Page 35 of 43 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 429

Thread: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

  1. #341
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.







  2. #342
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,275
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    I'm reporting you for calling me bad names. You big meanie.






    "Liberal" is something to take pride in. It's not a bad name.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #343
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,275
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    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!
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #344
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    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.

  5. #345
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    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, [i]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
    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.
    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.
    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
    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.
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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.
    Hey thanks, man!

  6. #346
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    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/P...ngs/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-

  7. #347
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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-

  8. #348
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,275
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post

    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.


    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.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #349
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #350
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Page 35 of 43 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •