Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kittie Rose
It's not, by a long shot. To you it is, but in the real world it's something which hurts real people.
This is exactly the problem. You have no clue what you're talking about or the real world affects of what you're saying.
|
Regardless of what you want to call it, it's still a debate. There's no need to name-calling or flamebaiting. It doesn't make your argument any stronger. Quite the opposite, in fact. The more beligerent you are, the less willing I am to debate with you. That's real life.
Quote:
|
Hah! Knew you'd say Ad Hominem. But that's invalid, as Ad Hominem is only when you base your point entirely around a personal attack, not when you use a specific and accurate word to describe someone. If I would have replied to one of your points with "Shut Up You Idiot" that would be Ad Hominem.
|
Erm... The majority of your argument is/was centered around comments directed towards my intellect, while the other half was mainly about me being "Homophobic" or a "Bigot". There was one comment (Well, one I remember in particular) directed towards me which was nothing but a petty insult.
Quote:
|
I'm sorry, but I've stated several times as to how someone against gay marriage is homophobic. You've ignored it several times. I cannot continue any form of debate with you if you continue to be completely selective.
|
I posed a question to you, but it went unanswered. I oppose gay marriage, yet I have two lesbian friends (Good friends, in fact) whom I regularly spend time with. How do that fit into your broad category of homophobia?
Quote:
|
But these are the things that happen when you make homophobia an acceptable vice.
|
Correction; Those are extreme examples of what can happen. Unfortunately, there's always an extreme to any situation. It doesn't mean that this type of thing is indicative to the majority.
Quote:
|
But it's STILL homophobia as it's still discriminating against a minority for no real reason. There has never been a valid argument against gay marriage. All of them fall flat on their asses and have some logical fallacy at their core.
|
Most opposition to gay marriage stems from moral and religious beliefs. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not-- Or even agree with it or not-- Most of our laws are built on moral and religious beliefs. That's a valid reason as any to oppose gay marriage.
Quote:
|
Why does your entire argument consist of ridiculous nitpicking?
|
It's not meant to. I'm just responding to your posts.
Quote:
|
If you oppose gay marriage, then yes, you are homophobic to a degree, as you believe in actively discriminating against and forcing your beliefs on an innocent minority. There is no real debate to this.
|
It's good to see that you have slightly backed off of your ridiculous statement that "All people who oppose gay marriage are homophobic".
As far as forcing your beliefs on another, I'm not really going to argue against that because, in a way, it is true. But, then again, I don't see the problem with that as the majority usually forces their beliefs on the minority in one way or another.
Quote:
Because I'm not discriminating against Straight People, so it is in no way accurate. It doesn't seem you give a crap about anything I say though, you'll just make the same completely nonsensical statements and questions over and over again.
Are you purposely trying to frustrate me by refusing to listen, then call "Ad Hominem" when I just plain can't take it?
|
I believe you're missing the point. We're really not arguing semantics. I believe the person's point whom you originally quoted was that if you feel obligated to use the term "Homophobe" to describe people opposing gay marriage, that someone could very easily call you a "Heterophobe". Neither term is really correct in describing either side, but you can't honestly expct to label one side without them labeling you in return.
By the way, I only call ad hominem when you blatantly insult me (As you did in the post which Charlatan edited).
Quote:
|
Yes you did. You said it was a word that was nothing but a loaded term used to mischaracterize one side of the debate.
|
It is a loaded term, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who don't live up to the term. Simply because some people do, doesn't mean everyone does.
Quote:
|
If you don't like being lumped in with Fred Phelps, then stop having such discriminative views, there's no real logic behind them anyway. Otherwise, put up with it.
|
That's rather an unfair comparison. Fred Phelps is an idiot, I agree. But, unlike Fred Phelps, I don't hate gays nor do I preach hate for gays. It's wrong of you to group everyone opposing gay marriage in the same breath as him.
Quote:
It's not untrue. You believe in actively discriminating against a minority that aren't damn well hurting anyone. This has to be the 9th time I've said this.
My assumptions aren't baseless. There is no logic or reason and certainly no facts to back up being against gay marriage. It is pure discrimination.
|
It is untrue and your assumptions are baseless.
*See response below*
Quote:
|
No it doesn't. The "Gay friends" argument is an infamous sign of an utterly rubbish viewpoint. You still don't want them to marry. You're still actively discriminating against them. That does not change anything.
|
It's not rubbish. Your first assumption was that I was homophobic, easily disproved by the fact that I have gay friends. That's what I was responding to. According to your logic, for someone to non-discriminatory they have to be willing to grant all groups the exact same rights as the next.
Quote:
|
WHY do you oppose gay marriage?
|
I've already explained why I disprove of gay marriage on pages prior. You could always read go back and find them for yourself.
Quote:
|
No it's not. Laws are meant to be founded on STOPPING other people forcing certain other things on others. You have to moderate some things.
|
That's not correct. Laws are basically a set of standards upon which the populace is expected to abide by. Laws, by their nature, will inherently discriminate against some group of people as they usually force a set of standards on someone.
Quote:
|
When nothing is hurting anyone, it should not be illegal, and it is in no way acceptable to force someone out of it.
|
That's a rather noble concept, but not one which is feasible. Following that criterion, most of our laws would be null and void and some of them prevent people from engaging in activities which would harm no one.
This is getting kina' old... I'm not a bigot.
Quote:
|
You refuse to accept your stance that certain people should be allowed marry despite the fact that apart from gender they are analogous to a straight couple in almost every way. Deal with it. Bigot or Homophobe in the modern usage doesn't mean that you have to HATE gays, but you most likely have some form of disrespect for them if you believe they shouldn't be allowed marry - either that, or sheer ignorance, or sheer arrogance.
|
You're right. I do oppose gay marriage because it goes against my moral code. That doesn't make me a bigot, though. There's a stark difference between disagreeing with gay marriage and being a bigot toward's gays. Bigotry is a form of intolerance. I'm not intolerant of gays; I don't sit on the corner of the street protesting their right to exist; I don't exclaim that the government jail them; And I certainly don't believe that they be on the receiving end of hate crimes. I simply don't believe that they be allowed to marry.
You need to learn the difference between bigotry and disagreement.
Quote:
That's not logic. In fact, it's the exact opposite - it's the Slippery Slope Fallacy.
Incestral Marriage and Beastiality are not the same as homosexuality by a long shot. Whether or not they hurt people is a different argument - though at least there, there are technicalities as they aren't directly analogous to straight relationships - one is with a family member, complicating legal issues, and one is with a non-consenting animal.
|
Did you miss the two sentences which said "No, I'm not equating gay marriage to either of the two. I'm pointing out that simply because I oppose something, does not mean that I'm a bigot"? I fully well realize that none of the three are equatable. My point is that simply because I oppose something in principle, doesn't mean I'm a bigot. We all oppose some principle. It doesn't make any of us bigotted.
Quote:
Being against gay marriage is a purely a vice, one along the same lines of thinking as homophobia. Let's just call a spade a spade.
Unles of course, you can prove me wrong and wow me with your amazing reasons as to why gay marriage should never be. But I've seen it all before. We all have. And we no there's no defense for it, just good old enforcing traditional values on people, which is just plain disrespectful.
|
You say that enforcing traditional values on people is disrespectful? I'm not really going to get into an argument over whether that's right or not, but what I do know is that the majority of our laws are based squarely on religious and/or moral beliefs. According to many people's standards, gay marriage is wrong. I hate to break it to you, but very nearly all of our modern laws and rules stem from religious and/or moral beliefs.