<p>You fit your own critera for being a ■■■■■. :D</p>
<p>No, I’ve never contradicted myself, and I had evidence for what I was saying… Unlike you or your ■■■■■ friend so just move on.</p>
<p>calibabe are you by any chance a babe from california?</p>
<p>^Logic ■■■■■’s logic is trollish</p>
<p>Calibabe, LOL. You are too good.</p>
<p>Tell you what Baelor, I’ma concede the abortion thing, if someone else wants to bring it up and whack you with it, that’s up to them, but abortion rights aren’t really my hat, I’m an LGBT activist first and foremost. You claim that there are many many ways to conclusively prove homosexuality is bad, well let’s hear some of them. We’ve done the religious argument to death and I think I’ve shown conclusively that not only is the argument fallacious because religious groups have no monkey in the civil marriage ring but that their logic goes against the actual teachings of their own holy book (Christians and Jews anyway). So let’s hear some of these non-religious reasons why huh?</p>
<p>Itachirumon, I’m not really interested in laying out a philosophy or justification, but you seem nice, so I will do something similar but more productive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not at all what I claimed. I claimed that there are people who believe that homosexuality, i.e. “acts” (although there are of course bigots who extend that to the person) are wrong. This is obvious. The “conclusive” part depends on the viability of the assumptions in play and one’s willingness to accept them – of course, your argument will only be conclusive in the context of its assumptions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. You picked at one specific case of the religious argument, not all religious arguments. Let us abandon the American system as the sole one in question, as that question is constitutional, not moral. In a general/new legal system, should gay marriage be legal? One need not use the Bible to demonstrate this, even if operating under religious assumptions. </p>
<p>If you would like, I could try answering any question you ask, thereby ultimately exposing the assumptions that are made. Let me begin:</p>
<p>Homosexual marriage is fundamentally impossible because part of marriage includes the possibility of sexual intercourse that could result in a child.</p>
<h2>As for abortion - You claim that there’s an assumption the baby is part of the woman’s body. I agree, because what other assumption can be made? Until the 3rd Trimester, the baby is completely dependent upon the woman’s body and cannot survive on its own. It is, therefore, part of the woman’s body ~ Itachurimon</h2>
<p>Oh don’t give me that argument.</p>
<p>A newborn infant is unable to survive on it’s on too, so are they not a real human life?</p>
<p>If you took a newborn (just born a few hours) and left it without it’s mother or any other form of care, the baby would die in short time. </p>
<p>Newborns, biologically are completely dependent on it’s mother for nourishment and survival, so if you are using whether or not a life can surivive on its own as a justification of life, then you are using very poor logic.</p>
<h2>You claim that there are many many ways to conclusively prove homosexuality is bad, well let’s hear some of them. ~ Itachirumon</h2>
<p>I won’t get into whether or not it’s bad, but it’s certainly counter-productive to biology. I mean, if we were all homosexual are species would completely die out.</p>
<p>But regardless, I’m curious to know your stance on polygamy. Obviously, if you feel that any constenting adults should have the right to marry, then you surely feel it’s ok if say 3 people get married, or even 20 people get married, right?</p>
<p>Or do you feel that marriage is only meant for two people, regardless of sex?</p>
<p>Itachirumon, you really need to ignore Baelor. He is definitely ■■■■■■■■ when it comes to your guys’ gay marriage conversation. He seems to agree with gay marriage (maybe?), but is finding ways to imagine worlds in which he can tout it as a bad thing unopposed. </p>
<p>Baelor, why should we have to accept your premises as true and argue our case based on them? You should realize that in debates, attacking opponents’ premises is much more common than attacking their conclusions - in politics, at least, sound reasoning is much better than logical reasoning. The debate over gay marriage is already taking place in the context of the contemporary United States. There are already premises in place - equal protection under the law, “tradition,” fertility. The point is to determine which of these premises are valid, not to reach a conclusion by just assuming some subset of them are true.</p>
<p>To play along this one time, supposing the possibility of sexual intercourse that produces a child is important to marriage, it would only be natural to screen couples for fertility before allowing them to marry. Even you would probably find that unthinkable. We would also have to nullify (or at least disallow) any marriages between a man and a woman who has gotten her tubes tied. This certainly produces a different institution of marriage from the one we have now. </p>
<p>While you ask Itachirumon to justify gay marriage within your contexts, how about finding ways to justify straight marriage. You’d probably come up with something like children. Well what if I say children are inherently bad - they cost society money while not contributing. You may say they continue the species, but what if I say that this is not necessarily a good or bad thing, because it will hardly make a difference to the members of modern society if life goes on once they are dead. When we set our own axioms based on our own biases, of course it becomes impossible to argue the opposite. Why you seem to take this as a weakness in the opposing viewpoint is beyond me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If we were all heterosexual, our world would be even more overpopulated and we’d use up our resources faster and doom ourselves as a species even quicker. Of course, you’ll say that we are smart enough to employ birth control. Yet you didn’t bother to think that gay women can still biologically bear children by artificial insemination, even if they are attracted to the same sex. </p>
<p>But regardless - we are NOT all gay. Would you say “men are counterproductive to biology, because if we were all men our species would die out?” That is much more truthful than your homosexual statement, yet obviously it is stupid. The point is you should argue in context - not in some fantasy world, as you and Baelor both like to do. </p>
<p>As for polygamy - it complicates tax issues when we get into allowing more than two people to get married to each other. If there were a way to confer benefits fairly I would have no problem with it.</p>
<h2>Would you say “men are counterproductive to biology, because if we were all men our species would die out?” ~ Panther124</h2>
<p>Any non-reproductive entity (speaking in terms of across the board species) would be counter productive, but we know biology needs the male and female “plumbing” to reproduce, so you don’t make any sense.</p>
<p>I just don’t get the whole, “as long as they are consenting adults, they should be able to marry” argument. There are lots of things consenting adults can’t do in society, so get over it. It’s a sexual perversion, nothing that deserves formal recognition. </p>
<p>If a man and man can be married, why not 15 men and 6 women?</p>
<p>Better yet, why can’t siblings marry?</p>
<p>Homosexuality is completely legal in society, you just can’t marry each other - get over it freaks.</p>
<p>^Better yet, why can heterosexuals marry? Marriage goes against our evolutionary background.</p>
<p>-A non-reproductive entity is only counter-productive if there is not scarcity of resources within the population. If human’s are hurt by overpopulation, homosexuality, to any degree, is biologically justifiable.</p>
<p>-Because marriage is economic and intent to have children is not a prerequisite, there is no justification for gender to be included in marriage at all. Somewhere down the line we concluded that monogamous relationships were the most economically viable and resulted in smallest amount of exploitation. Siblings can’t marry because siblings can’t have sex with each other, legally, because it can result in birth defects and is likely a result of some kind of familial abuse. </p>
<p>-The word sexual perversion is meaningless because it all depends on context. 50 years ago oral sex was a sexual perversion, now 13 year olds do it to defer sex. Homosexuality extends beyond sex and if there is no evidence that it impinges on the rights of others or causes significant harm to society, than there is no justification to limit it.</p>
<p>Polygamy has a pretty bad historical track record in terms of causing problems for women, not to mention the fact that it would all complicate tax law.</p>
<p>Sibling marriages/incest is illegal typically because of genetic risks (lack of genetic variation leads to things going wrong). There’s a reason why we typically don’t evolve the desire to reproduce with family members. 
</p>
<p>As for gay marriage, there are literally no more valid arguments out there for rendering it illegal other than ignorance and discrimination. The institution of marriage has been altered and changed <em>already</em> countless times over, so that argument is completely bunk. There’s no data, either, to suggest that kids become gay or “screwed up” with gay parents (if anything, gay parents can typically be better parents… you can’t get drunk one night and decide to adopt, you know? :P).</p>
<p>^ No one is limiting the behavior, you can be as gay as you want to be. You can have sex with as many dudes as you like, it’s your ass.</p>
<p>I’m just saying there is no need to give it an official reward, such as marriage.</p>
<p>I don’t know if you’re ■■■■■■■■ or not, but I’ll bite.</p>
<p>Why NOT allow them to give it an “official reward,” as you put it, if heterosexual couples can do the same? There’s literally no argument you can use that doesn’t involve some form of “Because I don’t want them to” or “I don’t like gay people” or “I fear gay people” or “<insert arbitrary=”" and=“” incorrect=“” scientific=“” data=“” or=“” concept=“”>" at the most basic level.</insert></p>
<p>Why would I fear gay people?</p>
<p>They are like the most wimpy people in society.</p>
<p>But yeah, I don’t care if you dont like that answer of “because I don’t like it”, or whatever…the fact is, people don’t. They think it’s a sexual perversion and a creepy part of society and they don’t want their real marriages to be lumped into the category of sexual deviants.</p>
<p>I don’t think being a creep deserves rewards…</p>
<p>How about we just don’t legislate this kind of behavior and let gays do whatever they want? I don’t see how this has an effect on the lives of straight people at all. It is pure nonsense.</p>
<p>I pay enough for cigarettes and alcohol as is it. I don’t want to save for retirement, but I have to put money into a social security fund that doesn’t even exist (it went to pay off national debt…). I am really sick of the government steering us into desired behavior through legislation. Let gays do whatever they want and keep the government out of it.</p>
<p>Fine let them marry, put an * on their marriage certificate.</p>
<p>Give them a civil union or something I don’t care, I just don’t want good marriages to be cheapened by sexual creeps.</p>