Page 9 of 35 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 347

Thread: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Why is it that whenever marriage and homosexuality comes up it inevitably turns towards "there is no use for homosexuality because it serves no purpose"?
    Because it's a valid point.

    I'm not going to pretend those people aren't misformed or maladjusted just because I'm arguing in favor of their natural freedom to choose their own spouses.

  2. #82
    Educator joe six-pack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Six-Pakistan
    Last Seen
    07-19-11 @ 07:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,123

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Nothing in anything that I have posted here requires me to make any argument regarding the constitutionality of state provisions that do not allow same-sex marriange.
    You are unable to make an argument to support your warped beliefs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I have, however, pointed out logical/factual/other flaws in the arguments that YOU have presented, which is a perfectly valid thing to do.
    You can try. But all you are doing is saying "I'm right because I say so."
    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    For instance, your argument that "I've never read a post that provided such a reason" is, without question, an appeal to ignorance.
    I don't think you know what you are talking about.

    Stating that said examples have not been observed is an "statement of ignorance."

    An "appeal" is a request. I wasn't requesting ignorance, Goober, I was requesting an explanation.

    You have both failed to provide one and failed to describe the conversation correctly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    "In the technical sense--by the economic definition--President Obama is not a socialist," - 4-10-2010
    Do you want to have a debate? Hit the reply button.

  3. #83
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I completely disagree with you on just about everything you said, except for that last sentence. We can drink a beer to that.
    So you're going to vote for or or back Brown, one of the wosrt Gov. in the history of the state. And your a Conservative?

    I say: (If" he's Brown flush him down)

  4. #84
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,128

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Why is it that whenever marriage and homosexuality comes up it inevitably turns towards "there is no use for homosexuality because it serves no purpose"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Because it's a valid point.

    I'm not going to pretend those people aren't misformed or maladjusted just because I'm arguing in favor of their natural freedom to choose their own spouses.
    It is because teleology is the basis of Judeo-Christian morality. Anything that is not in accordance with the grand "design" has no purpose and is thus an aberrant behavior. For example, the anus is not a reproductive organ, therefore it is abberant to use it for sexual intercourse. Or another one is, homosexual behavior does not lead to procreation therefore it is deviant.

    Of course, there is obvious fault in teleological reasoning. For example, the hand and mouth are not reproductive organs, and yet people use them all the time for sexual stimulation. Also, infertile and elderly couples cannot procreate, but they still have sex. Would you consider anyone who masturbates, engages in oral sex, or who is incapable of having children due to age, as "misinformed" or "maladjusted"?

    In essence, people are trying to enforce an ideal based upon their conception of a "design" inherent in the world.

    It is actually incredibly idiotic and in no way a "valid point", and yet its the same reasoning that the Catholic Church uses to argue things like, "artificial insemination is immoral".
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 09-06-10 at 08:19 PM.

  5. #85
    Educator joe six-pack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Six-Pakistan
    Last Seen
    07-19-11 @ 07:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,123

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No. Right and wrong are moral valuations. We're not discussing the wrong answers to the problem 2 + 2 = ?.
    But you just contradicted yourself. You just stated that "wrong" doesn't necessarily have a moral implication, as in the case of mathematics. That's all I'm saying. People think a lot of things are "correct" or "wrong" and morality doesn't always enter into the thought-process.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    People who claim same sex marriage is wrong are making moral judgements on the actions of others. That it's wrong for them to make those judgements is a different moral assessment.
    Some of them simply think it's naturally wrong. I happen to think homosexuality is both naturally occurring and has a purpose. Like any other decision that nature makes through trial and error.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Which does nothing to address the correct assessment that over time all behaviors either serve, or do not serve, evolution of the species, as do all inherited physical traits.
    Homosexuality isn't an inherited trait. Heterosexual parents can have homosexual children. That's true in human beings, as well as many other animals. It exists and--just like many adaptations--it probably serves a natural purpose.

    When I say "purpose" I am talking about a function. A fish's gills serves a purpose.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Evolution happens when indivduals get together and produce offspring.
    That's part of the process. But homosexuality isn't an wrong evolutionary step, it's more like a safety valve for the entire species population.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    First you complain about the right wingers and their idiot "intelligent design", then you want to pretend a genetic flaw or a behavioral defect has a "purpose".

    Make up your mind.
    I never said intelligent design was a stupid idea. I was talking about irony.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You believe in some form of intelligent design. Thank you for confirming this.
    I'm open minded. Thanks for confirming you're not?
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The maladaptation represented by homosexuality has no special function in the plan for humanity because there is no plan.
    You are simultaneously claiming that that homosexuality is an adaptation (you claim it's a bad one), therefore assigning stupid or intelligent decisions to the natural process of adaptation. While you are assigning intelligence to mother nature, you are arguing that there is no intelligence behind the natural process of evolution.

    Camouflage would appear to be an extremely clever decision for evolution to make. It serves a purpose, although you claim nothing in nature has a purpose. Camouflage may have come about by random chance, but it seems more likely on some level and intelligent decision was made. I don't believe in God, but adaptation isn't chaos and random chance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Maybe you don't want to face the reality that there's no plan.
    Maybe you can avoid presuming you know what I do or do not believe, if you don't know just ask.
    Last edited by joe six-pack; 09-06-10 at 08:36 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    "In the technical sense--by the economic definition--President Obama is not a socialist," - 4-10-2010
    Do you want to have a debate? Hit the reply button.

  6. #86
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    "Wrong" is a moral judgement, and irrelevant.

    Which isn't to say that homosexuality isn't a genetic flaw or a developmental maladjustment. It clearly serves no evolutionary purpose, since it's consumation does not lead to progeny.
    Not having progeny does not mean something has no "evolutionary purpose". This has been known for 20 + years. It's not even controversial.

    This is why people should not talk about issues they are ignorant on.
    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.

  7. #87
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,128

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The maladaptation represented by homosexuality has no special function in the plan for humanity because there is no plan.
    I would like to see your evidence that homosexuality is an evolutionary maladaption or that it serves no purpose. I actually have evidence to support my assertion that homosexuality is natural and serves a purpose to the human species.

    Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained - life - 13 October 2004 - New Scientist
    Gay men may have 'super uncle' evolutionary advantage: Researchers

    I await to see what evidence you have to support your assertions. If you have none, then I call your view bull****.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 09-06-10 at 08:47 PM.

  8. #88
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by joe six-pack View Post
    You are unable to make an argument to support your warped beliefs.
    The arguments that I have laid out so far:
    Marrige, as a legal entity, was created by the state - it exists only because the state created it, and would not exist had the state not created it.
    As such, it can ONLY be a privilege, as rights are neither created by nor bestowed upon the people by the state.


    The -right- involved here, if any, is the right to equal protection under the law in that priviliges may only be denied to people under certain circumstances...The point is that the 14th does not guarantee that -everyone- has access to -every- legal privilege granted by a state.

    You can hold [the belief that violates Equal Protection and Due Process to deny same-sex couples access to the privilige of marriage] if you want - it remains to be seen if your belief has any lasting legal merit.

    All of these are perfectly sound; nothing you have posted in any way refutes any of them.

    You can try. But all you are doing is saying "I'm right because I say so."
    No.. I have pointed out why you are wrong see below.

    I don't think you know what you are talking about.
    Stating that said examples have not been observed is an "statement of ignorance."
    You stated:
    There is no valid reason--legal or otherwise--to oppose same-sex marriage.
    You back that statement up with:
    'I've never read a post that provided such a reason.
    An appeal to ignorance:
    The fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.
    The Appeal to Ignorance

    Thus, you have made an appeal to ignorance -- you argued that there is no valid reason to oppose same sex marriage because you have yeet to see one.

  9. #89
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    What is the Second Amendment? What do I win for giving the right answer, Alex?
    Where is the positive grant of the right to own a firearm in the 2nd amendment?

  10. #90
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by joe six-pack View Post
    You are unable to make an argument to support your warped beliefs.
    Speaking of which...
    Please cite for me the constitutional, legislative or regulatory languange that positively grants you the right to own a firearm.

Page 9 of 35 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •