Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Hicup · Jul 14, 2010

So there are actually no constraints being placed on homosexual marriage. Only constraints on the State's recognition of these marriages.

That lack of recognition serves as an enrosement of heterosexual marriages.

With you so far..

Repealing that constraint on recognition does not validate anything. It simply retracts the endorsemnt of heterosexual marriages.

That does not act as an endorsement of homosexual marriages, though. It merely serves as an endorsement neutral environment

I don't agree, and here's why, it's only a small point but important in the overall scheme. I think in your scenario, the endorsement doesn't go neutral, but rather it becomes equal to both hetero, and homo marriage. It isn't neutral in the sense the endorsement is still there, but adding another player.

To make an example, let's say two politicians, Politician A and Politician B, are running for an office.

So lets say I decide to endorse Poltician A. By necessity, this requires me to reject politician B

I'm with ya again..

Now let's say the only thing I can officially do is reject something (i.e. pass legislation making something illegal). Thus, I have to reject politician B in order to endorse politician A.

You lost me.. This is not analogous to your first example. You do not have to reject Politician B in order to endorse Politician A. What you are doing is endorsing Politician A, and at the same time rejecting politician B. They both have the same result, I'll grant you that, but the order in which its done is what's key. In this example, you must pick one, but by rejecting politician B, you do not necessarily endorse politician A. You endorse politician A, only if you choose him over politician B consciously, and in that order.

Endorsement is the equal and opposite reaction to rejection of a dichotomy and vice versa

I don't agree with that. Let's take a real world example. In 2008 I rejected Obama for President, however, I also did not endorse McCain. They both were rejected, but by having to choose the lesser of two evils, I chose McCain. I did not, nor do I ever endorse him. My choice was conscious, but it wasn't conscience.

I'm back to an endorsement-neutral situation. Neither politician is endorsed nor rejected

But that's not a dichotomy, it is rather the opposite. Neutral does not imply a dichotomy, in fact it the polar opposite. You claimed I made a false dichotomy, meaning essentially that I created a false dilemma where only two choices were available, when in fact there were more. In this scenario the one presenting the dichotomy is trying to create only two parts, where only one can be correct, -or- one is discredited, and the only other choice left is then deemed correct. I didn't do this. In essence, my basic argument concerning legal, and illegal is correct. if something is not illegal, it is deemed legal, not that it must be made somehow legal by any other standard, but that it isn't illegal. None of the parameters of my assertion overlap, nor are there any missing parts hidden away. By defining the premise, "legal-illegal", I went on to suggest that an endorsement is made when something that was illegal, and consequently made no longer illegal, is an endorsement by the collective. Conversely, when something that is legal, or not illegal is left unchallenged, it is also an endorsement.

The key in deciphering the argument is in paying close attention to the guiding parameters. I don't think I made any error in logic, or in the dichotomy. But, as a reasonable person you seem to be, and will relinquish the floor to give you a chance to rebut.

By the way, this argument really has no plce in this thread, and i wouldn't mind much if you wanted to move it and we can continue there.

Tim-

roguenuke · Jul 14, 2010

Hicup said:
The distinction between conduct, and orientation is important? Why, because on its own, a sexual orientation is completely harmless, and irrelevant - only when is it acted upon does it have consequences, and primarily those consequences concern public health issues. Society has the right and the obligation to regulate public health issues. As abhorrent as pedophilia is, as an orientation, it is harmless, very much for the same reasons as homosexuality is harmless. Why do we regulate the act of pedophilia? Because of the harm it brings on the victim. But how is this harm measured? It's measured, that, even though a act of pedophilia wouldn't necessarily cause distress to the victim, the very knowledge that the victim is incapable of rational thought, makes the crime a crime. We protect those that are incapable of protecting themselves, even from themselves. Likewise, without knowing the full implication, and causation of homosexual influence among adolescents, should we, and damn, don't we have the right to regulate it? Shouldn't we err on the side of caution, even if at the expense of the adult homosexual wishing to marry?

The error you make is in automatically saying that having homosexual sex is wrong and/or harmful. "Wrong" is a matter of opinion. Some people say that having sex at all beyond actually trying to reproduce is wrong. There are plenty of other people who do not agree with them.

And you have not proven that homosexuality or homosexual sex is harmful to society and/or the people involved. You have produced evidence that having unprotected sex and/or having sex with multiple partners can be harmful, however, this is true whether the person is heterosexual or homosexual. You have to show evidence that homosexuality itself causes the harm, not the actions of some in the group.

Also, your "evidence" on mental issues and addiction problems has already been addressed. And I personally have a huge problem with people bringing up that these issues are so widespread throughout the homosexual community and that this is a big reason why we should not accept homosexuality as normal or equal to heterosexuality. The mental health and addiction problems of homosexuals mainly come from what they have to endure in their life, not who they are or who they are attracted to. Homosexuals face a great deal of stigma and lack of acceptance by society. I can only imagine how it would feel to be told that eventhough your relationship is legal, it can not be held at the same level as other relationships, because it isn't "normal" and/or some people find it immoral or just "icky".

Hicup said:
I don't disagree with this view. Adults have the right to do what they want, or should be able too, however, I was asked why I oppose gay marriage. I oppose it for the specific reason that involves the sanctioning, and or institutionalizing the behavior by the state. We can parse words all day long about legal and illegal, but the fact of the matter is that, homosexuality is not illegal, homosexual marriage is. By repealing homosexual marriage constraints we invariably validate the behavior. Once done, the game is on. it WILL absolutely be introduced to public school children as a valid form of sexual expression, and in some circles even promoted, and encouraged. No conspiracy theory there, it's already happening. So, if one assumes the truth of premise to be true, then my conclusion is also true. The premise is that homosexuality can be catchy to adolescent children - for lack of a better term. Now if you believe, much like I suspect you do, that homosexuality is not catchy, then you must conclude that I am wrong. That's fine, I'm ok with it.

You need to show how homosexuality is more "appealing" to teenagers than heterosexuality. Since you obviously believe that sexuality is a conscious choice, then why would homosexuality be more desirable than heterosexuality? Also, homosexuality is more accepted in other places, and this is not true. And homosexuality was accepted in other societies in the past, but they didn't see a huge amount of people deciding that they should only have sex with people of the same sex as themselves. Unless you have valid evidence of a society where this has happened.

Now, obviously I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. I think that more teenagers may accept that they are gay or bisexual, but it really wouldn't be more teenagers "catching the gay" because technically they would already be that way.

Hicup said:
In the US it is still a legal, affirmative defense to divorce, or annul a marriage because the other partner is unable to bear children.

In the US, it is a legal defense to divorce if a couple claims irreconcilable differences. In this country, you really don't need any reason to get a divorce. Heck, my dad and mom have six children together, but my dad still got a divorce after 20 years of marriage.

But, it is also a law in at least 4 states that in order for first cousins to get legally married, they cannot be able to procreate. The argument against same sex marriage based on marriage being endorsed by the government mainly for procreation falls completely dead due to this fact. It is impossible for the government to make a good argument that endorsing heterosexual marriages only is because they have the potential to procreate when they endorse marriages (federally and by every state, even if they don't allow the marriage to take place in their state) that are by law not allowed to be able to have children.

Hicup · Jul 15, 2010

Roguenuke -

And you have not proven that homosexuality or homosexual sex is harmful to society and/or the people involved. You have produced evidence that having unprotected sex and/or having sex with multiple partners can be harmful, however, this is true whether the person is heterosexual or homosexual. You have to show evidence that homosexuality itself causes the harm, not the actions of some in the group

This is why we impart broad generalities with statistics. Although not always accurate, they often time do end up providing correlations. Incidence, in a statistical population is important data. It leads us in the proper direction.

Also, your "evidence" on mental issues and addiction problems has already been addressed. And I personally have a huge problem with people bringing up that these issues are so widespread throughout the homosexual community and that this is a big reason why we should not accept homosexuality as normal or equal to heterosexuality. The mental health and addiction problems of homosexuals mainly come from what they have to endure in their life, not who they are or who they are attracted to. Homosexuals face a great deal of stigma and lack of acceptance by society. I can only imagine how it would feel to be told that eventhough your relationship is legal, it can not be held at the same level as other relationships, because it isn't "normal" and/or some people find it immoral or just "icky".

I already addressed it. Asked and answered judge..

You need to show how homosexuality is more "appealing" to teenagers than heterosexuality. Since you obviously believe that sexuality is a conscious choice, then why would homosexuality be more desirable than heterosexuality?

But I never said that it was more appealing?

And homosexuality was accepted in other societies in the past, but they didn't see a huge amount of people deciding that they should only have sex with people of the same sex as themselves. Unless you have valid evidence of a society where this has happened.

So? What does this prove? I never said homosexuality was 100% catchy?

Now, obviously I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. I think that more teenagers may accept that they are gay or bisexual, but it really wouldn't be more teenagers "catching the gay" because technically they would already be that way

Fair enough.. I can accept that, and I respect your opinion on the matter. You may well be right.

In the US, it is a legal defense to divorce if a couple claims irreconcilable differences. In this country, you really don't need any reason to get a divorce. Heck, my dad and mom have six children together, but my dad still got a divorce after 20 years of marriage.

Yes, but that wasn't the question I was answering. Annulment because of a lack of bearing children is "also" a valid claim for divorce, and is legally recognized.

But, it is also a law in at least 4 states that in order for first cousins to get legally married, they cannot be able to procreate. The argument against same sex marriage based on marriage being endorsed by the government mainly for procreation falls completely dead due to this fact. It is impossible for the government to make a good argument that endorsing heterosexual marriages only is because they have the potential to procreate when they endorse marriages (federally and by every state, even if they don't allow the marriage to take place in their state) that are by law not allowed to be able to have children.

I fail to see the significance of your analogy? They are not the same thing?

Tim-

roguenuke · Jul 15, 2010

Hicup said:
This is why we impart broad generalities with statistics. Although not always accurate, they often time do end up providing correlations. Incidence, in a statistical population is important data. It leads us in the proper direction.

Failing to see that you are correlating the wrong things is not imparting "broad generalities". The correlation is unsafe sexual practices, not homosexuality itself. It is like saying more people who listen to country music die from being flung from a bull than those who listen to any other music, therefore country music listeners are all in danger of dying from being flung from a bull. A connection can easily be drawn between country music and dying from being flung from a bull, but it is not the country music that is causing people to die by bull, it is the unsafe practice of bullriding that some country music fans participate in. It is widely known that unsafe sexual practices are the main reason for the spread of AIDS. Homosexuals are no more likely to actually get AIDS from an infected partner than heterosexuals involved in the same unsafe sexual acts. Homosexuality does not cause the danger, unsafe sexual practices do.

Hicup said:
I already addressed it. Asked and answered judge..

Yes you did address this, however, you were not correct. But, I don't think I can add anything more to convince you that you are wrong than what I or someone else in this thread has already posted. So I'll drop this.

Hicup said:
But I never said that it was more appealing?

So? What does this prove? I never said homosexuality was 100% catchy?

No, you said it is being taught to children/teenagers as acceptable, and promoted and encouraged. In order to promote something, the seller of the thing must show how the product/service is appealing, especially if it is believed that there is competition. In this instance, the only way to promote homosexuality is to show that it is more appealing or has advantages to heterosexuality. So the question is, what could make homosexuality more appealing than heterosexuailty, to teenagers?

Homosexuality is not a communicable disease, nor is it a fad. Teenagers are not going to become homosexual because it grows in popularity. Now, more teenagers may start to support and/or accept homosexuality as normal, but they aren't going to do it because their friends are. Now some teenagers may experiment with homosexual acts, but even this really isn't any worse than experimenting with heterosexual acts, especially if they practice safe sex.

Hicup said:
Yes, but that wasn't the question I was answering. Annulment because of a lack of bearing children is "also" a valid claim for divorce, and is legally recognized.

What question do you think you are answering? I was covering reasons as to why marriage is not about procreation. This is a common argument of anti-GM people. You have even mentioned procreation somewhere in this thread, I believe.

Hicup said:
I fail to see the significance of your analogy? They are not the same thing?

That goes along with the argument that legal marriage is not about procreation. It really isn't an analogy, it is a fact.

This thread is about DOMA being unconstitutional. DOMA discriminates based on gender, therefore the law must be substantially related to an important government interest. Many people against same sex marriage use the argument that the government's endorsement of opposite sex marriage is based on procreation. This can't possibly be completely true if the government recognizes these opposite sex marriages which, by law, cannot procreate.

The government has never truly said why it endorses only opposite sex marriages and discriminates against same sex marriages. It will have to show how keeping a man from marrying another man or a woman from marrying another woman is important to a legitimate government interest in order to prove that DOMA is not unconstitutional.

Hicup · Jul 15, 2010

roguenuke -

Failing to see that you are correlating the wrong things is not imparting "broad generalities". The correlation is unsafe sexual practices, not homosexuality itself. It is like saying more people who listen to country music die from being flung from a bull than those who listen to any other music, therefore country music listeners are all in danger of dying from being flung from a bull.

No it's not, not at all. Where do you folks get this stuff from? The action of being a homosexual is unsafe, explicitly because of the nature of their actions. The correlation isn't in the unsafe sex aspect, but in the other factors in any statistical sample. One cannot sample only safe sex homosexuals, nor can one sample only safe sex heterosexuals. You must sample the broader scheme. That's all I was saying. In the broader scheme, incidence is important.

No, you said it is being taught to children/teenagers as acceptable, and promoted and encouraged. In order to promote something, the seller of the thing must show how the product/service is appealing, especially if it is believed that there is competition. In this instance, the only way to promote homosexuality is to show that it is more appealing or has advantages to heterosexuality. So the question is, what could make homosexuality more appealing than heterosexuailty, to teenagers?

Fashion!

Homosexuality is not a communicable disease, nor is it a fad. Teenagers are not going to become homosexual because it grows in popularity.

It appears to among females!

What question do you think you are answering? I was covering reasons as to why marriage is not about procreation. This is a common argument of anti-GM people. You have even mentioned procreation somewhere in this thread, I believe.

Marriage isn't exclusively about procreation, no, who said it was. But as far as the state is concerned, posterity is kind of important!

That goes along with the argument that legal marriage is not about procreation. It really isn't an analogy, it is a fact.

This thread is about DOMA being unconstitutional. DOMA discriminates based on gender, therefore the law must be substantially related to an important government interest. Many people against same sex marriage use the argument that the government's endorsement of opposite sex marriage is based on procreation. This can't possibly be completely true if the government recognizes these opposite sex marriages which, by law, cannot procreate.

But why would ANY state care at all about marriage? Is it so they can divvy up the dough when it dissolves? Why wouldn't a society want to provide for the best environment for proliferation? By the way, DOMA doesn't discriminate against gender, it discriminates against sexual orientation! But I suspect you knew that already, and were just testing me?

The government has never truly said why it endorses only opposite sex marriages and discriminates against same sex marriages. It will have to show how keeping a man from marrying another man or a woman from marrying another woman is important to a legitimate government interest in order to prove that DOMA is not unconstitutional.

No, the party seeking retribution has the burden of proof.

Tim-

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 15, 2010

Hicup said:
No dishonesty on my part. I am incapable of being deliberately dishonest.

Then it must be accidental. Because you are attempting to alter definitions... probably because your position has no standing with out doing so.

Most conservatives I know personally have a great deal of integrity. They openly admit when they are wrong, and own up to mistakes. The same however cannot be said of the Liberals I have come in contact with.

And I found the exact opposite. Perhaps you have limited interaction with both groups.

If, and when I make an error, I'll say so, until then you'll have to continue with your debating tactic of marginalizing my position.

You have just proved yourself wrong. As a conservative, you claim that you would admit to an error. You have been called on several errors, mostly around your inaccurate usage of definitions and your inability to understand some of the simple concepts presented. You have not admitted your errors in these things, when they have been shown to you. Tell us... is this intentional, or accidental?

You do realize I was being facetious, right? Now who's being dishonest?

You do realize that you refused to respond to a point of yours that was thoroughly refuted. Now... where is your admission that you were wrong, again? I suppose, since I do not see it, it would be YOU who is being dishonest. Come on... you are making this far too easy. You either post dishonestly, or when shown to be in error, you refuse to engage. Very poor debating.

Politically speaking, the answer to both questions is, yes! That's the point I was making. You appear to miss the larger point in debates. Does someone really need to spell it out for you with volumes of letters and words when making a subtle point? The "point" I was making is that, the "collective" decided through representation that at one time alcohol was "bad", and then again it decided that alcohol was now "good". Does that about clear it up for you? The "point" is only to illustrate the larger point of individual, vs. collective morality, and that morality isn't tangible. Morality isn't some objective truth, it is rather more emotional, and requisitely present tense, based off the individual personal experience(s) of the object.

You miss the point, AGAIN... as usual. I would agree that morality is relative. However, the answer to the question is NEITHER. In fact you illustrated that above, proving yourself incorrect. Since morality is relative, based off individual experiences, whether alcohol was good or bad, depends on the individual, not the group. A group makes laws. Morality is individual. So, alcohol's value, to the collective, did not change. Only it's status changed. Glad I could clear that up for you... using your own words.

Dear Lord?

You don't have to use the word "Dear". "Lord" will suffice.

Correction - Procreation no longer requires sexual orientation. Advances in science, and medicine, do not change the fundamental understanding of the human design.

Procreation never required sexual orientation. Prove that a homosexual cannot procreate, as long as all parts are working. Go ahead. I've already demonstrated how one can, so if you are such a good debater, refute me. Now, remember, desire and attraction have nothing to do with the action.

Well if the issue was settled with "facts", what would be the need for a debate? It is "precisely" that the issue is lacking key facts, that make for such fodder on both sides of the aisle. It IS why we're even arguing right now. Are you serious that you consider my opinion not an argument? LOL

I've seen anti-GM folks argue the position, logically and with facts. You do not. You build your argument on a false premise... one that you have been completely unable to refute. Perhaps you should do some research on this site with some anti-GM folks to find what an actual valid argument is. Yours is not.

I'm sure it would be nice.. In science we tend to infer that which is unknown, but we don't do this lightly. We base it on all available evidence, both anecdotal, and empirical. I'm making the "leap" that humans were designed for heterosexuality. If you decide that this isn't the case, then I'll let other make up their minds about you.

So.. no evidence. I thought not. Your basic premise comes from a lack of understanding of basic concepts... design, sexual orientation vs. sexual behavior, action vs. a state of being. All of these things you have been unable to refute. This is why your position is so easy to destroy, and why you have been unable to counter any point I... or anyone else has made.

Sexual orientation, and the focus thereof, is a political ploy. The issue of what causes someone to be attracted to fat chicks, or skinny models is equally complex, just like what causes someone to like English beer, and not Canadian beer. "Taste" is the summation of the sexual orientation conundrum. They chose the complexity of that term precisely because it is purposefully ambiguous, and rhetorical. It's very similar to the use of the term, homophobe to those who disagree with the gay lobby. You choose to argue the vagueness of sexual orientation because you cannot lose the debate. No one can, on either side, because the issue is so complex and involves many factors that, all that ever happens is a disenfranchisement from a meeting of the minds. The issue of homosexuality, and gay rights is deliberately pluralistic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the best that can be hoped for is a consensus. At the moment, the consensus is against the idea of gay marriage. The consensus on what causes homosexuality is primarily set on a compromise of both environmental, and genetic factors. That's it, and that's all. I however, reject the idea that sexual orientation, or homosexuality is caused by gene(s), or more importantly that someone can be born gay, or that even someone has a predisposition to be gay.

Notice how you contradict yourself, and demonstrate that you reject evidence because it does not fit your agenda:

The consensus on what causes homosexuality is primarily set on a compromise of both environmental, and genetic factors.

I however, reject the idea that sexual orientation, or homosexuality is caused by gene(s), or more importantly that someone can be born gay, or that even someone has a predisposition to be gay.

This is why you lose so badly. You flat out admit that you reject evidence that YOU presented. This is about the worst debating I have ever seen.

And as far as your argument against discussing sexual orientation, you can dismiss a concept all you want. You only do it because you cannot defend against it.

First, I rarely if ever make a logical error. Secondly, you are clearly making the wrong assumptions of what constitutes what type of fallacy.

First, you CONSTANTLY make logical errors. Secondly, I nailed the fallacy perfectly.

You have no idea my good man!

You don't think. You underestimate what I actually KNOW about you.

I said - "Did I miss something? What facts?"

And I pointed out... everything I have said and nothing you have. I think I was clear.

Yeah, well, could you point out the facts again for me please? What have stated that is a fact? I'm not going to allow you to wiggle on this one.

Definitions of sexual orientation, sexual behavior, procreation, how they differ, information regarding body part usage... please try to keep up.

hehe.. Boy, you're really are a robot? Evidence isn't always proof. Read your own definition silly man. As the premise becomes more complex, so too does the burden of proof = evidence. For instance, the premise that Mars once supported life is not a fact, but is highly likely based on the evidence thus far. The distinction is worth noting, and you would do well to listen up.

Highly likely is not evidence. You should really pay attention to definitions and stop being dishonest about them.

Why? Why is a drug addict an addict if they are not partaking in the addiction?

Do you know anything about addiction? One who is addicted remains addicted. It's part of the disease. One who is addicted will re-establish those addictive behaviors if they begin using again. Again, the difference between a state of being and action. This is such basic psychology, I am amazed that I need to explain it.

Ok, well let me ask you this. What measure, or test would you use to confirm this hypothesis? See where I'm going there cowboy?

Someone who is attracted to women but chooses to be celibate. They are heterosexual, but they do not have heterosexual sex. Again, REAL basic stuff.

I'm hitting them all, because that's all there is. Conversely you're hitting all the standard retorts. Well not you, but at least Redress is making an effort. All you're doing is attempting to marginalize my position by claiming phantom logical fallacies.

You're hitting all the fallacies and standard talking points because that seem to be all you know. Marginalizing your position is quite simple. In actuality YOU are doing that yourself. I'm just pointing it out.

No, correction, what someone else said you decided was accurate. You haven't said anything yet.

Incorrect. I stated several things about Cameron that were accurate. Please read posts before responding.

No, no my good man. I won't let you wiggle. I asked if you read the study, and regardless of what Stacey is claiming now, what are your conclusions on that study. Or, what do you think of the conclusions Bilbarez, and Stacey came to in that specific study?

You are lying. Post exactly where you asked me if I read the Stacy and Bilbarz study and what I thought of it. You questioned me vaguely about Stacy. That's about it. If you want to know, I'll respond, but do not lie about what you request.

But I have presented evidence of my opinion, I simply haven't posted evidence that confirms any one particular fact. Again, the distinction is worthy of noting. You would do well to remember the difference. I don't have to disclaim anything about my opinion. I post evidence that supports it, and it is you that must either agree with that evidence, or you must provide evidence that disputes it. Redress knows the drill, you apparently seem lost.

All of the "evidence" of your opinion, I have shown to be either meaningless or false. Your "evidence" is so meager and full of holes, that simple definitions, basics in biology, and demonstrations of your logical fallacies are all that is needed. You are entitled to your opinions, but they are not evidence based. Their basis comes from nothing. They are just your opinion. Remember... I have already pointed out how you have decided to reject evidence.

The "Hooker" study did nothing to disprove that homosexuality is mental disorder. Want to try me on for size? Show me the "proof" that claims a fact?

Absolutely did. Peer reviewed and accepted by all major psychological and medical organizations. If you disagree, DISPUTE it.

Hehe.. Ok, so homosexuality is a deviation. Good we can move on now. Wait one question. Is homosexual orientation also a deviation?

In as much as being left-handed and playing in the NFL is. Now remember... when/if you parse the definition, I'll crucify you... as I have already done repeatedly.

Well, perhaps others can chime in and offer their opinions on the matter. In the meantime (I can't believe I'm helping you) check out this link on what logic is, and their fallacies: Logical Fallacies

Now apply what you've learned on that site to anything I've stated in this entire thread, and come back to me when you're ready to apologize.

That's one of the links I use, and used on your post to demonstrate each of your logical fallacies. You may now apologize for making them. I will accept as long as you stop doing it.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 15, 2010

Hicup said:
CC -

Ah, the prison conundrum. I posted this quote from you, because you actually have something correct. The problem is in how you're interpreting it.

However, your "prison" retort has nothing to do with pedophilia, and answering my questions pinning you down on what constitutes a homosexual act, or orientation. I know it's unconfortable for you, and I apologize, but you did press after all.

Please note that by and large I will dismiss anything that comes from the APA, UNLESS of course it has any scientific merit. The APA is a political organization, and the science of psychology, and psychiatry doesn't meet the measure for any definition of science. Granted there are types of pathological, physiological, and biological areas of psychology that are worth entertaining, but unitl you can produce anything of value, I'm not goig to do the work for you.

Tim-

Again... you reject any evidence that contradicts your agenda. That is the debate tactic of a sure debate loser. I will present any evidence I so choose, You then have a choice of your own. Either refute it through demonstration of methodological flaws, evidence that counters it, or accept it. Anything else will demonstrate your inability to debate. So, there are your choices. If you want to dismiss information solely because it proves you wrong... which is what you tend to do, all you are showing is that your position is so weak it cannot stand up to scrutiny. Not going to fly around here,

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 15, 2010

Hicup said:
By not regulating something, like being fat for instance, the collective morality is that it endorses the right, and privilidge to be fat without exclusion. In your argument you must use both qualifiers, legal, and illegal to justify your positon logically. It's the same as saying that smoking is legal, but regulated, meaning certain restrictions apply. A restriction in the context of law, is an illegal movement within the legal framework. It essentially means the same thing, or has the same effect of performing an illegal action. So, in sum, society endorses smoking, but places limits on that endorsement.

Tim-

No. By not regulating something, like being fat for instance, the collective morality accepts it as being one of several choices. This is not an endorsement as defined. What the legal framework of regulating smoking means is, society accepts smoking as one of two options, but endorses NEITHER. Now, if you want to be dishonest about the definitions, you can, but all it proves is you are being dishonest about the definitions. Your argument, therefore, does not apply.

You have lost again.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 15, 2010

Hicup said:
Ok, well I'm sure CC will come in here later, and claim another victory, but in all honesty I'd like to move on to other, more important issues of the day. I really don't know what else to say on the matter. I do feel strongly about my position, but not nearly enough to continue on with this whole thread ad infinty. When new evidence comes out, or someone says something compelling enough for me to bother, I'll reevaluate my stance, until then, I'll see you all in the other threads.

I'm sure CC will dog me there as well, but it's ok. I've delt with his variety before.

Cheers to all, and I hope I didn't strongly offend anyone with my views.

Tim-

Excellent. A concession. You gave us nothing, if not an entertaining group of meaningless posts that demonstrated the shortcomings of your position and debating tactics. Entertaining is about all I can say about it.

Hicup · Jul 15, 2010

You miss the point, AGAIN... as usual. I would agree that morality is relative. However, the answer to the question is NEITHER. In fact you illustrated that above, proving yourself incorrect. Since morality is relative, based off individual experiences, whether alcohol was good or bad, depends on the individual, not the group. A group makes laws. Morality is individual. So, alcohol's value, to the collective, did not change. Only it's status changed. Glad I could clear that up for you... using your own words

Up until this point in your post, you had nothing to say, but here you say a lot! I claim that morality is both individual, and collective. A collective is simply a gathering of individuals. Now, read what you wrote, and tell me where your reasoning might be wrong? Dude seriously..

Procreation never required sexual orientation. Prove that a homosexual cannot procreate, as long as all parts are working. Go ahead. I've already demonstrated how one can, so if you are such a good debater, refute me. Now, remember, desire and attraction have nothing to do with the action

Hehehe... To procreate is to illicit consent. In other words, both parties must agree to this end. Now, yes a homosexual can procreate, but can you tell me what the difference is between a heterosxual consent, and that of a homosexual one? Oops.. red alert, red alert.. LOL You're funny dude!

I've seen anti-GM folks argue the position, logically and with facts. You do not. You build your argument on a false premise... one that you have been completely unable to refute. Perhaps you should do some research on this site with some anti-GM folks to find what an actual valid argument is. Yours is not.

These kinds of statements are becoming tiresome. SHOW ME THE MONEY sugar.

So.. no evidence. I thought not. Your basic premise comes from a lack of understanding of basic concepts... design, sexual orientation vs. sexual behavior, action vs. a state of being. All of these things you have been unable to refute. This is why your position is so easy to destroy, and why you have been unable to counter any point I... or anyone else has made.

SHOW me the money! LOL

Notice how you contradict yourself, and demonstrate that you reject evidence because it does not fit your agenda:

Nope, eeeeerrrr. I reject information that doesn't conform to a measure of validity!

This is why you lose so badly. You flat out admit that you reject evidence that YOU presented. This is about the worst debating I have ever seen.

And as far as your argument against discussing sexual orientation, you can dismiss a concept all you want. You only do it because you cannot defend against it.

Eeeerrrr, wrong again.. Got anything else? LOL

First, you CONSTANTLY make logical errors. Secondly, I nailed the fallacy perfectly

SHOW me the money, or go away. How many times do I need to ask you to answer the challenge? You're a lightweight that underestimate an opponent. It's ok, I've done it before, but when I was really, really young and stupid.

You don't think. You underestimate what I actually KNOW about you

Yes, and this superior intuitive knowledge got you where you are in this thread. Being embarrassed by a newbie.. LOL

And I pointed out... everything I have said and nothing you have. I think I was clear

Yep, you were clearly ignorant!

Definitions of sexual orientation, sexual behavior, procreation, how they differ, information regarding body part usage... please try to keep up.

No, no, no my good man, not that easy. LOL Gawd if only you knew the big huge smile on my face right now, after realizing that I'm dealing with someone like you.

Highly likely is not evidence. You should really pay attention to definitions and stop being dishonest about them

You're confusing evidence as fact. OJ's glove didn't fit his hand. Was it fact, or was it evidence? Sheesh!

Do you know anything about addiction? One who is addicted remains addicted. It's part of the disease. One who is addicted will re-establish those addictive behaviors if they begin using again. Again, the difference between a state of being and action. This is such basic psychology, I am amazed that I need to explain it

But you're not explaining it.. You're making statements, without any proof. How does one measure an addiction? Start with that investigative question.

Someone who is attracted to women but chooses to be celibate. They are heterosexual, but they do not have heterosexual sex. Again, REAL basic stuff

Oh, I see... Ok, so now, you claimed earlier that reparative therapy was debunked. Wait, no that can't be right. Are you suggesting that the measure for what constitutes a sexual orientation is based entirely on one's word? Wow! Thanks for proving me right about that whole argument! See, sunshine, I play chess, and I'm very patient! You said earlier that reparative therapy has been debunked? Well (ok here's another challenge, pay attention now) how is it that there exists no biological, or physiological test for homosexuality, other than ones word, and or actions as a measure; yet, when the exact same measure is used for ex-gays it somehow changes? Have fun with that one.. LOL

You are lying. Post exactly where you asked me if I read the Stacy and Bilbarz study and what I thought of it. You questioned me vaguely about Stacy. That's about it. If you want to know, I'll respond, but do not lie about what you request

Ok, but only because I want to know. So what conclusions did you draw from the study?

All of the "evidence" of your opinion, I have shown to be either meaningless or false.

No you haven't, you only think you have!

Your "evidence" is so meager and full of holes, that simple definitions, basics in biology, and demonstrations of your logical fallacies are all that is needed

Oops, did you make a boo boo? What demonstrations of my logical fallacies do you refer? THAT is kinda the whole point of me pressing you silly. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

I said -

The "Hooker" study did nothing to disprove that homosexuality is mental disorder. Want to try me on for size? Show me the "proof" that claims a fact?

To which you reply....

Absolutely did. Peer reviewed and accepted by all major psychological and medical organizations. If you disagree, DISPUTE it

Is this how you've gotten to 40K posts? LOL SHOW ME THE MONEY, or shut the hell up!

In as much as being left-handed and playing in the NFL is. Now remember... when/if you parse the definition, I'll crucify you... as I have already done repeatedly

Ok, it'll come into play later on, I assure you.

That's one of the links I use, and used on your post to demonstrate each of your logical fallacies. You may now apologize for making them. I will accept as long as you stop doing it.

SHOW ME THE MONEY.. ROTFLMAO..

Dude I like you... Hell dude, I could make up anything and your standard reply would be you're wrong, you're illogical, you need to read your definitions, just because... Well let me break it to you. Perhaps you've really never met anyone like me before, but I ain't gunna let you get away with it, I promise you. And if it keeps up, I'll really embarrass you! I'll do the illustration for you. I can maybe count on one hand how many times I've made a "real" logical mistake. I've made zero in this thread, and don't count on any in the future either big boy.

Until then!

Oh, that one note. I was really hoping you'd come to the plate on my challenge. I really did! Perhaps, you've learned your lesson and you'll be different the next time we meet? Other than that, if you have nothing else to offer, I'll bow out!

Tim-

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 15, 2010

Hicup said:
Up until this point in your post, you had nothing to say, but here you say a lot! I claim that morality is both individual, and collective. A collective is simply a gathering of individuals. Now, read what you wrote, and tell me where your reasoning might be wrong? Dude seriously..

Read what YOU wrote. Just because you make a claim, doesn't make it accurate. And yours is not. Since morality is relative to the individual, a group of individuals can have different moralities and values. If alcohol is illegal, I may think that is good, you may think that is bad, The collective sets rules, not morality. Notice your error? Your thinking is far to rigid and inflexible.

Now, yes a homosexual can procreate

Thank you. Your concession is accepted. It was a simple question and you answered it. See? This is all you need to do.

These kinds of statements are becoming tiresome. SHOW ME THE MONEY sugar.

These statements are becoming tiresome. Just because you don't like the argument... as it invalidates yours, does not dismiss it. Either prove that your position has value, or stand down.

SHOW me the money! LOL

Either prove that your position has value, or stand down.

Nope, eeeeerrrr. I reject information that doesn't conform to a measure of validity!

Awww... more of a demonstration of your inability to debate. You cite evidence and that state that you do not want to accept it, :lol: Dude... you are so caught up in your agenda, that you refuse to accept facts... you even ADMIT that you will not accept them. Imagine that. "Yes, your honor... a know that's what is an accepted fact, but I reject it." :lol:

Eeeerrrr, wrong again.. Got anything else? LOL

Errr... I am correct again. You can't defend, so you reject. Weak. Very weak.

SHOW me the money, or go away. How many times do I need to ask you to answer the challenge? You're a lightweight that underestimate an opponent. It's ok, I've done it before, but when I was really, really young and stupid.

You've got nothing. You came in here and though you could use your weak debating skills and folks would fall for it. Instead, you've been exposed and a poser who doesn't understand basic concepts. I don't waste my "A" game on people like you who do not understand basic concepts of sexuality. When you learn them, let me know and THEN we may have something to discuss. Until then, and until you demonstrate any knowledge of the concepts I have outlined, repeatedly, you are still nothing but a learner, and not worthy of anything else.

So, show some knowledge of those concepts. I challenge you.

Yes, and this superior intuitive knowledge got you where you are in this thread. Being embarrassed by a newbie.. LOL

Allowed me to destroy you... someone who claimed superior knowledge, but was proven to have NO knowledge. And I didn't even break a sweat. :lol:

Yep, you were clearly ignorant!

Only in believing that you might actually understand the basic concepts I outlined. I gave you a chance, but you have proven to be unworthy.

No, no, no my good man, not that easy. LOL Gawd if only you knew the big huge smile on my face right now, after realizing that I'm dealing with someone like you.

I think that smile is just gas. It's all you've shown in this thread. Hot air. No substance.

So... still can't grasp those basic concepts.

You're confusing evidence as fact. OJ's glove didn't fit his hand. Was it fact, or was it evidence? Sheesh!

Since it was proven to be faulty, it was neither. Sheesh!

But you're not explaining it.. You're making statements, without any proof. How does one measure an addiction? Start with that investigative question.

The disease or the behavior. Two different things. See, why you don't get it? Linear thinking. Nothing complex.
Oh, I see... Ok, so now, you claimed earlier that reparative therapy was debunked. Wait, no that can't be right. Are you suggesting that the measure for what constitutes a sexual orientation is based entirely on one's word? Wow! Thanks for proving me right about that whole argument! See, sunshine, I play chess, and I'm very patient! You said earlier that reparative therapy has been debunked? Well (ok here's another challenge, pay attention now) how is it that there exists no biological, or physiological test for homosexuality, other than ones word, and or actions as a measure; yet, when the exact same measure is used for ex-gays it somehow changes? Have fun with that one.. LOL[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHA!!! You are completely unable to debate. I've gotten you so screwed up, and so cornered, and pwned you so badly, you don't even know WHO you are debating. I never discussed reparative therapy. REDRESS did. So... now as a conservative who admits they are wrong, please admit that you made an error.

Ok, but only because I want to know. So what conclusions did you draw from the study?

The same conclusions that Stacy and Biblarz did. The children of same-sex parents have equal outcomes to those of opposite-sex parents.

No you haven't, you only think you have!

I have, only you think I haven't.

Oops, did you make a boo boo? What demonstrations of my logical fallacies do you refer? THAT is kinda the whole point of me pressing you silly. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

I already pointed them out when they occurred. You believe they are incorrect. Go back and dispute them. You didn't when they occurred. Go ahead. Dispute them. If you can.

I said -

To which you reply....

Is this how you've gotten to 40K posts? LOL SHOW ME THE MONEY, or shut the hell up!

You disagree with it. DISPUTE IT. Is this the extent of your debate tactics? "It isn't valid". Show some evidence that it isn't valid, or take your dog and pony show elsewhere. All you are doing is trying to showboat... and it's doing nothing but showing how inadequate a debater you are. You don't agree with the Hooker study? DISPUTE IT... with evidence.

Ok, it'll come into play later on, I assure you.

And I''l destroy your weak debate tactics later on. I assure you.

SHOW ME THE MONEY.. ROTFLMAO..

Dude I like you... Hell dude, I could make up anything and your standard reply would be you're wrong, you're illogical, you need to read your definitions, just because... Well let me break it to you. Perhaps you've really never met anyone like me before, but I ain't gunna let you get away with it, I promise you. And if it keeps up, I'll really embarrass you! I'll do the illustration for you. I can maybe count on one hand how many times I've made a "real" logical mistake. I've made zero in this thread, and don't count on any in the future either big boy.

I'm certain you have never met anyone like me before. Someone who called you on your bs, didn't let you get away with half-assed comments, challenged you to show evidence of your weak positions, and completely exposed you for knowing nothing of this topic. You don't understand the basic concepts that one needs to when debating this issue. And you thought you'd get away with the crap that you spewed. You're in a new world, here... one that you seem ill-prepared for. I know I was real hard on you, and showed the entire forum how inadequate you are. Perhaps in time you will be able to restore some of your destroyed reputation. You'd have to be willing to learn, first.

Until then!

Oh, that one note. I was really hoping you'd come to the plate on my challenge. I really did! Perhaps, you've learned your lesson and you'll be different the next time we meet? Other than that, if you have nothing else to offer, I'll bow out!

Tim-

And with all of your writing, not one salient point. I was hoping, but since no anti-GMer of your meager skills could hope to compete with me, I should have known you would be similar. Perhaps next time, after the way you were executed here, you will do some research and learning before you DARE encounter me again. I understand that you must bow out, as further humiliation might send you off into some sort of emotional meltdown. It's OK. I'll just notch it as you being yet another wannabe that I dispatched.

Tucker Case · Jul 15, 2010

Hicup said:
I don't agree, and here's why, it's only a small point but important in the overall scheme. I think in your scenario, the endorsement doesn't go neutral, but rather it becomes equal to both hetero, and homo marriage. It isn't neutral in the sense the endorsement is still there, but adding another player.

In a societal sense, it becomes neutral. The decision on whether or not to endorse a specific type of marriage is entirely left to the individual. Neither union is being endorsed by society.

What you, and other anti-GM people are seeking is not an injunction against homosexual marriages as much as it is an endorsement of heterosexual marriage by society. Things like the DOMA are a byproduct of that desire for a heterosexual marriage endorsement because the government can only endorse something by way of rejecting it's alternative.

The government endorses free speech by rejecting the ability to pass legislation which limits speech. If there was no rejection, societies stance becomes neutral, i.e. Both free speech and limited speech are of equal value, neither gets supported or promoted.

Equality between two alternative option is, in fact, neutrality regarding those options. Neitehr can be endorsed as the prefered option because they are equal.

And endorsment requires a preference.

You lost me.. This is not analogous to your first example. You do not have to reject Politician B in order to endorse Politician A. What you are doing is endorsing Politician A, and at the same time rejecting politician B. They both have the same result, I'll grant you that, but the order in which its done is what's key. In this example, you must pick one, but by rejecting politician B, you do not necessarily endorse politician A. You endorse politician A, only if you choose him over politician B consciously, and in that order.

The two sentences in bold are contradictory. If it were true that you do not have to reject something in order to endorse something, then it cannot be true that an endorsement involves a simultanous rejection. If an endorsement automatically has a simultaneous rejection, then you absolutely have to reject something in order to endorse it.

It's an endorsement by default. Even if it is a reluctant endorsemnt, it is an endorsement nonetheless.

I don't agree with that. Let's take a real world example. In 2008 I rejected Obama for President, however, I also did not endorse McCain. They both were rejected, but by having to choose the lesser of two evils, I chose McCain. I did not, nor do I ever endorse him. My choice was conscious, but it wasn't conscience.

Again, the two parts in bold are contradictory. You threw your support behind McCain. The reasons for this become irrelevent to the fact that you endorsed McCain.

A reluctant endorsement is still an endorsement.

You rejected Obama so much that you were willing to compromise your ideals and endorse someone you felt was sub-par candidate.

The only way to reject both is to endorse a third-party candiate (which is what I did) or not vote at all (which is actively rejecting all of the alternatives and endorsing voting abstinence).

But that's not a dichotomy, it is rather the opposite. Neutral does not imply a dichotomy, in fact it the polar opposite.

Exactly. It isn't a dichotomy. There are three scenarios regarding endorsement. The fact that something is legal is not, in and of itself, enough to qualify for an endorsement by society. There must also be a rejection of the alternative in order for endorsement to be achieved because endorsements are something that has to occur simultaneously with a rejection by the nature of endorsement.

In order to endorse something, you have to reject the alternatives.

DOMA endorses heterosexual marriage by rejecting the homosexual marriage alternative. Repealing DOMA is a repeal of that endorsement.

You claimed I made a false dichotomy, meaning essentially that I created a false dilemma where only two choices were available, when in fact there were more. In this scenario the one presenting the dichotomy is trying to create only two parts, where only one can be correct, -or- one is discredited, and the only other choice left is then deemed correct. I didn't do this. In essence, my basic argument concerning legal, and illegal is correct. if something is not illegal, it is deemed legal, not that it must be made somehow legal by any other standard, but that it isn't illegal. None of the parameters of my assertion overlap, nor are there any missing parts hidden away. By defining the premise, "legal-illegal", I went on to suggest that an endorsement is made when something that was illegal, and consequently made no longer illegal, is an endorsement by the collective. Conversely, when something that is legal, or not illegal is left unchallenged, it is also an endorsement.

It's a false dichotomy because it ignores the endorsement-neutral state where both alternatives are legal.

By the way, this argument really has no plce in this thread, and i wouldn't mind much if you wanted to move it and we can continue there.

It absolutely belongs in this thread because it focusses on the primary premise of your argument against legalization of gay marriage. i.e. that legalization of an action = endorsement of that action by the collective.

My contention is that, due to the fact that legislation only exists to make things illegal, things like DOMA are actually in existence so that there is a collective endorsement of heterosexual marriage. The only way that this can occur collectively is by legislating a rejection of the alternative scenario of homosexual marriage.

That logic is actualoly supported by the name of the act: Defense of marriage. The implied adjective describing marriage in this situation is "heterosexual", because it is, undeniably, a defense of heterosexual marriage.

That legislative defense serves to endorse heterosexual marriage collectively.

The flaw in the logic of your argument is that repealing this endorsement does not endorse the alternative.

Back to the politician analogy, if I had previously endorsed McCain by reluctantly choosing him over Obama, I would have endorsed him. If I were to rescind that endorsement by rescinding my reluctant support, that doesn't mean I've automatically endorsed Obama. I'm in an endorsement-neutral state until such time as a make a choice of any sort.

Choices exclude. For every choice that is made, there is a simultaneous rejection (possibly multiple rejections).

I used an example before using two politicians because in the marriage debate, there are only two options with respect to two-person marriages. Heterosexual and homosexual.

If we had more options to choose from, let's say 6, then rejection of one option is not enough to make an endorsement. I still 5 five remaining unendorsed options. But if I have 6 options and I chose one of them, I have rejected the remaining 5 options.

Conversely, if I reject option after option until I only have one left, which I then choose by default, then I have endorsed that last option, even if it came by way of rejecting all of the other alternatives.

If I decide to reject all six options, I'm actually making the choice to create a 7th option, which is the endorsement of rejecting all six options.

j-mac · Jul 15, 2010

Redress said:
"Liberal" is something to take pride in. It's not a bad name.

:2rofll::lamo Can I use that in my signature, seeing as how libs do that all the time? In fact I don't even know why I am asking you, I'll just do it....Nevermind Red.

:fueltofir

j-mac

roguenuke · Jul 15, 2010

Hicup said:
No it's not, not at all. Where do you folks get this stuff from? The action of being a homosexual is unsafe, explicitly because of the nature of their actions. The correlation isn't in the unsafe sex aspect, but in the other factors in any statistical sample. One cannot sample only safe sex homosexuals, nor can one sample only safe sex heterosexuals. You must sample the broader scheme. That's all I was saying. In the broader scheme, incidence is important.

You could choose to only sample homosexuals and heterosexuals who practice safe sex. I'm sure there have been some studies done like this. I might look for them later.

The action of being homosexual is no more unsafe than the action of being heterosexual. Heterosexual behavior could be more unsafe in some ways, in fact. Heterosexuals can have sex in all the same ways that homosexuals can, and they can choose to have that sex unprotected and/or with multiple partners of unknown backgrounds. And heterosexuals have an extra way to have sex (penis in vagina), which could lead to an unwanted pregnancy.

Allowing gay people to marry will most likely result in better, safer sex practices, including an important one of informed monogamy. Now, maybe not all homosexuals will practice safer sex, but neither do all heterosexuals, yet they are allowed to marry.

Hicup said:
Fashion!

Metrosexual.

Hicup said:
It appears to among females!

No, females are naturally closer to each other. Some younger females do mistake some female closeness for attraction, and may experiment due to this with homosexual acts. Others really are attracted to both males and females. Maybe a little openness isn't a bad thing.

Going along with your line of thinking however, back in the 1800s, young women actually were encouraged to have relationships with other women to help to prepare them for marriage, without the stigma of not being a virgin when they get married. So, it is possible that, given how for women, homosexuality has not been demonized nearly as much as it is for men, it is possible that this is why it is considered more "fluid" in women. However, women's sexuality is still not seen as a "choice".

Although, I will concede that I have no idea how sexuality develops. It is possible that we all have the potential to be bisexual. But even then, I fail to see why it would matter. I doubt this is the case however. I am one of those of the belief that homosexuality is a natural defense to overpopulation. I really don't care how far out that may be.

Hicup said:
Marriage isn't exclusively about procreation, no, who said it was. But as far as the state is concerned, posterity is kind of important!

Then show me where the state has said this. Provide proof where the state believes that it should be in the business of marriage because of procreation. I guarantee that you want find any absolute proof.

Hicup said:
But why would ANY state care at all about marriage? Is it so they can divvy up the dough when it dissolves? Why wouldn't a society want to provide for the best environment for proliferation?

The state's original concern with marriage was to restrict it. This is why the marriage license came about in the first place. The state wanted to control who could be legally viewed as a couple. The main criteria of concern of the restriction at the time, was race.

We only recently have started considering marriage as having actual benefits to society. Marriage has been deemed a private matter, between the couple, overall, unless "society" disapproves of the relationship of the couple. Then it is restricted.

Hicup said:
By the way, DOMA doesn't discriminate against gender, it discriminates against sexual orientation! But I suspect you knew that already, and were just testing me?

Wrong. DOMA states that only one man and one woman can be recognized as a married couple by the federal government. What it does not say is that only heterosexuals can get married or that homosexuals cannot legally be recognized as married. Homosexuals can legally get married, to a member of the opposite sex. That means that a man can only marry a woman, and a woman can only marry a man. That is discrimination based on gender, not sexuality. Sexuality is not mentioned at all in DOMA.

An example of discrimination against homosexuals is DADT and the UCMJ policies against homosexuality. These specifically state that homosexuals cannot be open about their sexuality while serving in the military. That is discrimination based on sexuality.

Marriage is not limited to people in love either. The license to get married does not mention love at all. It doesn't mention attraction or intent to have children either. And the only cases known to be prosecuted as marriage fraud are those involving a US citizen who marries a foreign national for the sole purpose of citizenship.

Hicup said:
No, the party seeking retribution has the burden of proof.

Not when it comes to the Constitutionality of laws such as DOMA. The government has the burden of proof in this case. They must show why it is a legitimate, important interest of the state to limit marriage to one man and one woman. This has not been done. However, they will have several SCOTUS cases in the coming years to present their case.

Hicup · Jul 15, 2010

Cap'n, I have nothing more to say to you that wasn't expressed in our little private conversation. I have entertained your none sense way longer than I should have. Unlike Tucker, Redress and Rougue who actually exchange their own ideas in the rebuttal, you exchange nothing other than accusation without substance. You do not explore the opposing idea, you claim they are wrong, and hold fast to that notion. That, Sir, is not debating! I guess I'll let it stand, and let others decide for themselves who's being the bigger person here.

Tucker, and Rogue thanks for your well thought out replies. They were civil, and courteous, and deserve a reply. I just came in here to check and see how much work I had ahead of me; if I wanted to continue this debate. I have no work left for the good Cap'n, but at least with you two members I have something to respond too.

Please excuse the delay in my response to both of you, as for today I have a doctor's appointment (specialist) and then we have a cook out with friends and family. I may not get to this until, either very late tonight, or tomorrow sometime.

Regards,

Tim-

Taylor · Jul 15, 2010

Zyphlin said:
And here's where you are wrong. Sex does not fall under "Rational Basis review but falls under Middle-Tier Immediete Scrutiny. In that the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

Gender discrimination is not allowable under "legitimate interest", but under important,

No, I think my original assertion was correct. In fact, the judge who decided the case that initiated this thread applied rational basis review in his decision, specifically citing legitimate interet (I am NOT claiming that more stringent review might be applicable elsewhere):

This court need not address these arguments, however, because DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster even under the highly deferential rational basis test. As set forth in detail below, this court is convinced that “there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship” between DOMA and a legitimate government objective.

Zyphlin said:
Selective Service is a system in which to track males incase of a draft where individuals are needed for call up into primarily combat rolls. Even then, one could still argue its an instance of gender discrimination that frankly hasn't had the political and societal will to push for the over turning of yet. That does not necessarily mean it would be any less of a discriminatory act.

It is a "discriminatory" act but the point is that "discriminatory" acts can be constitutional. You point out another, above - combat restrictions on females.

But back to the main point - gender discrimination is not the same racial discrimination in the eyes of the law.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 15, 2010

Hicup said:
Cap'n, I have nothing more to say to you that wasn't expressed in our little private conversation. I have entertained your none sense way longer than I should have. Unlike Tucker, Redress and Rougue who actually exchange their own ideas in the rebuttal, you exchange nothing other than accusation without substance. You do not explore the opposing idea, you claim they are wrong, and hold fast to that notion. That, Sir, is not debating! I guess I'll let it stand, and let others decide for themselves who's being the bigger person here.

It is very difficult to debate someone, who, like you offers nothing to debate. Perhaps others here have more patience with your inability to show even the barest knowledge on the topic. I don't suffer the uninformed, like you, lightly. Let me know when you have learned some of the basics of this debate. Perhaps then we can speak about it. Currently, with your lack of understanding, there is no common context.

peepnklown · Jul 16, 2010

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Jerry said:
We could be talking abut realestate and you would still be wrong. The right to contract is not without limit.

I did not say the right to contract did not have limits. This is at least the 2nd time you misrepresented my points.

peepnklown · Jul 16, 2010

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

ric27 said:
I believe that the federal government should concentrate on the basics, like border security and leave states rights alone. States should be able to do just about anything they want to. That way if you a ****ing Marxist, you can move to Kali, or if you are an ignorant bigot, you can move to Idaho, and everyone can be happy

I concur with the foundation of your comment.

Hicup · Jul 16, 2010

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

It says the text is too long so this will be in two parts.

Part I

============================================
Tucker, I wanted to go back and try to remap the argument. I hope you'll permit some redundancy for a moment? So we're clear, a dichotomy is defined as such:

"A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts" link
Therefore, by extension a false dichotomy is as follows:

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Link

The argument over legal/illegal began when I made the initial claim.

Hicup -

An endorsement is when society makes the effort to either legalize (recognize) the right or privilege, or to make the act illegal! (also recognize it) The former is an endorsement, the latter is an opposition

Tucker, you replied with this -

False dichotomy. One can make the effort to de-illegalize something for reasons other than endorsing it.

On top of that, things are not "legalized". They are simply no longer illegalized.

I was responding to another poster when I stated this:

Morality in the context of a collective society cannot be wrong. It is always correct, whether it is right or wrong is an individual distinction. Only when enough individuals agree that it is wrong, does it become wrong in the context of society. Do not confuse that, just because it is correct that society deems something right or wrong, it is right or wrong necessarily. That's not the argument here. Only that in a democratic society, the collective endorses, or rejects acts, or actions with the use of law. If it isn't legislated for, it is immaterial.

Note, I was careful to place the argument in the context of two different kinds of implied morality.

You said -

Things that are legal are not legislated for. Only things that are destined to become illegal require legislation. The only thing society can collectively agree to is what they feel is wrong and thus should be illegal. This endorses the opposite behavior.

Thus, there is no endorsement that stems from trying to make something legal. In actuality, all that is beign requested is a repeal of existing legislation.

This does not endorse the behavior that is being "legalized". It only de-endorses the alternative behavior.

For example, making homosexuality illegal is an endorsement of heterosexuality.Repealing such a law removes that endorsement of heterosexuality without providing an endorsment of homosexuality. Neither behavior is collectively endorsed. It leave sit up to the individual to decide.

I had big problems with this thought process, and in re-reading it, I have even more problems with it. But I'll address that later in my conclusion.

I responded to you this way -

If something isn't illegal then what is it? Take prohibition; once legal, then illegal, then legal again? What about free speech, gun ownership? These are recognized rights not to be infringed upon. The law is the recognition of these rights. It is legal to speak freely, and to own a gun. What about the right to life and liberty; whether expressed or implied; to infringe on these inalienable rights, is illegal.

It is not false to suggest no middle ground when there is none, only to infer no middle ground when in-fact one exists

And in a follow up post I said this -

The individual is the society when collected. Besides, repealing a law against homosexual marriage does nothing to remove any endorsement of heterosexuality, but it does endorse homosexuality, by definition

My argument, although note entirely thorough, is adequate, logically. That said, after re-reading your post, I should have said something more compelling. I will in the conclusion. But in short, legal is (right), and illegal is (wrong). More later.

Rivrrat added to the conversation with two important points -

Removing legislation that prohibits an action does not promote or endorse said action. It merely permits it
No, removing the law against same-sex marriage would not be endorsing anything. It would simply be eliminating gender discrimination in the marriage contract

I replied -

Well, you have one single point, only when the voice of the people is removed can this be true. If the voice of the people is heard, and used by way of representation, then my assertion holds logically. I submit to you the MA example on "legalizing" gay marriage. One single judge made the call, and the legislature refused the people the right to vote on it. Conversely, in CA, and Prop 8, the people were heard. By not altering the CA constitution to include same sex marriage, the people have made it illegal, and illegitimate for gay couples to marry. In other words, they do not endorse gay marriage. The rightness and or wrongness of that decision is an individual distinction because the collective has decided.

Again, this is a sound refutation of Rivrrats assertion. Rivrrat, is asserting, much like you, that to repeal a ban on SSM, would not be an endorsement by society. I argue that it would, and I fail to see why it would be anything less than an endorsement.

You, after answering to specific points of my previous post said this in your conclusion-

It is false to invent a dichotomy based on the incorrect premise that things are legalized by legislation. They are not.

They are legal due to the absence of legislation.

"Legal" is the default status of everything until there is some action taken.

Repealing legislation is re-creating an absence of legislation.

Endorsement can only occur when one promotes something. Legislatively, the only way that one can promote something is by denying it's opposite.

We do endorse the right to bear arms and speak freely. This is obvious because we have passed legislation that denies the opposite; that makes it illegal to pass laws banning free speech or arm bearing.

The only way to endorse homosexuality would be to pass legislation banning heterosexuality (denying the opposite).

Otehrwise, there is an endorsement neutal state since both situations exist in the absence of positive legislation.

In response to one of my points here - Hicup

By repealing homosexual marriage constraints we invariably validate the behavior

You said this -

Homosexual marriage will exist with or without those constraints. Homosexual marriage cannot be made illegal. Since marriage is a religious institution, making it illegal in any instance would be a violation of the first amendment.

One can even get married to 12 people without fearing any legal repercussions.

The only thing the government can legally involves itself in is the legal contract that is coupled with marriage.

Thus, it only recognizes certain types of marriages. That doesn't negate the existence of other unrecognized marriages

Right, but this is where you begin to muddy the waters. Not sure if it was intentional or not, but it is still a logical fallacy none the less.

I said in reply, not taking the bait -

No disagreement here.. Right you are. Marriage is state of being, and inalienable I suppose

Hicup · Jul 16, 2010

Part II

==============================================
So do we move on? Yes, you understood that I wasn't going to change the parameters, and I suspect you reverted back to the task of refuting the original premise.

Tucker -

So there are actually no constraints being placed on homosexual marriage. Only constraints on the State's recognition of these marriages.

That lack of recognition serves as an enrosement of heterosexual marriages.

Repealing that constraint on recognition does not validate anything. It simply retracts the endorsemnt of heterosexual marriages.

That does not act as an endorsement of homosexual marriages, though. It merely serves as an endorsement neutral environment.

To make an example, let's say two politicians, Politician A and Politician B, are running for an office.

So lets say I decide to endorse Poltician A. By necessity, this requires me to reject politician B.

Now let's say the only thing I can officially do is reject something (i.e. pass legislation making something illegal). Thus, I have to reject politician B in order to endorse politician A.

Endorsement is the equal and opposite reaction to rejection of a dichotomy and vice versa.

But lets say I rescind my rejection of Politician B (and thus rescind my endorsement of politician A).

I'm back to an endorsement-neutral situation. Neither politician is endorsed nor rejected.

Thus, by repealing the constraints on recognition, ther cannot possibly be an endorsement or validation of gay marriage. The only thing that occurs is a return to neutral regarding the collective position. It allows for both beliefs to be seen as potentially valid by the collective. It leaves the ultimate power to decide with the people instead of the State.

I address these points here:

I don't agree, and here's why, it's only a small point but important in the overall scheme. I think in your scenario, the endorsement doesn't go neutral, but rather it becomes equal to both hetero, and homo marriage. It isn't neutral in the sense the endorsement is still there, but adding another player.

You lost me.. This is not analogous to your first example. You do not have to reject Politician B in order to endorse Politician A. What you are doing is endorsing Politician A, and at the same time rejecting politician B. They both have the same result, I'll grant you that, but the order in which its done is what's key. In this example, you must pick one, but by rejecting politician B, you do not necessarily endorse politician A. You endorse politician A, only if you choose him over politician B consciously, and in that order.

I don't agree with that. Let's take a real world example. In 2008 I rejected Obama for President, however, I also did not endorse McCain. They both were rejected, but by having to choose the lesser of two evils, I chose McCain. I did not, nor do I ever endorse him. My choice was conscious, but it wasn't conscience.

I conclude this way -

But that's not a dichotomy, it is rather the opposite. Neutral does not imply a dichotomy, in fact it's the polar opposite. You claimed I made a false dichotomy, meaning essentially that I created a false dilemma where only two choices were available, when in fact there were more. In this scenario the one presenting the dichotomy is trying to create only two parts, where only one can be correct, -or- one is discredited, and the only other choice left is then deemed correct. I didn't do this. In essence, my basic argument concerning legal, and illegal is correct. if something is not illegal, it is deemed legal, not that it must be made somehow legal by any other standard, but that it isn't illegal. None of the parameters of my assertion overlap, nor are there any missing parts hidden away. By defining the premise, "legal-illegal", I went on to suggest that an endorsement is made when something that was illegal, and consequently made no longer illegal, is an endorsement by the collective. Conversely, when something that is legal, or not illegal is left unchallenged, it is also an endorsement.

The key in deciphering the argument, is in paying close attention to the guiding parameters. I don't think I made any error in logic, or in the dichotomy. But, as a reasonable person you seem to be, and will relinquish the floor to give you a chance to rebut

This didn't sit well with you, you reply here, and this is where I will pick it up -

In a societal sense, it becomes neutral. The decision on whether or not to endorse a specific type of marriage is entirely left to the individual. Neither union is being endorsed by society

No, both are being endorsed, and that's the point. By making SSM no longer illegal, society endorses it. No false dilemma there.

What you, and other anti-GM people are seeking is not an injunction against homosexual marriages as much as it is an endorsement of heterosexual marriage by society.

That would be wrong, that is not what I am seeking, nor anyone else I know. The endorsement of OSM has existed in the US for 234 years, since its inception. The DOMA is simply to define that endorsement, and reject all others. Legal <> Illegal, no overlapping parameters, no missing middle, NOT a false dilemma!

Things like the DOMA are a byproduct of that desire for a heterosexual marriage endorsement because the government can only endorse something by way of rejecting it's alternative.

With all due respect, that's absurd! Begging the question comes to mind? But even if we take your premise at face value it is simply not true. When this nation was born, there was no immediate need to reject any other form of marriage, there was only ever one form. The DOMA is born out of a necessity, or bias, but it cannot be a separate, new endorsement by society. The by-product, of the DOMA, is the rejection of SSM, not the other way around. They accomplish the same thing, but the order in the logic is what's important! The dichotomy, is the separation of the whole, and if we were to assign value to the non overlapping parts, it might go something like 90% OSM, 10% SSM. The logic in that value, is in the bias that brought about the necessity of declaring the whole that needed to be separated in the first cause.

The government endorses free speech by rejecting the ability to pass legislation which limits speech. If there was no rejection, societies stance becomes neutral, i.e. Both free speech and limited speech are of equal value, neither gets supported or promoted.

The reason I chose the example of free speech should be clear. The Constitution/BOR is the first legislation. In that regard, the constitutional congress, and the states, set out to enumerate certain rights, (Legal), and grounds for illegal (Infringement = Wrong). There is no excluded middle as near as I can tell between what is legal, and what is illegal. There is no neutrality, if there is bias. Even if SSM were to gain equal standing in front of the law, the bias is all over every aspect of the legislation, if NOT voted on directly by the people. As in the case with MA, there was bias, therefore by definition, neutrality is impossible! With the case of Prop 8, there is bias, not in the first cause, but subsequent filings, and end-around the system where the people have decided. So, even if Prop 8 is overturned, and SSM becomes the law of the land in CA, neutrality cannot be claimed, and as such, your claim to add in the middle ground, that creates the false dichotomy is rendered moot! There is no false dichotomy!

And endorsment requires a preference.

Wrong! An endorsement requires no rejection, only an affirmation. Rejection of something, and an affirmation of something, are mutually exclusive. Your definition only holds true where there are only two choices that are of "competing" interests. In the gay marriage debate, one could argue that they are competing with OSM, and I'm sure the anti-GM side might fear as such, but I would disagree on principle alone. SSM proponents are simply trying to gain equal standing as OSM proponents. Philosophically, I submit that they are none competing in the sense that the goal of SSM is equality, not supremacy. OSM is supreme in the eyes of the law, notwithstanding public support; however, the only thing OSM can lose in the eyes of the law, is supremacy. It cannot lose any fundamental quality of its own existence, and thus, I argue that, in and of itself, it is a none competing entity!

I'm going to stop here know why?

I just realized Tucker, and Rivrrat were correct! My premise was, and is a false dichotomy! Reason. In the eyes of the law, if OSM, and SSM gain equal standing, they are neutral. Hence there is an excluded middle in my premise. I leave my argumentation up, so others can see how I arrived at my mistake, and specifically WHY debate is good, and partisanship for the sake of partisanship is wrong. I also leave it to show that even someone with my experience in debate, and a student of logic, can make such mistakes, My hope is, that it serves as a lesson that, for all those that care, that, it's important to review your argument carefully. Not to get pissed off when someone challenges you, but rather, to take that challenge as an opportunity to analyze your thought process. You may end up being correct in your initial premise, but sometimes, you're not, and the exercise has value, as we can witness right here.

Now I must go about trying to revise my premise without adjusting the conclusion. LOL A tall task indeed.

Thanks guys!

Tim-

Tucker Case · Jul 16, 2010

Hicup said:
I just realized Tucker, and Rivrrat were correct! My premise was, and is a false dichotomy! Reason. In the eyes of the law, if OSM, and SSM gain equal standing, they are neutral. Hence there is an excluded middle in my premise. I leave my argumentation up, so others can see how I arrived at my mistake, and specifically WHY debate is good, and partisanship for the sake of partisanship is wrong. I also leave it to show that even someone with my experience in debate, and a student of logic, can make such mistakes, My hope is, that it serves as a lesson that, for all those that care, that, it's important to review your argument carefully. Not to get pissed off when someone challenges you, but rather, to take that challenge as an opportunity to analyze your thought process. You may end up being correct in your initial premise, but sometimes, you're not, and the exercise has value, as we can witness right here.

:lol: As I was reading the post, I was making handwrritten notes on what issues I wanted to rebut and such (which I typically do when the post is a longer one so that I don't miss anything) and then I get to this part and I realize the notes are all wasted at this point. :lol:

I will now make a paper airplane out of my notes so that I do not waste the paper as well.

But I must say that I'm impressed. Kudos, and thank you for the interesting debate.

Now I must go about trying to revise my premise without adjusting the conclusion. LOL A tall task indeed.

Indeed. But I would warn against that approach, speaking from a purely logical sense.

A conclusion must follow from its premises, not the reverse. As such, if a premise is designed with the pre-concieved conclusion in mind, it will be far more likely to have some unseen fallacy (my theory is that creating the premises to fit a conclusion creates fallacy "blindspots" for us) and thus make the argument weaker than one derived from a conclusion which followed it's premises.

That's just my approach, though.

Thanks guys!

Tim-

You're welcome, and thank you as well.

Hicup · Jul 16, 2010

A conclusion must follow from its premises, not the reverse

No, I know, hence the *LOL*. I was joking.

Tim-

Jetboogieman · Jul 16, 2010

Hicup said:
I just realized Tucker, and Rivrrat were correct! My premise was, and is a false dichotomy! Reason. In the eyes of the law, if OSM, and SSM gain equal standing, they are neutral. Hence there is an excluded middle in my premise. I leave my argumentation up, so others can see how I arrived at my mistake, and specifically WHY debate is good, and partisanship for the sake of partisanship is wrong. I also leave it to show that even someone with my experience in debate, and a student of logic, can make such mistakes, My hope is, that it serves as a lesson that, for all those that care, that, it's important to review your argument carefully. Not to get pissed off when someone challenges you, but rather, to take that challenge as an opportunity to analyze your thought process. You may end up being correct in your initial premise, but sometimes, you're not, and the exercise has value, as we can witness right here.

Tim-

On a side note. I want to say, that takes some real balls man. Few people in this forum would ever, ever admit they were wrong. Very mature, and gracious of you.

eace:

Hicup · Jul 16, 2010

Jetboogieman said:
On a side note. I want to say, that takes some real balls man. Few people in this forum would ever, ever admit they were wrong. Very mature, and gracious of you.

eace:

Thanks! As I stated in one post to CC, I am never deliberately dishonest in anything I post.

Tim-

Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Hicup

roguenuke

Hicup

roguenuke

Hicup

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Hicup

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

j-mac

roguenuke

Hicup

Taylor

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

peepnklown

Frankernaut

peepnklown

Frankernaut

Hicup

Hicup

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Hicup

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

Hicup

Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Matthew 16:3

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Frankernaut

Frankernaut

Matthew 16:3

Somewhere in Babylon

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency