[Raphael07]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

umm....by changing the definition?

So basically what you're saying is that if gay people can marry, you'll suddenly start loving your wife less? If other people marrying really affects your own marriage, you have issues.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Changing the definition of a word does not effect someone on that basis alone, especially in this context as the definition would simply be expanded. Everyone else who was previously married will still be married.

So, again I ask, how are you effected?

Suppose we just start referring to all gay people as pedophiles. Does that affect you personally?

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Suppose we just start referring to all gay people as pedophiles. Does that affect you personally?

Absurdity does not strengthen your argument. Try sticking to the topic at hand.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Absurdity does not strengthen your argument. Try sticking to the topic at hand.

I think it's an excellent analogy. How does the definition of a word affect you? Should it matter what we call you or other gay people? Does it matter one bit whether or not you are actually a child predator?

For the record, I don't think that gay people are pedophiles--but it is simply a comparison. Words have meanings. If you feel the need to change the definition of marriage, it affects everyone that has a marriage.

[McBain II]

You may think it's an excellent analogy, but we've already established that you're neither very intelligent nor logical, so your opinion on that is pretty irrelevant.

That said, your analogy fails on one large issue though. Your example would have people being given a label that not only is incorrect, but one that carries very negative social and legal repercussions. It is not even remotely connected to the prospect of changing the legal definition of marriage to include gays.

I know why you did it though. You cannot give a straight answer to how changing the definition would effect straight people and since you know you cannot give an answer you try to distract from the issue with an absurd analogy. It actually shows a serious presence of intellectual cowardice on your part.

So once again, with the intention of not straying from the topic, I ask you this. Calvinist, explain to me why changing the legal definition of marriage to include gay couples effects the marriages of straight couples.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

You may think it's an excellent analogy, but we've already established that you're neither very intelligent nor logical, so your opinion on that is pretty irrelevant.

Pretty typical. When faced with something you can't answer you just respond with "well...you're stupid!!!!"

That said, your analogy fails on one large issue though. Your example would have people being given a label that not only is incorrect, but one that carries very negative social and legal repercussions.

Now you're seeing it...even if you don't want to admit it. Calling what my wife and I have equal to that which 2 men or 2 women can share in is in my mind a very negative thing.

Let me know when you have a reasonable response.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Pretty typical. When faced with something you can't answer you just respond with "well...you're stupid!!!!"

Actually I called you unintelligent and illogical, not stupid. There is a difference, albeit a subtle one. I also discredited your analogy, but acting like that didn't happen won't change the facts.

Now you're seeing it...even if you don't want to admit it. Calling what my wife and I have equal to that which 2 men or 2 women can share in is in my mind a very negative thing.

Explain why it is a negative thing. This is a very simple question for you to answer.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Actually I called you unintelligent and illogical, not stupid. There is a difference, albeit a subtle one. I also discredited your analogy, but acting like that didn't happen won't change the facts.



Explain why it is a negative thing. This is a very simple question for you to answer.

For the same reason you don't want to be associated with pedophiles, I don't want my marriage to be associated with the relationship of 2 men or 2 women.

Do words have meanings, or not? Shall I just start calling you "BoscoPedophile"?

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

For the same reason you don't want to be associated with pedophiles, I don't want my marriage to be associated with the relationship of 2 men or 2 women.

Do words have meanings, or not? Shall I just start calling you "BoscoPedophile"?

First off, what is your fascination with insinuating people are gay because they support gay rights? You've done this at least twice now. Is it your way of somehow validating your personal views by creating a false reality where no straight people have opposing views? Whatever it is, I bet a psychologist would have fun with that one.

Second, your example is no more valid than it was 20 minutes ago. Allowing gays to partake in legally recognized marriages doesn't associate your marriage to gay marriages anymore than being a licensed driver associates you to drunk drivers. There is simply no logical connection between the two ideas except that which you've created in your own mind. This is why you STILL cannot give a straight answer to my question.

And lastly, you might as well drop the pedophile argument. It was a patently retarded analogy that has further weakened and already weak stance.

[harshbarj]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

For the same reason you don't want to be associated with pedophiles, I don't want my marriage to be associated with the relationship of 2 men or 2 women.

Do words have meanings, or not? Shall I just start calling you "BoscoPedophile"?

If that is your strongest argument then you lost the debate before it even began!