24

Pages:
1
2
3
4
…
11

24
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 9 2011, 09:09 PM (4,102 Views)
Big Richard	Jul 12 2011, 11:03 PM Post #61
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	Lol what? I wonder what objective, logical evidence conservatives, of all people, presented to you on the subjects of gay marriage and the like. I'm pretty sure you're still just a sap and believe everything they told you is right because it contradicts what you believed before. The way that you said you changed your views based on pure evidence tells me you are sure conservatives are 100% right on all those issues, which is laughable and just tells me you believe their "evidence" just in the same immature, gullible way you believed hollywood. People watching Fox news are convinced Obama was born in Kenya after hearing their "convincing, evidence-based arguments". Do you really think conservatives would tell you why they might be wrong? If you're basing all your beliefs from a one-sided source you're just going to hear what confirms their position. Humans do such things all the time. lol @ your maturity, btw "stop resorting to personal attacks" haha hypocrite



DragonLegend	Jul 13 2011, 12:52 AM Post #62
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	?? You can't be serious.



Jack the IV	Jul 13 2011, 04:08 AM Post #63
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 12 2011, 10:25 PM No, stupid. Apparently you're not intelligent enough to understand what a 6 year old has no problem comprehending, so I'm going to dumb it down for you. Me = baby. Hollywood: What I say is true, because. Me: OK. Me = all grown up. Conservatives: What we say is true, because [insert convincing, evidence-based argument here]. Me: OK. You can't explain that.
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


Big Richard	Jul 13 2011, 04:19 AM Post #64
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	there you go dragon, stop talking thats the right thing to do. its embarrassing that you can't understand this even after I explain my explanations.



_Saladin_	Jul 13 2011, 07:15 AM Post #65
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	I would actually love to hear a non religious argument against gay marriage. Don't think I've ever heard one.



DragonLegend	Jul 13 2011, 09:33 AM Post #66
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Funny you should say that. One of the most knowledgeable people I've ever known is both irreligious and opposed to gay marriage. Although I didn't agree with him, his arguments were coherent and intelligent. He is what you'd call a traditionalist. I'd look up his posts right now, but I have to sleep. http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html I found this, however. Again, I don't exactly agree with it, but the last paragraph makes a good point -- even if it partly contradicts the man's argument -- and I've yet to hear a response to it (from gay marriage proponents) that I can agree with.



_Saladin_	Jul 13 2011, 10:11 AM Post #67
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	The argument that gays shouldn't adopt is silly. Gays shouldn't adopt because they can't properly raise children? Excuse me, but government has no business over parenting as long as it isn't abusive. The problem is of societal tolerance anyway.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Jul 13 2011, 04:35 PM Post #68
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	The purpose of marriage is procreation? :\| IMO children adopted by gay couples grow up to become more conscientious and thoughtful; the very fact that they were raised by an unusual sort of parents would make them treat things with greater consideration, and acknowledge that there is not always a determined reality that cannot change.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Incog	Jul 13 2011, 05:01 PM Post #69
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	Idk about adoption. biologically speaking there's something a mother has that the dad doesn't and vice versa. it's just "not the same", so to say. also if the child is fragile having gay parents might suck for him because he might be jealous of other kids who have a mother while he has two fathers. and he'll get picked on at school for it. idc about gay marriage but i honestly don't like the idea of gay couples adopting, for the sake of the kid. i'm not AGAINST gays but meh idk. i'd hate not having a mother.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


Big Richard	Jul 13 2011, 05:46 PM Post #70
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=player_embedded



gs	Jul 13 2011, 06:33 PM Post #71
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	Incog Jul 13 2011, 05:01 PM Idk about adoption. biologically speaking there's something a mother has that the dad doesn't and vice versa. it's just "not the same", so to say. also if the child is fragile having gay parents might suck for him because he might be jealous of other kids who have a mother while he has two fathers. and he'll get picked on at school for it. think of the alternative. it's not either 2 healthy nice parents or 2 gay guys, it's either 1 druggie/teenager/mom who couldn't handle the cost/whatever and no father or 2 gay guys. while i agree it would be healthier for a kid to have 2 normal parents instead of 2 gay guys, this is not relevant when it comes to adoption. 2 healthy normal parents don't put their child up for adoption.



Incog	Jul 13 2011, 06:44 PM Post #72
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	yes but for adoption the kid is at an orphanage. if a kid is at an orphanage, it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll get adopted by a gay couple, as a healthy pair of individuals (who can't have kids for some reason) can also adopt. it might be better for a mother/father to adopt than a father/father or mother/mother, see what i mean? but yes obviously a mother in a bad situation will be a poorer parent than the gay couple, i agree
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


DragonLegend	Jul 13 2011, 07:51 PM Post #73
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Incog continues to surprise me. Sal: If you were responding to the article, it wasn't about adoption. Just read the key (last) paragraph. Edited by DragonLegend, Jul 13 2011, 08:04 PM.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Jul 13 2011, 07:56 PM Post #74
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	And of course, there is the added benefit that gays are always philosophers. Everybody knows that.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Jam	Jul 13 2011, 08:01 PM Post #75
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	Quote: The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. Slippery slope fallacy.
	Long live Carolus


The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Jul 13 2011, 08:03 PM Post #76
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	The notion of marriage was never intended to be logical; not in its present incarnation as a ceremony under God. People try too hard to be incisive.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	Jul 13 2011, 08:05 PM Post #77
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Is it really a fallacy, though? It's a valid argument.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Jul 13 2011, 08:07 PM Post #78
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	Is it a valid argument because it tries to be logical?
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	Jul 13 2011, 08:11 PM Post #79
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	It is logical. If marriage is entirely about love, and based on that it's wrong to deny marriage benefits to man-man/woman-woman couples, why is it okay to deny marriage to people in father/son, father/daughter, brother/daughter, man/man/man/woman/woman/woman, etc. relationships? Edited by DragonLegend, Jul 13 2011, 08:12 PM.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Jul 13 2011, 08:18 PM Post #80
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	Simply enough, because it's wrong. So what you have here is a logical argument concerning a procedure that is not altogether logical; a procedure facilitated by religion in such a way that marriage, as a spiritual unity between individuals, would seem immoral if not even imbecilic once permitted for the examples that you describe.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	Jul 13 2011, 08:26 PM Post #81
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	In other words, those who support gay marriage but oppose polygamy or incest are illogical, and those who support all possible types of marriage are immoral.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Jul 13 2011, 08:28 PM Post #82
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	...what?
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	Jul 13 2011, 08:39 PM Post #83
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	It's illogical when you support gay marriage but oppose polygamy and incest, but not if you support all types of possible marriages, in which case it would be consistent, but immoral.



Big Richard	Jul 13 2011, 09:03 PM Post #84
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	I'm pretty sure the reason in the U.S. that there is no marriage between 5 people and such is because of legal issues regarding property, children, etc. not really a moral question.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Jul 13 2011, 09:36 PM Post #85
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 13 2011, 08:39 PM It's illogical when you support gay marriage but oppose polygamy and incest, but not if you support all types of possible marriages, in which case it would be consistent, but immoral. Not illogical, but pernicious; unclean. You're misinterpreting me, and I'm not going to repeat myself.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


_Saladin_	Jul 13 2011, 09:36 PM Post #86
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 13 2011, 07:51 PM Incog continues to surprise me. Sal: If you were responding to the article, it wasn't about adoption. Just read the key (last) paragraph. I honestly don't know what to respond to. Like Jam said, it's a slippery slope fallacy. Not a new argument at all, I didn't think much of it when I read it so I didn't respond.



_Saladin_	Jul 13 2011, 09:45 PM Post #87
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 13 2011, 08:11 PM It is logical. If marriage is entirely about love, and based on that it's wrong to deny marriage benefits to man-man/woman-woman couples, why is it okay to deny marriage to people in father/son, father/daughter, brother/daughter, man/man/man/woman/woman/woman, etc. relationships? In the case of family members, I would question whether or not they are capable of giving consent in the same way that a student cannot give consent to a teacher. As for polygamy, what's wrong with it if it's consensual? Often times the women are pressured into the situation such as with cults, but sometimes they're not. I personally think that the risk of being coerced into it is too high to allow it as of right now. In a hypothetical scenario though I wouldn't see what's wrong with it. None of these circumstances arise with gay marriage.



Jam	Jul 13 2011, 09:48 PM Post #88
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 13 2011, 08:11 PM It is logical. If marriage is entirely about love, and based on that it's wrong to deny marriage benefits to man-man/woman-woman couples, why is it okay to deny marriage to people in father/son, father/daughter, brother/daughter, man/man/man/woman/woman/woman, etc. relationships? First thing that is wrong about it is the false assertion that for gay marriage to be justified requires that love is "the sole criterion for marriage". He then asserts that the "purpose of marriage is procreation" which is false because procreation is not a requirement of married couples. Sterile people have no business being married? It is also incomplete because incestuous marriages would allow for procreation yet he is against them, his definition of marriage is blatantly overly simplified. Of course if he came up with a better definition of marriage other than 'two people with different genitals' then he would nullify his first assertion for gay marriage to be justified requires that love is "the sole criterion for marriage". He then, by his first assertion, claims that gay marriage is equivalent to, or of the same nature as polygamy, incest, or marrying a goat or something. Obviously false. Then comes the slippery slope fallacy when he asserts that if you were to allow gay marriage then you'd also have to allow polygamy, etc. Frankly, you don't. Ultimately this guys argument is that if we don't restrict marriage to a man and a woman then there is no longer any basis to determine who can and can't get married. The laws around marriage are arbitrary, we can allow gays to marry without allowing 5 people to be married to each other.
	Long live Carolus


DragonLegend	Jul 13 2011, 10:20 PM Post #89
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	I said I didn't agree with most of what he said, and that he contradicted himself. The relevant part of the article is the last paragraph. Quote: Then comes the slippery slope fallacy when he asserts that if you were to allow gay marriage then you'd also have to allow polygamy, etc. Frankly, you don't. Ultimately this guys argument is that if we don't restrict marriage to a man and a woman then there is no longer any basis to determine who can and can't get married. The laws around marriage are arbitrary, we can allow gays to marry without allowing 5 people to be married to each other. But see, marriage has been between a man and a woman for a very long time, to the point that it's become a fact of life. When you suggest changing the definition, that is opening a Pandora's Box. Your argument is arbitrary, yes. But arbitrary arguments have no business in the law. You want to allow gays to marry. OK. Why not allow fathers and sons to marry? Or entire communities to have a group marriage? "No reason" is not a valid reason. Either you support 1) recognition of all possible marriages, 2) keeping the status quo, or 3) no recognition of any marriage.



Jam	Jul 14 2011, 12:54 AM Post #90
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	Quote: But see, marriage has been between a man and a woman for a very long time, to the point that it's become a fact of life. Appeal to tradition. Quote: When you suggest changing the definition, that is opening a Pandora's Box. Same slippery slope. Guess what, some countries have legalized gay marriage decades ago and nobody is marrying their grandchildren, I'm not seeing the incest pride parades. This is alarmist nonsense. Quote: Your argument is arbitrary, yes. But arbitrary arguments have no business in the law. You want to allow gays to marry. OK. Why not allow fathers and sons to marry? Or entire communities to have a group marriage? "No reason" is not a valid reason. Either you support 1) recognition of all possible marriages, 2) keeping the status quo, or 3) no recognition of any marriage. His argument is arbitrary, not mine, and so is yours if you argue based on tradition. You are making the same argument I already addressed: "He then, by his first assertion, claims that gay marriage is equivalent to, or of the same nature as polygamy, incest, or marrying a goat or something. Obviously false." http://www.theonion.com/video/new-law-would-ban-marriages-between-people-who-don,14401/ You are arguing that gay marriage should not be legal because-oh hey some guy marrying his six year old is bad. Tell me what is so terrible about homosexual marriage when it is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage except that there are two penises/vaginae. Allowing gays to marry changes next to nothing about marriage as a social/economic construct. I do support the recognition of all possible marriages, unfortunately being automatically married to every woman in my city between the ages of 20 and 60 is not a possible marriage so I can't live out my sick liberal fantasies.
	Long live Carolus


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4
…
11