DOMA & Prop 8 Topic

bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
So they are all wrong?

Where's your reason? Them agreeing with you isn't a reason.
Took me two minutes, while I was waiting for a conference call to get started.

So use another two minutes and provide me with a real reason.
5/16/2013 10:57 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (1)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bistiza on 5/16/2013 10:57:00 AM (view original):
So they are all wrong?

Where's your reason? Them agreeing with you isn't a reason.
Took me two minutes, while I was waiting for a conference call to get started.

So use another two minutes and provide me with a real reason.
They are not agreeing with me.  This is their findings.  I was not consulted in the research or writing of that document.

So are they all wrong?
5/16/2013 10:59 AM
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
They are not agreeing with me.  This is their findings.  I was not consulted in the research or writing of that document.

So you went out and found someone whose conclusion is the same as yours. THAT'S NOT A REASON.

So where is your reason?


5/16/2013 11:02 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (1)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect

Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant to the question at hand: are they all wrong?

5/16/2013 11:05 AM
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
No, the question at hand remains me asking you for a reason.

You're trying to sidetrack that with another question when you haven't answered the first one yet.

Once you do, I'll answer yours. Until then, stop playing games and either provide a reason or admit you cannot.

5/16/2013 11:08 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by bistiza on 5/16/2013 10:29:00 AM (view original):
That's not a real reason. That's you saying so, and I say otherwise, so we're still at a stalemate - except I offered a logical reason for my definition, while you only have "because I say so" and "because other people agree" to help you, which is no help at all.

Try again. With a REAL reason this time.

No, that's the actual definition, not my opinion. In your opinion, it's "logically" wrong, but that's just your opinion. The definition is what it is.
5/16/2013 11:11 AM (edited)
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
No, that's the actual definition, not my opinion.
 
And as I already said, we discussed that back on Page 95 and I showed how arguing from the dictionary only shows the commonly accepted definition, which is essentially the same as saying "because people agree with me."

So you're saying all you've got is "because I say so" and "because people agree with me"?

Because that's ALL youv'e given all along, and that's ALL you've said now. Neither can be defended with logical reasoning.
5/16/2013 11:15 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (1)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bistiza on 5/16/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):
No, the question at hand remains me asking you for a reason.

You're trying to sidetrack that with another question when you haven't answered the first one yet.

Once you do, I'll answer yours. Until then, stop playing games and either provide a reason or admit you cannot.

Whatever reason I may or may not provide is irrelevant, as the APA's research and conclusions were performed without my input.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that none of the people involved in said research have ever heard of me.

So are they all wrong?
5/16/2013 11:20 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by bistiza on 5/16/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):
No, that's the actual definition, not my opinion.
 
And as I already said, we discussed that back on Page 95 and I showed how arguing from the dictionary only shows the commonly accepted definition, which is essentially the same as saying "because people agree with me."

So you're saying all you've got is "because I say so" and "because people agree with me"?

Because that's ALL youv'e given all along, and that's ALL you've said now. Neither can be defended with logical reasoning.
No, I'm saying the definition of homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex. It has nothing to do with who agrees with me. That's what the definition is. I don't know why you're so focused on this tiny irrelevant aspect of the debate.

Back on block you go.
5/16/2013 11:27 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/16/2013 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 5/16/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):
This is the problem. You don't want to provide a reason - just more of the same "I'm right because people agree with me" which proves NOTHING.

We've already agreed your position is the majority position, and that isn't what's being debated here.

I don't want you showing me how others agree with you.

I want a real REASON for why sexuality should be defined differently than the way we define virtually any other word.

What you've given here ISN'T A REASON - it's just showing a group agrees with you.

Great, people agree with you. You've proven nothing and provided no reason, which is what I asked you for.



So they are all wrong?
"I want a real REASON for why sexuality should be defined differently than the way we define virtually any other word."


For ****'s sake.  I'm assuming people have thrown out dozens of "non-choices" that you've debunked.    I know I've seen skin color and favorite teams.   What they're attempting to say is there is an inner process, that cannot be changed(even if I disagree as I used aversion therapy/Pavlov's dog reward-type system as examples of behavior modification techniques).   I haven't seen "allergies" used.

If one is allergic to dairy, they did not choose to be allergic to dairy.   They were born that way.   They can take a pill that will allow the consumption of dairy but they are still allergic to dairy.    Can the same be applied to homosexuality?   Not that there's a pill to "fix" homosexuality but you know what I mean.
5/16/2013 11:27 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And, while I think this is a weaker argument, because the act caused the condition, I could say the same applies to addiction.    No one says "I wanna be an alcoholic!!" then chugs a case of vodka.    Addictions cannot be changed.    They can be removed or "fixed" by any number of techniques but an alcoholic is addicted to alcohol. 
5/16/2013 11:30 AM
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
Whatever reason I may or may not provide is irrelevant,

No, it's the ONLY thing that IS relevant.

I asked you for a reason, and as yet you haven't provided one and only seem interested in attempting to distract from the fact that you haven't provided one.

So once again: Provide a real reason for why you think sexuality should defy the logical pattern we use to define people in any number of other ways.
as the APA's research and conclusions were performed without my input.

So other people agreed with your conclusion independent from you. That's still not a REASON, smart guy.
No, I'm saying the definition of homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex.
Great. So what's your REASON for saying this?

So far all you've offered "because I say so" (as you're doing again now) and "because other people agree with me", and neither of these can be defended using logical reasoning.
That's what the definition is.
WHY?

That's what I want to know - WHY is that "what the definition is"?

Is this really that difficult of a question for you to answer? You seem so set in your opinion and convinced its correct, but you can't even give a reason WHY?
I don't know why you're so focused on this tiny irrelevant aspect of the debate.
This isn't a "tiny irrelevant aspect of the debate" - it IS the debate.
If one is allergic to dairy, they did not choose to be allergic to dairy.   They were born that way. 
So you are arguing that biology determines who you are attracted to.

Even if I agreed with that premise (and I don't) you've still got the same problem you've always had: People can (and sometimes do) choose to be with those they find as less than ideally attractive mates. For example, a man might be most attracted to women, but may have a sexual encounter or even a romantic partnership with another man. Now you need to define his sexuality.

So for this case:

I would say logical reasoning supports that his choice of partners indicates his sexuality, since in almost all cases we define people by their actions, and a choice of a partner is an action.

You would say his attraction defines his sexuality, but what is that based upon? We've already debunked the idea that he can claim to be whatever he wants and that makes it true, so what are you basing this on?



5/16/2013 11:50 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (1)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Whatever reason I may or may not provide is irrelevant,

No, it's the ONLY thing that IS relevant.

I asked you for a reason, and as yet you haven't provided one and only seem interested in attempting to distract from the fact that you haven't provided one.

So once again: Provide a real reason for why you think sexuality should defy the logical pattern we use to define people in any number of other ways.

Fine.  Whatever.

Because I believe that sexual orientation is something that you are inherently born with.  It is not a conscious choice.

I already said that maybe 100+ pages ago.  As has virtually everybody other than yourself who has posted in this thread.

Your turn: are you saying that the APA and all the other groups that endordsed the publication I linked earlier today are all wrong because their research and analysis have arrived at the same conclusion?
5/16/2013 12:08 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Propaganda something conspiracy something something.
5/16/2013 12:19 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (1)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
I don't expect to get even that much of a reply from him.  His intention seems to be to be to sidetrack the discussion to somewhere he thinks he can better try to control it.  By taking this question on directly, he knows how foolish he'll come off as.

As if he could be more foolish than he already is.
5/16/2013 12:35 PM
◂ Prev 1...164|165|166|167|168...358 Next ▸
DOMA & Prop 8 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.