Page 41 of 43 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 429

Thread: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

  1. #401
    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

    So there are actually no constraints being placed on homosexual marriage. Only constraints on the State's recognition of these marriages.

    That lack of recognition serves as an enrosement of heterosexual marriages.
    With you so far..

    Repealing that constraint on recognition does not validate anything. It simply retracts the endorsemnt of heterosexual marriages.

    That does not act as an endorsement of homosexual marriages, though. It merely serves as an endorsement neutral environment
    I don't agree, and here's why, it's only a small point but important in the overall scheme. I think in your scenario, the endorsement doesn't go neutral, but rather it becomes equal to both hetero, and homo marriage. It isn't neutral in the sense the endorsement is still there, but adding another player.

    To make an example, let's say two politicians, Politician A and Politician B, are running for an office.

    So lets say I decide to endorse Poltician A. By necessity, this requires me to reject politician B
    I'm with ya again..

    Now let's say the only thing I can officially do is reject something (i.e. pass legislation making something illegal). Thus, I have to reject politician B in order to endorse politician A.
    You lost me.. This is not analogous to your first example. You do not have to reject Politician B in order to endorse Politician A. What you are doing is endorsing Politician A, and at the same time rejecting politician B. They both have the same result, I'll grant you that, but the order in which its done is what's key. In this example, you must pick one, but by rejecting politician B, you do not necessarily endorse politician A. You endorse politician A, only if you choose him over politician B consciously, and in that order.

    Endorsement is the equal and opposite reaction to rejection of a dichotomy and vice versa
    I don't agree with that. Let's take a real world example. In 2008 I rejected Obama for President, however, I also did not endorse McCain. They both were rejected, but by having to choose the lesser of two evils, I chose McCain. I did not, nor do I ever endorse him. My choice was conscious, but it wasn't conscience.

    I'm back to an endorsement-neutral situation. Neither politician is endorsed nor rejected
    But that's not a dichotomy, it is rather the opposite. Neutral does not imply a dichotomy, in fact it the polar opposite. You claimed I made a false dichotomy, meaning essentially that I created a false dilemma where only two choices were available, when in fact there were more. In this scenario the one presenting the dichotomy is trying to create only two parts, where only one can be correct, -or- one is discredited, and the only other choice left is then deemed correct. I didn't do this. In essence, my basic argument concerning legal, and illegal is correct. if something is not illegal, it is deemed legal, not that it must be made somehow legal by any other standard, but that it isn't illegal. None of the parameters of my assertion overlap, nor are there any missing parts hidden away. By defining the premise, "legal-illegal", I went on to suggest that an endorsement is made when something that was illegal, and consequently made no longer illegal, is an endorsement by the collective. Conversely, when something that is legal, or not illegal is left unchallenged, it is also an endorsement.

    The key in deciphering the argument is in paying close attention to the guiding parameters. I don't think I made any error in logic, or in the dichotomy. But, as a reasonable person you seem to be, and will relinquish the floor to give you a chance to rebut.

    By the way, this argument really has no plce in this thread, and i wouldn't mind much if you wanted to move it and we can continue there.

    Tim-

  2. #402
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    The distinction between conduct, and orientation is important? Why, because on its own, a sexual orientation is completely harmless, and irrelevant - only when is it acted upon does it have consequences, and primarily those consequences concern public health issues. Society has the right and the obligation to regulate public health issues. As abhorrent as pedophilia is, as an orientation, it is harmless, very much for the same reasons as homosexuality is harmless. Why do we regulate the act of pedophilia? Because of the harm it brings on the victim. But how is this harm measured? It's measured, that, even though a act of pedophilia wouldn't necessarily cause distress to the victim, the very knowledge that the victim is incapable of rational thought, makes the crime a crime. We protect those that are incapable of protecting themselves, even from themselves. Likewise, without knowing the full implication, and causation of homosexual influence among adolescents, should we, and damn, don't we have the right to regulate it? Shouldn't we err on the side of caution, even if at the expense of the adult homosexual wishing to marry?
    The error you make is in automatically saying that having homosexual sex is wrong and/or harmful. "Wrong" is a matter of opinion. Some people say that having sex at all beyond actually trying to reproduce is wrong. There are plenty of other people who do not agree with them.

    And you have not proven that homosexuality or homosexual sex is harmful to society and/or the people involved. You have produced evidence that having unprotected sex and/or having sex with multiple partners can be harmful, however, this is true whether the person is heterosexual or homosexual. You have to show evidence that homosexuality itself causes the harm, not the actions of some in the group.

    Also, your "evidence" on mental issues and addiction problems has already been addressed. And I personally have a huge problem with people bringing up that these issues are so widespread throughout the homosexual community and that this is a big reason why we should not accept homosexuality as normal or equal to heterosexuality. The mental health and addiction problems of homosexuals mainly come from what they have to endure in their life, not who they are or who they are attracted to. Homosexuals face a great deal of stigma and lack of acceptance by society. I can only imagine how it would feel to be told that eventhough your relationship is legal, it can not be held at the same level as other relationships, because it isn't "normal" and/or some people find it immoral or just "icky".

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    I don't disagree with this view. Adults have the right to do what they want, or should be able too, however, I was asked why I oppose gay marriage. I oppose it for the specific reason that involves the sanctioning, and or institutionalizing the behavior by the state. We can parse words all day long about legal and illegal, but the fact of the matter is that, homosexuality is not illegal, homosexual marriage is. By repealing homosexual marriage constraints we invariably validate the behavior. Once done, the game is on. it WILL absolutely be introduced to public school children as a valid form of sexual expression, and in some circles even promoted, and encouraged. No conspiracy theory there, it's already happening. So, if one assumes the truth of premise to be true, then my conclusion is also true. The premise is that homosexuality can be catchy to adolescent children - for lack of a better term. Now if you believe, much like I suspect you do, that homosexuality is not catchy, then you must conclude that I am wrong. That's fine, I'm ok with it.
    You need to show how homosexuality is more "appealing" to teenagers than heterosexuality. Since you obviously believe that sexuality is a conscious choice, then why would homosexuality be more desirable than heterosexuality? Also, homosexuality is more accepted in other places, and this is not true. And homosexuality was accepted in other societies in the past, but they didn't see a huge amount of people deciding that they should only have sex with people of the same sex as themselves. Unless you have valid evidence of a society where this has happened.

    Now, obviously I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. I think that more teenagers may accept that they are gay or bisexual, but it really wouldn't be more teenagers "catching the gay" because technically they would already be that way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    In the US it is still a legal, affirmative defense to divorce, or annul a marriage because the other partner is unable to bear children.
    In the US, it is a legal defense to divorce if a couple claims irreconcilable differences. In this country, you really don't need any reason to get a divorce. Heck, my dad and mom have six children together, but my dad still got a divorce after 20 years of marriage.

    But, it is also a law in at least 4 states that in order for first cousins to get legally married, they cannot be able to procreate. The argument against same sex marriage based on marriage being endorsed by the government mainly for procreation falls completely dead due to this fact. It is impossible for the government to make a good argument that endorsing heterosexual marriages only is because they have the potential to procreate when they endorse marriages (federally and by every state, even if they don't allow the marriage to take place in their state) that are by law not allowed to be able to have children.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #403
    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

    Roguenuke -
    And you have not proven that homosexuality or homosexual sex is harmful to society and/or the people involved. You have produced evidence that having unprotected sex and/or having sex with multiple partners can be harmful, however, this is true whether the person is heterosexual or homosexual. You have to show evidence that homosexuality itself causes the harm, not the actions of some in the group
    This is why we impart broad generalities with statistics. Although not always accurate, they often time do end up providing correlations. Incidence, in a statistical population is important data. It leads us in the proper direction.

    Also, your "evidence" on mental issues and addiction problems has already been addressed. And I personally have a huge problem with people bringing up that these issues are so widespread throughout the homosexual community and that this is a big reason why we should not accept homosexuality as normal or equal to heterosexuality. The mental health and addiction problems of homosexuals mainly come from what they have to endure in their life, not who they are or who they are attracted to. Homosexuals face a great deal of stigma and lack of acceptance by society. I can only imagine how it would feel to be told that eventhough your relationship is legal, it can not be held at the same level as other relationships, because it isn't "normal" and/or some people find it immoral or just "icky".
    I already addressed it. Asked and answered judge..

    You need to show how homosexuality is more "appealing" to teenagers than heterosexuality. Since you obviously believe that sexuality is a conscious choice, then why would homosexuality be more desirable than heterosexuality?
    But I never said that it was more appealing?

    And homosexuality was accepted in other societies in the past, but they didn't see a huge amount of people deciding that they should only have sex with people of the same sex as themselves. Unless you have valid evidence of a society where this has happened.
    So? What does this prove? I never said homosexuality was 100% catchy?

    Now, obviously I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. I think that more teenagers may accept that they are gay or bisexual, but it really wouldn't be more teenagers "catching the gay" because technically they would already be that way
    Fair enough.. I can accept that, and I respect your opinion on the matter. You may well be right.

    In the US, it is a legal defense to divorce if a couple claims irreconcilable differences. In this country, you really don't need any reason to get a divorce. Heck, my dad and mom have six children together, but my dad still got a divorce after 20 years of marriage.
    Yes, but that wasn't the question I was answering. Annulment because of a lack of bearing children is "also" a valid claim for divorce, and is legally recognized.

    But, it is also a law in at least 4 states that in order for first cousins to get legally married, they cannot be able to procreate. The argument against same sex marriage based on marriage being endorsed by the government mainly for procreation falls completely dead due to this fact. It is impossible for the government to make a good argument that endorsing heterosexual marriages only is because they have the potential to procreate when they endorse marriages (federally and by every state, even if they don't allow the marriage to take place in their state) that are by law not allowed to be able to have children.
    I fail to see the significance of your analogy? They are not the same thing?

    Tim-

  4. #404
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    This is why we impart broad generalities with statistics. Although not always accurate, they often time do end up providing correlations. Incidence, in a statistical population is important data. It leads us in the proper direction.
    Failing to see that you are correlating the wrong things is not imparting "broad generalities". The correlation is unsafe sexual practices, not homosexuality itself. It is like saying more people who listen to country music die from being flung from a bull than those who listen to any other music, therefore country music listeners are all in danger of dying from being flung from a bull. A connection can easily be drawn between country music and dying from being flung from a bull, but it is not the country music that is causing people to die by bull, it is the unsafe practice of bullriding that some country music fans participate in. It is widely known that unsafe sexual practices are the main reason for the spread of AIDS. Homosexuals are no more likely to actually get AIDS from an infected partner than heterosexuals involved in the same unsafe sexual acts. Homosexuality does not cause the danger, unsafe sexual practices do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    I already addressed it. Asked and answered judge..
    Yes you did address this, however, you were not correct. But, I don't think I can add anything more to convince you that you are wrong than what I or someone else in this thread has already posted. So I'll drop this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    But I never said that it was more appealing?

    So? What does this prove? I never said homosexuality was 100% catchy?
    No, you said it is being taught to children/teenagers as acceptable, and promoted and encouraged. In order to promote something, the seller of the thing must show how the product/service is appealing, especially if it is believed that there is competition. In this instance, the only way to promote homosexuality is to show that it is more appealing or has advantages to heterosexuality. So the question is, what could make homosexuality more appealing than heterosexuailty, to teenagers?

    Homosexuality is not a communicable disease, nor is it a fad. Teenagers are not going to become homosexual because it grows in popularity. Now, more teenagers may start to support and/or accept homosexuality as normal, but they aren't going to do it because their friends are. Now some teenagers may experiment with homosexual acts, but even this really isn't any worse than experimenting with heterosexual acts, especially if they practice safe sex.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Yes, but that wasn't the question I was answering. Annulment because of a lack of bearing children is "also" a valid claim for divorce, and is legally recognized.
    What question do you think you are answering? I was covering reasons as to why marriage is not about procreation. This is a common argument of anti-GM people. You have even mentioned procreation somewhere in this thread, I believe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    I fail to see the significance of your analogy? They are not the same thing?
    That goes along with the argument that legal marriage is not about procreation. It really isn't an analogy, it is a fact.

    This thread is about DOMA being unconstitutional. DOMA discriminates based on gender, therefore the law must be substantially related to an important government interest. Many people against same sex marriage use the argument that the government's endorsement of opposite sex marriage is based on procreation. This can't possibly be completely true if the government recognizes these opposite sex marriages which, by law, cannot procreate.

    The government has never truly said why it endorses only opposite sex marriages and discriminates against same sex marriages. It will have to show how keeping a man from marrying another man or a woman from marrying another woman is important to a legitimate government interest in order to prove that DOMA is not unconstitutional.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #405
    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

    roguenuke -
    Failing to see that you are correlating the wrong things is not imparting "broad generalities". The correlation is unsafe sexual practices, not homosexuality itself. It is like saying more people who listen to country music die from being flung from a bull than those who listen to any other music, therefore country music listeners are all in danger of dying from being flung from a bull.
    No it's not, not at all. Where do you folks get this stuff from? The action of being a homosexual is unsafe, explicitly because of the nature of their actions. The correlation isn't in the unsafe sex aspect, but in the other factors in any statistical sample. One cannot sample only safe sex homosexuals, nor can one sample only safe sex heterosexuals. You must sample the broader scheme. That's all I was saying. In the broader scheme, incidence is important.

    No, you said it is being taught to children/teenagers as acceptable, and promoted and encouraged. In order to promote something, the seller of the thing must show how the product/service is appealing, especially if it is believed that there is competition. In this instance, the only way to promote homosexuality is to show that it is more appealing or has advantages to heterosexuality. So the question is, what could make homosexuality more appealing than heterosexuailty, to teenagers?
    Fashion!

    Homosexuality is not a communicable disease, nor is it a fad. Teenagers are not going to become homosexual because it grows in popularity.
    It appears to among females!

    What question do you think you are answering? I was covering reasons as to why marriage is not about procreation. This is a common argument of anti-GM people. You have even mentioned procreation somewhere in this thread, I believe.
    Marriage isn't exclusively about procreation, no, who said it was. But as far as the state is concerned, posterity is kind of important!

    That goes along with the argument that legal marriage is not about procreation. It really isn't an analogy, it is a fact.

    This thread is about DOMA being unconstitutional. DOMA discriminates based on gender, therefore the law must be substantially related to an important government interest. Many people against same sex marriage use the argument that the government's endorsement of opposite sex marriage is based on procreation. This can't possibly be completely true if the government recognizes these opposite sex marriages which, by law, cannot procreate.
    But why would ANY state care at all about marriage? Is it so they can divvy up the dough when it dissolves? Why wouldn't a society want to provide for the best environment for proliferation? By the way, DOMA doesn't discriminate against gender, it discriminates against sexual orientation! But I suspect you knew that already, and were just testing me?

    The government has never truly said why it endorses only opposite sex marriages and discriminates against same sex marriages. It will have to show how keeping a man from marrying another man or a woman from marrying another woman is important to a legitimate government interest in order to prove that DOMA is not unconstitutional.
    No, the party seeking retribution has the burden of proof.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  6. #406
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    No dishonesty on my part. I am incapable of being deliberately dishonest.
    Then it must be accidental. Because you are attempting to alter definitions... probably because your position has no standing with out doing so.

    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.
    And I found the exact opposite. Perhaps you have limited interaction with both groups.

    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.
    You have just proved yourself wrong. As a conservative, you claim that you would admit to an error. You have been called on several errors, mostly around your inaccurate usage of definitions and your inability to understand some of the simple concepts presented. You have not admitted your errors in these things, when they have been shown to you. Tell us... is this intentional, or accidental?

    You do realize I was being facetious, right? Now who's being dishonest?
    You do realize that you refused to respond to a point of yours that was thoroughly refuted. Now... where is your admission that you were wrong, again? I suppose, since I do not see it, it would be YOU who is being dishonest. Come on... you are making this far too easy. You either post dishonestly, or when shown to be in error, you refuse to engage. Very poor debating.



    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.
    You miss the point, AGAIN... as usual. I would agree that morality is relative. However, the answer to the question is NEITHER. In fact you illustrated that above, proving yourself incorrect. Since morality is relative, based off individual experiences, whether alcohol was good or bad, depends on the individual, not the group. A group makes laws. Morality is individual. So, alcohol's value, to the collective, did not change. Only it's status changed. Glad I could clear that up for you... using your own words.

    Dear Lord?
    You don't have to use the word "Dear". "Lord" will suffice.

    Correction - Procreation no longer requires sexual orientation. Advances in science, and medicine, do not change the fundamental understanding of the human design.
    Procreation never required sexual orientation. Prove that a homosexual cannot procreate, as long as all parts are working. Go ahead. I've already demonstrated how one can, so if you are such a good debater, refute me. Now, remember, desire and attraction have nothing to do with the action.

    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
    I've seen anti-GM folks argue the position, logically and with facts. You do not. You build your argument on a false premise... one that you have been completely unable to refute. Perhaps you should do some research on this site with some anti-GM folks to find what an actual valid argument is. Yours is not.

    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.
    So.. no evidence. I thought not. Your basic premise comes from a lack of understanding of basic concepts... design, sexual orientation vs. sexual behavior, action vs. a state of being. All of these things you have been unable to refute. This is why your position is so easy to destroy, and why you have been unable to counter any point I... or anyone else has made.


    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.
    Notice how you contradict yourself, and demonstrate that you reject evidence because it does not fit your agenda:
    The consensus on what causes homosexuality is primarily set on a compromise of both environmental, and genetic factors.
    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.
    This is why you lose so badly. You flat out admit that you reject evidence that YOU presented. This is about the worst debating I have ever seen.

    And as far as your argument against discussing sexual orientation, you can dismiss a concept all you want. You only do it because you cannot defend against it.

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

    You have no idea my good man!
    You don't think. You underestimate what I actually KNOW about you.

    I said - "Did I miss something? What facts?"
    And I pointed out... everything I have said and nothing you have. I think I was clear.

    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.
    Definitions of sexual orientation, sexual behavior, procreation, how they differ, information regarding body part usage... please try to keep up.

    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.
    Highly likely is not evidence. You should really pay attention to definitions and stop being dishonest about them.

    Why? Why is a drug addict an addict if they are not partaking in the addiction?
    Do you know anything about addiction? One who is addicted remains addicted. It's part of the disease. One who is addicted will re-establish those addictive behaviors if they begin using again. Again, the difference between a state of being and action. This is such basic psychology, I am amazed that I need to explain it.



    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?
    Someone who is attracted to women but chooses to be celibate. They are heterosexual, but they do not have heterosexual sex. Again, REAL basic stuff.

    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.
    You're hitting all the fallacies and standard talking points because that seem to be all you know. Marginalizing your position is quite simple. In actuality YOU are doing that yourself. I'm just pointing it out.



    No, correction, what someone else said you decided was accurate. You haven't said anything yet.
    Incorrect. I stated several things about Cameron that were accurate. Please read posts before responding.

    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?
    You are lying. Post exactly where you asked me if I read the Stacy and Bilbarz study and what I thought of it. You questioned me vaguely about Stacy. That's about it. If you want to know, I'll respond, but do not lie about what you request.

    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.
    All of the "evidence" of your opinion, I have shown to be either meaningless or false. Your "evidence" is so meager and full of holes, that simple definitions, basics in biology, and demonstrations of your logical fallacies are all that is needed. You are entitled to your opinions, but they are not evidence based. Their basis comes from nothing. They are just your opinion. Remember... I have already pointed out how you have decided to reject evidence.

    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?
    Absolutely did. Peer reviewed and accepted by all major psychological and medical organizations. If you disagree, DISPUTE it.

    Hehe.. Ok, so homosexuality is a deviation. Good we can move on now. Wait one question. Is homosexual orientation also a deviation?
    In as much as being left-handed and playing in the NFL is. Now remember... when/if you parse the definition, I'll crucify you... as I have already done repeatedly.



    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.
    That's one of the links I use, and used on your post to demonstrate each of your logical fallacies. You may now apologize for making them. I will accept as long as you stop doing it.
    "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. #407
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    CC -

    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-
    Again... you reject any evidence that contradicts your agenda. That is the debate tactic of a sure debate loser. I will present any evidence I so choose, You then have a choice of your own. Either refute it through demonstration of methodological flaws, evidence that counters it, or accept it. Anything else will demonstrate your inability to debate. So, there are your choices. If you want to dismiss information solely because it proves you wrong... which is what you tend to do, all you are showing is that your position is so weak it cannot stand up to scrutiny. Not going to fly around here,
    "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. #408
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    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-
    No. By not regulating something, like being fat for instance, the collective morality accepts it as being one of several choices. This is not an endorsement as defined. What the legal framework of regulating smoking means is, society accepts smoking as one of two options, but endorses NEITHER. Now, if you want to be dishonest about the definitions, you can, but all it proves is you are being dishonest about the definitions. Your argument, therefore, does not apply.

    You have lost again.
    "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"

  9. #409
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Ok, well I'm sure CC will come in here later, and claim another victory, but in all honesty I'd like to move on to other, more important issues of the day. I really don't know what else to say on the matter. I do feel strongly about my position, but not nearly enough to continue on with this whole thread ad infinty. When new evidence comes out, or someone says something compelling enough for me to bother, I'll reevaluate my stance, until then, I'll see you all in the other threads.

    I'm sure CC will dog me there as well, but it's ok. I've delt with his variety before.

    Cheers to all, and I hope I didn't strongly offend anyone with my views.


    Tim-
    Excellent. A concession. You gave us nothing, if not an entertaining group of meaningless posts that demonstrated the shortcomings of your position and debating tactics. Entertaining is about all I can say about it.
    "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. #410
    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

    You miss the point, AGAIN... as usual. I would agree that morality is relative. However, the answer to the question is NEITHER. In fact you illustrated that above, proving yourself incorrect. Since morality is relative, based off individual experiences, whether alcohol was good or bad, depends on the individual, not the group. A group makes laws. Morality is individual. So, alcohol's value, to the collective, did not change. Only it's status changed. Glad I could clear that up for you... using your own words
    Up until this point in your post, you had nothing to say, but here you say a lot! I claim that morality is both individual, and collective. A collective is simply a gathering of individuals. Now, read what you wrote, and tell me where your reasoning might be wrong? Dude seriously..

    Procreation never required sexual orientation. Prove that a homosexual cannot procreate, as long as all parts are working. Go ahead. I've already demonstrated how one can, so if you are such a good debater, refute me. Now, remember, desire and attraction have nothing to do with the action
    Hehehe... To procreate is to illicit consent. In other words, both parties must agree to this end. Now, yes a homosexual can procreate, but can you tell me what the difference is between a heterosxual consent, and that of a homosexual one? Oops.. red alert, red alert.. LOL You're funny dude!

    I've seen anti-GM folks argue the position, logically and with facts. You do not. You build your argument on a false premise... one that you have been completely unable to refute. Perhaps you should do some research on this site with some anti-GM folks to find what an actual valid argument is. Yours is not.
    These kinds of statements are becoming tiresome. SHOW ME THE MONEY sugar.

    So.. no evidence. I thought not. Your basic premise comes from a lack of understanding of basic concepts... design, sexual orientation vs. sexual behavior, action vs. a state of being. All of these things you have been unable to refute. This is why your position is so easy to destroy, and why you have been unable to counter any point I... or anyone else has made.
    SHOW me the money! LOL

    Notice how you contradict yourself, and demonstrate that you reject evidence because it does not fit your agenda:
    Nope, eeeeerrrr. I reject information that doesn't conform to a measure of validity!

    This is why you lose so badly. You flat out admit that you reject evidence that YOU presented. This is about the worst debating I have ever seen.

    And as far as your argument against discussing sexual orientation, you can dismiss a concept all you want. You only do it because you cannot defend against it.
    Eeeerrrr, wrong again.. Got anything else? LOL

    First, you CONSTANTLY make logical errors. Secondly, I nailed the fallacy perfectly
    SHOW me the money, or go away. How many times do I need to ask you to answer the challenge? You're a lightweight that underestimate an opponent. It's ok, I've done it before, but when I was really, really young and stupid.

    You don't think. You underestimate what I actually KNOW about you
    Yes, and this superior intuitive knowledge got you where you are in this thread. Being embarrassed by a newbie.. LOL

    And I pointed out... everything I have said and nothing you have. I think I was clear
    Yep, you were clearly ignorant!

    Definitions of sexual orientation, sexual behavior, procreation, how they differ, information regarding body part usage... please try to keep up.
    No, no, no my good man, not that easy. LOL Gawd if only you knew the big huge smile on my face right now, after realizing that I'm dealing with someone like you.

    Highly likely is not evidence. You should really pay attention to definitions and stop being dishonest about them
    You're confusing evidence as fact. OJ's glove didn't fit his hand. Was it fact, or was it evidence? Sheesh!

    Do you know anything about addiction? One who is addicted remains addicted. It's part of the disease. One who is addicted will re-establish those addictive behaviors if they begin using again. Again, the difference between a state of being and action. This is such basic psychology, I am amazed that I need to explain it
    But you're not explaining it.. You're making statements, without any proof. How does one measure an addiction? Start with that investigative question.

    Someone who is attracted to women but chooses to be celibate. They are heterosexual, but they do not have heterosexual sex. Again, REAL basic stuff
    Oh, I see... Ok, so now, you claimed earlier that reparative therapy was debunked. Wait, no that can't be right. Are you suggesting that the measure for what constitutes a sexual orientation is based entirely on one's word? Wow! Thanks for proving me right about that whole argument! See, sunshine, I play chess, and I'm very patient! You said earlier that reparative therapy has been debunked? Well (ok here's another challenge, pay attention now) how is it that there exists no biological, or physiological test for homosexuality, other than ones word, and or actions as a measure; yet, when the exact same measure is used for ex-gays it somehow changes? Have fun with that one.. LOL

    You are lying. Post exactly where you asked me if I read the Stacy and Bilbarz study and what I thought of it. You questioned me vaguely about Stacy. That's about it. If you want to know, I'll respond, but do not lie about what you request
    Ok, but only because I want to know. So what conclusions did you draw from the study?

    All of the "evidence" of your opinion, I have shown to be either meaningless or false.
    No you haven't, you only think you have!

    Your "evidence" is so meager and full of holes, that simple definitions, basics in biology, and demonstrations of your logical fallacies are all that is needed
    Oops, did you make a boo boo? What demonstrations of my logical fallacies do you refer? THAT is kinda the whole point of me pressing you silly. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

    I said -
    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?
    To which you reply....

    Absolutely did. Peer reviewed and accepted by all major psychological and medical organizations. If you disagree, DISPUTE it
    Is this how you've gotten to 40K posts? LOL SHOW ME THE MONEY, or shut the hell up!

    In as much as being left-handed and playing in the NFL is. Now remember... when/if you parse the definition, I'll crucify you... as I have already done repeatedly
    Ok, it'll come into play later on, I assure you.

    That's one of the links I use, and used on your post to demonstrate each of your logical fallacies. You may now apologize for making them. I will accept as long as you stop doing it.
    SHOW ME THE MONEY.. ROTFLMAO..

    Dude I like you... Hell dude, I could make up anything and your standard reply would be you're wrong, you're illogical, you need to read your definitions, just because... Well let me break it to you. Perhaps you've really never met anyone like me before, but I ain't gunna let you get away with it, I promise you. And if it keeps up, I'll really embarrass you! I'll do the illustration for you. I can maybe count on one hand how many times I've made a "real" logical mistake. I've made zero in this thread, and don't count on any in the future either big boy.

    Until then!

    Oh, that one note. I was really hoping you'd come to the plate on my challenge. I really did! Perhaps, you've learned your lesson and you'll be different the next time we meet? Other than that, if you have nothing else to offer, I'll bow out!


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

Page 41 of 43 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 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
  •