• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
Baloney!



Yeah but you said -

So you bring in the act of sex, as a defining parameter for sexual orientation, and then now deny it has any bearing on your argument?

Weak.. Actually it's not weak, it's pathetic as a rebutal.

Tim-

I never used it as a parameter for orientation. You stated that male homosexuals were more prone to HIV, the logic being that they have more anal sex. I stated that heterosexuals have just as much anal sex as homosexuals, so that logic if flawed. I never stated that sexual activity defines one's sexuality, so don't twist my words.

The fact is, even if you don't want to see it, that one's orientation is determined by attraction, not activity. Or are you saying that heterosexual people that have anal sex are less hetero? Because that makes no sense.
 
CC -

Now, you're showing, CC. Ok, so if behavior, I assume you mean anal sex that causes HIV, and also too, the practice of unsafe sex; then my analysis is still 100% accurate.

No, your analysis draws a conclusion from information that is unfounded. That is the problem with your analysis.

The "state of being" is only to identify the category. Why analyze data that places a conclusion on a group of people, if you're not going to identify who the group of people are?

Problem is that your analysis does not conclude what you are claiming. So categorizing it helps MY position. Now, if you want to do that, be my guest, but, based on how you have debated this issue, you're the one who needs help, not me.



Thanks for pointing out the blatantly obvious? :)

Good. So we agree. Orientation is irrelevant, behavior IS relevant. I appreciate the assistance, but I don't need it.



No.. I mean you're sampling a large sample to make a more narrow conclusion. You cannot take a single narrow experience, and apply it to a broad sample. That's ridiculous!

I'm not doing that. What you are doing is taking a sample and making an invalid conclusion with it.

Umm.. Yeah, this is what I have been saying?

No, it's not. You tried to eliminate data from lesbians... until you were called on it. You tried to make irrelevant data from heterosexuals... until you were called on it. You've been trying to manipulate statistics from the moment you started debating this issue.

I said -

You say -

Huh?

The difference is the word "responsible". That denotes cause. Either change the word, or you sentence is invalid, since you can't prove cause.

No.. Um, no it doesn't, not in the slightest!

Absolutely did, as I showed. Just saying "no it doesn't" is pretty weak debating.



I never made this conclusion, you just did! However, it also happens to be true according to my analysis; at least statistically.

Now you are just lying. Here are your words: 'Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV." Completely conclusive that homosexuals are a risk factor in contracting HIV. That indicates cause. And, you just said it again, contradicting yourself.

So, once again, you have presented an invalid conclusion. Congratulations.



I don't need to show causation. I never made that claim. However, I also proved it in my analysis, you just missed it again for the first time. :)

I showed how you made the claim and how your analysis failed in it's attempt to prove it. As I have been saying. Go ahead, Hicup. Rebut... and please do it with something other than "nuh huh". I showed where you made the claim and I showed where your claim is invalid. Either show us SOMETHING or stand down.

And I would add that you can't be asking me if I made the claim that homosexuality causes HIV? No one knows what causes HIV, if I did , I'd be rich beyond belief.

So, then this statement is false: "Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV." Good to know.
 

Actually, she got it right. You are, again, showing your ignorance on the topic. One can be heterosexual without ever having sex.

Yeah but you said -

So you bring in the act of sex, as a defining parameter for sexual orientation, and then now deny it has any bearing on your argument?

Weak.. Actually it's not weak, it's pathetic as a rebutal.

Tim-

No, she didn't say that. Your ability to understand the debate is seriously lacking. These were two different arguments, not the same one. Try to follow along.
 
I stated that heterosexuals have just as much anal sex as homosexuals, so that logic if flawed

No, this statement is completely and utterly false. How can it possibly be true? Even if one were to ignore the blatantly obvious for a moment, homosexuas have a single choice for sexual intercourse, whereas heterosexuals have two. The law of averages alone would completely, and utterly refute your asssertion.

I never stated that sexual activity defines one's sexuality, so don't twist my words.

yes, but..ummm.. hmmm. Sexual activity is what is sampled in the HIV CDC sample, and it is designated by sexual orientation. Do you really not see this as relavant to my analysis?

The fact is, even if you don't want to see it, that one's orientation is determined by attraction, not activity. Or are you saying that heterosexual people that have anal sex are less hetero? Because that makes no sense.

The fact is that a homosexual, or a heterosexual that doesn't have sex, is rendered moot in my analysis, and I would also argue rendered moot in any meaningful debate on sexuality.


Tim-
 
They do? Wouldn't that kind of be a silly assumption? Since part of what constitutes a heterosexual is how they make love? LOL You can't be that serious? Were you joking with me?


Tim-

More evidence that you do not understand this debate or the issues that surround it. Sexual orientation is defined as such... by a few sources:

The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes
sexual orientation - Medical Definition

Sexual orientation, sexual preference or sexual inclination describes the focus of a person's amorous or erotic desires, fantasies, and feelings.
Sexual orientation - Definition

The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes.
sexual orientation: Definition from Answers.com

Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender. Sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See? Your Star is correct. You are wrong. With your lack of understanding of this issue, I am starting to wonder if you are here to make the anti-GM side look ridiculous.
 
No, your analysis draws a conclusion from information that is unfounded. That is the problem with your analysis.



Problem is that your analysis does not conclude what you are claiming. So categorizing it helps MY position. Now, if you want to do that, be my guest, but, based on how you have debated this issue, you're the one who needs help, not me.





Good. So we agree. Orientation is irrelevant, behavior IS relevant. I appreciate the assistance, but I don't need it.





I'm not doing that. What you are doing is taking a sample and making an invalid conclusion with it.



No, it's not. You tried to eliminate data from lesbians... until you were called on it. You tried to make irrelevant data from heterosexuals... until you were called on it. You've been trying to manipulate statistics from the moment you started debating this issue.



The difference is the word "responsible". That denotes cause. Either change the word, or you sentence is invalid, since you can't prove cause.



Absolutely did, as I showed. Just saying "no it doesn't" is pretty weak debating.





Now you are just lying. Here are your words: 'Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV." Completely conclusive that homosexuals are a risk factor in contracting HIV. That indicates cause. And, you just said it again, contradicting yourself.

So, once again, you have presented an invalid conclusion. Congratulations.





I showed how you made the claim and how your analysis failed in it's attempt to prove it. As I have been saying. Go ahead, Hicup. Rebut... and please do it with something other than "nuh huh". I showed where you made the claim and I showed where your claim is invalid. Either show us SOMETHING or stand down.



So, then this statement is false: "Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV." Good to know.

I don't need to rebut you post. I am right, and you failed miserably in proving me wrong. If you want to claim victory, go ahead, but I would hope that the reasonable members here would see otherwise. if they don't, no matter, I knwo that you have not refuted me argument, and I am STILL 100% correct in my analysis.


Tim-
 
More evidence that you do not understand this debate or the issues that surround it. Sexual orientation is defined as such... by a few sources:









See? Your Star is correct. You are wrong. With your lack of understanding of this issue, I am starting to wonder if you are here to make the anti-GM side look ridiculous.

Why do you keep saying I have a "lack of understanding"? Does this make you feel superior? Are you trying to garner favor from someone? I would hope that at the very least, to the reasonable members lucky enough to read this thread, I seem to appear to have a somewhat slight grasp of the issue. :)


Tim-
 
Last edited:
No, this statement is completely and utterly false. How can it possibly be true? Even if one were to ignore the blatantly obvious for a moment, homosexuas have a single choice for sexual intercourse, whereas heterosexuals have two. The law of averages alone would completely, and utterly refute your asssertion.

I would agree that heterosexuals probably do not have anal sex as often as homosexuals... though I would like to see some data to confirm that. However, when discussing this issue, we are talking about risk factors for HIV. Behavior causes HIV. Not orientation. Therefore, the discussion of orientation is irrelevant from a causational factor.



yes, but..ummm.. hmmm. Sexual activity is what is sampled in the HIV CDC sample, and it is designated by sexual orientation. Do you really not see this as relavant to my analysis?

It's sampled, yes. It is only relevant in a correlational way. That does NOT lead to the conclusion you made. That is why your final analysis is bunk.

The fact is that a homosexual, or a heterosexual that doesn't have sex, is rendered moot in my analysis, and I would also argue rendered moot in any meaningful debate on sexuality.

Sorry, you don't get to eliminate data or information because it doesn't apply to your conclusion. That is not how honest analysis works. Sexual behavior is but one part of sexuality. I would think that you would know that... but perhaps not.
 
Last edited:
I don't need to rebut you post. I am right, and you failed miserably in proving me wrong. If you want to claim victory, go ahead, but I would hope that the reasonable members here would see otherwise. if they don't, no matter, I knwo that you have not refuted me argument, and I am STILL 100% correct in my analysis.


Tim-

I found this hilarious.

By the way, Your Star may have been wrong about the prevalence of anal sex among straits and gays(she may have been right, it's hard to say), she is absolutely right about the fact that homosexuality is not about sex, but about who a person is attracted true. Homosexual sex is about who you have sex with, not what specific act you perform. So, in point of fact, you are quite wrong.

To further emphasize the point...anal sex with some one of the other gender is heterosexual sex, while homosexual sex can include such acts as pegging, frotting and mutual masturbation in addition to anal and oral sex. Does this make the difference clear?
 
Why do you keep saying I have a "lack of understanding"? Does this make you feel superior? Are you trying to garner favor from someone? I would hope that at the very least, to the reasonable members lucky enough to read this thread, I seem to appear to have a somewhat slight grasp of the issue. :)


Tim-

I am going to guess he says it because you show a lack of understanding in your posts.
 
I don't need to rebut you post. I am right, and you failed miserably in proving me wrong. If you want to claim victory, go ahead, but I would hope that the reasonable members here would see otherwise. if they don't, no matter, I knwo that you have not refuted me argument, and I am STILL 100% correct in my analysis.


Tim-

You can't rebut my post, so you run. You are proving that everything I have been saying about you is accurate. You lied, you contradicted yourself, and you used logical fallacies to "prove" your position... an invalid debate tactic. And all you do is say "I'm right" as a rebuttal. You've been proven wrong. And you have no rebuttal.
 
Why do you keep saying I have a "lack of understanding"? Does this make you feel superior? Are you trying to garner favor from someone? I would hope that at the very least, to the reasonable members lucky enough to read this thread, I seem to appear to have a somewhat slight grasp of the issue. :)


Tim-

I say it because you show a complete lack of understanding of the issue. Not even a slight grasp. Your attempts to divert are noted... considering that you cannot refute anything I have claimed. And at the same time, I have demonstrated that your argument lacks both a grasp of simple concepts like orientation and behavior and is filled with logical fallacies and false conclusions. If you could rebut anything I said, you would. You can't so you won't.
 
I am going to guess he says it because you show a lack of understanding in your posts.

Oh brother..

CC -
Behavior causes HIV

And you accuse me of lacking an understanding.. ^^^ LOL

Look, if the gang of whatever you peope are insist on claiming a victory, then please do so. I have not ben proven wrong, in fact, your arguments have only allowed me to illuminate the absurdity of your positions. let the members decide. If they are honest, and logical, then they can only conclude I am 100% accurate. The mere fact that you as part of the "gang" say it isn't, is meaningless to me.

I'm an honest person, if I'm shown to be wrong, I will damn well say so, and I'll do it publicly, and without condition. Thus far, you all suck at a coherant argument. :)


Tim-
 
Oh brother..

CC -

And you accuse me of lacking an understanding.. ^^^ LOL

Look, if the gang of whatever you peope are insist on claiming a victory, then please do so. I have not ben proven wrong, in fact, your arguments have only allowed me to illuminate the absurdity of your positions. let the members decide. If they are honest, and logical, then they can only conclude I am 100% accurate. The mere fact that you as part of the "gang" say it isn't, is meaningless to me.

I'm an honest person, if I'm shown to be wrong, I will damn well say so, and I'll do it publicly, and without condition. Thus far, you all suck at a coherant argument. :)


Tim-

I know...let's bitch in advance about others claiming victory, while at the same time claiming victory. Excellent plan, I wonder if it works for you.
 
You can't rebut my post, so you run. You are proving that everything I have been saying about you is accurate. You lied, you contradicted yourself, and you used logical fallacies to "prove" your position... an invalid debate tactic. And all you do is say "I'm right" as a rebuttal. You've been proven wrong. And you have no rebuttal.

Let me ask you a question. Do moderators that are involved in a thread allow themselves to self moderate? I ask, only because you accused me of lying here. I have not done so, so please retract it.


Tim-
 
Oh brother..

CC -

And you accuse me of lacking an understanding.. ^^^ LOL

Look, if the gang of whatever you peope are insist on claiming a victory, then please do so. I have not ben proven wrong, in fact, your arguments have only allowed me to illuminate the absurdity of your positions. let the members decide. If they are honest, and logical, then they can only conclude I am 100% accurate. The mere fact that you as part of the "gang" say it isn't, is meaningless to me.

I'm an honest person, if I'm shown to be wrong, I will damn well say so, and I'll do it publicly, and without condition. Thus far, you all suck at a coherant argument. :)


Tim-

Then admit you are wrong because you are. But try this...tell us. Do certain behaviors cause HIV? Because you have been claiming the opposite. Here is what you said: "Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV". Tell us how homosexuals are a risk factor in contracting HIV.
 
Let me ask you a question. Do moderators that are involved in a thread allow themselves to self moderate? I ask, only because you accused me of lying here. I have not done so, so please retract it.


Tim-

Moderator's Warning:
If you have issues with actions of moderator's, use the report post button, the contact us link at the bottom of the forum, or PM a mod of your choice. Do not discuss it in thread
 
I know...let's bitch in advance about others claiming victory, while at the same time claiming victory. Excellent plan, I wonder if it works for you.

Wow? You folks are relentless? Is it your wish to drive away intellectual contributions to this Debate Politics forum? People of less than thicker skin than I would have ben long gone by now. I am curious about you lot though. So, which is it? Do you really and truly believe that I am running from this debate, or are you merely trying desperately to cling to a consensus that you have won? None of you, not CC, not Your Star, not you, have refuted my analysis based on the sample. Instead you've all tried to deflect from the conclusion, by presenting meaningless parameters that do nothing to alter the outcome of my analysis. Were you all hoping I'd be distracted by it?

Boy, you folks have me all wrong.. I'd gaurd myself if I were you. You're all under-estimating me, just in case you haven't figured it all out by now. Maybe you're not used to someone, a conservative that argues well enough to point out the absurdity of the liberal mind?



Tim-
 
Let me ask you a question. Do moderators that are involved in a thread allow themselves to self moderate? I ask, only because you accused me of lying here. I have not done so, so please retract it.


Tim-

You claimed this: "Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV, " and then denied that you ever made a causational relationship. In your statement, you identify an orientation, not a behavior, and make a causational relationship. So you lied when you stated that you did not do this. You have refused to admit this, or back off. I pointed it out. If you lie, you'll get called on it. So, either retract, or rebut. If you do neither, than you obviously lied.
 
Moderator's Warning:
If you have issues with actions of moderator's, use the report post button, the contact us link at the bottom of the forum, or PM a mod of your choice. Do not discuss it in thread

I do not wish to report CC. I asked a question to see what was customary. Ease off on the MOD button there Redress. You won't intimidate me. If I am banned for my contributions here, it will be a loss to DP, and I will have lost a place for me to learn from others that express differeing views than I. In other words, we both lose.


Tim-
 
Wow? You folks are relentless? Is it your wish to drive away intellectual contributions to this Debate Politics forum? People of less than thicker skin than I would have ben long gone by now. I am curious about you lot though. So, which is it? Do you really and truly believe that I am running from this debate, or are you merely trying desperately to cling to a consensus that you have won? None of you, not CC, not Your Star, not you, have refuted my analysis based on the sample. Instead you've all tried to deflect from the conclusion, by presenting meaningless parameters that do nothing to alter the outcome of my analysis. Were you all hoping I'd be distracted by it?

Boy, you folks have me all wrong.. I'd gaurd myself if I were you. You're all under-estimating me, just in case you haven't figured it all out by now. Maybe you're not used to someone, a conservative that argues well enough to point out the absurdity of the liberal mind?



Tim-

Actually, we have refuted you. From your failure to understand what homosexuality is, to your failure to understand that an orientation does not make a person at higher risk for HIV/AIDS(it's actions that determine risk), to showing why you cannot conveniently throw out a segment of the population that does not fit with your analysis simply because they do not fit.
 
CC -
Do certain behaviors cause HIV?

I don't know what causes HIV? Do you? However it is TRUE that homosexuals contract HIV more than any other group.


Tim-
 
Wow? You folks are relentless? Is it your wish to drive away intellectual contributions to this Debate Politics forum? People of less than thicker skin than I would have ben long gone by now. I am curious about you lot though. So, which is it? Do you really and truly believe that I am running from this debate, or are you merely trying desperately to cling to a consensus that you have won? None of you, not CC, not Your Star, not you, have refuted my analysis based on the sample. Instead you've all tried to deflect from the conclusion, by presenting meaningless parameters that do nothing to alter the outcome of my analysis. Were you all hoping I'd be distracted by it?

Boy, you folks have me all wrong.. I'd gaurd myself if I were you. You're all under-estimating me, just in case you haven't figured it all out by now. Maybe you're not used to someone, a conservative that argues well enough to point out the absurdity of the liberal mind?



Tim-

Ah, typical of you. Now that you have been thoroughly trounced, you divert the issue into claiming false victory. No rebuttals, nothing. Your analysis have been shown for the crap that they are. You can't rebut, so you puff out your chest and say "we're underestimating you." Actually, I overestimated you in thinking that when challenged you would actually have something of substance and validity to say.

And, when completely defeated, you digress into a conservative vs. liberal issue... again, trying to divert from the fact that your arguments have been shown to be invalid. I've nailed your "style" from the beginning. Style over substance.

So, stop your whining and either rebut or retract. It is tiring watching you run from this debate when you get challenged.
 
CC -

I don't know what causes HIV? Do you? However it is TRUE that homosexuals contract HIV more than any other group.


Tim-

Not my question. Do certain behaviors cause HIV?
 
CC -

I don't know what causes HIV? Do you? However it is TRUE that homosexuals contract HIV more than any other group.


Tim-

HIV is a virus. It does not, properly, have a cause. AIDS is the disease caused by contracting the HIV. AIDS is "caused" by the HIV virus getting into the bloodstream.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom