Page 147 of 189 FirstFirst ... 4797137145146147148149157 ... LastLast
Results 1,461 to 1,470 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1461
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:01 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,357
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Yes, all legislative, nothing to do with the marriage construct as being wholly fundamental. That's what I meant.


    Tim-
    What you said was that the government did not sanction marriage. What I showed was not only do they sanction it, they reward it heavily.
    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. #1462
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    I don't agree. If you look back HIV was brought up when CC decided to go back to his obsolete argument trying to link the privilege of marriage recognized by the state with community value. HIV infection was simply offered to counter that ridiculous argument by proving homosexuality has its own risks and "negatives" if you are going to value base what groups get to marry based on positive or negative contributions to a society.
    And the problem with this entire line is the problem with all of your arguments on this issue. You do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. When you can demonstrate that you understand that difference, perhaps then you will understand the sheer foolishness of your argument and what you say will not be irrelevant.

    Frankly, its such an audacious argument its quite incredible he brought it up in the first place. And who gets to judge a "fundamental right" as many on the pro gay marriage like to argue based on the contributions to a society? What if we judged health care by that draconian scale? What about performance in class? On the field? culture? Frankly I'm shocked you didn't argue against it yourself.
    Since I have never argued that marriage is a fundamental right, this paragraph is irrelevant. Cool... you are now two for two.
    "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"

  3. #1463
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Except that, despite your ignoring this repeatedly, it is not homosexuality which is high risk, it is engaging in high risk activities. Once again, since you keep ignoring this, a gay who engages in no high risk activities(such as one who is monogamous by virtue of, say, being married) is at a much lower risk of contracting HIV than a strait person who engages in high risk activities such as promiscuity. It is certain behaviors which are high risk, not certain orientations.
    How can you say that when the act of male homosexual sex for instance has been proven to be the most readily available way to contract any number of STDs including HIV when compared to other lifestyles and the argument made was benefit to a society? The act itself is high risk compared to other sexual orientations when you compare them directly as CC is trying to do. Of course if everyone was faithful and never had sex with anyone other than their partner for life everyone would be safe but you know that isn't how the real world works. If you prove a sexual orientation has a higher risk of infection than another that would be an overall negative.

    The very point is that the argument itself to value base judgment on sexual orientations with the expressed purpose of judging whether or not they are going to be accepted as candidates by the state for marriage is a preposterous argument. I think you know that.
    Last edited by texmaster; 08-08-10 at 03:01 AM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  4. #1464
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    How can you say that when the act of male homosexual sex for instance has been proven to be the most readily available way to contract any number of STDs including HIV and the argument made was benefit to a society? The act itself is high risk compared to other sexual orientations when you compare them directly as CC is trying to do. Of course if everyone was faithful and never had sex with anyone other than their partner for life everyone would be safe but you know that isn't how the real world works. If you prove a sexual orientation has a higher risk of infection than another that would be an overall negative. The very point is that the argument itself to value base judgment on sexual orientations with the expressed purpose of judging whether or not they are going to be accepted as candidates by the state for marriage is a preposterous argument. I think you know that.
    Nice try with mincing definitions and words. It's not "male homosexual sex". I think you are referring to anal sex. Anal sex is practiced by heterosexuals, too. And anal sex is not the only sexual activity that gays engage in. Further, the number one cause of HIV is unprotected sexual activity. Period. Notice something in that sentence? Gay or homosexual or anything like it is not mentioned. Sexual orientation is not a causational factor. If you could prove that, you already would have. You can't, which is why your argument is invalid.
    "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. #1465
    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: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Except that, despite your ignoring this repeatedly, it is not homosexuality which is high risk, it is engaging in high risk activities. Once again, since you keep ignoring this, a gay who engages in no high risk activities(such as one who is monogamous by virtue of, say, being married) is at a much lower risk of contracting HIV than a strait person who engages in high risk activities such as promiscuity. It is certain behaviors which are high risk, not certain orientations.
    hehe.. Now you're showing redress..

    It is true that people of all stripes that practice safe sex have no risk factors associated with contracting HIV, but it does nothing for any meaningful analysis of this data. For instance, one cannot separate an individual experience from a broad sample. It is therefore incumbent on the one analyzing the date to include the figures of the entire sample on the face. Clearly homosexuals as a group are responsible for more than half the cases of HIV in the USA. Assuming that, safe sex practices do not differ from one sexual orientation to another, or one categorical group over another, we must only conclude that homosexuals practices unsafe sex more so than any other group in the sample. Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV.

    Now do you get it? This is the last I will say on the subject unless you start a new thread on it.


    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. #1466
    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: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    What you said was that the government did not sanction marriage. What I showed was not only do they sanction it, they reward it heavily.
    legislative, and not germaine to the central question of this thread. The State recognizes marriage, and so too does the Federal Government, but the question is on the EPC,a nd the Due process claim.


    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

  7. #1467
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    How can you say that when the act of male homosexual sex for instance has been proven to be the most readily available way to contract any number of STDs including HIV when compared to other lifestyles and the argument made was benefit to a society? The act itself is high risk compared to other sexual orientations when you compare them directly as CC is trying to do. Of course if everyone was faithful and never had sex with anyone other than their partner for life everyone would be safe but you know that isn't how the real world works. If you prove a sexual orientation has a higher risk of infection than another that would be an overall negative.

    The very point is that the argument itself to value base judgment on sexual orientations with the expressed purpose of judging whether or not they are going to be accepted as candidates by the state for marriage is a preposterous argument. I think you know that.
    No, anal sex is. Which is not limited to homosexual men, everyone can have anal sex. Also not every homosexual man has anal sex.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  8. #1468
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    YAY! Welcome to the board.

    Quote Originally Posted by dimitri View Post
    So I know that I'm just jumping in the middle of this and there is much I didnt read (with 144 pages, how could I?), but I firmly believe that the constitution is ALWAYS meant to protect and give rights and never limit. When CA put a constitution BAN on the civil union (as marriage is a religious thing and the government has no place in that and it no place in the government) between two people of the same gender, they spat in the face of liberty.

    And why is HIV even brought up? How does HIV affect your civil rights? My southern baptist preacher has HIV. Do you know how he got it? Blood transfusion...

    My grandmother always has very wise things to say in her very, very thick Russian accent. I think we could all learn from something she told me very recently: "Austin... Come here. Why the fu*k do you care? Does it really matter? Will this affect your life in any way?"

    Does it really? No.

    But hey----At least with gay couples, there is no fear about unwanted pregnancies draining the social security tit.

  9. #1469
    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: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    No, anal sex is. Which is not limited to homosexual men, everyone can have anal sex. Also not every homosexual man has anal sex.
    See my elaboration above, and please refute the analysis.. Check that.. See I knew this would happen.. Please start another thread someone, anyone, and we can discuss it there.


    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

  10. #1470
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    See my elaboration above, and please refute the analysis.. Check that.. See I knew this would happen.. Please start another thread someone, anyone, and we can discuss it there.


    Tim-
    Your analysis suffers from the same problem your analysis in this case ALWAYS suffers from: the correlation not causation logical fallacy. Here, I will demonstrate:

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    It is true that people of all stripes that practice safe sex have no risk factors associated with contracting HIV
    True.

    but it does nothing for any meaningful analysis of this data.
    Completely false. It is behavior that causes HIV. Not a state of being. One can be heterosexual or homosexual and be completely abstinent... and have 0% chance of contracting HIV from their sexual orientation. Orientation is irrelevant. Behavior IS relevant.

    For instance, one cannot separate an individual experience from a broad sample.
    True to some extent... if you are meaning that an individual experience can define the outcome.

    It is therefore incumbent on the one analyzing the date to include the figures of the entire sample on the face.
    Correct. ALL the data... not just the data that helps your position.

    Clearly homosexuals as a group are responsible for more than half the cases of HIV in the USA.
    No. Homosexuals, as a group contract more than half the cases of HIV. Your wording is incorrect.

    Assuming that, safe sex practices do not differ from one sexual orientation to another, or one categorical group over another, we must only conclude that homosexuals practices unsafe sex more so than any other group in the sample.
    I would say that this is probably correct.

    Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV.
    No. This statement contradicts the statement preceding it, making it a false conclusion. In the statement preceding it, you are discussing unsafe sexual activity... an accurate statement. You then make the leap from behavior to sexual orientation, which, as you have shown, is only a correlation, not a causation. In order to prove your premise, you would have to show that being gay CAUSES unsafe sex. Unless you can do that, your position is a logical fallacy for the reasons that I have shown.

    Now do you get it? This is the last I will say on the subject unless you start a new thread on it.
    I don't think we need a thread. Your position has been debunked, logically. Unless you can show causation, you have nothing.
    "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"

Posting Permissions

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