• 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.
This is known as self-pwnage. Notice how tex manipulates terms to try to prove his position... but only succeeds in proving that he has done nothing but try to be deceptive. Anal sex does not equal male homosexual sex.

Love it when you pretend you know what you are talking about CC.

Who practices anal sex more than homosexual men per capita (just in case you try and wiggle out of it by comparing direct numbers)?

Its amazing you can look a CDC study square in the face and still deny its findings.

And I quoted the CDC directly. No manipulation needed. You however have to thrive on it to deny the above.
 
Last edited:
So, if the logic behind outlawing gay marriage is "anal (gay) sex spreads more diseases" then why not make it illegal for straights to have anal sex? If anything, allowing gay marriage would reduce the risk of spreading STD's because it would most likely promote a more single partner oriented relationship. That argument is very weak.

Anal sex is not the only form of homosexual sex. In fact, I would venture to say that everything homosexuals do straights also do.
 
Last edited:
That's the statement I made with my statistics post. I was wrong.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the transmission of HIV. Behavior does. Thanks for staying with me on this. I've learned to watch my Ps & Qs and, especially in sensitive situations, to say what I mean very carefully.

You have demonstrated integrity by reviewing the information and recognized where you made an error. Good for you. :)
 
I quoted this several times, and he denied that he made the claim. He lied.

Now that you have been proven wrong, let's see if you apologize.
CC you have proven once again that you do not know the difference between a risk factor and the word "cause".
 
So, if the logic behind outlawing gay marriage is "anal (gay) sex spreads more diseases" then why not make it illegal for straights to have anal sex? If anything, allowing gay marriage would reduce the risk of spreading STD's because it would most likely promote a more single partner oriented relationship. That argument is very weak.

Anal sex is not the only form of homosexual sex. In fact, I would venture to say that everything homosexuals do straights also do.

You still don't get it digsbe. The entire argument about HIV was brought up to counter CC's ridiculous argument that you could deny the right to marry to polygamists by weighing their positive and negative contributions to a society.

Go back and read what he wrote before assuming something inaccurate. But please go ahead and pick up on his loosing argument and explain how homosexuals can be proven to contribute more positive aspects to society than polygamists. If you read back that is how this all started.
 
Last edited:
You still don't get it digsbe. The entire argument about HIV was brought up to counter CC's ridiculous argument that you could deny the right to marry to polygamists by weighing their positive and negative contributions to a society.

Go back and read what he wrote before assuming something inaccurate.

I am against gay marriage too and I believe the overturn of prop 8 was an incredibly unjust smack to the face of voters and social conservatives. I should have read more into the thread.

One point I have raised that I don't believe was properly addressed, is that what homosexuality deserves special treatment over other sexualities. If the ruling is that you can't define marriage that excludes homosexual unions because it's a violation of equal protection, then why aren't other sexualities also under that protection? Why can't other sexualities have their unions recognized as marriage? And why don't I have the right to vote do define marriage traditionally? Why can't my beliefs be voiced, especially when there is a vote?
 
Last edited:
Love it when you pretend you know what you are talking about CC.

Who practices anal sex more than homosexual men per capita (just in case you try and wiggle out of it by comparing direct numbers)?

Its amazing you can look a CDC study square in the face and still deny its findings.

And I quoted the CDC directly. No manipulation needed. You however have to thrive on it to deny the above.

Of course you manipulated. You just did it again. It is irrelevant who practices anal sex more often. THAT BEHAVIOR is the risk factor, not being homosexual.

But tell us, tex. Would a heterosexual who has anal sex be at risk for HIV?
 
CC you have proven once again that you do not know the difference between a risk factor and the word "cause".

And you continue to prove that you do not understand the difference between orientation and behavior, and what a risk factor is.
 
You still don't get it digsbe. The entire argument about HIV was brought up to counter CC's ridiculous argument that you could deny the right to marry to polygamists by weighing their positive and negative contributions to a society.

Go back and read what he wrote before assuming something inaccurate. But please go ahead and pick up on his loosing argument and explain how homosexuals can be proven to contribute more positive aspects to society than polygamists. If you read back that is how this all started.

And since HIV and anal sex is associated with BEHAVIOR, not orientation, as usual, you failed to prove me wrong. I suppose you must be getting used to that, though.
 
As usual, Taylor, you are another one who doesn't know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Being homosexual is not a risk factor. Engaging in unsafe sex is. Homosexuals may engage in unsafe sex more often than heterosexuals, but that does not equate to the orientation, itself, being a risk factor.

There will be no apology, since he used the term incorrectly, even after he was shown that he was wrong.
Nice try. You accused him of lying about making a "causational relationship" in stating that homosexuality is a risk factor contracting HIV. Saying something is a risk factor implies no causality.

Demonstrate some integrity and admit where you are wrong.
 
Of course you manipulated. You just did it again. It is irrelevant who practices anal sex more often. THAT BEHAVIOR is the risk factor, not being homosexual.

But tell us, tex. Would a heterosexual who has anal sex be at risk for HIV?

LOL You do love to get around the facts.

Answer my question first and I'll be happy to answer yours. I've already asked it once

Who practices anal sex more than homosexual men per capita (just in case you try and wiggle out of it by comparing direct numbers)?

Answer it.

But you'll probably just duck it as usual.
 
I am against gay marriage too and I believe the overturn of prop 8 was an incredibly unjust smack to the face of voters and social conservatives. I should have read more into the thread.

One point I have raised that I don't believe was properly addressed, is that what homosexuality deserves special treatment over other sexualities. If the ruling is that you can't define marriage that excludes homosexual unions because it's a violation of equal protection, then why aren't other sexualities also under that protection? Why can't other sexualities have their unions recognized as marriage? And why don't I have the right to vote do define marriage traditionally? Why can't my beliefs be voiced, especially when there is a vote?


EXACTLY! You've got it. CC tried to get around it by setting up a new rule claiming that the right would only be given to those who showed positive contributions to society which of course he is judge and jury. That is when someone mentioned the CDC findings proving that draconian milestone not only violated the equal protection clause but was by its own nature, unprovable.
 
Last edited:
Nice try. You accused him of lying about making a "causational relationship" in stating that homosexuality is a risk factor contracting HIV. Saying something is a risk factor implies no causality.

Demonstrate some integrity and admit where you are wrong.

Saying something is a risk factor denotes cause. Again, you do not understand the difference between behavior and orientation. Have some integrity and admit that.
 
Saying something is a risk factor denotes cause. Again, you do not understand the difference between behavior and orientation. Have some integrity and admit that.


Wrong again CC

In epidemiology, a risk factor is a variable associated with an increased risk of disease or infection.
Main Entry: risk factor
Function: noun
Date: 1949

: something that increases risk or susceptibility


Question: What is a risk factor?

Answer: A risk factor is something that increases your chances of getting a disease. Sometimes, this risk comes from something you do. For example, smoking increases your chances of developing colon cancer. Therefore, smoking is a risk factor for colon cancer.


A risk factor is something that's likely to increase the chances that a particular event will occur.

risk factor

Hide links within definitions Show links within definitions
Definition

Measurable characteristic or element, a change in which can affect the value of an asset, such as exchange rate, interest rate, and market price.



5 definitions of risk factor and not a single one having the word "cause" anywhere in them.


Not that you'll admit your mistake of course. Its really for others to see. Might want to rethink Taylor's suggestion.


And of course you still haven't answered my question but such is life
 
Last edited:
LOL You do love to get around the facts.

Answer my question first and I'll be happy to answer yours. I've already asked it once

Who practices anal sex more than homosexual men per capita (just in case you try and wiggle out of it by comparing direct numbers)?

Answer it.

But you'll probably just duck it as usual.

I already answered it. Anal sex without protection is unsafe sex. Here is my comment addressing this:

Being homosexual is not a risk factor. Engaging in unsafe sex is. Homosexuals may engage in unsafe sex more often than heterosexuals, but that does not equate to the orientation, itself, being a risk factor.

So, tell us, tex, would a heterosexual who has unsafe anal sex be more at risk to contract HIV?
 
EXACTLY! You've got it. CC tried to get around it by setting up a new rule claiming that the right would only be given to those who showed positive contributions to society which of course he is judge and jury. That is when someone mentioned the CDC findings proving that draconian milestone not only violated the equal protection clause but was by its own nature, unprovable.

Tex... as usual, you do not understand my argument. I have never argued from an equal protection/discrimination position. I've never argued from a "rights" position, either. Try to get my argument correct. I know you'd much rather argue what you WANT me to have said because you can't argue what I actually said, but I will only argue my positions.
 
Tex... as usual, you do not understand my argument. I have never argued from an equal protection/discrimination position. I've never argued from a "rights" position, either. Try to get my argument correct. I know you'd much rather argue what you WANT me to have said because you can't argue what I actually said, but I will only argue my positions.

So then would you agree that homosexuality being defined as marriage is not something under the equal protection clause?
 
I already answered it. Anal sex without protection is unsafe sex. Here is my comment addressing this:

I asked:

Who practices anal sex more than homosexual men per capita (just in case you try and wiggle out of it by comparing direct numbers)?

I asked "who" in this case a group. I did not ask you about unsafe sex so no predictably you did not answer it. You ducked it as you always do when you get caught.

So, tell us, tex, would a heterosexual who has unsafe anal sex be more at risk to contract HIV?


When you answer mine I will answer yours.
 
Wrong again CC

In epidemiology, a risk factor is a variable associated with an increased risk of disease or infection.
Main Entry: risk factor
Function: noun
Date: 1949

: something that increases risk or susceptibility


Question: What is a risk factor?

Answer: A risk factor is something that increases your chances of getting a disease. Sometimes, this risk comes from something you do. For example, smoking increases your chances of developing colon cancer. Therefore, smoking is a risk factor for colon cancer.


A risk factor is something that's likely to increase the chances that a particular event will occur.

risk factor

Hide links within definitions Show links within definitions
Definition

Measurable characteristic or element, a change in which can affect the value of an asset, such as exchange rate, interest rate, and market price.



5 definitions of risk factor and not a single one having the word "cause" anywhere in them.


Not that you'll admit your mistake of course. Its really for others to see. Might want to rethink Taylor's suggestion.


And of course you still haven't answered my question but such is life


More self-pwnage, tex. Thank you. You just proved Taylor and you wrong. Here, I'll highlight the important part:

Question: What is a risk factor?

Answer: A risk factor is something that increases your chances of getting a disease. Sometimes, this risk comes from something you do. For example, smoking increases your chances of developing colon cancer. Therefore, smoking is a risk factor for colon cancer.


A risk factor is something that's likely to increase the chances that a particular event will occur.

risk factor

Hide links within definitionsShow links within definitions
Definition

Measurable characteristic or element, a change in which can affect the value of an asset, such as exchange rate, interest rate, and market price.


5 defintions and not a single one having the word "cause" anywhere in them.

All behavior. Things "you do". Things that are "measurable characteristics". You can do unsafe sex. You can do anal sex. You can't do homosexual orientation. You can measure if someone has anal or unsafe sex. You cannot measure is some has a homosexual orientation. It's a state of being, not a behavior. Risk factors are behaviors, as stated in your definition.

Perhaps you should post BOTH sides of this argument. You're doing a great job for the pro- side.
 
Wrong.

Saying something is a risk factor denotes risk. Hence the name, "Risk Factor."

Wrong. saying something is a risk factor denotes behavioral cause. Check tex's definition. It proves you wrong, too.
 
I asked:

Who practices anal sex more than homosexual men per capita (just in case you try and wiggle out of it by comparing direct numbers)?

I asked "who" in this case a group. I did not ask you about unsafe sex so no predictably you did not answer it. You ducked it as you always do when you get caught.

I have answered the question. I also answered it earlier in this thread. I would guess that homosexuals practice anal sex more often than heterosexuals. Now, this does not draw the conclusion that you want it to.

When you answer mine I will answer yours.

So... answer it.
 
... So if FOX has a lot of viewers, it's because they are the most fair and balanced. If their internet polls show something you disagree with, it's because most people on the internet are from the left. It's a conspiracy I tell yah! A conspiracy! All the anti-semitic libruls got together to vote on FOX - yeops.

I never actually said pretty much any of that. I'm not really sure how you derived it from what I actually said.

So not only are you suggesting that there is 300,000+ people that sit around and wait for this stuff to come up (I had to dig around on the actual site before I found it, after reading the post on another site) but you also suggest that most conservatives don't understand the concept of a mouse?

I never said any of that either.



So, anyone have a better explanation for why a Fox News poll of more than 300,000 voters came out with the vast majority in favor of overturning Prop 8? Or a similar Fox poll showing the vast majority voting for the "Tea Party is racist" option?
Unless we're going to say that most Fox viewers/readers are liberal or something.
 
More self-pwnage, tex. Thank you. You just proved Taylor and you wrong. Here, I'll highlight the important part:



All behavior. Things "you do". Things that are "measurable characteristics". You can do unsafe sex. You can do anal sex. You can't do homosexual orientation. You can measure if someone has anal or unsafe sex. You cannot measure is some has a homosexual orientation. It's a state of being, not a behavior. Risk factors are behaviors, as stated in your definition.

Perhaps you should post BOTH sides of this argument. You're doing a great job for the pro- side.

Nice try again CC. There is no cause anywhere in any definition you have in front of you. None.

To pretend anal sex is not a measurable characteristic of gay men when it is their primary sexual position when having sex is really amusing if not so painfaully sad. Since on average gay men DO have sex and when they do it IS anal sex and they being the group that practices it the most it is a risk factor NOT a cause.

Thats why risk factor doesn't have cause anywhere in its defintion. You've lost that argument pages ago yet you still hang onto it. Amazing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom