Prop 8?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Well put, but I think at this point it's wasted on 9000. He's not interested in investigating his own prejudice on this matter.

T
K
O

I'm just about as interested as you are in investigating the truth of my position. This is a debate. We each argue our beliefs. Maybe someone's opinion get's changed and maybe it doesn't. Duh.

No 9000, that's not how this is playing out. The truth is that you've wandered into the marketplace of ideas and you cam only to sell and not buy. Your intellectual product sucks so you can't sell it when in competition with other intellectual products that are based on real facts and in this case legal precedence. You are taking no effort to educate yourself on this matter.

You are posting your opinion as fact; you are simply asserting yourself, nothing more. You'd like this to be a debate, but you are arguing your opinion against the facts in this case. Frankly, you opinion is irrelevant. If you'd like to have a debate, bring something of substance.

Duh.

T
K
O

Go read the court case yourself.

T
K
O

Brandon9000 wrote:

Shapeless wrote:

...

Quote:

Marriage has always been defined like this... This definition was motivated by the apparent design of gender and sexual attraction to enable reproduction.

Again, if the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis, then why is that basis applied selectively? If it is indeed true that marriage is defined in accordance with the "apparent design" that gender and sexual attraction enable reproduction, and if homosexuality is to be excluded from marriage because it does not conform to that design, then why are other marriage practices that also deviate from that design legally recognized? Marriages that produce no children, or marriages of convenience, do not conform to the apparent design. Yet homosexuality is the only "malfunction" singled out for exclusion. That's discrimination, any way you slice it.

I wasn't asserting that the criterion for marriage is the production of offspring. I was asserting that this gives an indication of what is normal and functional sexual attraction.

Being that homosexuality takes place in all mammals and for humans has it has existed as long as record history, homosexuality is normal. It is not the majority or the status quo, but it is normal.

"functional sexual attraction?" You're flirting with fascism at this point 9000. Are you claiming that a government should be socially engineering its people's sexual attraction?

T
K
O

Brandon wrote: "I'm just about as interested as you are in investigating the truth of my position. This is a debate. We each argue our beliefs. Maybe someone's opinion get's changed and maybe it doesn't. Duh."

That's your problem, Brandon. You don't understand that facts matter in a debate. For instance, you may harbor a belief that the earth is flat. It's an ignorant belief, but you maintain it despite all the facts that are provided to prove that the earth is round. No one can change your "opinion" with the facts because you desire to remain uneducated.

Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Well put, but I think at this point it's wasted on 9000. He's not interested in investigating his own prejudice on this matter.

T
K
O

I'm just about as interested as you are in investigating the truth of my position. This is a debate. We each argue our beliefs. Maybe someone's opinion get's changed and maybe it doesn't. Duh.

No 9000, that's not how this is playing out. The truth is that you've wandered into the marketplace of ideas and you cam only to sell and not buy. Your intellectual product sucks so you can't sell it when in competition with other intellectual products that are based on real facts and in this case legal precedence. You are taking no effort to educate yourself on this matter.

You are posting your opinion as fact; you are simply asserting yourself, nothing more. You'd like this to be a debate, but you are arguing your opinion against the facts in this case. Frankly, you opinion is irrelevant. If you'd like to have a debate, bring something of substance.

Duh.

T
K
O

Actually, by attempting to disallow my contrary opinion by simply declaring it invalid, you're the one who's come only to sell and not to buy.

You cannot win a debate with me by simply stating that my opinion is irrelevant or that I am ignoring facts, any more than I can win it by making such a declaration. If you are right, then you will be able to prevail in a debate. If you cannot prevail in a debate, then you cannot simply declare that your opponent's arguments are invalid. To do so is simply to forfeit the debate. To win, you need to actually triumph in an argument.

Enlighten me, though. What facts am I ignoring? Could it be the "fact" that you are right? And, incidentally, what effort are you making to educate yourself that I am not making?

Diest TKO wrote:

Go read the court case yourself.

T
K
O

You have no answer. Got it.

Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Shapeless wrote:

...

Quote:

Marriage has always been defined like this... This definition was motivated by the apparent design of gender and sexual attraction to enable reproduction.

Again, if the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis, then why is that basis applied selectively? If it is indeed true that marriage is defined in accordance with the "apparent design" that gender and sexual attraction enable reproduction, and if homosexuality is to be excluded from marriage because it does not conform to that design, then why are other marriage practices that also deviate from that design legally recognized? Marriages that produce no children, or marriages of convenience, do not conform to the apparent design. Yet homosexuality is the only "malfunction" singled out for exclusion. That's discrimination, any way you slice it.

I wasn't asserting that the criterion for marriage is the production of offspring. I was asserting that this gives an indication of what is normal and functional sexual attraction.

Being that homosexuality takes place in all mammals and for humans has it has existed as long as record history, homosexuality is normal. It is not the majority or the status quo, but it is normal.

"functional sexual attraction?" You're flirting with fascism at this point 9000. Are you claiming that a government should be socially engineering its people's sexual attraction?

T
K
O

If I were claiming that, I would probably have said it at some point. Must your arguments always depend on attributing things to me that I haven't said? That's an indication that you're wrong. Someone in the right can prevail without misrepresenting his opponents' positions.

The fact that people are sometimes born with defects doesn't make the defects functional. I merely stated that the intent of evolution in creating gender seems obvious - to promote sexual reproduction between animals of opposite gender within a species. Therefore, attraction to one's own gender would seem to be a malfunction.

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon wrote: "I'm just about as interested as you are in investigating the truth of my position. This is a debate. We each argue our beliefs. Maybe someone's opinion get's changed and maybe it doesn't. Duh."

That's your problem, Brandon. You don't understand that facts matter in a debate. For instance, you may harbor a belief that the earth is flat. It's an ignorant belief, but you maintain it despite all the facts that are provided to prove that the earth is round. No one can change your "opinion" with the facts because you desire to remain uneducated.

Great. What fact am I ignoring? I'm listening.

Just do your own damn homework. You come in here and put your claims against others who are taking the time to provide substance and then want them to do your work for you.

You're intellectually lazy.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Go read the court case yourself.

T
K
O

You have no answer. Got it.

Just do your own damn homework. You come in here and put your claims against others who are taking the time to provide substance and then want them to do your work for you.

You're intellectually lazy.

T
K
O

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Shapeless wrote:

...

Quote:

Marriage has always been defined like this... This definition was motivated by the apparent design of gender and sexual attraction to enable reproduction.

Again, if the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis, then why is that basis applied selectively? If it is indeed true that marriage is defined in accordance with the "apparent design" that gender and sexual attraction enable reproduction, and if homosexuality is to be excluded from marriage because it does not conform to that design, then why are other marriage practices that also deviate from that design legally recognized? Marriages that produce no children, or marriages of convenience, do not conform to the apparent design. Yet homosexuality is the only "malfunction" singled out for exclusion. That's discrimination, any way you slice it.

I wasn't asserting that the criterion for marriage is the production of offspring. I was asserting that this gives an indication of what is normal and functional sexual attraction.

Being that homosexuality takes place in all mammals and for humans has it has existed as long as record history, homosexuality is normal. It is not the majority or the status quo, but it is normal.

"functional sexual attraction?" You're flirting with fascism at this point 9000. Are you claiming that a government should be socially engineering its people's sexual attraction?

T
K
O

If I were claiming that, I would probably have said it at some point. Must your arguments always depend on attributing things to me that I haven't said? That's an indication that you're wrong. Someone in the right can prevail without misrepresenting his opponents' positions.

I asked you a question Brandon. I'm waiting for your answer before I make my assertion that you are a fascist. I only let you know in advance that if you think that the government should be socially engineering people's sexual attraction what my assertion is.

If on the other hand you don't think the government should be socially engineering people's sexuality, then it seems that I don't understand why you would think it's important for marriage to be defined as CA did in the first place.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The fact that people are sometimes born with defects doesn't make the defects functional. I merely stated that the intent of evolution in creating gender seems obvious - to promote sexual reproduction between animals of opposite gender within a species. Therefore, attraction to one's own gender would seem to be a malfunction.

If you want to promote reproduction, then why even promote marriage in the first place? You don't have to be married to breed, and if you were able to copulate with more people, then you could reproduce more.

I don't think that we need to be promoting polygamy either, but my point remains: This isn't about reproductive success.

Even if it was about a way to raise children, Gays can raise children just fine. Do you think that children from gay households would rather be in orphanages?

This has nothing to do with reproductive success Brandon.
K
O

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon wrote: "I'm just about as interested as you are in investigating the truth of my position. This is a debate. We each argue our beliefs. Maybe someone's opinion get's changed and maybe it doesn't. Duh."

That's your problem, Brandon. You don't understand that facts matter in a debate. For instance, you may harbor a belief that the earth is flat. It's an ignorant belief, but you maintain it despite all the facts that are provided to prove that the earth is round. No one can change your "opinion" with the facts because you desire to remain uneducated.

Great. What fact am I ignoring? I'm listening.

You're listening? You could have fooled me and several others. Is that your game, Brandon? You play your same old lines over and over again and ignore everything that other people say in response, and then you ask what you're ignoring? Go back and read the posts that you ignored and try to follow along. I'm not going to keep repeating myself over and over and over again because you're enjoying your game.

In response to Brandon's refusal to educate himself, Diest TKO wrote:

Just do your own damn homework. You come in here and put your claims against others who are taking the time to provide substance and then want them to do your work for you.

You're intellectually lazy.

I second that! Brandon is wasting our time with his GAME:

"Please tell me what I demand, I'm listening farse, so I can ignore you when you do and then replay my rote lines and then repeat this game pattern ad nauseam."

my contention that homosexuality is a biological malfunction, and that the government is under no obligation to regard malfunctions as normal or as anything other than aberrations, for the purposes of issuing marriage licenses.

Brandon - I think I understand your argument better than you do, or at least what it means big picture.

You believe A because of B1 + B2 + ... + Bn.

A: Government doesn't have to allow gays to marry.

B1: Homosexuality is a biological malfunction.
B2: Heterosexual couples can give birth to and raise children.
B3: If homosexuals receive marriage licenses, then it is a public endorsement/validation of homosexuality.
B4: Gays can already get married to people of the opposite sex so they aren't being discriminated against.

The problem here Brandon is that you have yet to support any of your B premises with some sort of substance. You argument evaporates to...

You believe A.

A is supposed to be more than your opinion, it's supposed to be the intellectual product of the sum of your B premises. A by itself is irrelevant and is not a legal argument. Stop being so damn lazy, and I provide support for your reasons. Otherwise, if you just came here to tell us your opinion, do so without pretending like it is based on some larger noble and structured argument. I don't care if you don't want gays to marry. You're entitled to that opinion. It's laughable though that you think your opinion carries the same merit as the real academic arguments of A because B that are contrary to your belief.

In short, if this was a debate you aren't winning. You aren't even in the debate. You're not a player in the game yet. Your refusal to provide substance is the intellectual cowardice that prevents you from being wrong by never really stepping in the ring to begin with. Opinions can't be proven wrong so you don't dare go any further than that. It would be too risky for you to have to make an argument you have to invest in.

T
K
O