfect study, and source to use against the left. Ms. Stacey has no axe to grind, yet her results are very damaging to the gay parenting lobby.

Yes, as more information becomes available, any researcher will probably backtrack.

Really? By whom exactly? I will be the first to say that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, especially if it's Pavlov's dog, but discredited by whom is what you have to ask yourself. Is getting off alcoholism discredited because a few jump back off the wagon. Please.

Returning to homosexuality is just one of the problems. Those who undergo the "therapy" are self selected, which makes it hard to judge much. Remember my mentioning common problems with the research?

As stated, it's all we have to go on. I'll repeat my challenge: Can you directly refute the claim?

I have refuted the claim. It is flawed research based on poor sampling for the task, and taken from a paper on a different subject. it is meaningless. You would get similar results if the subjects had been strait AIDS victims with the same selection characteristics. I have no clue what the real numbers are, but they are nothing like what your source claims.

But what of the hetero's that needed mental help? To get an average, surely they sampled "straits"?

CC has better info on this.

Hmm.. "Primarily homosexual", what does that mean? Also, using the measure of a homosexual act, is not the act of sex between a male youth by a male adult not still homosexual> If it isn't, then what is it? What about females?

Let me guess, it's about power right? (Waiting for that study that you folks usually post) I'll save you the time. Don't bother with the APA study, it is meaningless, and provides that the reader make huge leaps in logic. Why would the orientation of the offender, towards the victims sex, now suddenly become meaningless? So they are attracted to youth... Hmm, wait that doesn't work.. Ok, I'm all ears, please make the argument in your defense. I think I know why - it would be harmful to the gay movement if such a revelation made the mainstream, maybe that's why?

Tim-

Primarily homosexual would be more attracted to men than women. Primarily heterosexual would be more attracted to women than men(assuming in both cases we are talking about men).

No, it's not about power. It's about being attracted to underage children. Pedophiles and hebephiles(attracted to pubescent children) primary attraction is to children, just as straits are primarily attracted to adults of the opposite sex, and gays are primarily attracted to adults of the same sex. Here is some starter reading: SpringerLink - Journal Article

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

Redress-

So a prohibition of murder requires the endorsement of murder? I don't think so.

No of course not? Huh?

It means Cameron's conclusions are of zero value. When you have flawed data, you cannot make accurate predictions.

Ok, for the sake of argument I'll stipulate to Cameron, but what of the others?

Returning to homosexuality is just one of the problems. Those who undergo the "therapy" are self selected, which makes it hard to judge much. Remember my mentioning common problems with the research?

Would you suggest going out and batting them on the head then?

I have refuted the claim. It is flawed research based on poor sampling for the task, and taken from a paper on a different subject. it is meaningless. You would get similar results if the subjects had been strait AIDS victims with the same selection characteristics. I have no clue what the real numbers are, but they are nothing like what your source claims.

How do you know? Again, Cameron is one source, I provided several?

No, it's not about power. It's about being attracted to underage children. Pedophiles and hebephiles(attracted to pubescent children) primary attraction is to children, just as straits are primarily attracted to adults of the opposite sex, and gays are primarily attracted to adults of the same sex. Here is some starter reading: SpringerLink - Journal Article

I don't need any "starter" reading. I've read it all, that's exactly why I challenged you on it. The point being that you can't make the claim with a straight face. I ask again, why does the sex of the victim make no difference? You have no answer, nor does the gay lobby, that's why they spout this APA crap all over the web. If I willingly have sex with another male, what am I? To answer that I am a heterosexual male (Not a gay plant as CC suggests) who happened to have a homosexual experience would be laughable wouldn't it? If I have consensual sex with another man, and I am orienting myself, even if briefly towards homosexuality, do I not have a homosexual orientation? Or maybe bi-sexual? What if I prefer one over the other, but engage in both? The point is that the very action has to be included in the definition of what constitutes homosexuality, whereas, diverting from heterosexuality, specifically invalidates my claim to the be a heterosexual; doesn't it?

Tim-

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
They can, really, exactly how does that work, sunshine?

Wow. You don't know how sexual reproduction works? Well, the penis goes in the vagina. After frictional stimulation, the penis ejaculates sperm. If the woman is ovulating, and sperm reaches the ovum, it is fertilized and an embryo forms. Anyone, gay or straight, with workable equipment can do it.

There. Now, not only have I educated you on the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, but I have also given you a quick lesson on sexual reproduction. Glad I could help.

Wow, there you go again silly.

And still your position sinks like lead in the water.

Dude, come on now? First off, sexual and orientation are two separate meanings. "Sexual orientation" is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions. An "orientation" describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain. That said, it's important to recognize that the gay movement only recognizes four sexual orientations? Why is this? Why do you suspect it is CC? One can be sexually oriented with someone of the same sex, and yet have no feelings of emotion, or romance, what would we call it now? I could just well as easily say that procreation is the emotional, romantic, and or sexual result of heterosexuality. Do you see your error in reasoning?

No error in my reasoning. All you are doing is parsing and being dishonest about definitions because you position is founded on that dishonesty. A definition is a definition. Sexual orientation is how I defined it, as is procreation. I know that you don't like that, but nothing you say above changes those facts. The error in reasoning is all yours. Please learn definitions.

But girls pee too. It comes out very much the same way, with only one difference, theirs is "usually" shorter in length? Now what Mr. smarty pants?

Irrelevant to your question. You asked what the penis could be used for. I answered. Are you saying that the penis is NOT used for urinating?

Do you see how easy you make this?

Hehe.. So if it's not "bad" why is it illegal? Are you for real?

Value judgements. That seems to be all you have. When alcohol was illegal was it bad... and then when it became illegal, did it magically become good? What is bad to one is good to another. Value judgements demonstrate no evidence. It is amazing that you do not understand this simple concept.

I'll take it under advisement.

You're still doing it, though.

Words and meanings are static hmm..? Sure they are, tell that to congress or the supreme Court, or your average philosopher.

Words and their meanings are static IN CONTEXT. They can mean other things in other contexts. Watch. Murder is illegal. Look at that murder of crows. Different meanings IN CONTEXT.

Spare me the ignorance.

You seem to be spewing a lot of it around here.

One of ANY sexual orientation can procreate eh? Sure, just not with each other. Kinda ruins the whole concept doesn't it?

Irrelevant. What it demonstrates is that procreation is NOT dependent on sexual orientation. Kinda ruins your whole position, doesn't it.

Needless to say, homosexual behavior does not equate to procreation, and as such, AND as stated does not meet the equal importance measure for society. I stand by my assertions. You may continue to distract if you wish, but please do try to form an actual argument.

You base your position on a false premise... as is your MO. Your idea of what is important to society is YOUR opinion. You are entitled to it. However, it is but YOUR OPINION. That and a quarter is worth... a quarter. Please present an actual argument, not just a personal opinion, so I can respond.

So your guess is better than my guess? Ok, I can live with that? Next..

Good. I'm glad you agree.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing now? Is it your position that you must now oppose every point I make? Are you really suggesting that we heterosexuals aren't biologically made up for the purpose of opposite sex, and be "oriented" in that direction? Really?

You are arguing that there is a physiological/biological/genetic causation to heterosexuality. I am requesting that you show some documented proof of this. The location of the genetic coding for heterosexuality would suffice.

And the fact that some folks are oriented towards homosexuality already shows that your position is faulty. That is why the issue is not what causes homosexuality or heterosexuality, but what causes sexual orientation. As I have repeatedly said to you.

Do you drink RedBull or something?

No. I am curious as to what you are drinking.

Huh?

Try to keep up. You committed an appeal to emotion logical fallacy by saying that "Ah, well, fetish this, fetish that, who cares. Just not in front of my kids on my watch!" I then demonstrated how silly your comment was by making the comment that I did. Either you missed it, or you missed it intentionally.

No, you couldn't possibly know how my mind works; evidenced by your incoherent none sense already posted thus far. But do try, that would be entertainment of the highest order.

Based on the complete ignorance of your posting, so far, figuring out how your mind works would require little or no effort. You have already demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic definitions and concepts. Figuring you out has been rather simple.

Did I miss something? What facts?

Those things that I have presented and you have not. I understand why you would not recognize them.

The "evidence" on either side is as compelling as one decides it must be, both for the one using it, and for the one reading it for the first time. Evidence is not facts. You appear to be a victim of what you claim I am; that is, defining the terms.

Still not understanding definitions. Here is the definition for evidence:

ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Evidence=proof. For this debate, it is equivalent to what I have provided and you have not.

Now who's making the assumptions and HUGE leaps in logic? Hehe, you're a lightweight bud, hate to break it to ya. Hopefully my teasing of you will bring you to a more disciplined approach, until then you're obvious to me. Maybe others too, I simply haven't had time to look around yet.

Poor fella. Can't refute what I said, so all you have are ad homs. I know... it must really suck for you to be getting destroyed as badly as you are. I mean, I just completely invalidated the site you posted by showing that they contradicted themselves. Do you notice that each time I prove your position invalid, you have no debatable response? Very telling that you've got nothing.

So, one cannot be "being" a homosexual then? LOL

So now you are having trouble communicating. Try again. I know you can do it.

Huh? How can you be a drug addict if you don't do drugs? You could say that you were a drug addict, but that's kinda different now isn't it? "Being" is present tense, not past tense silly boy.. Sheesh..

Wow. So you know nothing about drug addiction and the concepts of recovery. A drug addict is ALWAYS a drug addict, even if they are not using.

They're not meant to mean the same thing?? AAARRGGHHH!!! Are you serious? Is this guy messing with me?

No, they do not mean the same thing. I can be a drug addict and not use drugs. Means I am in recovery. I can be heterosexual and not have heterosexual sex. Do you understand the difference between an action and a state of being, yet?

No it hasn't! Maybe by your measure, but not really now, is it? You think I'm a pro GM'er? What would give you this impression? Is that I protest too much? Are you really going to go down that road?

You're hitting all the classic anti-GM positions in a very stereotypical and poorly debated way. Perhaps you're not. Perhaps you're just not so good at this.

Um, not actually no. Now who's not doing their due diligence?

I read plenty on Cameron. Everything I said was accurate.

Anyway, ok, I see why Cameron pisses you off so much, what about the others? Care to paint them in the same light? Stacey perhaps? Please do, I'm all ears tiger.

I have no problem with Stacy. Redress posted the video of how Stacy is pissed off that her work is often misrepresented. I originally posted that video some time ago, and have posted quite a bit of Stacy's work. I have read her and Bilbartz's study in the original, unabridged form, so I am quite aware of what it says, doesn't say, and how anti-GM folks have tried to paint it into what it is not. As for the other folks, there were no links to their work, so I have no idea about them. I'll check them out over time.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you? I only submit that none of my claims are factual in the true sense. I am NOT claiming they are, you are claiming that I am claiming they are. Not worthy of the time I've already spent with you, frankly. But I am new to the site so I thought it would be polite to entertain your none sense.

Oh, so you are saying that nothing you are saying is factual... just your opinion. Interesting. You are presenting them as if they are facts, and are disputing facts as presented. Try this. Place a disclaimer at the beginning of your posts saying, "So everyone is aware, everything I am posting is just my opinion. None of it is evidence-based information." I'd imagine that these debates will go quite differently for you.

You claim them to be "classic" points. I am unaware of any "other" points on the issue? Care to enlighten me veteran on the issue? LOL

The classic points that I refer are the classic anti-GM points. All the things that you have said. You've presented nothing new.

In your mind only, and maybe that of a few like minded, but not really now..

In reality. Only in YOUR mind have they not been.

But, but, homosexuality is a disorder. What kind, is up for debate - but by "definition" using heterosexuality as the norm, it is disordered, isn't it?

See, you're doing it again. Equivocating definitions. A disorder, in which I am referring, and in which is a standard anti-GM tactic, is to claim that homosexuality is a MENTAL HEALTH disorder. This has been disproved by plenty of peer reviewed research, starting with the Hooker study. So, no, in what we are discussing, as is the standard anti-GM use of the term, it is not disordered.

Isn't it a deviation? Wait, let's see what ya got sonny..

Statistically? Yes. Every bit as much as people who are left-handed and people who play in the NFL.

Ah never mind, you only argue by putting words in my mouth anyway.

I don't need to put words in your mouth. They wouldn't fit since it seems like your foot resides there, permanently. Let me know when you understand definitions and their usage.

You claim fallacy where none exists. You don't understand logical fallacy. The fact that you misused it several times proves this point.

You do not understand logical fallacies since you keep committing them. And each time I point them out, all you do is ad hom. No refutation.. since I'm right, there can't be one. I know it must suck for you to get destroyed so completely. It happens. Do some research and feel free to try again.

Do you seriously believe I'll be dragged into a position whereby you get to tell me what I think? Building strawmen whenever it suits you?

Not likely..

Tim-

I have no intention of telling you what to think. I will, however, demonstrate each time when your thinking is flawed. Seems to me that will be a HUGE job.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
I don't need any "starter" reading. I've read it all, that's exactly why I challenged you on it. The point being that you can't make the claim with a straight face. I ask again, why does the sex of the victim make no difference? You have no answer, nor does the gay lobby, that's why they spout this APA crap all over the web. If I willingly have sex with another male, what am I? To answer that I am a heterosexual male (Not a gay plant as CC suggests) who happened to have a homosexual experience would be laughable wouldn't it? If I have consensual sex with another man, and I am orienting myself, even if briefly towards homosexuality, do I not have a homosexual orientation? Or maybe bi-sexual? What if I prefer one over the other, but engage in both? The point is that the very action has to be included in the definition of what constitutes homosexuality, whereas, diverting from heterosexuality, specifically invalidates my claim to the be a heterosexual; doesn't it?

Tim-

Actually, you need a TON of starter reading. Thus far, your ignorance on this topic is VAST. When debating a topic, it is usually good practice to understand the opposing viewpoint. Makes it easier to understand the issue as a whole, and make you better at supporting your position... or not supporting things that are not supportable. This, for example. Prison sexuality is an issue that has been studied often. In prison, sex is power, and most prison sexual relationships are characterized by a dominant and a submissive partner. The issue is power, similar to rape. Sexual orientation is irrelevant, as the scenario is entirely situational and of opportunity. Nearly all prisoners who engage in homosexual behavior in prison, identify as heterosexual, and once being released, do not return to homosexual behavior. Their orientation did not change, Their behavior, based on situation, did. This is a pretty well know concept in psychology. I have posted plenty of links to information about this in the past. I'll try to dig them up, but again, this is pretty well understood if one has actually read up on this entire issue.

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

No error in my reasoning. All you are doing is parsing and being dishonest about definitions because you position is founded on that dishonesty. A definition is a definition. Sexual orientation is how I defined it, as is procreation. I know that you don't like that, but nothing you say above changes those facts. The error in reasoning is all yours. Please learn definitions

No dishonesty on my part. I am incapable of being deliberately dishonest. Most conservatives I know personally have a great deal of integrity. They openly admit when they are wrong, and own up to mistakes. The same however cannot be said of the Liberals I have come in contact with. If, and when I make an error, I'll say so, until then you'll have to continue with your debating tactic of marginalizing my position.

Irrelevant to your question. You asked what the penis could be used for. I answered. Are you saying that the penis is NOT used for urinating?

Do you see how easy you make this?

You do realize I was being facetious, right? Now who's being dishonest?

When alcohol was illegal was it bad... and then when it became illegal, did it magically become good?

Politically speaking, the answer to both questions is, yes! That's the point I was making. You appear to miss the larger point in debates. Does someone really need to spell it out for you with volumes of letters and words when making a subtle point? The "point" I was making is that, the "collective" decided through representation that at one time alcohol was "bad", and then again it decided that alcohol was now "good". Does that about clear it up for you? The "point" is only to illustrate the larger point of individual, vs. collective morality, and that morality isn't tangible. Morality isn't some objective truth, it is rather more emotional, and requisitely present tense, based off the individual personal experience(s) of the object.

Words and their meanings are static IN CONTEXT

Dear Lord?

Irrelevant. What it demonstrates is that procreation is NOT dependent on sexual orientation. Kinda ruins your whole position, doesn't it

Correction - Procreation no longer requires sexual orientation. Advances in science, and medicine, do not change the fundamental understanding of the human design.

You base your position on a false premise... as is your MO. Your idea of what is important to society is YOUR opinion. You are entitled to it. However, it is but YOUR OPINION. That and a quarter is worth... a quarter. Please present an actual argument, not just a personal opinion, so I can respond.

Well if the issue was settled with "facts", what would be the need for a debate? It is "precisely" that the issue is lacking key facts, that make for such fodder on both sides of the aisle. It IS why we're even arguing right now. Are you serious that you consider my opinion not an argument? LOL

You are arguing that there is a physiological/biological/genetic causation to heterosexuality. I am requesting that you show some documented proof of this. The location of the genetic coding for heterosexuality would suffice.

I'm sure it would be nice.. In science we tend to infer that which is unknown, but we don't do this lightly. We base it on all available evidence, both anecdotal, and empirical. I'm making the "leap" that humans were designed for heterosexuality. If you decide that this isn't the case, then I'll let other make up their minds about you.

And the fact that some folks are oriented towards homosexuality already shows that your position is faulty. That is why the issue is not what causes homosexuality or heterosexuality, but what causes sexual orientation. As I have repeatedly said to you.

Sexual orientation, and the focus thereof, is a political ploy. The issue of what causes someone to be attracted to fat chicks, or skinny models is equally complex, just like what causes someone to like English beer, and not Canadian beer. "Taste" is the summation of the sexual orientation conundrum. They chose the complexity of that term precisely because it is purposefully ambiguous, and rhetorical. It's very similar to the use of the term, homophobe to those who disagree with the gay lobby. You choose to argue the vagueness of sexual orientation because you cannot lose the debate. No one can, on either side, because the issue is so complex and involves many factors that, all that ever happens is a disenfranchisement from a meeting of the minds. The issue of homosexuality, and gay rights is deliberately pluralistic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the best that can be hoped for is a consensus. At the moment, the consensus is against the idea of gay marriage. The consensus on what causes homosexuality is primarily set on a compromise of both environmental, and genetic factors. That's it, and that's all. I however, reject the idea that sexual orientation, or homosexuality is caused by gene(s), or more importantly that someone can be born gay, or that even someone has a predisposition to be gay.

appeal to emotion logical fallacy

First, I rarely if ever make a logical error. Secondly, you are clearly making the wrong assumptions of what constitutes what type of fallacy.

Figuring you out has been rather simple

You have no idea my good man!

I said - "Did I miss something? What facts?"

Those things that I have presented and you have not. I understand why you would not recognize them

Yeah, well, could you point out the facts again for me please? What have stated that is a fact? I'm not going to allow you to wiggle on this one.

Still not understanding definitions. Here is the definition for evidence:

ev•i•dence [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc•ing.
–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Evidence=proof. For this debate, it is equivalent to what I have provided and you have not.

hehe.. Boy, you're really are a robot? Evidence isn't always proof. Read your own definition silly man. As the premise becomes more complex, so too does the burden of proof = evidence. For instance, the premise that Mars once supported life is not a fact, but is highly likely based on the evidence thus far. The distinction is worth noting, and you would do well to listen up.

Wow. So you know nothing about drug addiction and the concepts of recovery. A drug addict is ALWAYS a drug addict, even if they are not using

Why? Why is a drug addict an addict if they are not partaking in the addiction?

No, they do not mean the same thing. I can be a drug addict and not use drugs. Means I am in recovery. I can be heterosexual and not have heterosexual sex. Do you understand the difference between an action and a state of being, yet?

Ok, well let me ask you this. What measure, or test would you use to confirm this hypothesis? See where I'm going there cowboy?

You're hitting all the classic anti-GM positions in a very stereotypical and poorly debated way. Perhaps you're not. Perhaps you're just not so good at this

I'm hitting them all, because that's all there is. Conversely you're hitting all the standard retorts. Well not you, but at least Redress is making an effort. All you're doing is attempting to marginalize my position by claiming phantom logical fallacies.

I read plenty on Cameron. Everything I said was accurate

No, correction, what someone else said you decided was accurate. You haven't said anything yet.

I have no problem with Stacy. Redress posted the video of how Stacy is pissed off that her work is often misrepresented. I originally posted that video some time ago, and have posted quite a bit of Stacy's work. I have read her and Bilbartz's study in the original, unabridged form, so I am quite aware of what it says, doesn't say, and how anti-GM folks have tried to paint it into what it is not.

No, no my good man. I won't let you wiggle. I asked if you read the study, and regardless of what Stacey is claiming now, what are your conclusions on that study. Or, what do you think of the conclusions Bilbarez, and Stacey came to in that specific study?

Oh, so you are saying that nothing you are saying is factual... just your opinion. Interesting. You are presenting them as if they are facts, and are disputing facts as presented. Try this. Place a disclaimer at the beginning of your posts saying, "So everyone is aware, everything I am posting is just my opinion. None of it is evidence-based information." I'd imagine that these debates will go quite differently for you.

But I have presented evidence of my opinion, I simply haven't posted evidence that confirms any one particular fact. Again, the distinction is worthy of noting. You would do well to remember the difference. I don't have to disclaim anything about my opinion. I post evidence that supports it, and it is you that must either agree with that evidence, or you must provide evidence that disputes it. Redress knows the drill, you apparently seem lost.

See, you're doing it again. Equivocating definitions. A disorder, in which I am referring, and in which is a standard anti-GM tactic, is to claim that homosexuality is a MENTAL HEALTH disorder. This has been disproved by plenty of peer reviewed research, starting with the Hooker study. So, no, in what we are discussing, as is the standard anti-GM use of the term, it is not disordered

The "Hooker" study did nothing to disprove that homosexuality is mental disorder. Want to try me on for size? Show me the "proof" that claims a fact?

Statistically? Yes. Every bit as much as people who are left-handed and people who play in the NFL

Hehe.. Ok, so homosexuality is a deviation. Good we can move on now. Wait one question. Is homosexual orientation also a deviation?

You do not understand logical fallacies since you keep committing them. And each time I point them out, all you do is ad hom. No refutation.. since I'm right, there can't be one. I know it must suck for you to get destroyed so completely. It happens. Do some research and feel free to try again

Well, perhaps others can chime in and offer their opinions on the matter. In the meantime (I can't believe I'm helping you) check out this link on what logic is, and their fallacies: Logical Fallacies

Now apply what you've learned on that site to anything I've stated in this entire thread, and come back to me when you're ready to apologize.

I have no intention of telling you what to think. I will, however, demonstrate each time when your thinking is flawed. Seems to me that will be a HUGE job

Well alrighty then..

Tim-

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

CC -

Sexual orientation is irrelevant, as the scenario is entirely situational and of opportunity.

Ah, the prison conundrum. I posted this quote from you, because you actually have something correct. The problem is in how you're interpreting it.

However, your "prison" retort has nothing to do with pedophilia, and answering my questions pinning you down on what constitutes a homosexual act, or orientation. I know it's unconfortable for you, and I apologize, but you did press after all.

Please note that by and large I will dismiss anything that comes from the APA, UNLESS of course it has any scientific merit. The APA is a political organization, and the science of psychology, and psychiatry doesn't meet the measure for any definition of science. Granted there are types of pathological, physiological, and biological areas of psychology that are worth entertaining, but unitl you can produce anything of value, I'm not goig to do the work for you.

Tim-

TheNextEra · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
Politically speaking, the answer to both questions is, yes! That's the point I was making. You appear to miss the larger point in debates. Does someone really need to spell it out for you with volumes of letters and words when making a subtle point? The "point" I was making is that, the "collective" decided through representation that at one time alcohol was "bad", and then again it decided that alcohol was now "good". Does that about clear it up for you?

Legal does not automatically make something good. It means that society has deemed it a legal choice for someone to make, not that they necessarily endorse it as good. It is legal to be lazy, that doesn't mean it is good. It is legal to overeat and get fat, that doesn't mean it is good. It is legal to smoke, that doesn't make it good.

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

By not regulating something, like being fat for instance, the collective morality is that it endorses the right, and privilidge to be fat without exclusion. In your argument you must use both qualifiers, legal, and illegal to justify your positon logically. It's the same as saying that smoking is legal, but regulated, meaning certain restrictions apply. A restriction in the context of law, is an illegal movement within the legal framework. It essentially means the same thing, or has the same effect of performing an illegal action. So, in sum, society endorses smoking, but places limits on that endorsement.

Tim-

Tucker Case · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
By not regulating something, like being fat for instance, the collective morality is that it endorses the right, and privilidge to be fat without exclusion. In your argument you must use both qualifiers, legal, and illegal to justify your positon logically. It's the same as saying that smoking is legal, but regulated, meaning certain restrictions apply. A restriction in the context of law, is an illegal movement within the legal framework. It essentially means the same thing, or has the same effect of performing an illegal action. So, in sum, society endorses smoking, but places limits on that endorsement.

Tim-

There's no regulation regarding me taking a giant steaming **** in my pants, but it is certainly frowned upon. I don't really think one can argue that it is endorsed by society.

Jetboogieman · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
By not regulating something, like being fat for instance, the collective morality is that it endorses the right, and privilidge to be fat without exclusion. In your argument you must use both qualifiers, legal, and illegal to justify your positon logically. It's the same as saying that smoking is legal, but regulated, meaning certain restrictions apply. A restriction in the context of law, is an illegal movement within the legal framework. It essentially means the same thing, or has the same effect of performing an illegal action. So, in sum, society endorses smoking, but places limits on that endorsement.

Tim-

Your logic is faulty, because you do not take into account that sometimes societies "morality" or the rescrictions they place on it, are wrong. And you can't exactly compare smoking to gay marriage, sorry, try again. One causes harm, the other causes no harm to anyone, except apperently some conservatives brains, that can't accept that people that aren't like them want the same rights.

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

What?

Ok, so should we regulate self wasting in ones pants? Probably not, eh? I certainly don't recommend it, but why shoud I otherwise care? An endorsement is when society makes the effort to either legalize (recognize) the right or privilidge, or to make the act illegal! (also recognize it) The former is an endorsement, the latter is an opposition. What's so difficult to understand about that?

tim-

Jetboogieman · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
By not regulating something, like being fat for instance, the collective morality is that it endorses the right, and privilidge to be fat without exclusion. In your argument you must use both qualifiers, legal, and illegal to justify your positon logically. It's the same as saying that smoking is legal, but regulated, meaning certain restrictions apply. A restriction in the context of law, is an illegal movement within the legal framework. It essentially means the same thing, or has the same effect of performing an illegal action. So, in sum, society endorses smoking, but places limits on that endorsement.

Tim-

Your logic is highly faulty, it doesn't take into account the fact that Societies "morality", or the restrictions they place on it, are wrong. And also you can't equate Gay Marriage to Smoking. Try again. One causes harm to a person and others through second hand smoke. The other doesn't, it only seems to hurt some conservatives feelings... for no reason other then they can't believe someone who isn't like them wants equal rights.

edit: sorry for Double Post. DP is being really glitchy this morning.

hazlnut · Jul 14, 2010

TurtleDude said:
a state can clearly refuse to recognize gay marriage just as NYC or Chicago does not recognize my Ohio issued CCW permit

That's a pretty thin analogy.

Tucker Case · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
What?

Ok, so should we regulate self wasting in ones pants? Probably not, eh? I certainly don't recommend it, but why shoud I otherwise care? An endorsement is when society makes the effort to either legalize (recognize) the right or privilidge, or to make the act illegal! (also recognize it) The former is an endorsement, the latter is an opposition. What's so difficult to understand about that?

tim-

False dichotomy. One can make the effort to de-illegalize something for reasons other than endorsing it.

On top of that, things are not "legalized". They are simply no longer illegalized.

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

Morality in the context of a collective society cannot be wrong. It is always correct, whether it is right or wrong is an individual distinction. Only when enough individuals agree that it is wrong, does it become wrong in the context of society. Do not confuse that, just because it is correct that society deems something right or wrong, it is right or wrong necessarily. That's not the argument here. Only that in a democratic society, the collective endorses, or rejects acts, or actions with the use of law. If it isn't legislated for, it is immaterial.

Tim-

Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Hicup

Hicup

Hicup

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

TheGreatOne

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Hicup

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Hicup

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Hicup

Hicup

TheNextEra

Hicup

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

Hicup

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

hazlnut

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Hicup