Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A passage for rot? What the hell are you talking about??
gay guys, what they do to each other and we all know what that is... including the spread of disease....if society can have Mothers against drunk driving, it should certainly be expected to find people against disease spreaders.
You know that the percentages of straight people who have anal sex are not that much higher than gay people, right? (Thanks to Jaymax for sharing that info on another thread).
Also, education is the key to combating STD's. Not sure what you're trying to get at here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Doesn't matter. Giving a marriage license to unmarriageable subjects doesn't make a marriage.
Sure it does. We can write the rules to make it whatever we want, really.
Quote:
What? You have to use logic and reason because you're not gay? If this statement is an example of your logic and reasoning skills, I think you need to go back to school.
Uhh, yeah pretty much. My inability to testify to it on a personal level kinda precludes my use of anecdotal evidence.
And seriously, you don't want to try education smack with me. I will make that real difficult for you.
Quote:
No, you didn't. You outlined a scenario where the state is hostile to marriage.
How? My scenario has the state completely removed from the equation.
Quote:
There are some issues that don't admit of state neutrality. Justice is one of them: the state cannot be "neutral" towards homicide, for example. A state that claims to be neutral towards homicide is actually a state that is pro-homicide. Personhood is another. A state that claims to be neutral on the question of whether, let's say, women are persons is actually a state that is anti-woman. The same principle applies to marriage. Marriage is so important that it has always had the recognition and support of every civilized state that ever existed. Because of what marriage is objectively, state neutrality is not an option - what seems to be indifference is, in fact, hostility.
You're comparing apples to oranges here, sorry. Murder and sexism are completely different issues than homosexuality.
Quote:
For someone who claims superior logic and reasoning skills, you sure have a hard time connecting the dots.
Maybe that's because what you were trying to get at (hint: I knew) had no connection.
Quote:
Thanks for showing your cards. There is no atrocity in the world that such a depraved philosophy could not justify.
Well first off, what I said is not philosophy, it's fact, and I could spend literally all night citing examples.
Second (and keep in mind here, you're talking to someone who is only a few months removed from walking out of a honors levels Ethics class with a 98% grade) you're absolutely wrong, and that argument has next to no basis in substance.
The gays need to learn how to compromise if they want these unions. Many Americans feel that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. Why the gays can't accept this fact, I don't know.
In all of my previous posts on this topic I have stated that the gays shoud have the a union that would grant them the same rights as a married couple, without calling their union a marriage. Why can't the gays just accept this proposal and move on? People in this country do not support same sex marriage. Every referendum to permit same sex marriage in various states has failed. California, as progressive as it is, turned it down. Sure, polls show that over 50 percent of Americans support same sex marriage; however, those numbers have never played in favor of the gays and their marriage desires on a ballot.
We have more pressing things in the country to worry about. We don't need this issue to keep bubbling up to the surface. Our economy is in poor shape, our kids are fat and are falling behind students in India and China in school, we are still in Afghanistan, our housing market is still messy, and states are facing all kinds of fiscal issues. While all this is going on, the gays just focus on their desire to marry. We need them to stop being selfish and stop using our time and resources to put the spotlight on their desires.
A couple weeks back, I was bored and decided to interject myself into one of the numerous Facebook debates on same sex marriage. Below is an exact copy and paste of what I posted.
Surprisingly enough, both sides of the debate seemed to find this to be an acceptable solution. Likewise, I've posted this quote in a couple other threads directed at two other posters here on this forum, and so far both posters (who were obviously against SSM) basically refused to answer the question. I'm interested to get some discussion on it though, so I'll pose the question to the whole forum.
Pretty simple really. If you're against same sex marriage, tell us whether or not you could support my compromise. If not, explain why.
I think for many straight people who don't like the fact that gay and lesbian people even exist, it's not just the word marriage, it's the equal legal or social status they don't want. I think they might feel it 'tarnishes' their relationships if those 'icky perverts' have the same legal or social status.
I think for many straight people who don't like the fact that gay and lesbian people even exist, it's not just the word marriage, it's the equal legal or social status they don't want. I think they might feel it 'tarnishes' their relationships if those 'icky perverts' have the same legal or social status.
I'd go one further than that. I'd say most of them are simply *******s who want to make life difficult for homosexuals. I knew that was the basically the answer from the start, and hence you see here. A lot of people (so far) have just refused to address the question. A couple have tried to argue their stance without much success and one, as much of a waste of human DNA as he is, at least owns his bigotry.
Sure it does. We can write the rules to make it whatever we want, really.
You are delusional. "Rules" don't change the essence of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
Uhh, yeah pretty much. My inability to testify to it on a personal level kinda precludes my use of anecdotal evidence.
I've got news for you, Sherlock: homosexuals have an obligation to use reason and logic just like everybody else. And their anecdotes are no weightier than yours or mine. If anything, they ought to be suspect due to their obvious self-interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
And seriously, you don't want to try education smack with me. I will make that real difficult for you ... (and keep in mind here, you're talking to someone who is only a few months removed from walking out of a honors levels Ethics class with a 98% grade)
Wow, could you be any more pompous? You have shown no signs of knowing the first thing about formal or informal logic, having misused the term repeatedly in this thread, and having made too many elementary errors to count. And to presume you're going to walk away with a 98% grade from any serious class when you're "months removed" from the end of it only succeeds in exposing your ridiculously arrogant bluff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
How? My scenario has the state completely removed from the equation.
What can I say? I demonstrated very clearly how a "state completely removed" from a particular question could be hostile to one side or the other. You need to drop this line of argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
You're comparing apples to oranges here, sorry. Murder and sexism are completely different issues than homosexuality.
The issue in question was marriage, not homosexuality. And the example was not sexism, but the necessity that the state legally acknowledge the personhood of female persons, and the impossibility of state neutrality on this point. You really do have a hard time following simple arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
Well first off, what I said is not philosophy, it's fact, and I could spend literally all night citing examples.
More intellectual bankruptcy on your part. The claim that morality is subjective is a philosophical proposition. It cannot be proved by examples. I have every reason to suspect that you don't even know what you mean by this.
plain and simple the gay act cannot do anything but remark to the intentional extermination of the human race and therefore a logo in keeping with the dim intentional act is required, not a socially or fashionably recognizable contributory term, such as union or marriage.
Did you put this through a translator? What was the original language? Because it makes no sense at all.
You are delusional. "Rules" don't change the essence of things.
Sure it does. Man (not a deity) created marriage. We can make it whatever we want.
Quote:
I've got news for you, Sherlock: homosexuals have an obligation to use reason and logic just like everybody else. And their anecdotes are no weightier than yours or mine. If anything, they ought to be suspect due to their obvious self-interest.
Pretty sure you're just agreeing with me here, but ok.
Quote:
Wow, could you be any more pompous?
Yes, easily. I'd also point out our strict TOS here saves you from me really going after you in this debate.
Quote:
You have shown no signs of knowing the first thing about formal or informal logic, having misused the term repeatedly in this thread, and having made too many elementary errors to count.
Point em out. I dare you.
Quote:
And to presume you're going to walk away with a 98% grade from any serious class when you're "months removed" from the end of it only succeeds in exposing your ridiculously arrogant bluff.
Call my bluff. I'll happily back up my claims.
Quote:
What can I say? I demonstrated very clearly how a "state completely removed" from a particular question could be hostile to one side or the other.
The issue in question was marriage, not homosexuality. And the example was not sexism, but the necessity that the state legally acknowledge the personhood of female persons, and the impossibility of state neutrality on this point. You really do have a hard time following simple arguments
No, you haven't done that. At all. You pointed out how a state neutral to murder or sexism could be hostile to one side, but not gay marriage. If gay marriage is legalized, no one dies...or gets discriminated against. They just get married.
Conversely, I can flip this logic on you. A state which is neutral on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is hostile to those of a certain orientation is no different than a state which is neutral on gender based discrimination.
Your logic = fail.
Quote:
You need to drop this line of argument.
I plan to continue hammering you with it.
Quote:
More intellectual bankruptcy on your part. The claim that morality is subjective is a philosophical proposition. It cannot be proved by examples. I have every reason to suspect that you don't even know what you mean by this.
You're talking about Moral Relativism, which is a somewhat different concept. The differences are subtle, but important.
Want an example for proof? Ok. The Hindu culture prohibits the consumption of beef, but not pork. Conversely, the Muslim culture prohibits the consumption of pork but not beef. Proof that morals are subjective.
And again, I could list countless examples of things that are considered immoral in one culture and perfectly normal in another. This is a losing argument for you.
well you give it a go then... maybe you can be more clear in describing a group of people who define and express themselves focused on and within a passage for rot.
I don't know any such group. Are you human?
Maybe you got the wrong manual when you beamed down from your mothership?
Surprisingly enough, both sides of the debate seemed to find this to be an acceptable solution. Likewise, I've posted this quote in a couple other threads directed at two other posters here on this forum, and so far both posters (who were obviously against SSM) basically refused to answer the question. I'm interested to get some discussion on it though, so I'll pose the question to the whole forum.
Pretty simple really. If you're against same sex marriage, tell us whether or not you could support my compromise. If not, explain why.
Why not just abolish marriage entirely?
that would be the ultimate result of this idea.
and what is to stop two men or women from joining together anyway, by use of a lawyer and wills etc..?
and why do they even need to worry about 'marriage' in the first place as it is impossible for them to start their own family anyway?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
