Page 37 of 43 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 429

Thread: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

  1. #361
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post

    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/palmettoumoj...%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
    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.

  2. #362
    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-
    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-
    Last edited by Hicup; 07-14-10 at 05:49 AM. Reason: Grammar

  3. #363
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

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

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.
    Last edited by CaptainCourtesy; 07-14-10 at 06:20 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"

  4. #364
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

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

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.
    "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. #365
    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

    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-

  6. #366
    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

    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-

  7. #367
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.

  8. #368
    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

    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-

  9. #369
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #370
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,273
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.

Page 37 of 43 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... 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
  •