Sexual Orientation

[bholdr]

jaxmike has obviously never studided 'logic', as he seems to use the Mr. Spock definition of the term.


[ QUOTE ]
A lot of reasonable and nice people shut down when it comes to politics. Like a religion, they shut out anything that contradicts their beliefs, ignoring anything that contradicts them... And then the generalizing. He twists two examples of 2 politicians making (arguably) questionable statements and concludes.... ALL LIBERALS are intolerant.

[/ QUOTE ]

which is, of course, andother fallicy of argument! (but don't try to tell jaxmike!- he knows all about 'logic' and argumentation)

[thatpfunk]

nice domination.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Typical elitist Republican f***bag.


[/ QUOTE ]

An elitist who "probably never went..(to college)"

Tell me more oh oracle @ Geneseo. LOL.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[jack spade23]

UMMMM,kurto, kerry is a catholic but wasn't going to let that affect his position on abortion, etc. Therefore, you can't say that Cheney is wrong to defend a position he doesn't believe in. They are too similar.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
blah blah blah. Quit speaking in empty platitudes. You're regurgitating babble but saying nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really funny coming from you.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's start simple... explain the defense of marriage. I got married a year ago. My parents have been married for about 40 years. Let's say my neighbors are two gay guys who get married. Please show a logical cause and effect of how my and my parents marriages need defending from this threat. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you show me cause for changing the law to allow same sex marriages. Furthermore, show me why changing the definition of the word marriage is appropriate.

[ QUOTE ]
On their religious code????? Oh that's right, this is to appeal to the people who want America to be a theocracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who wants that?

[ QUOTE ]
(BTW, there's a lot of debate about whether or not its even frowned upon in the Bible, which I would to discuss with something who seems well read and open minded... but I'll skip it with the guy who wants to point out his interpretation of ONE person's conduct and then generalize about a whole group of people. That's the actions of a fool.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, funny coming from you. Do you support affirmative action? If so, you are a racist, and a hypocrite. Since most liberals seem to support it, I can safely say what I did, while you cannot safely say what you are.

[ QUOTE ]
" In it I accounted for the fact that she was already "out". But she had not been outed on a national stage as of yet." Wrong. You're inaccuracies are tiresome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know how to respond to this. I'm so clearly right that I find it incredible that you say I am wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not classifying all of the right as bigots. I believe I earlier pointed out that there are many intelligent Republicans/Conservatives. I am refering to a subset of the Right (generally, I believe referred to as neoconservatives) who are bigotted. Unfortunately, this is the segment of Right that the GOP reaches out to a lot these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see how they are bigots just for being neocons. Perhaps the playbook tells you to call them such...

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of bigots all over the political spectrum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly.

[ QUOTE ]
You just don't see the bigots on the left being powerful enough to try to get their bigotry codified into law (or change the Constitution).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really funny. REALLY funny.

[ QUOTE ]
Some people think its immoral for people of different skin color to marry... they're still bigots.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
You're right. All liberals are intolerant. Conservatives are just the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true either. However, I think liberals as a whole are just as intollerant as conservatives as a whole.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because many of them want to do all they can to make sure that 2 men or 2 women can't have a legal binding relationship...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree that they shouldn't be able to have a legally binding relationship. In fact, I would guess that most conservatives would agree with me.

[ QUOTE ]
is just proof of how tolerant they are!

[/ QUOTE ]

There are always going to be people who are intolerant. However, when liberals claim to be all about gay rights this, etc, then attack someone for being gay, they are the worst kind of bigot, a hypocritical one.

[ QUOTE ]
I stand corrected. I bow down to your fantastic arguments.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

As well you should.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
buy a dictionary, it'll help you stop putting your foot in your mouth:

[/ QUOTE ]

This will be fun to make you look even more the fool.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you justify calling people on the right biggots? Just because their moral code or religious beliefs make them think that people of the same sex should not be married? That does not make someone a biggot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Pronunciation: -r&nt
Function: adjective
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights


hmmmm.... mr webster disagrees with you, jamike.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, people who have a moral or religious code that makes them feel one way or another are not necessarily bigots.

To be a bigot you have to be intolerant or obstinate by your definition, which if someone draws their opinion from a moral code/religion that they HAVE PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO they dont fit the definition of intolerant. They are not a bigot because they aren't obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their opinions.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
You're being ironic, right? The inherent state of homosexual beings is male-male or female-female. You seem to misuse words a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You dodge the point again. What is the natural or inherent state of sexual beings? Hetero or [censored] sexual? Further, how many generations of Heterosexual beings are there in comparison to Homosexual beings?

[ QUOTE ]
My primary premise is you like to make up mindless platitudes and pretend you're saying something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, weak attacks on me because you cannot win on the issue. Typical liberal tactic.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
the 'appeal to nature' is accepted by any serious student of philosophy and argumentation as a fallicy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where you are wrong. I can prove that the natural state of sexual beings is heterosexuality as opposed to homosexuality. Here's how, they can procreate. Done.

[ QUOTE ]
this is not up for debate- any educated person should know this... it's an accepted convention of debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your challenge of this is foolish, any person who has gone to college should know this. I am setting up a control, I am backing that control by facts. Doing so allows me to show deviation from a norm. This is how you win debates, well, how I win, not you.

[ QUOTE ]
did you go to college? if not, then i understand your confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Did you? Your whacky ideas lead me to believe you have been well indoctrinated. Your inability to defeat logic just makes me that much more sure.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The inherent state of sexual beings is male-female.

[/ QUOTE ]
not if they're geniticly predisposed to be male-male or female-feamle...

[/ QUOTE ]

So there is something wrong with them? Is that what you are saying? Since they CANNOT accomplish the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING an organism has to do, BREED, it seems that's what you are saying.

[ QUOTE ]
'inherant' is a clever rephrasing of 'natural' which is, again, a fallicy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already shown that it's not a fallacy. Go ask a math professor on your indoctrination camp about logic.

[ QUOTE ]
the rest of your post is too jumbled to make any sense, please respond in a coherant manner and i will reply in kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attack for a typo, why don't you go to the effort to read it? It's not all that hard, just one quote was messed up.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
exactly, which is why serious logicians consider the 'appeal to nature' a fallicy of argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an appeal to nature. Your use of that defense is inappropriate in this case, and if you really knew what you were talking about, you would admit that.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
BULLSHIIT

you continue to duck my question.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I gave you your answer.

[ QUOTE ]
if i had asked wether or not you thought cold-blooded murder was immoral, would you have responded the same way?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a rabbi or a priest or an imam, I am not the one to judge morality in others. I have my own moral code, that is all.

[ QUOTE ]
of course not. you lack the courage of your convictions, and once again reveal your cowardice and ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think you have it backwards. I am strong enough and smart enough to know that I have no right judging the morality of others.

[ QUOTE ]

i meet people like you all the time. too bad, really...


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

you are a COWARD! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think I am the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]
you may not respond that it isn't up to you to pass judgement, that is the escape-hatch of bigots that know that they are busted...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am no bigot. I don't see how, in any way, you have even come close to busting me. All you have done is attack attack attack, and they have been very poorly constructed and supported attacks at that.

[ QUOTE ]
it's an ambigous and non-commital response... if you really felt that it was not up to you to pass judgement, you would not be against marrige of homosexual couples- where you ARE passing judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

In no way am I passing judgement. I am expressing my logical conclusions about the situation. There is no person (of legal age) in this country that does not have the right to marry.

[ QUOTE ]
instead of respond directly to my criticisims, you resort to clever wordplay and the dissection of semantic minutia.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have responded to you, you simply don't like my answer. I am dealing with logic in my argument, which you cannot defeat.

[ QUOTE ]
You ARE judging, but are AFRAID/ too smart to admit it, in the face of your obvious hipporacy (this time i use the term in an idiomatic sense and not the dictionary definition).

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see your proof of this.

[ QUOTE ]

you clearly fit every defintition that webster has supplied and i have posted...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have clearly shown that I do not.

[ QUOTE ]
why do you think you're the only conservative defending your 'arguments' (and i use that term very loosely, you clearly don't even know what an argument is...) in this thread? it's because the others are too smart to get behind your indefensible arguments!

[/ QUOTE ]

You have lost the point entirely. Someone posted a "challenge" that I believed was BS. So, I made a logical argument, which I do not endorse or denounce, that countered his "challenge".

[ QUOTE ]
i'm turning your setting back to "ignore" i'll give you another chance in a few weeks to grow up and join the reasonable discussion that educated people here try to carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is REALLY funny to me. When you can't win, just ignore them.