Page 36 of 43 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 429

Thread: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

  1. #351
    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

    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-

  2. #352
    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 CaptainCourtesy View Post
    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-

  3. #353
    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 CaptainCourtesy View Post
    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-

  4. #354
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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, [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?
    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.
    Proof with links.

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




    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
    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"..
    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.
    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.
    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!
    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.
    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.
    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!~
    Good. We agree.

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

  5. #355
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.
    "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"

  6. #356
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.
    Last edited by CaptainCourtesy; 07-14-10 at 04:26 AM.
    "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"

  7. #357
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.
    "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"

  8. #358
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-10 @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    great. yea, lets let them marry each other, then maybe they can start marrying ducks while they're at it.
    Last edited by TheGreatOne; 07-14-10 at 05:02 AM. Reason: sorry

  9. #359
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreatOne View Post
    great. yea, lets let the queers marry each other, then maybe they can start marrying ducks while they're at it.
    Moderator's Warning:
    Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled UnconstitutionalThis 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.
    "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. #360
    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

    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-

Page 36 of 43 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... 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
  •