Kittie Rose

Rubbish. That isn't an opinion, it's a claim, and it's false. Marriage has been around since before pre-Christian times, I'm staring at a Greek creation myth in which Uranus was Gaia's husband. Atheists can marry. You have no right to force your beliefs on someone else through the ballots, even if your country may make it seem like you do.

But it still means gay couples are somehow second rate to straight couples. Unless you can give them something that has equal standing to marriage, like, for instance, gay marriage, you're just being patronising. There are many, many rights given to married couple and I have no doubt that a "civil union" would only recieve the most basic of these benefits.

There's no need for making unbacked assertions against minorities, either.

Except everytime I do that I explain why. It's not an insult to call you a chicken if I can demonstrate to you that you are for all intensive purposes, your average farmyard chicken.

What question?

I find it very arrogant and malign of you that even with gay friends, you still oppose gay marriage, actually. Not to mention how overuse and completely ridiculous that argument is.

You're not Fred Phelps, I noticed. That doesn't mean you're in anyway justified, however.

Examples of what DOES happen.

I don't see any parrellel on the pro-gay side. Nothing even resembling it.

It does mean that it happens as long as people create an atmosphere where it's acceptable to have so called "Opinions" that are nothing but an insult to a minority.

No it's not. That's circular reasoning and appealing to tradition. It's literally DEFINED as invalid reasoning, therefore you are wrong. Please read up on logical fallacies before. And don't reply to me whining about how I'm forcing my beliefs on you(which is extremely ironic), it's defined as being invalid reasoning and you'll have to come up with something better than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Your reasoning is wrong. Please be mature and accept this. If you do not, you are not adhering to some of the most basic rules of debate and I literally cannot continue a logical debate with you any longer. Maybe there is some incredible reasoning why gay marriage should be banned, but the ones you have mentioned are not. You should need a heck of a lot more than to force your beliefs on someone. You have some of the most terrible societal reasoning I've ever seen.

Moral and religious beliefs are no excuse. It's not difficult to see you're denying someone their rights for little to no reason. Keep your "morals" and beliefs to yourself, and let others have their beliefs. The only Morals there should be are ones based on what hurts people and what doesn't.

I didn't. It's true. I'll say it again. You believe in discriminating against a minority, putting your own arrogant beliefs before the well being of others.

Ad Hominem is only arguing from an insult. It is not merely insulting someone.

It just shows how little you really know - Ad Hominem is merely short for Argumentum Ad Hominem. If you'd have known the full title, it speaks for itself - arguiment against the person. I wasn't using insults as part of my actual argument, as I was demonstrating how the "weight" of them was in some way true.

Your argument is based around two fallacies - Appeal to Tradition and Circular reasoning. You're in no position to the pointing out apparent "fallacies" in my argument which are merely instances of frustration with the repetition of your argument.

You said it was NOTHING but a loaded term. Now you're changing your position to look somewhat less ridiculous. Please just admit your initial post was very brash in offensive, and in a manner that you can't get a warning for, making it somewhat sly too.

But you do take a stand against gay marriage for no real logical reasons. So you do belong in the same camp as him if we're grouping by that. Being against Gay Marriage is a homophobic vice and you've done nothing to prove otherwise, despite my backing for it.

I never said you were homophobic until you said you were against gay marriage, confirming that you are a particular brand of homophobe.

There's a reason homophobe IS a loaded word. Your stance is wrong and unlike most people online I don't mollycoddle this rubbish. Unless you can defend your position without basing it on fallacy, it's a pile of cack. A pile of cack that keeps people from the rights they deserve. Maybe most people stand for that, but I don't. I'm telling you right here and now that it's wrong and not a viewpoint you should be proud of, and not as an opinion, but according to the current facts which indicate nothing is wrong with legalising gay marriage.

No, if you have such a definite argument you should be able to repeat it in a short summary. It can't possibly be that complicated.

But laws are only meant to be enforce when people act in a manner that hurts others. They're not, obviously, thanks to conservatism and people like you who make utterly fallicious arguments to defend institutionalised discrimination, but the point is, that's what they're meant to be. They're meant to protect people - why do people need protecting from Gay Marriage when it's not even damn well effecting them? And don't give me the "It affects all society" nonsense. You know very well you can't back that up. It affects the rest of society in a very small way, but ultimately puts nobody else in any overall differing position.

This is why Relativism is such a dangerous idealogy - it claims to be the most realistic yet involves removing any trace of actual reality.

What!? It's the only basis any law should based on. What the hell are the point of laws if they're not there to protect people?

Do me a favour - never use "following that logic" type statements again. They nearly always invoke the slippery slope or are generally nonsensical.

In this statement, it's ridiculous because we are sentient beings that can tell when a certain law against a particular "hurting people" action would be inadvisable.

There is no logic behind banning gay marriage.

So says you, bigot.

Now, if I was to use Ad Hominem, it would look like that. But that's not how I put it at all. you are bigotted as you believe in your idealogy of marriage far above all others, and enforcing it on other people, where it doesn't affect you in the slightest.

*sigh*

You are intolerant of homosexuals marrying.

You are intolerant of them marrying.

You are protesting their right to marry.

You do exclaim that the government refuse to grant them equal status.

Yet you do believe that homophobia should not be frowned upon, thus created an environment where hate crimes are more common.

Rubbish. Like I said, people right off claims as opinions and beliefs so they can keep them long after they're proven wrong.

This is no exception.

But you also believe very strongly in your idea of marriage to the extent that it should be the only one that exists. That's disgustingly bigotted. Why not let everyone have their own idea of marriage if you're not a bigot?

I won't piss on someone for thinking that marriage should be a man or a woman. I will for thinking that that's the way it should be for everyone else.

I will repeat that American and much of the rest of the world has serious problems distinguishing between having a belief, and forcing it on someone in a vicious manner.

Of course not, it's the basis for your entire argument, and we already established that it's most likely about as grounded as most other homophobic arguments.

That doesn't make it right.

So? Many laws can be logically determined by the simple does-it-hurt-people law combined with the sense of is-it-practical. Gay marriage does not hurt people and is practical. Tradition is meaningles in such things, as you shouldn't be allowed enforce it on others.