• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

Robert Prey said:
NO cancers listed here. Perhaps because such cancers are not transmitted by sexual intimacy with other women, but by the lack of sexual intimacy with men.
Click to expand...

In summary, while you're correct that cancer isn't an STD, you completely undermine any points that you might have with blatant ignorance and utterly unsupported foolishness. Foolishness that has plenty of evidence against it, no less.

BenBurch said:
The average HIV patient globally is a heterosexual woman of child-bearing years who contracted HIV usually from a heterosexual male.

I know this will rock MK's tidy little world.
Click to expand...

All he has to do to wriggle out of it is find a statistic where homosexuals are unfavorably compared to heterosexuals. 2% of homosexuals could have a disease and 1% of heterosexuals could have the same disease and that would be a condemnation of homosexuality, as far as he's concerned, given his arguments. Nevermind that that ends up being multiple logical fallacies that he'll refuse to consider fallacies, simply because they "justify" the worthlessness of his arguments.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/sexually_transmitted_diseases/article_em.htm

NO cancers listed here. Perhaps because such cancers are not transmitted by sexual intimacy with other women, but by the lack of sexual intimacy with men.
Click to expand...
Relative risks? What is the aggregate? What is the likely risk per person? What are the increased risks compared to decreased risks? We are talking about risk Robert not simply STDs. You are arguing that homosexuality is bad because it is risky. That raises the question, is heterosexual sex risky? Can heterosexual sex increase the chance of cancer?

You've yet to make any case whatsoever that homosexual behavior is risky in a way that makes it bad while heterosexual behavior isn't. Both carry risks.
 
Last edited:
Skepticemea said:
Does baloney mean, "unsubstantiated, hate-filled and irrelevant"?

I ask only as I live in the UK and we don't have many US style delis over here.
Click to expand...

I'm an American and I have no idea what it means either outside the possible use as a socially acceptable version of BS.
 
Baloney or bologna is a type of pink lunch meat that looks rather synthetic, and the red peel around the edge of each slice is inedible.

It is also used to mean 'nonsense' as well as a euphemism for bull droppings.
 
RandFan said:
Relative risks? What is the aggregate? What is the likely risk per person? What are the increased risks compared to decreased risks? We are talking about risk Robert not simply STDs. You are arguing that homosexuality is bad because it is risky. That raises the question, is heterosexual sex risky? Can heterosexual sex increase the chance of cancer?

You've yet to make any case whatsoever that homosexual behavior is risky in a way that makes it bad while heterosexual behavior isn't. Both carry risks.
Click to expand...

Don't waste my time. What is Common knowledge does not require proof. Google it yourself.
 
Last edited:
Don't waste my time. What is Common knowledge does not require proof. Google it yourself.
Click to expand...
That's a typical CT-er dodge there -- when pressed for evidence you don't have, claim you can't be bothered to do others' research for them, and tell your opponents to look it up themselves.

Oldest trick in the book, RP. You need to do better than that.

NO. Unless the person is attempting to overturn the definition of "marriage."
Click to expand...
This is exactly what we're doing. Your move.
 
Robert Prey said:
Don't waste my time. What is Common knowledge does not require proof. Google it yourself.
Click to expand...
Asserting that it's common knowledge A.) doesn't make it true that it is common knowledge. B.) would be an appeal to popularity if it were true. C.) fails the skeptical requirement that you demonstrate your claims.

Sorry but you fail in every possible way.
 
Robert Prey said:
NO.
Click to expand...
Excellent!

Robert Prey said:
Unless the person is attempting to overturn the definition of "marriage."
Click to expand...
Oh, like when they redefined marriage to include people of two different races? You feel it was wrong to do that? There should have been one set of laws for couples of the same race and a different set of laws for the different races?

...or are you okay that they redefined "marriage" in that case?

Please, help me to understand what you mean.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom