<p>@MLD - I answered it, yes, sometimes, but then again that’s bein’ horny innit?</p>
<p>LOL MLDWoody. Yeah, BayArea got it right.</p>
<p>I know of this porn star who can screw himself with his own wiener though if that counts LOL.</p>
<p>Awesome, it seems I’ve derailed the debate in this thread.</p>
<p>I love lamp.</p>
<p>Another hypothetical</p>
<p>Eminem is my favorite artist. Do I now lose credibility in the gay marriage debate?</p>
<p>Late to the thread but nonetheless:</p>
<p>I wouldn’t object to changing around a gay guy, because I wouldn’t want a girl to object to changing around me. :-P</p>
<p>Is that a legit reason? Lol</p>
<p>This is my last post in this thread. To see why I think your logic failed, just look at my previous posts. I point out errors in your logic, distortions of my arguments, and point out that you took the argument from purely discussing issues to personal attacks on me, signifying your desperation. Since you couldn’t beat me by sticking with the issues being discussed, you tried to shift the focus to an argument aimed at me, taking the discussion from a political debate to a personal attack.</p>
<p>And about Free Republic, they were not the authors of that article. Here is the original source of that article, M.I.T.</p>
<p>[The</a> Secular Case Against Gay Marriage - The Tech](<a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html]The”>http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html)</p>
<p>And no, I am not genuinely a “bad person,” as you suggested, Itach. I have nothing against you or any homosexuals. My political views are just different than yours. That it a nice thing about our country. We can discuss our views on political issues openly, and freely disagree with each other.</p>
<p>How is this thread still alive? When will people learn there is no right or wrong, only a matter of opinion.</p>
<p>Thanks for that Plut0nium. I’m pretty sure Terry Schiavo could have made a more useful contribution to this thread.</p>
<p>Thanks Al for the link and for the sobering comment. Unfortunately on this subject, it’s impossible to state one’s opinion and expect to NOT be personally attacked, because not agreeing with homosexuality or disagreeing that gays should be allowed the same marriage privileges as heterosexuals is perceived as a personal attack on the other person. Then they yell at you and tell you to just “change” your beliefs. I’m baffled by how often the other side is just NOT willing to have a rational debate and would rather resort to cowardly pigeon-holing and personal attacks.</p>
<p>@antipacifist, simply look at the implications of each side’s beliefs: those for homosexual rights promote acceptance of a group of persons who are discriminated against due to their genetics (homosexuality is not a choiceyour beliefs do not trump scientific research); those who are against allowing equal rights for homosexuals promote discrimination and hostility towards a group of persons due to their genetics, insisting that they simply change who they in order to fit in with your beliefs. How can you really be in favor of this?</p>
<p>You’re right. OMG people, i’ve had a revelation and now I’m suddenly pro-gay! Glitter, HRC bumper stickers and rainbow CareBears for all!!!11!
Is that seriously what you expect me to say here? I have my opinions and you have yours, period. You don’t get to call me a horrible gay-killing bigot for believing what I believe.</p>
<p>Hey, my comments didn’t attack anyone. I said that I thought even those who oppose gay marriage and such had gone about it in a pretty good way to far, without insults and bigotry.
And while I don’t agree with you, I know that everyone should have a say and have an opinion.</p>
<p>
I did not.</p>
<p>The fact stands that neither you nor Al0993 has been able to make a logically sound argument (i.e. an argument with support that can not be broken down and disproven) in favor of your beliefs. Until such an event occurs, I must deem your beliefs irrational, regardless of what your ambiguous, tragic event may have been.</p>
<p>^Exactly. I would feel a lot better about an argument that said one of several things including:</p>
<p>“I am a devout Christian who literally interprets the Bible and thus do not believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable and approval of it by condoning gay marriage would lead to a morally corrupt society.” </p>
<p>“I have a hard time believing that a child raised by gay parents would be able to survive school without serious emotional troubles.”</p>
<p>Of course I don’t agree with either of these things at all and could be argued but at least they have a more logical or admittedly illogical basis.</p>
<p>Anyone who interprets the Bible literally has a hell of a lot more wrong with them then just being against gays.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Desperation? Yeah… no, try “annoyance” - I got tired of debating facts with you and getting pseudo-science and “opinion” in return. I wasn’t desperate at all, I’m sorry you thought I was but the fact is I have no reason to be. I saw your previous posts, they were nothing that special, your only support is this one article. Even if we admit this one article, I can counter with about ten or twenty others. And mine come from reputable science journals, face it Al you don’t have a leg to stand on in this debate. And another thing… “errors” WHAT ERRORS?! You keep saying I’ve made “errors” but you won’t provide what they are. PROVIDE SPECIFICS. I take your posts apart and explain piece by piece why you’re wrong, you aren’t doing that, you aren’t countering my posts, just declaring them to be “in error” well you’ve made your accusations, SUPPORT them. Or do as you intend, and leave.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m still a little sleepy, where exactly did I state you were a bad person? I stated I thought you were NOT a bad person. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, pretty much one personal attack, the rest of it was factual. It wasn’t even that nasty of a personal attack. You know what I think? I think you have your fingers in your ears screaming “LALALALALA I’M NOT LISTENING, YOU LOSE THE THREAD LALALALALALAA” you keep harping on me calling you “brainwashed” instead of addressing the points I made. That’s shifting the debate, what you’re accusing me of. You’re just taking the accusation I made of YOU shifting the debate and throwing it back at me but I’m the one staying on point. </p>
<p>@Anti</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. You’re entittled to say what you want within reason, but you are not free from having to answer for what you’ve said. You’ve given us your “opinion” and now I’m free to call you on your beliefs. And I’m allowed to feel that way, just as you’re allowed to think I’m inferior to you. The facts are on my side, of course and I think it’s despicable you feel that way, but you can continue to feel whatever way you want, just realize that if you try to enshrine your beliefs into law, or harm someone with your beliefs whatsoever, that you’ll be put in check the moment you do. It’s that simple</p>
<p>Ok, I can make one more post here.</p>
<p>“I got tired of debating facts with you and getting pseudo-science and “opinion” in return.”</p>
<p>What pseudo science? Show me. </p>
<p>“I think you have your fingers in your ears screaming “LALALALALA I’M NOT LISTENING, YOU LOSE THE THREAD LALALALALALAA” you keep harping on me calling you “brainwashed” instead of addressing the points I made.”</p>
<p>Really? I’ll address this point right now.</p>
<p>Your point, post 173</p>
<p>“Whenever people who advocate against marriage equality are backed into the corner, they’ll usually go for the redefinition argument… barring that, “marriage is for the children” but again, I have to point out the flaw in that is if marriage is for kids, then all married couples would, by wrote, HAVE to have kids. Those who could not have kids then (ie: those infertile couples I mentioned before) could not technically be married.”</p>
<p>My response, post 187. Yes I quoted the article, but I used it because it summarizes my point of view very well.</p>
<p>“Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.”</p>
<p>Your point, post 173 “About the homophobia thing? I know you might not have heard all of the things that have been said about us, but some of them are… pretty damn hateful and nasty. Take Fred “God Hates f@gs” Phelps for instance. He’s a nasty piece of work, the label “homophobic” is actually too nice to describe this monster. There aren’t a lot of words in the English language that do justice to how offensive, sociopathic and downright evil Phelps is. But lest you say he’s an isolated incident, I present Bryan Fischer who has said, amongst other things “Only gays were savage enough for Hitler” “Gays in the Millitary gave us, Six Million dead Jews” and I actually have an LGBT news site that has a huge 10-15 line paragraph just filled with links to “press releases” this guy has said where he’s made insanely offensive comments.”</p>
<p>Post 178 "Your claim was basically that homophobia doesn’t exist right? "</p>
<p>My response, post 180</p>
<p>"FALSE</p>
<p>I did not say homophobia does not exist. I said it was unfair to label an opponent of homosexual marriage as homophobic just because the person opposes your viewpoint. The term is used far too much to brand any opponent of homosexual marriage as homophobic. The truth is, the vast majority of opponents of homosexual marriage are not homophobic, but just do not believe homosexual marriage is right or makes sense, and it is not good for our country. "</p>
<p>Call me uninformed, but I am not familiar with Brian Fischer.</p>
<p>"If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant 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?</p>
<p>Post 182
Pause.</p>
<p>Logical fallacy - slippery slope argument. Those don’t work. But 2 things:
- your example is polygamy, it doesn’t work because there’s more than two in the group. (although I’m not opposed to polygamy in certain cases, that’s an argument for some other time). Note: marriage USED to be about polygamy back in the older days, but it was redefined to the current 2-person form.
- Your second argument is incest, almost all societies have an incest taboo although they’re not always founded on the same reasons. Both of these are invalid."</p>
<p>My response right now: Actually, the argument isn’t invalid. By allowing gay marriage, the only criteria are: Consenting adults who love each other. Correct? Or, what reason would you give for gays have a right to marriage. Most societies have a homosexual taboo. Isn’t that what you are fighting now? So no, incest is not invalid.</p>
<p>" your example is polygamy, it doesn’t work because there’s more than two in the group. (although I’m not opposed to polygamy in certain cases, that’s an argument for some other time). Note: marriage USED to be about polygamy back in the older days, but it was redefined to the current 2-person form."</p>
<p>How does this invalidate the consenting adults argument? And about redefinition, if we can redefine marriage to include same sex couples, then how is redefinition to include polygamy any different? Neither marriage fits the current definition.</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t the consenting adults of the other groups be recognized? By reducing marriage to consent of adults, then you really do open the slippery slope since the other groups now fit the criteria for marriage, or are only separated from marriage in the same way as homosexuals are now, they don’t fit the definition. When marriage is entirely separated from procreation as in same sex marriage, then there is no longer any firm principle on which to base marriage. When marriage is no longer based on a firm principle, as it is with procreation, then there will no longer be reason to bar any type of marriage, as marriage will solely be based on the consent and desire of adults. </p>
<p>Oh, and this entire post #224 was an outright lie</p>
<p>"-sighs- Kid, I’m not gonna link you to the posts. They’re less than a page ago, go read them. It would require me copying her posts AND yours pasting them on top of each other and explaining in great detail why this is what your argument comes down to. I don’t really have the patience to explain reading comprehension and the ability to take the main idea from something to someone. But here, I’ll give you a hint:</p>
<p>Post #190 through Post #207 (at least) but it really starts about #187 and goes till about #210. Excuse my mistake, it was pages 13 and 14, not just 14. Re-read those, boiled down to the essentials every time she got you in a corner you claimed she was “misconstruing” your argument and presented the other option. If she got you in a corner about that, she was misconstruing THAT argument, and you shifted back to the first one. I watched you do this.</p>
<p>Of course now, watch those posts magically change…"</p>
<p>Anyone who wants to see the rest of my responses to Itach, just go back through the thread. I didn’t ignore his points as he said I did.</p>
<p>Here is my response to the claim that marriage is a “right.” </p>
<p>What makes marriage a civil right? It is a privilege for a specific group of people yes, but there is no “right” to government recognized marriage. You aren’t banned from marriage anyway, your preferred spouse just doesn’t meet the legal definition. In the case of a true civil Look through the constitution and bill of rights and let me know where a “right” to marriage is listed. </p>
<p>Military men get benefits such as the G.I. bill to help them pay for college. Why should they have access to this financial benefit if the civilians can’t have it?</p>
<p>The civilians don’t meet the criteria for the G.I. bill. It is a privilege, not a right.</p>
<p>Why can’t middle class people get food stamps like poor people can?</p>
<p>Food stamps are a privilege, not a right.</p>
<p>[Same-Sex</a> “Marriage” Is Not a Civil Right | The Center for Public Justice](<a href=“http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader%241178]Same-Sex”>http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader%241178)</p>
<p>“In the case of true civil” from the above post is a mistake. It is an incomplete sentence and I can’t edit the post, so don’t read it as part of the sentence that follows.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is essentially… Homophobia, because why don’t you think it’s right or makes sense? The reasons given for that are what make a person homophobic or not. Here, I’ll just link you to the latest story about Fischer from Good As You, it’s a gay news site but it extensively covers his viewpoints (Oh, what do you know, I haven’t been there in a week and he’s just made headlines again today): [Bryan</a> Fischer: People run for office to either slight or praise Jesus - Good As You:: Gay and Lesbian Activism With a Sense of Humor](<a href=“http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/04/bryan-fischer-people-run-for-office-to-either-slight-or-praise-jesus.html]Bryan”>http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/04/bryan-fischer-people-run-for-office-to-either-slight-or-praise-jesus.html)</p>
<p>You’ll see vis a vis that link the extensive number of stories about him and the offensive b.s. he’s slinging. He is considered one of the leaders of the “Family Values” movement and is respected enough even today that he gets called for interviews even though his own group has been ID’ed by the SPLC as a designated hate group. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You used a slippery slope, that’s called a Slippery Slope Fallacy, I’m not the one saying this, any school textbook on logical fallacies will tell you this. The criterion is a PAIR of consenting adults who love each other. And, again, I’m not against polygamy provided they all love each other equally and it isn’t being used for some nefarious purpose. The arguments against it are practically as stupid as the ones against homosexuality.</p>
<p>The incest taboo? That’s another technical definition, jargon. Almost ALL societies have had a taboo against incest. Within certain limits, for example the Yanomamo will marry Cross-Cousins and produce offspring. Not all societies have been against Homosexuality. Let me provide you some examples: in ancient Japan, the Samurai culture would often have apprentices to the Samurai who were also lovers. In ancient Greece and Rome, love was between two men, women were just there to pop out babies. In MANY Native American cultures, there is the concept of someone who is “Two-Spirited” which isn’t exactly homosexuality but it’s like being male, female, straight, and gay all at the same time. In these cultures, these people would be considered High Priests/Priestesses, VERY respected. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You wanna argue for polygamy too? Go right ahead, guess what? You just argued for it, in ten years it’ll happen and I’m just fine with it. You say that it’ll be based on consent and desire of adults instead of procreation? GOOD. What’s the problem with that exactly? What’s the problem with desire, and love?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Supreme Court would disagree with you. Marriage has been found to be a Civil Right in several cases now. These were cited in the Prop 8 trial and are the main reason Judge Walker ruled in our favor. And I LOVE when people use the “you can marry, you just have to marry some chick you don’t love and sire some kids with her because we don’t feel like you deserve the same rights as we have.” Alright alright, I’ve decided that because school is a priviledge, that I don’t think you should be allowed to attend because your name is Al, or whatever your name is. Or because of some other characteristic about you. You’re welcome to still attend a different kind of school that isn’t the same for you. Eating certain foods is a priviledge for you, I’m forbidding you now to eat scrambled eggs, you’re welcome to eat hard-boiled. You’re overweight? Well, I’m sorry but we don’t have any pants for you, maybe if you made the CHOICE to be skinny again you could fit into our pants. See how it works? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, really? The entire post? Just because I fudged that thing at the end? That was a mistake, which I owned up to. Now address the rest of it, because the rest isn’t an outright lie kiddo. Just because one part was in error doesn’t discount the entire post. Especially considering the part that was IN error was a mistake on the site, and not in my evidence. Don’t try to discredit things like that, it makes you look like you’re too afraid to address what I said. </p>
<p>I’ve got a good idea for you that I’ve seen posed around before. If you’re so “pro-marriage” how about outlawing divorce? Straight couples divorce in rates upwards of 50%, especially in the red states, and especially in the ones who squwak the loudest about “protecting marriage” - you wanna “protect marriage”? OUTLAW DIVORCE!</p>