57% say gay marriage should be illegal; 33% say it should be legal (suspect, vs)

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Arus

Uh no. Marriage had no origins with RELIGIONS. it was all about property rights. If a woman from a good family (aka Rich) was single, the family would offer her to a man of equal or higher standing.

If a woman was from a lower standing family (aka poor), that family would do everything in their power to "sell" her off to someone who was rich.

In early times, the only guarantee that marriage had was to make certain that the children from a woman they were with were actually that man's children.

No religion; no love involved.

Greeks didn't even have a ceremony; marriage was simply a contract, an agreement between the man and woman who recognized each other has husband and wife.

No religion; no love involved.


Again, you fail at your arguments on this. You have shown that you
1) don't understand homosexuality
2) don't understand marriage (in legal sense, of its history, and non-religious context)
3) you associate marriage only means to procreate and ignore that heterosexual couples who cannot bare children also marry

YOU are simply relying on so many logical fallacies to support your argument, that the only reason that can be surmised from your posts is this simple statement:

YOU find homosexual activity icky.

Property rights evolved from such practices.

affinal ties (in-laws) were a common focus to marry outside enough, but close enough within lines to still have the family line pure.

In other uses, it was through a joining of distant lines to merge power and alliance between factions. Without such, there is no point, no center line to pull them together.

Homosexuals simply lack this ability in their unions and the position is not historically supported or relevant.

There is so much information out there concerning this that is integrated into society over the many years of history that your argument is really indefensible without applying devious approach.

/shrug

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Arus

YOU ignore the APA?

Well then, you have no argument. The APA has conducted many studies and research over 35 years that support that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

sorry, but please provide your RESEARCH and STUDIES that show the opposite. until then you are talking out of your #$@#.


Yup, you are basically relying on logical fallacies to support your inane arguments.

Good thing we have the research and studies from RESPECTED organizations than the ignorant complaints of a few bigots.

I don't ignore them, I simply understand that their conclusions are not conclusive. Some of their observations are useful to an extent, but they are not a traditional science.

Quote me your research from them and I will knock them down one by one.

Respected means nothing to me. Only what is evident and like I said, their claims are not evident, they are assumptive conclusions based on percentage of observational habits. They provide no definitive and I would learn such before you mouth off foolishly.

Keep the name calling coming though, It merely shows who is really the person with such emotional objection to the other.

[LuckyGem]

Originally Posted by Arus

you lost the argument when you use paraphilia to describe homosexuality. it shows that you don't understand what homosexuality is, which is born out of your ignorance.

homosexuality is not a form of paraphilia -- You may want to actually learn the terms you are using if you want to be taken seriously

Under what condition was homosexuality removed from the DSM?

It was a paraphilia before the meeting of the APA was stormed by activist homosexuals whereby they challenged members who voted in very low numbers to remove it from the list of paraphilias. It is considered a paraphilia in many countries outside of the USA.

[LuckyGem]

What has happened over time throughout history is that society changes when the group that feels marginalized pushes ahead of being discriminated against by the majority. Then laws change, then public opinion changes. That's what is going on with homosexual marriage. The majority of people still disagree, but as the group pushes back against society's resistance to change, they gain social ground. That is what homosexuals are doing with gay marriage, and also with being accepted in US society.

Societies change, this I understand, and with this change homosexuals are changing our society and how the majority defines and describes marriage, families and what we value.

[Lior Arel]

Wow. I see alot of people stretching their imaginations to justify their prejudices. Hence, pointing out facts and logic won't do any good. Why bother? Except it's fun to see them get their panties in a wad. I think I figured out why people post to these forums; because Buddah knows they aren't changing anyone's minds!

[thenewtexan]

So based on ths study, are we to think that C-D is a liberal forum? Or did the OP's poll take place outside Westboro Baptist Church? hmmm...

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Angel and The Dolphin

Wow. I see alot of people stretching their imaginations to justify their prejudices. Hence, pointing out facts and logic won't do any good. Why bother? Except it's fun to see them get their panties in a wad. I think I figured out why people post to these forums; because Buddah knows they aren't changing anyone's minds!

It is a convenient position to comment on the validity of another position, yet not make any attempts to enter that discussion to validate such accusations don't you think?

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by Nomander

No, you simply argue a straw man.
You argue the exception as the rule and the exception does not define the rule.

Gay marriage is another 'exception' yet you are trying to make that define the rule!

Marriage can produce offspring.

True or False? True, a valid premise.

No, "Sometimes true" is the valid answer.

Men and Women can produce offspring between each other.

True or False? True, a valid premise.

Men and Men can produce offspring between each other.

True or False? False, a valid premise.

Therefore men can not marry men as men and men can never produce offspring. What you argue as my position is:

Men and Women can produce offspring between each other.

Specific Woman can not have child.

Therefore Men and Women can not produce offspring.

This is invalid.

Actually, you are creating the straw man. I did not say "some women cannot produce offspring therefore all heterosexuals cannot". Boy you are wrong.

What I said was "sterile people cannot produce offspring"
Sterile people produce offspring, true or false?
FALSE.
Under no circumstance can a sterile heterosexual produce offspring, so by your logic they are not qualified for marriage.

You want to pick out one exception (gays) well I can pick an exception too using your same logic. You're argument is nothing but special pleading because you picked an exception to the rule to define the rule, and then say that other exceptions don't count.

The exception does not define the rule. Men and women can still have offspring, though some may not produce it due to the exceptions.

COUPLES can produce offspring, though some may not produce it due to the exceptions.

Now, this argument of yours does not justify separating the "gay exception" from the "sterile exception" or the "choose to adopt instead exception" etc.

Come up with a real argument to separate gays from other couples and you might have something. For now, you don't have anything but a hypocritical special pleading fallacy.

Men and men can never produce offspring. So they can not be under a premise that claims they can.

Same exact premise applies with sterile heteros.

[quote]As I said, you falsely summarize me and then defeat the flawed logic because the logic is flawed by your own making.



Since your whole argument is based on ability to produce offspring, you cannot justify including only some people who can't produce offspring and not others.

As your current argument goes, you are arguing that all people who cannot produce offspring under any circumstance are not qualified for marriage, which to your dismay includes more than just gays. Come up with a different factor other than 'cannot produce offspring' to discriminate against gays, and we will see the validity of that argument.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

Gay marriage is another 'exception' yet you are trying to make that define the rule!

No, "Sometimes true" is the valid answer.

Homosexuals sometimes have the ability to have children?

The sufficient condition of my argument is that the union has the ability to do such, even though in some circumstances, they may be incapable due to a deficiency of some sort.

Homosexuals can never, so it does not meet the sufficient condition.

I am sorry, but you have changed the premise yourself and therefore changed the state of my argument in order to introduce your invalid claim.

I think it best we discontinue this discussion.

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

Hypocrite! Gay marriage is another 'exception' yet you are trying to make that define the rule!

No, "Sometimes true" is the valid answer.

Actually, you are creating the straw man. I did not say "some women cannot produce offspring therefore all heterosexuals cannot". Boy you are wrong.

What I said was "sterile people cannot produce offspring"
Sterile people produce offspring, true or false?
FALSE.
Under no circumstance can a sterile heterosexual produce offspring, so by your logic they are not qualified for marriage.

You want to pick out one exception (gays) well I can pick an exception too using your same logic. You're argument is nothing but special pleading because you picked an exception to the rule to define the rule, and then say that other exceptions don't count.

COUPLES can produce offspring, though some may not produce it due to the exceptions.

Now, this argument of yours does not justify separating the "gay exception" from the "sterile exception" or the "choose to adopt instead exception" etc.

Come up with a real argument to separate gays from other couples and you might have something. For now, you don't have anything but a hypocritical special pleading fallacy.

Same exact premise applies with sterile heteros.

You are blind.

Since your whole argument is based on ability to produce offspring, you cannot justify including only some people who can't produce offspring and not others.

As your current argument goes, you are arguing that all people who cannot produce offspring under any circumstance are not qualified for marriage, which to your dismay includes more than just gays. Come up with a different factor other than 'cannot produce offspring' to discriminate against gays, and we will see the validity of that argument.

There is no debating with Nomander, Luckygem and Rayinak. They are blind to anything but heterosexuality. They refuse to see anything but what they want to see. In reality they are scared that their religion may disintegrate if homosexuality is accepted. Religion does not predate us. Religion is a figment of mass imagination, it was created to keep the masses in tow and kept too frightened to make up their own minds without consulting their book first. They want to keep the status quo as is with heterosexuals on top of the heap and gays suppressed at the bottom. The science and biology that defends homosexuality as normal, does not jell with their bible. Try and get them to answer a legitimate question like; When did they choose to be straight? or; IF god created everyone in its image, did he not also create homosexuals? There desire to keep gays and lesbians down and designated as second class citizens with less rights is no different than that of the mormon church's past stance that blacks were less human, or that of the first European Americans that exterminated the native Americans on the basis that they were heathens and thus equal humans. They were not considered gods children and killed wantonly. They will loose this battle over same sex marriage because of their bible. I say we tax the heck out of the churches and get our country out of the hole it is in.