On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

CaptainCourtesy · Sep 18, 2013

EdwinWillers said:
Well of course that's just nonsense. Homosexual sex is - and always has been - and always will be deviant behavior, perverse behavior if you prefer. And while societies may decide in general what's normal or acceptable (to them), they only do so within certain limits or boundaries otherwise unaffected by such caprices.

And that's just nonsense and shows that I am correct. You do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Further, you do not understand the definitions of deviant nor perverse behaviors. This demonstrates the depth of your lack of understanding of this issue. You do not know what basic definitions mean. Further, you are incorrect about how societies determined what is acceptable and normal to them. We currently see a majority of people who see homosexuality as acceptable and normal... not only evidence by polls, but be the increase in legislative support.

In other words, everything you wrote above is incorrect.

I flat out reject the absurd notion of "sexual orientation"

Your rejection of reality does not alter reality itself. Sorry.

- let alone the false notion that society must somehow cater to the self-indulgent whims of a few who have allowed themselves to be given over to whatever desires their bodies might crave, for whatever reasons such cravings may exist. Similarly, I would reject the notion of "beverage orientation" - unless perhaps a group of us who crave beer be successful defining ourselves as a special class of citizen deserving of special rights and treatment by virtue of our lagered emotions.

Nothing here of substance to reply to.

Homosexuality is gross self-indulgence. Nothing more. It's a behavior. It's perverse and deviant behavior. It's behavior that can be stopped and changed.

Further demonstration that you are uneducated on this topic. As stated before, you don't know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, nor do you understand basic definitions regarding this issue. I would suggest that you inform yourself of some of the basics, but I suspect you are uninterested in doing so.

And just because a few have given themselves over to it does not mean we need afford them special rights - shame and disgust, perhaps. Rights no - because sans the behavior, they have precisely the same rights right now the rest of us have.

And this too is incorrect. Basically, your entire post was one long post of inaccuracies. You didn't get one thing correct.

CaptainCourtesy · Sep 18, 2013

EdwinWillers said:
That's just absurd and you ought to know better than to attempt to paint homosexual behavior as somehow "normal." In fact, I would *love* to read how you would describe homosexual sex as normal. Two men having sex - baring the sordid details - explain how such an act is normal. Or two women having sex. Explain the normalcy of that, the non-deviancy of that, the non-perverseness of that.

Easy. Homosexuality is, in our society overall, an accepted differentiation in sexual orientation. Beyond that, you once again show your lack of education on sexual issues; you don't know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Now, since homosexuality would be normal, as it is an accepted difference in sexuality by society, neither deviant nor perverse would apply, as being outside acceptable standards for society must apply to each. Both words are value judgments, hence they are beliefs, not facts. I will assist you by reminding you that these are just your unfounded opinions whenever you post them.

[Frankly, let's let them keep their clothes on (yes, let's definitely do that) and perhaps you can explain the "normalcy" - the "non-deviancy" - or the non-perverseness of two men romantically kissing one another. Or two women.

Still can't differentiate between a behavior and orientation, can you?

Or let's make it even tamer yet - explain the normalcy of two men romantically holding hands. We'll wait....

STILL can't differentiate between a behavior and orientation, can you?

Don't presume to lecture me on how I "don't understand" this issue. It has zip to do with understanding.

I don't presume. You DON'T understand the issue. You prove it with every comment you make.

We *all* understand it. It's just that some have abrogated their understanding in favor of a faux notion of "tolerance" and "compassion" - some have accepted and swallowed the lie that homosexual behavior is somehow "normal" - ignoring in the process the patently obvious. Some have discharged their sense of shame and disgust in favor of... I don't know... appeasement?

Let's see... opinions and appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Not a shred of accuracy or information.

It's disgusting and shameful and it's high time we returned to realizing and accepting that.

And more of the same. Let me know when you have any information or actually understand the issue whatsoever. Thus far you have shown to have neither.

CaptainCourtesy · Sep 18, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:
Just because you cannot make the association, and it appears unless you are the one that says it, you simply cannot make that small “leap”…well, needless to say, that hardly means it does not apply.

No, since it doesn't exist, that's why it doesn't apply.

Your statement, “Those of you who are not fine with it are irrelevant. You have no right to not be offended.” is an inane position, one of, seemingly, almost halted cerebral development.

No, what it states is that your appeal to emotion and your "feelings" really don't matter if we are discussing facts and information.

When I replied that 37 states [ that being the vast majority, even a super majority of states] have either banned SSM by constitutional amendment or have laws that define marriage as only between one man and one woman, you feel that is irrelevant? A supermajority of American states is irrelevant?

What was it 10 years ago? I consider that differentiation relevant.

Then you want to put forth a childlike position of whether or not one has a right to be offended or not [whoever brought up taking offense? Only you ]. This is not about sticking out one’s tongue and saying, “nah nahh na-nah nah”, this is all about keeping a sane, moral and sound societal system, keeping deviance from becoming associated closely, or placed on an equal basis, with that which is normal…

This is you not understanding that morality is relative and your morality only applies to you. It's about what society determines as moral and what society determines as normal and acceptable. And, since society is slowly changing towards an acceptance of SSM (51% now support it), your offense at this is irrelevant.

So where to you get your straw man of “taking offense”, anyhow?

No straw man. A response to you saying that "the rest of us are not fine with it". You being "fine" or "not fine" with it is irrelevant. You have no right to not be offended.

It is far beyond just the statistical standpoint. This is far from normal, it is far from desired, it is far from beneficial.

We note that your calls of irrelevance are usually themselves pretty much irrelevant. While you are wrong about my particular understanding, that distinction in itself is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Abnormal sexual behavior, abnormal sexual preference and abnormal sexual orientation should have no sound basis in being a determinate in societal outcomes, especially if we want those to be favorable outcomes.

And we note that when you cannot refute an argument... the fact that you either do not understand the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation, or the fact that you DO know the difference but discussing that difference would sink your argument further into oblivion, you tend to sink into appeals to emotion. As soon as you use the word "should" you lose, since should is nothing but an unsubstantiated opinion. Further, you sink into MORE inaccuracy when you use the term "abnormal" since this term is a value judgment. Finally, your final statement is incorrect, as we already know that SSM produces favorable outcomes.

In other words, your comments above are nothing but value judgments, logical fallacies, unsubstantiated opinions, and inaccuracies. Quite a feat for one paragraph.

Well, there we go, there is the newest in a long line of false proclamations, a laughable judge of one’s own specious position's greatness…special, very special.

See, you try to be condescending, but the problem is you have no substance to back you; which is why it comes across as being laughable. Just as I did in this post, each and every argument you make, I easily show to be silly, false, or demonstrates a significant lack of knowledge on the issue. Now, you can feel free to keep trying, but I suspect these kinds of defeats will keep happening to you.

EdwinWillers · Sep 18, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

CaptainCourtesy said:
And that's just nonsense and shows that I am correct. You do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Further, you do not understand the definitions of deviant nor perverse behaviors. This demonstrates the depth of your lack of understanding of this issue. You do not know what basic definitions mean. Further, you are incorrect about how societies determined what is acceptable and normal to them. We currently see a majority of people who see homosexuality as acceptable and normal... not only evidence by polls, but be the increase in legislative support.

In other words, everything you wrote above is incorrect.

Your rejection of reality does not alter reality itself. Sorry.

Nothing here of substance to reply to.

Further demonstration that you are uneducated on this topic. As stated before, you don't know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, nor do you understand basic definitions regarding this issue. I would suggest that you inform yourself of some of the basics, but I suspect you are uninterested in doing so.

And this too is incorrect. Basically, your entire post was one long post of inaccuracies. You didn't get one thing correct.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Easy. Homosexuality is, in our society overall, an accepted differentiation in sexual orientation. Beyond that, you once again show your lack of education on sexual issues; you don't know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Now, since homosexuality would be normal, as it is an accepted difference in sexuality by society, neither deviant nor perverse would apply, as being outside acceptable standards for society must apply to each. Both words are value judgments, hence they are beliefs, not facts. I will assist you by reminding you that these are just your unfounded opinions whenever you post them.

Still can't differentiate between a behavior and orientation, can you?

STILL can't differentiate between a behavior and orientation, can you?

I don't presume. You DON'T understand the issue. You prove it with every comment you make.

Let's see... opinions and appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Not a shred of accuracy or information.

And more of the same. Let me know when you have any information or actually understand the issue whatsoever. Thus far you have shown to have neither.

Blah, blah, blah - says you. You accuse me of lacking "information," employing logical fallacies, being inaccurate and other asinine blather yet are yourself incapable of providing a single shred of the same in support of your ill-informed... opinion.

Moreover, you can't even provide the simplest - the SIMPLEST of explanations in support of your opinion - to explain how homosexual behavior is "normal." Be it the sex itself, the romantic kissing, or the romantic holding of hands - you can't show how that's normal. In fact, you won't even try. You just dodged the issue - dodged it because we both know your only "proof" is nothing more than having accepted what homosexuals say about themselves and their behavior.

Be honest - that's YOUR only source of "proof" isn't it? What they say about themselves and their behavior - and you unflinchingly accept it. Why?

You chide me for not knowing the difference between orientation and behavior, multiple times. And that after I was very clear that I don't believe in the homosexual's rationalization of their behavior. I don't believe in "orientation" - it's an excuse to justify their behavior. Yet when I try to explain that, you come back with the repetitious snide quip that I don't know the difference. I'll say it yet again, if that'll help - I DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIENTATION EXCUSE.

And do you want to know something - not even the researchers in this field are capable of defining it, let alone applying it consistently - whether it's attraction, behavior, or "identity." And do you want to know why? Because those their data, data gathered from interviews, they acknowledge is consistently inconsistent. So not even the respondents themselves know.

...but of course, you do. :doh

You chide me for my beliefs being just that - beliefs, that I am in your words "uneducated" and my opinions are "unfounded" - moreover, you give yourself an allowance for dismissing them all going forward were I to post further on the topic. What if they are beliefs? So what? Are you suggesting your "knowledge" of the issue isn't? Where in all the opining of your own is a shred of something one might consider as other than your own beliefs. What makes your belief right and mine wrong? What homosexuals say?

...and all this without a shred of "proof," without an attempt to explain, without even the slightest attempt on your own to provide what you accuse me of not providing. The ONLY "proof" you've provided thus far is to point to your opinion of my opinions and say it's "nonsense and shows that I'm correct."

In other words - your only argument is your own appeal to my comments as proof that yours are correct. That's nifty.

EdwinWillers · Sep 18, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Bodhisattva said:
< snip >
You don't talk to many homosexuals, do you? I have never met any, as far as I know, that are ashamed. They embrace who they are and have talked openly and honestly about it. If you are an armchair quarterback reading hatred and never actually experiencing the people that you despise then you are ignorantly spouting bull****. I know... you have gay acquaintances... right. :roll:

:doh

Ok - premise; you've never met any homosexuals, as far as you know, that are ashamed.
Question: how would you know, if you knew... as far as you knew that they were ashamed? How? Would they tell you? "Oh Bodhisattva, I'm so ashamed..."
Of COURSE they "embrace who they are and talk openly and honestly about it." Good grief, what do you think the whole point of the homosexual movement has been about these past 50 years? Coming out to stay hidden? I mean, the hallmark of their movement is centered around being proud of how they behave, isn't it? So seriously, how would you know?

Where do you think a sense of shame comes from? It comes from guilt; it is the attendant emotion that accompanies guilt. Take the guilt away and so too goes any shame associated with it.

That, in a nutshell is what the goal of the homosexual movement has been these past 50 years - exorcising the guilt from their behavior so that rather than feel ashamed by what they do, they can be free of any guilt and shame and behave pridefully about it instead. Shame is a powerful emotion - USUALLY its power is used to prevent one from behaving in a guilty way. What the homosexuals have done, are doing, is just the opposite - they are avoiding shame not by avoiding guilty behavior, they are denying the guilt of the behavior. They are eradicating the guilt. So back to your premise - live under such propaganda for long and its only natural one will be tempted to feel their behavior is "normal."

W/r to "knowing homosexuals," LOL - I'll just say this: there was a time I would hump anything with two legs that had an orifice or a protrusion. I know a little about what I speak. When I say it's "gross self indulgence" that's precisely what it is - and I don't need to go to some liberal arts college to get "educated" on the fineries of self-indulgence. Been there, done that. All manner of attempts have been made by those thus engaged to make such behavior acceptable to society, cleansed of any shame or guilt - but none of it changes the underlying truth about the behavior or its deviancy. I know it's a choice. I know it's a behavior. And I know one can change both.

j-mac · Sep 18, 2013

CaptainCourtesy said:
From what I see, things tend to take quite some time. Let's look at this issue, for example. Homosexuality was declassified as a disorder by the APA in 1973. Only NOW, 40 years later are folks starting to support SSM in majorities. That's pretty long for societal values to change enough for laws to be placed in effect.

Not sure I agree, but I tend to see the Constitution as being a fairly flexible document.

Fair enough

Gaugingcatenate · Sep 18, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

CaptainCourtesy said:
No, since it doesn't exist, that's why it doesn't apply.

:bs

So...37 American states are irrelevant…aye aye cap’n, or one might even be tempted to say comrade if in a different part of the world with that elitist styled position—that centrally- planned view…so, we no longer take into consideration what the super-majority of our fellow Americans say, eh? That is just not relevant, huh?

The BS detector is ringing loud here...

CaptainCourtesy said:
No, what it states is that your appeal to emotion and your "feelings" really don't matter if we are discussing facts and information.

You no more get to determine how people make their decisions individually and come together as a whole any more than I do… so, your appeal to the minority's emotions even hold less sway…glad to say.

CaptainCourtesy said:
What was it 10 years ago? I consider that differentiation relevant.

:applaud:naughty Oh, so now it’s back to being relevant…I see, if it works for you then it’s to be considered relevant…I get it…heads you win tails I lose…nice position, no matter how absurd it looks to the rest of us out here. You do know you have to win the debate not only just in your own mind, but…

CaptainCourtesy said:
This is you not understanding that morality is relative and your morality only applies to you. It's about what society determines as moral and what society determines as normal and acceptable. And, since society is slowly changing towards an acceptance of SSM (51% now support it), your offense at this is irrelevant.

Yes, morality is relative alright, its related closer to my position than yours. And no, there is a common morality that applies more than just to me. Your side has attempted to pull that morality down to the lower rungs on the civilizational ladder…it is way easier to go down that ladder than it is to go back up again. And sure, maybe you will pull more and more of us down into that sticky mess with you, misery loves company. Many of us, however, will take to the higher rungs on that ladder and try to pull people further up.

CaptainCourtesy said:
No straw man. A response to you saying that "the rest of us are not fine with it". You being "fine" or "not fine" with it is irrelevant. You have no right to not be offended.

37 states, again, not fine with it is pretty relevant. And we are going to squash you folks going around the people using the courts to get your way…that is getting rather tiresome and it is a weakness in the system that needed tending to anyhow. Plus we need to compartmentalize / neutralize faux institutions, such as the APA, whose bias is showing and that have become really nothing more than change agents for this rag tag band of societal wrecking balls.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that nobody has a right not to be offended…and so, I do have a right to be offended…and I am…and I no longer seek not to offend those that would lead us down this path to the chaos you presume to foist upon us all. Sorry, not prudent, not gonna do it. We have now taken off the gloves and will call a spade a spade, a disgusting practice just what it is...disgusting.

And those of you who try to bring a moral equivalence of the disgusting to the good, well, that is a disgusting position and we will fight you every step of the way. Tolerance towards those who would impose by force will be opposed by greater force. :flame:

CaptainCourtesy said:
It is far beyond just the statistical standpoint. This is far from normal, it is far from desired, it is far from beneficial.

Thank you for finally admitting that homosexuality is all the above…finally you have come to your senses.

CaptainCourtesy said:
And we note that when you cannot refute an argument... the fact that you either do not understand the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation, or the fact that you DO know the difference but discussing that difference would sink your argument further into oblivion, you tend to sink into appeals to emotion. As soon as you use the word "should" you lose, since should is nothing but an unsubstantiated opinion. Further, you sink into MORE inaccuracy when you use the term "abnormal" since this term is a value judgment. Finally, your final statement is incorrect, as we already know that SSM produces favorable outcomes.

What the hell are you even talking about? None of that even makes a difference in the first place, not with regards to marriage and what marriage actually needs to be.
As you would say, not relevant.

And your whole “should” position is beyond doubt another load of meringue with nothing under all the empty fluff…your usual, served up as a desert with no substance. You “should” not murder others, you “should” not steal, you “should” not commit treason, those are all backed up with laws that "should" be, in the opinion of the majority, and are to be instituted... so you know where you should stick such utter hogwash…you see, those are far beyond just opinions my good captain…I would hope you are one of the few aboard that ship that is sailing in the wrong direction.

No, as already established, the norm is what is usually done, certainly not the abnormal, not the deviancy that you and your side promotes. It’s really rather sickening actually, and that, thank god, is not the norm.

CaptainCourtesy said:
In other words, your comments above are nothing but value judgments, logical fallacies, unsubstantiated opinions, and inaccuracies. Quite a feat for one paragraph.

Mine are the opinions of the majority rules opinions and those derived from the wisdom of the ages, the religions and most of the solid institutions that support a great nation. This being a fight against your disgusting experiment with trying to equate the lower rungs of the ladder with the higher…something that is anti-civilizational. One that promotes the maxim that when one stands for everything, one stands for nothing. And he who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

CaptainCourtesy said:
See, you try to be condescending, but the problem is you have no substance to back you; which is why it comes across as being laughable. Just as I did in this post, each and every argument you make, I easily show to be silly, false, or demonstrates a significant lack of knowledge on the issue. Now, you can feel free to keep trying, but I suspect these kinds of defeats will keep happening to you.

Look in the mirror on lack of substance cap’n. You do all this in your mind, a figment, that if it were a pigment, would be completely transparent… as in not existent. But you can keep making those proclamations, its what you are truly good at, excel at, tho it looks rather sad.
This fantasy of substance you promote of yourself, the lack of it is why there is no point in further discussion… you do not see your own ideology but instead misplace your ideology for substance.:2wave:

Gaugingcatenate · Sep 18, 2013

Bodhisattva said:
I don't promote Same Sex Marriage... I promote Equal Rights and the enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Laws.

Nope... not at all... you beliefs are bigoted. Pretty simple actually.

We currently have exactly equal laws... at least in the states where SSM is prohibited. I have the exact same rights as every other man, women have the exact same rights as all other women. And to blur those lines will open the door to all sorts of unintended, mostly not good, consequences.

I would say your beliefs about his beliefs are bigoted. Just as simple.

CaptainCourtesy · Sep 19, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

EdwinWillers said:
Blah, blah, blah - says you. You accuse me of lacking "information," employing logical fallacies, being inaccurate and other asinine blather yet are yourself incapable of providing a single shred of the same in support of your ill-informed... opinion.

Of course you lack information, employ logical fallacies and are inaccurate. You don't understand basic concepts. You constantly confuse orientation for behavior, and don't know simple definitions. I would say this defines lacking information.

Moreover, you can't even provide the simplest - the SIMPLEST of explanations in support of your opinion - to explain how homosexual behavior is "normal." Be it the sex itself, the romantic kissing, or the romantic holding of hands - you can't show how that's normal. In fact, you won't even try. You just dodged the issue - dodged it because we both know your only "proof" is nothing more than having accepted what homosexuals say about themselves and their behavior.

It wasn't dodged at all. Every example you posted was a logical fallacy. It's not my fault if you can't debate without using fallacies.

Be honest - that's YOUR only source of "proof" isn't it? What they say about themselves and their behavior - and you unflinchingly accept it. Why?

What's my only source of proof for WHAT? Please be clear with your questions. I understand that it must be tough not really understanding the issue, but give it a try.

You chide me for not knowing the difference between orientation and behavior, multiple times. And that after I was very clear that I don't believe in the homosexual's rationalization of their behavior.

Your belief is irrelevant. Orientation is not defined by behavior. OK, so it's worse than I thought. Seems to me that your lack of understanding of the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation is that you don't understand exactly what sexual orientation IS.

I don't believe in "orientation" - it's an excuse to justify their behavior. Yet when I try to explain that, you come back with the repetitious snide quip that I don't know the difference. I'll say it yet again, if that'll help - I DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIENTATION EXCUSE.

Your belief or lack thereof is irrelevant. Orientation exists. Let's see if I'm right. Define sexual orientation.

And do you want to know something - not even the researchers in this field are capable of defining it, let alone applying it consistently - whether it's attraction, behavior, or "identity." And do you want to know why? Because those their data, data gathered from interviews, they acknowledge is consistently inconsistent. So not even the respondents themselves know.

...but of course, you do. :doh

Sexual orientation has a fairly well defined definition. But here's a question that I'd like to see you answer. Define the heterosexual sexual orientation.

You chide me for my beliefs being just that - beliefs, that I am in your words "uneducated" and my opinions are "unfounded" - moreover, you give yourself an allowance for dismissing them all going forward were I to post further on the topic. What if they are beliefs? So what? Are you suggesting your "knowledge" of the issue isn't? Where in all the opining of your own is a shred of something one might consider as other than your own beliefs. What makes your belief right and mine wrong? What homosexuals say?

Beliefs are secondary to facts. Thus far, your posts are devoid of facts. Now, what facts do you need? That homosexuality is normal? I've already done that. That there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior? You don't know the difference and seem unable to present the difference, so what would my presenting the difference do for someone who denies reality? Proving that homosexuality is neither deviant nor perverse? Well, if we are not discussing statistics, I've proven you wrong on both counts. See? Facts overrule your beliefs. That's why your beliefs are irrelevant.

Hope that helps.

...and all this without a shred of "proof," without an attempt to explain, without even the slightest attempt on your own to provide what you accuse me of not providing. The ONLY "proof" you've provided thus far is to point to your opinion of my opinions and say it's "nonsense and shows that I'm correct."

In other words - your only argument is your own appeal to my comments as proof that yours are correct. That's nifty.

I've proven you wrong on the basics. Definitions. See, that's the thing about debate. If someone doesn't understand definitions, or uses them incorrectly... as you have done. proving them wrong is really easy. My suggestion would be that you examine the definition of some of the terms that you have gotten wrong and then get back to me.

CaptainCourtesy · Sep 19, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:
:bs

So...37 American states are irrelevant…aye aye cap’n, or one might even be tempted to say comrade if in a different part of the world with that elitist styled position—that centrally- planned view…so, we no longer take into consideration what the super-majority of our fellow Americans say, eh? That is just not relevant, huh?

The BS detector is ringing loud here...

You know, repeating arguments that I've already destroyed really doesn't help you.

You no more get to determine how people make their decisions individually and come together as a whole any more than I do… so, your appeal to the minority's emotions even hold less sway…glad to say.

People can make their decisions anyway they like. However, if they make them based on emotion and not facts, then I'll point it out. That's what you did.

Oh, so now it’s back to being relevant…I see, if it works for you then it’s to be considered relevant…I get it…heads you win tails I lose…nice position, no matter how absurd it looks to the rest of us out here. You do know you have to win the debate not only just in your own mind, but…

Different argument. You seem to claim that 37 states being against SSM means something that makes your position, stronger. Of course, you lack context in your argument, so I added the context and showed how your presentation makes my position stronger. This is known as self-pwnage. You seem good at that.

Yes, morality is relative alright, its related closer to my position than yours.

:lol: This is a contradiction. Morality is relative. As soon as you claim it's related to someone more closely, it ceases being relative. I'd say this is self-pwnage too, but that would be too kind.

And no, there is a common morality that applies more than just to me.

No there isn't. There are people who have similar morality.

Your side has attempted to pull that morality down to the lower rungs on the civilizational ladder…it is way easier to go down that ladder than it is to go back up again.

Since morality is relative, this is nothing but opinion and is therefore irrelevant.

And sure, maybe you will pull more and more of us down into that sticky mess with you, misery loves company. Many of us, however, will take to the higher rungs on that ladder and try to pull people further up.

Since morality is relevant, this is nothing but your opinion and therefore irrelevant.

You are making this too easy.

37 states, again, not fine with it is pretty relevant.

Still going with the failed argument, eh? How many states were not fine with it 10 years ago? I noticed that you didn't answer that question. I wonder why? :lol:

And we are going to squash you folks going around the people using the courts to get your way…that is getting rather tiresome and it is a weakness in the system that needed tending to anyhow.

You mean like DOMA? :lol: You just keep self-pwning. Are you trying to make yourself look bad?

Plus we need to compartmentalize / neutralize faux institutions, such as the APA, whose bias is showing and that have become really nothing more than change agents for this rag tag band of societal wrecking balls.

Awww... what's the matter? You want to neutralize any group that presents information that proves you wrong? Good to know that you believe in censorship.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that nobody has a right not to be offended…and so, I do have a right to be offended…and I am…and I no longer seek not to offend those that would lead us down this path to the chaos you presume to foist upon us all. Sorry, not prudent, not gonna do it. We have now taken off the gloves and will call a spade a spade, a disgusting practice just what it is...disgusting.

And I guess I will just have to keep proving you wrong with facts, while watching you complain and sulk with nothing but emotion. That's OK. It's amusing to watch.

And those of you who try to bring a moral equivalence of the disgusting to the good, well, that is a disgusting position and we will fight you every step of the way. Tolerance towards those who would impose by force will be opposed by greater force.

Feel free to have your opinions. I like uninformed opinions like yours. They make my responses far easier to compose.

Thank you for finally admitting that homosexuality is all the above…finally you have come to your senses.

I didn't. It was YOUR comment that I forgot to place in quotes so it would be assigned to you. Breaking up your quotes so I can address each point of inaccuracy that you make is quite tedious. I missed one.

What the hell are you even talking about? None of that even makes a difference in the first place, not with regards to marriage and what marriage actually needs to be.
As you would say, not relevant.

As soon as you use the phrase "needs to be" your position is a fantasy, not based in fact, and irrelevant. You keep making the same errors, even though I have been correcting you as we go along.

And your whole “should” position is beyond doubt another load of meringue with nothing under all the empty fluff…your usual, served up as a desert with no substance. You “should” not murder others, you “should” not steal, you “should” not commit treason, those are all backed up with laws that "should" be, in the opinion of the majority, and are to be instituted... so you know where you should stick such utter hogwash…you see, those are far beyond just opinions my good captain…I would hope you are one of the few aboard that ship that is sailing in the wrong direction.

"Should" is irrelevant to reality. The laws are relevant. Just because you believe something "should" be, doesn't make it fact. If it is law, it is fact. Currently, in 13 states, SSM is legal. Your "should" is irrelevant there. Currently in 37 states, SSM is not legal. Your "should" is irrelevant there. LAWS and facts are relevant.

Now I've explained this three times. Lets see if you finally get it.

No, as already established, the norm is what is usually done, certainly not the abnormal, not the deviancy that you and your side promotes. It’s really rather sickening actually, and that, thank god, is not the norm.

Norm is what society says is the norm and what is accepted. We know that 51% of the population accepts SSM. Therefore, it is the norm. We know that homosexuality is accepted as a different variant of sexual orientation. Therefore, it is normal. Thank you for, once again, helping my argument. Perhaps I should just let you make it for me, since you are doing such a good job.

Mine are the opinions of the majority rules opinions and those derived from the wisdom of the ages, the religions and most of the solid institutions that support a great nation.

Wow. An appeal to popularity, the numbers, and tradition logical fallacies all wrapped up in one sentence. Three in one. You've outdone yourself this time.

This being a fight against your disgusting experiment with trying to equate the lower rungs of the ladder with the higher…something that is anti-civilizational. One that promotes the maxim that when one stands for everything, one stands for nothing. And he who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

And here we go back to not understanding the position of relative morality. I guess if you are used to something, even if it doesn't work, you'll stick to it.

Look in the mirror on lack of substance cap’n. You do all this in your mind, a figment, that if it were a pigment, would be completely transparent… as in not existent. But you can keep making those proclamations, its what you are truly good at, excel at, tho it looks rather sad.
This fantasy of substance you promote of yourself, the lack of it is why there is no point in further discussion… you do not see your own ideology but instead misplace your ideology for substance.

And as usual, all I need to do is take apart your own failed argument. Mostly, when you debate me, you help me prove you wrong. You might actually be decent if you didn't use emotion and personal morality in all of your arguments... but since it also seems that you don't have a good grasp of the topic, I would imagine you must use emotion in order to stay in the debate. But do let me know if you do have any substance to present. I'll be happy to examine it.

Deuce · Sep 19, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:
I tend to agree with the sentiment that nobody has a right not to be offended…and so, I do have a right to be offended…and I am…and I no longer seek not to offend those that would lead us down this path to the chaos you presume to foist upon us all. Sorry, not prudent, not gonna do it. We have now taken off the gloves and will call a spade a spade, a disgusting practice just what it is...disgusting.

Path to chaos. :lamo I love it. And they call me an "alarmist" for thinking we should do something about our use of fossil fuels. You're telling me a Gaypocalypse is coming. :lamo

But at least you're finally admitting what the real issue is. You think homosexuality is disgusting. It's not about some morals of society, some appeal to the authority of your God. You think it's disgusting, so you want the law to reflect that.

This is America, my friend. We don't write the law based on your personal disapproval of something. The government of the United States can't make gender-based classifications like this unless they show an important state interest in doing so. Tell me what that interest is. State interest. Not yours.

But you still think it's all about you, I guess.

Gaugingcatenate · Sep 19, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Deuce said:
Path to chaos. :lamo I love it. And they call me an "alarmist" for thinking we should do something about our use of fossil fuels. You're telling me a Gaypocalypse is coming. :lamo

But at least you're finally admitting what the real issue is. You think homosexuality is disgusting. It's not about some morals of society, some appeal to the authority of your God. You think it's disgusting, so you want the law to reflect that.

This is America, my friend. We don't write the law based on your personal disapproval of something. The government of the United States can't make gender-based classifications like this unless they show an important state interest in doing so. Tell me what that interest is. State interest. Not yours.

But you still think it's all about you, I guess.

Oh buddy, don't know if you have read much of the thread, and in particular my posts, but its all that...its depraved and ghastly, it goes against good morals, goes against religion, against strong institutions, weakens the family especially with this absurd push for legitimacy and equality ...but for sure, I personally think its nauseatingly disgusting, absolutely. Do not even like to think about the logistics of this practice at all if I can avoid it.

Nor do we make law based on your personal baseless support for a deviant practice. Oh, and we the government can do as we please, government is the servant, we, the people, are the master. So if we so decide, so it shall be done. We have no obligation to follow through with societal suicide, we have a duty to future generations of Americans more than we do to 2-5% of our current population that happens to be of a group having deviant sexual desires and aspirations to have that deviance looked upon as normal.

Its all about me and the majority of normal folks, not about you and your minority of deviant folk. So, yeah, I guess you are at least partially correct.

EdwinWillers · Sep 19, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

CaptainCourtesy said:
Of course you lack information, employ logical fallacies and are inaccurate. You don't understand basic concepts. You constantly confuse orientation for behavior, and don't know simple definitions. I would say this defines lacking information.

And yet, you can't refute a single thing I’ve said.

I’m seeing baseless assertions may be a critical part of your debate style. W/r to the basics though, I don't see it as my responsibility to explain them to you. If you don't (or won't) take responsibility for the confusion they apparently are causing you, that would be your problem, not mine. W/r to definitions – I suggest Dictionary.com - Free Online English Dictionary as it’s quite user-friendly.

CaptainCourtesy said:
It wasn't dodged at all. Every example you posted was a logical fallacy. It's not my fault if you can't debate without using fallacies.

Well I fail to see how it's my responsibility to educate you on the difference between answering a simple question and [supposed] logical fallacies, let alone how to conduct a civil conversation without repeatedly dodging honest, straightforward questions. Now if what is/isn't a logical fallacy is what's confusing you - there are numerous sites on the web where you can get a wealth of clarification. I don't think it necessary I google them for you – I trust you can manage the few seconds to get access to all the help you need.

CaptainCourtesy said:
What's my only source of proof for WHAT? Please be clear with your questions. I understand that it must be tough not really understanding the issue, but give it a try.

I’m not sure what you mean by, "WHAT?" It could not have been any clearer. I sense projection may be a critical part of your debate style too.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Your belief is irrelevant. Orientation is not defined by behavior. OK, so it's worse than I thought. Seems to me that your lack of understanding of the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation is that you don't understand exactly what sexual orientation IS.

No – it’s definitely quite clear. I’m not sure why you’re struggling so with the concepts - and for whatever reason, attempting to blame me for your struggles in the process. Tsk. Tsk. I see deflection may be a critical part of your debate style.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Your belief or lack thereof is irrelevant. Orientation exists. Let's see if I'm right. Define sexual orientation.

Now I see pointless repetition may be a critical part of your debate style too. You might want to review one of your new-found sources on logical fallacies for that one. Hint: think, “nausea.”

CaptainCourtesy said:
Sexual orientation has a fairly well defined definition. But here's a question that I'd like to see you answer. Define the heterosexual sexual orientation.

I'm sensing some possible issues with basic reading comprehension here as well - given my post couldn’t have been clearer as to its intent and content; but then that seems to be a common thread. Suppose however we try and get organized and you take a stab at answering my questions first, ok?

CaptainCourtesy said:
Beliefs are secondary to facts. Thus far, your posts are devoid of facts. Now, what facts do you need? That homosexuality is normal? I've already done that. That there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior? You don't know the difference and seem unable to present the difference, so what would my presenting the difference do for someone who denies reality? Proving that homosexuality is neither deviant nor perverse? Well, if we are not discussing statistics, I've proven you wrong on both counts. See? Facts overrule your beliefs. That's why your beliefs are irrelevant.

The mystery is unraveling. Abrogating responsibility for the basics, confused definitions, dodging questions, ignoring answers, struggles with concepts, grammar, reading comprehension… a definite pattern is indeed emerging.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Hope that helps.

Actually, couple all the above with a debate style that is critically dependent on baseless assertions, deflection, projection, pointless repetition, and selective forgetfulness and it seems painfully clear that I’m not the one needing help here

CaptainCourtesy said:
I've proven you wrong on the basics. Definitions. See, that's the thing about debate. If someone doesn't understand definitions, or uses them incorrectly... as you have done. proving them wrong is really easy. My suggestion would be that you examine the definition of some of the terms that you have gotten wrong and then get back to me.

Boy, it is tempting… but I’ll refrain because I know that’s what the strategy is. I do appreciate your attempts to “help” but my recommendation has always been that the offerer first get help themselves before they presume to set out to help others; which advice has always been good to avoid the obvious references to planks, logs, and long, red and white canes.

Sidebar:
Unfortunately, one sees on every forum / board like this a peculiarly annoying "debate style" adopted by some for whatever reason – perhaps because it is so annoying – perhaps because it requires so little effort – -- or perhaps simply because it requires so little effort to be so annoying. I don’t know; I don’t much care. It gets adopted apparently as part of some cute, albeit puerile “winning strategy” which tactics are to annoy their opposition into silence which they characteristically then interpret as having “won.” Project, deflect, ignore, repeat, conveniently forget, and baselessly assert often enough and most reasonable people will quit wasting their time in favor of infinitely better uses of it, leaving the annoyer (pathetically) to their pointless “triumph.” Well good for them.

ItAin'tFree · Sep 19, 2013

CaptainCourtesy said:
And yet you've offered no proof and have decided to use a red herring to hide the fact that you both can't follow the context of the discussion and have been shown to have failed with your position. It doesn't surprise me that you were so easy to dispatch. Your lack of integrity from the other thread was quite evident and you have showed it again, here. Good job.

LOL. Mr. Irrelevant is back pretending that he didn't make anything up again. LOL. Good to see you back at it because had I not noticed your post I wouldn't be reminding everyone of the phony claim you made last week. Well here it is folks. He made up a phony claim about a 20 man condom study and used it as fact to try to make one of his silly points. Since then he has squirmed, twisted, weaseled, and anything and everything else in his failed attempt to change the subject, which is of course the bogus study he claimed existed. The "proof" is in his post last week. Since then he has sounded like Obama and his denial of his "red line". But that's what liberals do.

Gaugingcatenate · Sep 20, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

CaptainCourtesy said:
You know, repeating arguments that I've already destroyed really doesn't help you.

People can make their decisions anyway they like. However, if they make them based on emotion and not facts, then I'll point it out. That's what you did.

Different argument. You seem to claim that 37 states being against SSM means something that makes your position, stronger. Of course, you lack context in your argument, so I added the context and showed how your presentation makes my position stronger. This is known as self-pwnage. You seem good at that.

:lol: This is a contradiction. Morality is relative. As soon as you claim it's related to someone more closely, it ceases being relative. I'd say this is self-pwnage too, but that would be too kind.

No there isn't. There are people who have similar morality.

Since morality is relative, this is nothing but opinion and is therefore irrelevant.

Since morality is relevant, this is nothing but your opinion and therefore irrelevant.

You are making this too easy.

Still going with the failed argument, eh? How many states were not fine with it 10 years ago? I noticed that you didn't answer that question. I wonder why? :lol:

You mean like DOMA? :lol: You just keep self-pwning. Are you trying to make yourself look bad?

Awww... what's the matter? You want to neutralize any group that presents information that proves you wrong? Good to know that you believe in censorship.

And I guess I will just have to keep proving you wrong with facts, while watching you complain and sulk with nothing but emotion. That's OK. It's amusing to watch.

Feel free to have your opinions. I like uninformed opinions like yours. They make my responses far easier to compose.

I didn't. It was YOUR comment that I forgot to place in quotes so it would be assigned to you. Breaking up your quotes so I can address each point of inaccuracy that you make is quite tedious. I missed one.

As soon as you use the phrase "needs to be" your position is a fantasy, not based in fact, and irrelevant. You keep making the same errors, even though I have been correcting you as we go along.

"Should" is irrelevant to reality. The laws are relevant. Just because you believe something "should" be, doesn't make it fact. If it is law, it is fact. Currently, in 13 states, SSM is legal. Your "should" is irrelevant there. Currently in 37 states, SSM is not legal. Your "should" is irrelevant there. LAWS and facts are relevant.

Now I've explained this three times. Lets see if you finally get it.

Norm is what society says is the norm and what is accepted. We know that 51% of the population accepts SSM. Therefore, it is the norm. We know that homosexuality is accepted as a different variant of sexual orientation. Therefore, it is normal. Thank you for, once again, helping my argument. Perhaps I should just let you make it for me, since you are doing such a good job.

Wow. An appeal to popularity, the numbers, and tradition logical fallacies all wrapped up in one sentence. Three in one. You've outdone yourself this time.

And here we go back to not understanding the position of relative morality. I guess if you are used to something, even if it doesn't work, you'll stick to it.

And as usual, all I need to do is take apart your own failed argument. Mostly, when you debate me, you help me prove you wrong. You might actually be decent if you didn't use emotion and personal morality in all of your arguments... but since it also seems that you don't have a good grasp of the topic, I would imagine you must use emotion in order to stay in the debate. But do let me know if you do have any substance to present. I'll be happy to examine it.

This is such a crock that I am certainly not going to take the time with you anymore, beyond this post, as it’s just not worthwhile. Your self-absorbed belief that these ‘ oops, forgot to flush’ opinions of yours don’t stink is hilarious…so thanks for that, but to expect anyone to spend time going all through this hot mess in the future?

Nah.

Let’s start with the ‘morality is relative’ statements…if that is so, then the topic of morality would totally be subject to emotion and opinion… and so to make the accusation that it is only I that is doing so when you, by your own parameters, would have to be doing the same thing is…what do you call it? Self-pwnage—self described? Si Señor . The fact that you got your butt owned on how homosexuality somehow became ‘normal’ is well known. So, you have what are supposed to be unbiased institutions shilling themselves because they are liberal [and probably many times even subject to the same deviance that they, if we believed them, want to try to force the rest of us to considered normal]…its laughable but hardly objective. Just following the liberal non-reproductive herd, unnurgh unnurrrgh…nice.

Then the self denial of the fact that you cannot just do away with the fact that 37 states have either Constitutional bans on SSM or define marriage as to be only between one man and one woman…that it is irrelevant unless you are then taking into account that there has been minimal movement on the point over 10 years…then it suddenly becomes relevant...hmmmm, if it’s not relevant, then movement in the last ten years would also be irrelevant. Simple to anyone who knows how to reason, but to those whose positions are incessantly irrational, it makes perfect sense that it is irrelevant in the one but suddenly relevant in the other.
Self pwnge again? Si Señor.

But of course it is not irrelevant, because the American people have overwhelmingly through the institution and strenuous effort necessary to accomplish Constitutional amendments to ban this depraved desire thus prove that WE, the majority, REFUSE TO GO ALONG WITH A DEGENERATE MORALITY. One might spray a ton of perfume on dog dumplings…it’s still gonna be dog dumplings.

As regards a common morality… you can look up common but seeing as you have no particular idea of what is normal and what is deviant you seem to have a morally relative dictionary and so definitions mean what you want them to mean, but common would be the most regularly occurring morality…which come from the major religious moralities in toto … argue it all you want but you non-religious or religious but actually nonbelieving folk are the minority. And we are going to keep it that way. The 51% is fictional and most people have been 'politically corrected' into going along with something they know deep down is sordid at best. We “normal folks” don’t even like to think of what …well…simply yuck….Sorry to have to break it to you.

But the fact that you over and over and over again [ read above in at least four instances] call morality relative and therefore subject to emotion means your supposed statements of substance are only those of your opinion and so, based on your own logic, irrelevant [ self-pwnge again? Si Señor] …but this is where the 37 states come in [ yes, AGAIN, as it is relevant ] because even if you were right about opinion, this would be THE MAJORITY OPINION in a nation where the MAJORITY RULES. Got that relevant factoid, do you? The APA does not get to decide for us. That would be an appeal to authority [ which in any case would be erroneous as has previously been proven that they are not really a true authority but merely a biased interloper ]. ? Si Señor.

‘Should’ and ‘needs to be’ are banished eh? So is shame apparently, because any perverted thing you folks want to push on the rest of us and we are just supposed to lay down, or more apropos, bend over and let you drive right through huh? 'Should be' becomes law when there is sufficient support, as in the case of people not wanting your degeneracy to become the common morality. Sorry, there is a common morality and one that is necessary to maintain an ordered society. We are not going to let you try to brow beat us, because that is all the strength you can muster, into becoming a totally debauched country…certainly not without a fight. And we now know you folks will not stop at tolerance, you want your depraved deviancy to equate to the normal and upright …nope…that’s out, we take off the gloves and now its bare knuckles… and we are just tougher and smarter…oh and more numerous....you have now awakened the sleeping giant.

Majority rules is how we govern, cap’n…better get used to it as well, its not just an appeal to popularity, it’s the Constitutional framework… get used to it…ha hah ahahahahhaaaaaa…too tooooo funny.

Oh, and your usual admission of failure, the ubiquitous, in your posts, "proclamation of victory"…wow, what it must be like to be up in there with all that low hanging fertilizer all around…there to be plucked at will…ha ha ha ha…yeah, I have already spent, wasted, too much time on your silliness. I mean its like squeezing a load of your lemons for too long and not getting even a little drip of the fabled juice...nothing...so it is counterproductive to continue the process....But you have at it, being of liberal mindset, that being the more feminine based ideology, you get the last word…go for it cap’n.

EdwinWillers · Sep 20, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Deuce said:
< snip >
But at least you're finally admitting what the real issue is. You think homosexuality is disgusting. It's not about some morals of society, some appeal to the authority of your God. You think it's disgusting, so you want the law to reflect that.

This is America, my friend. We don't write the law based on your personal disapproval of something. The government of the United States can't make gender-based classifications like this unless they show an important state interest in doing so. Tell me what that interest is. State interest. Not yours.
< snip >

You may not have noticed what the point of this thread is so given your question, I'll take a second here and note that it's about the government of the United States making gender-based classifications and enacting laws accordingly. I might then ask you the same thing - what is the State interest there?

Personally, I don't want [more] laws - particularly in this area. Personally I'm absolutely and unequivocally opposed to this law - for a variety of reasons, but primarily because this IS America, my friend and we don't write laws based on anyone's or any group's personal approval of something - particularly when such laws (and the assertion of the OP, btw) are intended to secure the approval of the State - and then the compliance of the citizenry (agree or not) in the process.

Now, you may not think two grown men lustfully gorging themselves on one another remotely disgusting; you may even count it a "family value." I don't know. That's your issue, not mine. My issue is you, or them, or the State telling me, forcing me not only to accept it, but accept it as normal behavior, as well as all its attendant consequences without the right to protest and speak out against it.

You may care less about morality; you may care even less about God; but I'll repeat it, this is America, my friend. We don't write the law based on someone's personal disapproval of something - be it someone's disapproval of morals, or be it someone's disapproval of God either.

CaptainCourtesy · Sep 22, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

EdwinWillers said:
And yet, you can't refute a single thing I’ve said.

There's not much to refute. If one does not understand the basics there's not much to their argument that lends itself to discussion. Education, perhaps, but not discussion.

I’m seeing baseless assertions may be a critical part of your debate style. W/r to the basics though, I don't see it as my responsibility to explain them to you. If you don't (or won't) take responsibility for the confusion they apparently are causing you, that would be your problem, not mine. W/r to definitions – I suggest Dictionary.com - Free Online English Dictionary as it’s quite user-friendly.

Ah. So you don't understand them. Noted.

Well I fail to see how it's my responsibility to educate you on the difference between answering a simple question and [supposed] logical fallacies, let alone how to conduct a civil conversation without repeatedly dodging honest, straightforward questions. Now if what is/isn't a logical fallacy is what's confusing you - there are numerous sites on the web where you can get a wealth of clarification. I don't think it necessary I google them for you – I trust you can manage the few seconds to get access to all the help you need.

Ah. So you lack the ability to not debate with logical fallacies. Noted

I’m not sure what you mean by, "WHAT?" It could not have been any clearer. I sense projection may be a critical part of your debate style too.

Yes, you certainly could have been more clear. Try again.

No – it’s definitely quite clear. I’m not sure why you’re struggling so with the concepts - and for whatever reason, attempting to blame me for your struggles in the process. Tsk. Tsk. I see deflection may be a critical part of your debate style.

So you STILL can't distinguish the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, and still can't explain what sexual orientation actually is. Noted.

Now I see pointless repetition may be a critical part of your debate style too. You might want to review one of your new-found sources on logical fallacies for that one. Hint: think, “nausea.”

Still can't take a stab at the definition, eh? I understand that it's difficult to admit that you just don't know, but give it a try. I would be then happy to educate you on the topic.

I'm sensing some possible issues with basic reading comprehension here as well - given my post couldn’t have been clearer as to its intent and content; but then that seems to be a common thread. Suppose however we try and get organized and you take a stab at answering my questions first, ok?

No, I've been asking you for definitions and explanations for several posts. When you answer mine... or confirm my beliefs and just say "I don't know what any of those things mean" then, if relevant, I'll answer your questions. Not before.

The mystery is unraveling. Abrogating responsibility for the basics, confused definitions, dodging questions, ignoring answers, struggles with concepts, grammar, reading comprehension… a definite pattern is indeed emerging.

These are all things I've already noted in your debate style. I can now add projecting to them as well.

Actually, couple all the above with a debate style that is critically dependent on baseless assertions, deflection, projection, pointless repetition, and selective forgetfulness and it seems painfully clear that I’m not the one needing help here

Of course you are. I can now add denial as another of your debate weaknesses. They are really racking up.

Boy, it is tempting… but I’ll refrain because I know that’s what the strategy is. I do appreciate your attempts to “help” but my recommendation has always been that the offerer first get help themselves before they presume to set out to help others; which advice has always been good to avoid the obvious references to planks, logs, and long, red and white canes.

See, I know the information, you do not. My offer to help is genuine. All you have to do is ask.

Sidebar:
Unfortunately, one sees on every forum / board like this a peculiarly annoying "debate style" adopted by some for whatever reason – perhaps because it is so annoying – perhaps because it requires so little effort – -- or perhaps simply because it requires so little effort to be so annoying. I don’t know; I don’t much care. It gets adopted apparently as part of some cute, albeit puerile “winning strategy” which tactics are to annoy their opposition into silence which they characteristically then interpret as having “won.” Project, deflect, ignore, repeat, conveniently forget, and baselessly assert often enough and most reasonable people will quit wasting their time in favor of infinitely better uses of it, leaving the annoyer (pathetically) to their pointless “triumph.” Well good for them.

Actually, I employ this "style" when I debate someone who is dishonest and/or uses the "my beliefs equal facts" tactic, which is what you do. It is also useful with people who prefer to misrepresent issues and definitions rather than looking at the actuality of these things... another thing you employ. Now, if you actually want to have a debate with information and facts, come to the plate with some. Your beliefs are pretty meaningless when you try to masquerade them as facts... and if you think they are facts, prove them. If you don't, I'll just continue to demonstrate that you don't know the first thing of what you are speaking by throwing out examples of such, placing them in either questioning or challenging phrasing and watching you refuse to answer or respond to them.

You've seen my challenges/questions. The ball is now in your court.

CaptainCourtesy · Sep 22, 2013

ItAin'tFree said:
LOL. Mr. Irrelevant is back pretending that he didn't make anything up again. LOL. Good to see you back at it because had I not noticed your post I wouldn't be reminding everyone of the phony claim you made last week. Well here it is folks. He made up a phony claim about a 20 man condom study and used it as fact to try to make one of his silly points. Since then he has squirmed, twisted, weaseled, and anything and everything else in his failed attempt to change the subject, which is of course the bogus study he claimed existed. The "proof" is in his post last week. Since then he has sounded like Obama and his denial of his "red line". But that's what liberals do.

And this is what conservatives do. They present a debunked study and then when proven wrong, slink away refusing to take responsibility for what they did. THEN, upset that they got humiliated, they attempt to prove someone else wrong without a shred of evidence, and THEN, to compound their error, they can't follow the line of conversation. ItAin'tFree has done all these things, and I am happy to expose them any time that seems appropriate. Like now.

CaptainCourtesy · Sep 22, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:
This is such a crock that I am certainly not going to take the time with you anymore, beyond this post, as it’s just not worthwhile. Your self-absorbed belief that these ‘ oops, forgot to flush’ opinions of yours don’t stink is hilarious…so thanks for that, but to expect anyone to spend time going all through this hot mess in the future?

Nah.

Of course you won't. You wouldn't want to get beaten yet AGAIN.

Let’s start with the ‘morality is relative’ statements…if that is so, then the topic of morality would totally be subject to emotion and opinion… and so to make the accusation that it is only I that is doing so when you, by your own parameters, would have to be doing the same thing is…what do you call it? Self-pwnage—self described? Si Señor . The fact that you got your butt owned on how homosexuality somehow became ‘normal’ is well known. So, you have what are supposed to be unbiased institutions shilling themselves because they are liberal [and probably many times even subject to the same deviance that they, if we believed them, want to try to force the rest of us to considered normal]…its laughable but hardly objective. Just following the liberal non-reproductive herd, unnurgh unnurrrgh…nice.

So, let's start with this paragraph. Wait... there is no substance here. Nothing that either responds to a thing I said, or combats an argument I made. Just silly conservative hackery that has no semblance of validity. I here I expected more from you...

Then the self denial of the fact that you cannot just do away with the fact that 37 states have either Constitutional bans on SSM or define marriage as to be only between one man and one woman…that it is irrelevant unless you are then taking into account that there has been minimal movement on the point over 10 years…then it suddenly becomes relevant...hmmmm, if it’s not relevant, then movement in the last ten years would also be irrelevant. Simple to anyone who knows how to reason, but to those whose positions are incessantly irrational, it makes perfect sense that it is irrelevant in the one but suddenly relevant in the other.
Self pwnge again? Si Señor.

Now, I'm SURE this one must be better. Wait... oh, dear... self-pwnage abounds. Movement in the past 10 years... how much in the previous 10... or the 10 before that... or the 10 before THAT? Statistics seem to be your enemy. It's Ok. I'm SURE this will get better.

But of course it is not irrelevant, because the American people have overwhelmingly through the institution and strenuous effort necessary to accomplish Constitutional amendments to ban this depraved desire thus prove that WE, the majority, REFUSE TO GO ALONG WITH A DEGENERATE MORALITY. One might spray a ton of perfume on dog dumplings…it’s still gonna be dog dumplings.

Oh, my. Appeal to majority. Appeal to emotion. Trying to use opinions/values to prove a position. Surely you MUST have something better?

As regards a common morality… you can look up common but seeing as you have no particular idea of what is normal and what is deviant you seem to have a morally relative dictionary and so definitions mean what you want them to mean, but common would be the most regularly occurring morality…which come from the major religious moralities in toto … argue it all you want but you non-religious or religious but actually nonbelieving folk are the minority. And we are going to keep it that way. The 51% is fictional and most people have been 'politically corrected' into going along with something they know deep down is sordid at best. We “normal folks” don’t even like to think of what …well…simply yuck….Sorry to have to break it to you.

Oh, oh. 51% is fictional? Now you have degenerated into flat out denial because your position is so laughably refuted. I am starting to fear that rather than getting better or even staying the same, things are going to get worse.

But the fact that you over and over and over again [ read above in at least four instances] call morality relative and therefore subject to emotion means your supposed statements of substance are only those of your opinion and so, based on your own logic, irrelevant [ self-pwnge again? Si Señor] …but this is where the 37 states come in [ yes, AGAIN, as it is relevant ] because even if you were right about opinion, this would be THE MAJORITY OPINION in a nation where the MAJORITY RULES. Got that relevant factoid, do you? The APA does not get to decide for us. That would be an appeal to authority [ which in any case would be erroneous as has previously been proven that they are not really a true authority but merely a biased interloper ]. ? Si Señor.

Now this is interesting. Incredibly poor debating, but at least it's interesting. Obviously you don't understand arguments. The fact that morality is relative eliminates morality from the argument. See, I am not arguing morality. YOU are. I am arguing that since morality is relative, any moral argument is irrelevant. So, you got my argument completely wrong. Moving on... Majority opinion... appeal to popularity... easily dismissed... and lastly your presentation of the appeal to authority. Here's the problem. The appeal to authority fallacy only applies when the authority cited is not the authority on that area... for example saying because Einstein thinks that women are better multi-taskers than men would be an appeal to authority... since Einstein is no expert on sexuality or biology. If a human neuropsychologist said this, however, that would NOT be an appeal to authority, as he would be an authority on this area. The APA is the authority when it comes to determining whether something is a disorder or not. Therefore, the appeal to authority does not apply.

Three examples, three failures. Pretty standard for one of your paragraphs.

‘Should’ and ‘needs to be’ are banished eh? So is shame apparently, because any perverted thing you folks want to push on the rest of us and we are just supposed to lay down, or more apropos, bend over and let you drive right through huh? 'Should be' becomes law when there is sufficient support, as in the case of people not wanting your degeneracy to become the common morality. Sorry, there is a common morality and one that is necessary to maintain an ordered society. We are not going to let you try to brow beat us, because that is all the strength you can muster, into becoming a totally debauched country…certainly not without a fight. And we now know you folks will not stop at tolerance, you want your depraved deviancy to equate to the normal and upright …nope…that’s out, we take off the gloves and now its bare knuckles… and we are just tougher and smarter…oh and more numerous....you have now awakened the sleeping giant.

Yes, as I thought, it gets worse. You start with a complete misrepresentation and then just continue on to "tough guy" soapboxing, none of which has a shred of relevancy and contains your continued lack of knowledge of basic definitions.

Majority rules is how we govern, cap’n…better get used to it as well, its not just an appeal to popularity, it’s the Constitutional framework… get used to it…ha hah ahahahahhaaaaaa…too tooooo funny.

Now you start stating the obvious and move onto the laughter of the beaten.

Oh, and your usual admission of failure, the ubiquitous, in your posts, "proclamation of victory"…wow, what it must be like to be up in there with all that low hanging fertilizer all around…there to be plucked at will…ha ha ha ha…yeah, I have already spent, wasted, too much time on your silliness. I mean its like squeezing a load of your lemons for too long and not getting even a little drip of the fabled juice...nothing...so it is counterproductive to continue the process....But you have at it, being of liberal mindset, that being the more feminine based ideology, you get the last word…go for it cap’n.

And finishing with a flourish, you use lots of words to say nothing.

So, in conclusion, you used your "last post towards me" (is this the second or third time you've said that?) to essentially make as many errors in debate as their are errors. Logical fallacies, misrepresenting arguments, making errors, and generally saying nothing of substance. I hope it was worth it.

ItAin'tFree · Sep 22, 2013

CaptainCourtesy said:
And this is what conservatives do. They present a debunked study and then when proven wrong, slink away refusing to take responsibility for what they did. THEN, upset that they got humiliated, they attempt to prove someone else wrong without a shred of evidence, and THEN, to compound their error, they can't follow the line of conversation. ItAin'tFree has done all these things, and I am happy to expose them any time that seems appropriate. Like now.

LOL. You are the exposed one and have been for over a week now.

The evidence is what you posted; your false, made up, phony words that lied about a 20 man condom study that doesn't exist so you could pretend to have some evidence for one of your silly claims. Glad to see you back in this thread as it never gets tiring re-exposing your falsehood. I'll gladly keep reminding all, you are a person that not only makes studies up, you are silly enough to keep trying to deflect the fact. You have failed at deflecting your lack of integrity for way over a week, hopefully you'll continue for a month or more. I'll never tire of reminding people of the type make believer you are.

AGENT J · Sep 22, 2013

AGENT J said:
Backup link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/u...l-gay-marriages-regardless-of-state.html?_r=0

another victory for equal rights, slowly but surely discrimination is losing and equality is winning!!!

More info on these clearing up some confusion.
Same-Sex Married Couples Await State Tax Word | Fox Business

its a great move so far and the issues is also coming to light pointing out the fact separate but equal is not separate. Civil unions, domestic partnerships re not recognized under this, why? because those are not marriages. Basic common sense.

But like i said this is just another step to last stop which is coming fast. Equal rights for gays.

EdwinWillers · Sep 22, 2013

CaptainCourtesy said:
There's not much to refute. If one does not understand the basics there's not much to their argument that lends itself to discussion. Education, perhaps, but not discussion.

Projection noted.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Ah. So you don't understand them. Noted.

Confusion noted.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Ah. So you lack the ability to not debate with logical fallacies. Noted

Ignorance of logical fallacies noted.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Yes, you certainly could have been more clear. Try again.

Inability to grasp the basics noted.

CaptainCourtesy said:
So you STILL can't distinguish the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, and still can't explain what sexual orientation actually is. Noted.

Deflection noted.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Still can't take a stab at the definition, eh? I understand that it's difficult to admit that you just don't know, but give it a try. I would be then happy to educate you on the topic.

Attempted misdirection noted.

CaptainCourtesy said:
No, I've been asking you for definitions and explanations for several posts. When you answer mine... or confirm my beliefs and just say "I don't know what any of those things mean" then, if relevant, I'll answer your questions. Not before.

Deflection (again) noted.

CaptainCourtesy said:
These are all things I've already noted in your debate style. I can now add projecting to them as well.

Projection (again) noted.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Of course you are. I can now add denial as another of your debate weaknesses. They are really racking up.

Disingenuousness noted.

CaptainCourtesy said:
See, I know the information, you do not. My offer to help is genuine. All you have to do is ask.

Insincerety noted.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, I employ this "style" when I debate someone who is dishonest and/or uses the "my beliefs equal facts" tactic, which is what you do. It is also useful with people who prefer to misrepresent issues and definitions rather than looking at the actuality of these things... another thing you employ. Now, if you actually want to have a debate with information and facts, come to the plate with some. Your beliefs are pretty meaningless when you try to masquerade them as facts... and if you think they are facts, prove them. If you don't, I'll just continue to demonstrate that you don't know the first thing of what you are speaking by throwing out examples of such, placing them in either questioning or challenging phrasing and watching you refuse to answer or respond to them.

The sad thing is that there are some who actually think they know what they're talking about when they take on certain topics. They think, for example their opinions about things just naturally unassailable and are genuinely taken aback when someone dare challenge them. They think themselves the sole possessor of facts so when confronted with the truth they haven't a clue how to proceed except to vacuously attack the one who dare mount a dispute against the holy of holies - their opinion. Epitomizing projection, they attack others as being dishonest, liars even, or with unfounded accusations like "my beliefs equal facts" (some really need to check their premises, btw). They accuse them of misrepresentation, of masquerading and a host of other allegations they simply cannot, and therefore refuse to prove lest they tarnish their thin veneer of single carat gold plate. Hypocritically demanding "proofs" they refuse to give them themselves. Goodness, back to you and I, you STILL refuse to answer the very first question posed to you. A very simple question you cannot answer so you cheekily attempt to put a different one back on me, arrogantly, callowly insisting that I must first answer your question before you'll stoop and deign to answer mine.

CaptainCourtesy said:
You've seen my challenges/questions. The ball is now in your court.

Sorry, you may enjoy the wildly exciting game of intellectual wiffleball and the special challenges it gives you; you might actually be quite experienced and adept at it - a local hero even with a fan or two in this forum or that. Personally, I find it rather... airily puerile and pointless. But hey, to each his own. You don't want to, or can't discuss this topic honestly, fine.

Deuce · Sep 22, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

EdwinWillers said:
You may not have noticed what the point of this thread is so given your question, I'll take a second here and note that it's about the government of the United States making gender-based classifications and enacting laws accordingly. I might then ask you the same thing - what is the State interest there?

Personally, I don't want [more] laws - particularly in this area. Personally I'm absolutely and unequivocally opposed to this law - for a variety of reasons, but primarily because this IS America, my friend and we don't write laws based on anyone's or any group's personal approval of something - particularly when such laws (and the assertion of the OP, btw) are intended to secure the approval of the State - and then the compliance of the citizenry (agree or not) in the process.

Now, you may not think two grown men lustfully gorging themselves on one another remotely disgusting; you may even count it a "family value." I don't know. That's your issue, not mine. My issue is you, or them, or the State telling me, forcing me not only to accept it, but accept it as normal behavior, as well as all its attendant consequences without the right to protest and speak out against it.

You may care less about morality; you may care even less about God; but I'll repeat it, this is America, my friend. We don't write the law based on someone's personal disapproval of something - be it someone's disapproval of morals, or be it someone's disapproval of God either.

Nobody cares whether or not you approve or accept it. Seriously, get over yourself. This isn't a discussion about how you should think. How on earth do you perceive the state as trying to "force you" to accept it as "normal?" Some kind of mind control ray? What, I'm supposed to believe that if the state recognizes same-sex marriage, you're going to change your mind? You'll suddenly think it's ok?

No, my friend, this is not about the state forcing you to accept something as normal. This is about you. You don't want to accept it as normal, and you want to make damned sure nobody else does either.

Forcing you. Laughable. It is laughable that you think this has anything to do with your opinion.

AGENT J · Sep 22, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Deuce said:
Nobody cares whether or not you approve or accept it. Seriously, get over yourself. This isn't a discussion about how you should think. How on earth do you perceive the state as trying to "force you" to accept it as "normal?" Some kind of mind control ray?

its a strawman that some people think is a good one and will work but it never does. In reality there is no force.

EdwinWillers · Sep 22, 2013

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Deuce said:
Nobody cares whether or not you approve or accept it. Seriously, get over yourself. This isn't a discussion about how you should think. How on earth do you perceive the state as trying to "force you" to accept it as "normal?" Some kind of mind control ray? What, I'm supposed to believe that if the state recognizes same-sex marriage, you're going to change your mind? You'll suddenly think it's ok?

No, my friend, this is not about the state forcing you to accept something as normal. This is about you. You don't want to accept it as normal, and you want to make damned sure nobody else does either.

Forcing you. Laughable. It is laughable that you think this has anything to do with your opinion.

"Get over myself?"

Seriously, I was over myself a long time ago. But if you don't like where I'm coming from on this topic, maybe - just maybe it's you who needs to get over that -- unless of course you have something substantive to add beyond your opinion on how "laughable" you think everything is. :2wave:

Maybe, for example, you could provide some facts demonstrating the humor in what I posted. Why it's humorous, what about it makes it humorous, or perhaps the comedic elements you found in it that makes it so humorous. Of course in keeping with your own criteria, they need to be facts, not your opinions.

For example, one might - say - point to someone's chosen subtitle of "Outer space potato man" and find the humor in such a person lecturing anyone with "how on earth..." they perceive anything.

The comedic elements there of course being quite obvious. :lamo

KWIM?

On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

"Statism - ideas so good they require coercion"

"Statism - ideas so good they require coercion"

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Outer space potato man

"Statism - ideas so good they require coercion"

Well-known member

"Statism - ideas so good they require coercion"

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Well-known member

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"Statism - ideas so good they require coercion"

Outer space potato man

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"Statism - ideas so good they require coercion"