filtherton

I was trying to make this discussion about homosexuality and not incest. If you want to make a passionate plea for the acceptance of incest within the framework of an argument for homosexual marriage, by all means. Unfortunately, advocating for gay marriage using terms that could also be used to advocate for incestuous marriage does not mean that one is advocating for incestuous marriage.

For the record, if you're going to give me a written thrashing for attempting to define the word marriage(what this discussion is really all about), at the very least make sure your definition of marriage is accurate. Marriage has not been "for thousands of years 'a union of a man and a woman'". Polygamy has been around for quite a while too. It is a good thing that you weren't elected to define marriage, because your definition seems to be a little ignorant of reality.

As for finding arguments that hold water under all circumstances, perhaps you should stick to mathematics. In the actual world there are exceptions to every rule. You don't hear a lot of pro-2nd amendment people advocating for the right to bear nuclear arms, even though they probably should to be consistent. You don't hear a lot of abortion opponents advocating for the complete criminalization of all abortions under all circumstances, even though that would be the most idealogically consistent thing to do. Welcome to reality. Newtonian physics doesn't even hold water under all circumstances. Are we going to hear your passionate argument as to why the kinematics is a farce?

It has gotten to the point where i am unable to determine what the your point even is. Earlier, you claim that you could care less about the issue, and that your perspective on marriage is

The problem is that you don't have a position on the issue beyond this statement. You keep digging, and right now all you have is your own inablility to understand a nuanced argument. People make conditional statements all of the time concerning issues of politics and philosophy. Pointing them out often does little to take away from the power of a particular argument, especially when the particular inconsistency has little to do with the actual issue at hand.

An example:

Guy: I think people should have the right to bear arms just like it says in the second amendment because people are the last line of defense against government tyranny.

Adysav: So you think everybody should be able to buy nuclear armaments?

Guy: No, that would be stupid, are you crazy?

Adysav: Your entire perspective is inconsistent and invalid.

Chewbacca is a wookie, ladies and gentlemen.


The reason i made a qualifying statement based on the relationship of those involved was simply to claim that the fight for incest should be examined on its own merits and not as an extension of the argument for homosexual marriage. Clearly, you are unable to make that distinction so you say things like, "Are you a retard".

Here's a summary of your position:

Me: Gays should be allowed to marry, there isn't any logically consistent reason why they shouldn't.

You: So your saying that a brother and sister should be able to get married?

Me: No, you don't understand. You're interpreting my statements in a way that is convenient for your purposes, which are to skirt the discussion of whether there are any logically consistent reasons to oppose gay marriage, and instead turn the discussion into one that is completely irrelevant to the issue.

You: Are you a retard?

Me: You just said more about yourself right there than i would have ever tried to get away with saying about you on the tfp. You don't actually have any logically consistent arguments against gay marriage, all you have is: which is about as much thought as you seem to be willing to put into the actual issue of homosexual marriage.

I'll take the bait though. I retract my statement that marriage is about two people who actually care about eachother, related or not. I concede, for the purpose of exposing your complete lack of anything else to talk about in this thread(aside from the passionate argument for incest), that the requirements of marriage should be based solely on the genitalia of those involved. Now, enlighten me as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Tell me why the institution of marriage should be solely limited to one man and one woman.