What Upsets People About Gay Marriage - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Derwood · 07-01-2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Do the women refer to each other as wives and the men refer to each other as husbands most times?

Yes, this seems to the be the case in almost all gay marriages I'm familliar with.

Infinite_Loser · 07-01-2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Your claim was that the research I cite is "largely in question" and "they are under heavy fire from both sides". This isn't so. One critic was cited from "my side", which does not equate to the studies being "largely in question" or "under heavy fire" from "my side".

My side consists of pretty much every mainstream medical and psychological organization in the United States, and you can see their positions cited above. Some cite the studies, some have null positions that basically say "no harm has been shown".

Not to repeat myself, but if you use flawed data and use it to draw a conclusion, then your conclusion is also flawed.

Quote:

That's not a study, it's a position paper co-authored by members of Marriagewatch, an organization whose purpose is attacking same sex marriage, written for the purpose of attacking generally accepted research because it is hurting their cause, and published by that organization.

It says nothing to indicate that homosexual parents harm their children.

I never said it was a study on whether or not homosexual marriages harm children or not, but rather a paper on the flaws on the research conducted thus far. It doesn't draw the conclusion as to whether homosexual marriages harm children or not, as that's not the point of the paper. I expected you to realize that.

Quote:

And there's the one critic that is nominally on "my side" who questions the validity of the studies. This is hardly a justification for your hyperbole in claiming that they're "largely in question" or "under heavy fire".

That one critic isn't "Nominally on your side". That one critic is a major proponent of gay marriage as an institution.

[QUOTE]Note, however, she makes no claim that homosexuals in any way harm their children, and cites no studies in favor of that conclusion. This is likely because every study published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal concludes that there is no harm.[QUOTE]

And, once again, I never stated that she made that claim. What I stated was that she's opposed to the various studies which have been conducted, because they're all biased and flawed, a view hard to dismiss.

Quote:

It's still an incomplete comparison. Better than what? Better than which children?

Better than the children without. I thought I stated that already?

Quote:

But the proponents? The concensus of the mainstream medical and psychological community is that there is no evidence to support the idea that children of homosexuals are harmed by being raised by homosexuals.

You've found one pro-gay marriage critic of the research, and she concludes that the studies are flawed, not that homosexuals are harmed.

No where did I state that this was my aim. I was simply showing that the studies which you so readily point out are disputed, because they contain empirical flaws.

Quote:

First, that's really two separate premises--A. Marriage is between a man and a womand and B. marriage is for the purpose of providing a stable environment in which to rear children.

Here's your problems:

1.) You can't disprove the notion that a marriage is between a man and a woman and

2.) You can't disprove the fact that a marriage isn't for providing a stable environment in which to raise children, since numerous studies which have been conducted which prove that children raised in the confines are marriage typically do better than those who aren't.

Quote:

However, let's look at those two premises for a second. Let's start with B. If marriage does in fact provide a stable environment for the rearing of children, wouldn't this be true also of the children of homosexual couples?

It would, if not for premise #1.

Quote:

Now let's look at premise A. Extending marriage rights to homosexual couples would not in anyway change this. Marriage would still be between a man and a woman. It would also be between a man and a man and a woman and woman.

Therefore, marriage is no longer between a man and woman, but between a man and a woman, a man and a man and/or a woman and a woman.

Quote:

Even if we accept this argument at face value, it does not preclude extending marriage rights to homosexual couples, because that purpose--providing a man and a woman with a stable environment in which to rear children--would still exist unchanged. A man and a woman could still get married, have and rear children.

Your claim there is both fallacious and doesn't even support your conclusion.

Now you're assuming that premise #1 is independent of premise #2, which is incorrect. I oppose gay marriage on both premises-- Not just one.

Gilda · 07-01-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Do the women refer to each other as wives and the men refer to each other as husbands most times? I am not trying to be difficult but am genuinely interested in using correct terms that do not offend anyone.

The gay couples I know that are married generally refer to each other using the standard terms, married woman = wife, married man = husband.

I do know of a married MTF couple that prefers that no label be used other than their names, feeling that such labels are and should be irrelevant.

Unmarried homosexual couples tend to use partner or boyfriend/girlfriend, as do the unmarried heterosexual couples I know.

My beef with Infinite Loser was that I'd clearly been referring to Grace as my wife and he switched to partner in direct response to a post in which I'd used wife. I interpreted that as his refusal to accept that we are married, which he later confirmed was an accurate inference, and objected to it on those grounds. It wasn't so much the word as the implied criticism behind it.

So long as he's polite in further usage, it shouldn't be an issue any longer.

Gilda

Derwood · 07-01-2006, 08:44 AM

Yes, marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman. The fact that this is the current definition is in no way a legitimate reason not to redefine the word

Gilda · 07-01-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Not to repeat myself, but if you use flawed data and use it to draw a conclusion, then your conclusion is also flawed.

I never said it was a study on whether or not homosexual marriages harm children or not, but rather a paper on the flaws on the research conducted thus far. It doesn't draw the conclusion as to whether homosexual marriages harm children or not, as that's not the point of the paper. I expected you to realize that.

That one critic isn't "Nominally on your side". That one critic is a major proponent of gay marriage as an institution.

And, once again, I never stated that she made that claim. What I stated was that she's opposed to the various studies which have been conducted, because they're all biased and flawed, a view hard to dismiss.

I think your one critic is more than overbalanced by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians,

Quote:

Better than the children without. I thought I stated that already?

It's still an incomplete comparison. Better than children with homosexual parents? Of course you're not going to say that because there's no evidence of such. As that is the subject of this debate, your claim is meaningless.

Quote:

No where did I state that this was my aim. I was simply showing that the studies which you so readily point out are disputed, because they contain empirical flaws.

They're disputed sure. Everything is disputed. That doesn't change that the evidence supports the idea that homosexual parents do their children no harm, and that the mainstream medical and psychological organizations in the United States accept this conclusion.

Quote:

1.) You can't disprove the notion that a marriage is between a man and a woman

I wouldn't want to do that. Of course marriage is between a man and a woman. In some countries, it's also between two women and between two men, as it is n Massachusetts. In many churches, it is also between two or two women.

The question under debate here is whether civil marriage should be between same sex couples in addition to opposite sex couples.

Quote:

2.) You can't disprove the fact that a marriage isn't for providing a stable environment in which to raise children, since numerous studies which have been conducted which prove that children raised in the confines are marriage typically do better than those who aren't.

Those are correlational studies comparing children raised in intact families to those raised by single parents, and do not indicate causation. There are a number of factors not controlled for that have a big influence, chiefly poverty. However, none of those studies control for orientation or compare children of heterosexuals to those of homosexuals, so they are irrelevant to this discussion.

Also, I haven't been disputing that that is one of the functions of marriage. It is not, however the sole one, and is not a requirement, and that argument works in favor of gay marriage, not against it. If marriage is beneficial to children, then let's extend that same benefit to the children being raised by homosexual couples as well.

Quote:

Therefore, marriage is no longer between a man and woman, but between a man and a woman, a man and a man and/or a woman and a woman.

That makes no sense. In the second description, marriage is, by your own words, still between a man and a woman. It just includes other groups as well.

Gilda

Kittie Rose · 07-18-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magictoy

Since you presume that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a "homophobe," does that make everyone in favor of it a "heterophobe?"

Now that your original bias has been addressed, I'll answer your question. There's nothing wrong with it. I know of no one who opposes two people linking their lives in such a fashion. The general opinion, as I (and many other people) see it, is that you're calling an apple an orange.

Words mean things. If gays and other people in search of preferential treatment are going to declare that some words are offensive to them, they're going to have to get used to the fact that some heterosexual couples think that a change in the definition of what they consider a sacred relationship is offensive.

I'm sorry, but that really is quite nonsensical.

People against gay marriage are homophobic not only because it's usually out of an irrational prejudice to homosexuality in some form, but because they believe in enforcing some form of discrimination against homosexuals.

How does that translate to people for gay marriage being heterophobes? That's horrible logic. People against straight marriage and not gay marriage would probably be heterophobe. Heterophobe is a ridiculous word nearly always coined by neo-cons who can only argue through emotionally weighted strawmen, it's a good idea to steer clear of it.

I think there is far too much tolerance of homophobia in this day and age. It's not the same thing as being a heterosexual like some people write it off to be, it's something that should be frowned upon because it causes nothing but strife. If people would only listen to logic so many of the "blurry lines" would becoem distinct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toaster126

I have no problems with gay marriage, but wow that's a terrible comment. Why must people be afraid of or embody what they don't agree with?

I blame pop psychology.

It's nothing about agreeing, it's about discrimination. Am I the only person that remembers discrimination is an objective BAD thing? Most of the great revolutionaries of the past never acted that way.

Can you imagine Martin Luther King saying "I have a dream - but well, I have to admit the KKK DO have a point in their whole "Black people should die" thing".

It's complete nonsense. Being against discrimination doesn't mean you can't be for "discriminating" against things which are actually proven to be wrong in some manner.

Most discriminatory views are simply quite illogical and not based in fact. Writing claims off as opinions and beliefs is a wonderful way to let them keep them long after they're proven wrong.

Homophobic arguments are pretty much without exception non-sequitor if you consider the facts of homosexuality, homosexuals, and relationships in general.

When you get down to "opinion", protecting someone's opinion that those kind of people should all burn in hell is ridiculous. Nobody is going to control someone's thoughts, but we should take a stand against that which is simply unacceptable and leads to nothing but hardship.

There is nothing to be gained by protecting homophobia in the manner in which people do online, constantly. Ultimately, the people protecting homosexuality are the ones that get banned first in a heated argument. It's complete idiocy and it's time someone took a stand against it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

What's funny about people like you Filth is that you are as bigotted as the people you label.

Absolute rubbish. If someone were to "discriminate" against a rapist, would you call hypocrite on them for claiming to be liberal too? No. Personally, I accept things so long as they don't hurt other people. Bigotry unfortunately does hurt other people as it's an idea that spreads like a virus, giving people an excuse to show a complete lack of regard to others. At least this is a good reason to disrespect someone, and is something that, unlike homosexuality, can be changed through choice.

He is not voting against bigot's right to marry, is not spreading ridiculous propoganda as to how they should burn in hell. What's funny about you and many "relativists" is that you're acting exactly in the manner Neo-Cons need for their fallacies to remain in place, protecting arrogance as equally as wisdom.

Quote:

Rationality has no bearing on bigotry, only perspective, a bigot is merely someone who is intolerant of somebody elses view, which you clearly are on this matter.

Relativist nonsense. "Bigot" is usually coined as someone who is intolerant of someone else as a person and their way of life that in no way intrudes on others, not just a "view".

Again, a person is not a Bigot for thinking that a rapist is doing something wrong and should be stopped. Similiarly, as bigotry has a proven track record of violence, social rejection of victims and removal of civil rights, it is something which should be stood against.

I will say I am intolerant of other people's views if they are in someway harmful, and I have no shame in it anymore than I do in saying I am tolerant of people who do not set out to hurt or discriminate against others who do no wrong. I do not believe they should be "Medicated" for it like some people believe homosexuals should be, however, just that it be socially discouraged. So attempting to making me out to be that which I hate fails in more areas than one. Not to mention how tired I am of fence-homophobes using that argument.

Charlatan · 07-18-2006, 07:16 PM

Kittie Rose, please stick around... I like what I am reading.

Cheers!

Infinite_Loser · 07-18-2006, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kittie Rose

People against gay marriage are homophobic not only because it's usually out of an irrational prejudice to homosexuality in some form, but because they believe in enforcing some form of discrimination against homosexuals.

The word "Homophobe" is nothing but a loaded term used to mischaracterize one side of the debate. You, being on the other side, will always claims that my opinions are connected with some form of bigotry and will readily use the term "Homophobe" to describe my position. If you have no problems in throwing out the term "Homophobe", then you can expect others to throw the term "Heterophobe" back at you.

Now, with that being said... People who are against gay marriage are homophobic? Really? How did you come to that conclusion? By making biased assumptions?

I have two words for you-- Straw man.

Quote:

How does that translate to people for gay marriage being heterophobes? That's horrible logic.

You know what else is horrible logic? Calling everyone who opposes gay marriage "Homophobes".

Quote:

Heterophobe is a ridiculous word nearly always coined by neo-cons who can only argue through emotionally weighted strawmen, it's a good idea to steer clear of it.

And you using the term "Homophobe" is any different than using the term "Heterophobe"? Don't be a hypocrite.

Quote:

I think there is far too much tolerance of homophobia in this day and age.

You know what I think? I think there's too much tolerance of "Homophobiaphobia" (The mischaracterization of those who oppose gay marriage).

Quote:

Relativist nonsense. "Bigot" is usually coined as someone who is intolerant of someone else as a person and their way of life that in no way intrudes on others, not just a "view".

You are incorrect. A bigot is defined as "A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." Whether or not one person's way of life and/or beliefs is intrusive on another person's way of life and/or beliefs is irrelevant. By the pure definition of the word, the people using the term bigot are as bigotted as the people they label.

Gilda · 07-19-2006, 12:33 AM

Well said Kittie Rose. I've read two of your posts and I like you a lot already.

Gilda

Charlatan · 07-19-2006, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

By the pure definition of the word, the people using the term bigot are as bigotted as the people they label.

It's lonely being a bigot.

It's easier to say that everyone is a bigot.

pornclerk · 07-19-2006, 07:20 AM

I don't really care what people do behind their bedroom doors, but what really bothers me about gay marriage is the fact that they cannot reproduce. Of course there are other ways that they can raise children, like adoption, but those are often difficult and expensive to come by. If it is too difficult for a couple then they may decide not to do it.

Kittie Rose · 07-19-2006, 07:21 AM

Quote:

The word "Homophobe" is nothing but a loaded term used to mischaracterize one side of the debate.

Oh great, I haven't heard this from conservatives time and time again.

Quite frankly, this is just plain insensitive to anyone who's suffered homophobia.

Yeah, homophobia doesn't exist. Nobody gets beaten up for being gay, nobody has to fear any form of social rejection for being gay and apparently "godhatesfags", Fred Phelps, and Pat Robertson don't exist.

You are an extremely insensitive human being.

Quote:

You, being on the other side, will always claims that my opinions are connected with some form of bigotry and will readily use the term "Homophobe" to describe my position.

I never called you a homophobe. I merely pointed out that your opinion has little to no basis in facts or logic.

Quote:

If you have no problems in throwing out the term "Homophobe", then you can expect others to throw the term "Heterophobe" back at you.

Yeah, because people get beaten to death for being straight.

Quote:

Now, with that being said... People who are against gay marriage are homophobic? Really? How did you come to that conclusion? By making biased assumptions?

I explained exactly how and it seems conveniently, like most conservatives, you ignore the part you can't deal with.

Quote:

I have two words for you-- Straw man.

Do you even know what a Straw Man is? You're making it look like homophobia doesn't exist - that's BEYOND a Straw Man and just plain delusional.

Everyone knows Ad Hominem and Straw Man. To actually understand what they mean and when they apply is a different matter.

Quote:

You know what else is horrible logic? Calling everyone who opposes gay marriage "Homophobes".

How? Being against gay marriage means you are for the institutionalised discrimination of a minority. I like how most of your argument consists of one line assertions with nothing to back them up.

Quote:

And you using the term "Homophobe" is any different than using the term "Heterophobe"? Don't be a hypocrite.

Straight people are not discriminated against by the tyrannical "Velvet Mafia", so no, it's not hypocritical. Please grow up.

Quote:

You know what I think? I think there's too much tolerance of "Homophobiaphobia" (The mischaracterization of those who oppose gay marriage).

Yeah, because straight people are actively discriminated against so it's the same thing.

So you want there to be MORE homophobia? Because that's exactly what happens when you don't oppose it.

This is beyond a "viewpoint", this is just plain abhorrant, selfish and cruel-minded.

Quote:

You are incorrect. A bigot is defined as "A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Yes, note the word "prejudice". Being against bigots isn't a prejudice - as you already KNOW what they're doing in action. A prejudice is when you have a false and destructive notion about someone. Otherwise you'd be "Prejudiced" against murderers and rapists.

Quote:

Whether or not one person's way of life and/or beliefs is intrusive on another person's way of life and/or beliefs is irrelevant.

Many Americans have problems seeing why forcing their beliefs on someone is wrong.

Quote:

By the pure definition of the word, the people using the term bigot are as bigotted as the people they label.

I already debunked that and like a good little conservative, you pull it out again since actual "proof" doesn't matter. In fact, I just debunked it again directly above, and I'm sure you'll ignore this again.

The word "bigot" wouldn't exist if your model existed - since nobody could actually use it.

Where is your actual argument? Your entire post seems to be saying that there should be less opposition towards hatred of gay people and discrimination against them, and that homophobia doesn't exist, in an extremely insensitive manner.

Why exactly should I have any decent level of respect for you if this is how you present your so called "opinions"? Please, come back with an actual argument or don't bother at all. I'm not arguing semantics with a neo-con.

Charlatan · 07-19-2006, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornclerk

I don't really care what people do behind their bedroom doors, but what really bothers me about gay marriage is the fact that they cannot reproduce. Of course there are other ways that they can raise children, like adoption, but those are often difficult and expensive to come by. If it is too difficult for a couple then they may decide not to do it.

Wow. I guess I'd better tell my Mom and her current husband and a number of my other married hetero friends that they'd better get making babies or their marriage is null and void.

Childeren are only a part of what a marriage *can* be. It is *not* an essential component of marriage.

Infinite_Loser · 07-19-2006, 10:14 AM

Before I begin, I would just like to say that I saw the unedited version of your post. You need to chill out. Seriously. It's just a debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kittie Rose

Oh great, I haven't heard this from conservatives time and time again.

It's true. Whenever someone opposes gay marriage they're instantly labeled "Bigots" or "Homophobes", without regard to their actual opinions or stances. It's a rather simple case of ad-hominem. Attack the person's character, and discredit their argument.

Quote:

Quite frankly, this is Text removed. just plain insensitive to anyone who's suffered through homophobia.

Insensitive? How so? The term is loaded-- It has a negative connotation and denotation-- And is usually used to attack some directly rather than their argument. Since when did everyone who opposes gay marriage become homophobic?

Quote:

Yeah, homophobia doesn't exist. Nobody gets beaten up for being gay, nobody has to fear any form of social rejection for being gay and apparently "godhatesfags", Fred Phelps, and Pat Robertson don't exist. Text removed.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't beat up someone for being gay, or make fun of them or exclaim that "Godhatesfags". There are always people who take things to the extreme. No one is really defending their actions. Have you ever heard the saying "Don't paint everyone with the same paintbrush"? Merely opposing gay marriage is much, much different than taking an active role in hate towards gays.

Quote:

I never called you a homophobe. I merely pointed out that your opinion has little to no basis in facts or logic.

In your prior post you said that "People against gay marriage are homophobic not only because it's usually out of an irrational prejudice to homosexuality in some form, but because they believe in enforcing some form of discrimination against homosexuals." You insinuated that I was a "Homophobe" because I oppose gay marriage. Explain to me why it's all right for you to label others, yet you take offense when others label you?

Quote:

Yeah, because people get beaten to death for being straight.

Hate crime against any group of people is wrong. Of course, that's really irrelevant as it didn't directly deal with my previous post. Why is it acceptable for you to use "Homophobe" to characterize someone else, but incorect of them to use the term "Heterophobe" to characterize you?

Quote:

I explained exactly how and it seems conveniently, (Text removed.) you ignore the part you can't deal with.

Do you even know what a Straw Man is? You're making it look like homophobia doesn't exist - that's BEYOND a Straw Man and just plain delusional. Everyone knows Ad Hominem and Straw Man. To actually understand what they mean and when they apply is a different matter.

Nowhere did I ever state that "Homophobia" never existed. You asserted that everyone who opposes gay marriage are homophobes. That's simply untrue, and you have no logical reason for arguing as such except for baseless assumptions. I have two very good lesbian friends, yet I oppose gay marriage. That debunks your entire theory about everyone opposing gay marriage being homophobes.

By the way, concerning ad homimen, your previous post is filled with it, so I don't really need to address that.

Quote:

Yeah, because straight people are actively discriminated against so it's the same thing.

In a strange twist, gay hate crime against straights does happen, albeit rare.

Quote:

So you want there to be MORE homophobia? Because that's exactly what happens when you don't oppose it.

What's the point of me replying if you're going to answer my questions for me?

No, I don't support hate crimes against any group of people, if that's what you mean. Never have, never will. But, then again, while I don't support hate crimes I also don't support gay marriage.

Quote:

Yes, note the word "prejudice". Being against bigots isn't a prejudice - as you already KNOW what they're doing in action. A prejudice is when you have a false and destructive notion about someone. Otherwise you'd be "Prejudiced" against murderers and rapists. Text removed.

Yes, no one really ever disagreed with that statement. However, instantly labeling someone as a bigot because they oppose gay marriage is an incorrect assumption. If someone hates gays simply because they're gay then, by all means, label them a bigot. I've said this a few times, but one more time couldn't hurt. I don't hate gays and I even have gay friends. I'm wondering where such a situation fits into your definition of the word bigot.

Quote:

Many Americans have problems seeing why forcing their beliefs on someone is wrong.

Our entire society is based off of forcing one's beliefs and ideals on others. Actually, all societies are. But meh... That's another topic for another day.

Quote:

I already debunked that and like a good little conservative, you pull it out again since actual "proof" doesn't matter. In fact, I just debunked it again directly above, and I'm sure you'll ignore this again.

I'm actually quite liberal on 95% of issues :P

Anyway, your entire theory is based on the premise that everyone who opposes gay marriage hates gays. Yes, some people who oppose gay marriage hate gays but, then again, not everyone who opposes gay marriage hate gays. I'm still waiting to know how I'm a bigot. Please... Don't say that I'm a bigot because I oppose gay marriage.

If we wanted to follow that line of logic, I guess I'd be a bigot for opposing incestral marriage or opposing bestiality (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).

Quote:

The word "bigot" wouldn't exist if your model existed - since nobody could actually use it.

Look up a couple of responses. I answered that already.

Quote:

Where is your actual argument? Your entire post seems to be saying that there should be less opposition towards hatred of gay people and discrimination against them, and that homophobia doesn't exist, in an extremely insensitive manner.

I wasn't arguing. I was merely pointing out that simply because someone opposes gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot. And, as far as the homophobia-thing goes, I answered that somewhere near the beginning.

Quote:

Why exactly should I have any decent level of respect for you Text removed. if this is how you present your so called "opinions"? Please, come back with an actual argument or don't bother at all. I'm not arguing semantics. Text removed.

I actually wasn't arguing with you but... I don't really care if you respect me or not. You've already proven yourself to be beligerent and abrasive for no real apparent reason. You can't even conduct a debate on the internet without the useless name-calling and flamebait. In a strange twist, you're not much different than the people you like to labe.

Anyway, you could always read my prior responses in this thread and respond to those.

Kittie Rose · 07-19-2006, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Before I begin, I would just like to say that I saw the unedited version of your post. You need to chill out. Seriously. It's just a debate.

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.

Quote:

It's true. Whenever someone opposes gay marriage they're instantly labeled "Bigots" or "Homophobes", without regard to their actual opinions or stances. It's a rather simple case of ad-hominem. Attack the person's character, and discredit their argument.

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.

Quote:

Insensitive? How so? The term is loaded-- It has a negative connotation and denotation-- And is usually used to attack some directly rather than their argument. Since when did everyone who opposes gay marriage become homophobic?

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.

Quote:

I can only speak for myself, but I don't beat up someone for being gay, or make fun of them or exclaim that "Godhatesfags". There are always people who take things to the extreme.

But these are the things that happen when you make homophobia an acceptable vice.

Quote:

No one is really defending their actions. Have you ever heard the saying "Don't paint everyone with the same paintbrush"? Merely opposing gay marriage is much, much different than taking an active role in hate towards gays.

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.

Quote:

n your prior post you said that "People against gay marriage are homophobic not only because it's usually out of an irrational prejudice to homosexuality in some form, but because they believe in enforcing some form of discrimination against homosexuals." You insinuated that I was a "Homophobe" because I oppose gy marriage. Explain to me why it's all right for you to label others, yet you take offense when others label you?

Why does your entire argument consist of ridiculous nitpicking?

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.

Quote:

Hate crime against any group of people is wrong. Of course, that's really irrelevant as it didn't directly deal with my previous post. Why is it acceptable for you to use "Homophobe" to characterize someone else, but incorect of them to use the term "Heterophobe" to characterize you?

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?

Quote:

Nowhere did I ever state that "Homophobia" never existed.

Yes you did. You said it was a word that was nothing but a loaded term used to mischaracterize one side of the debate.

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.

Quote:

You asserted that everyone who opposes gay marriage are homophobes. That's simply untrue, and you have no logical reason for arguing as such except for baseless assumptions. I

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.

What are YOUR reasons for being against gay marriage, then, since you implied you were earlier?

Quote:

I have two very good lesbian friends, yet I oppose gay marriage. That debunks your entire theory about everyone opposing gay marriage being homophobes.

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.

WHY do you oppose gay marriage?

Quote:

In a strange twist, gay hate crime against straights does happen, albeit rare.

When? Examples. Gay "hate" crime against homophobic people like Fred Phelps, maybe. And quite frankly, they're asking for it.

Quote:

Our entire society is based off of forcing one's beliefs and ideals on others. Actually, all societies are. But meh... That's another topic for another day.

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.

When nothing is hurting anyone, it should not be illegal, and it is in no way acceptable to force someone out of it.

Quote:

I'm actually quite liberal on 95% of issues :P

But utterly and irredeemibly conservative on this on. I suspect that's a gross exagerration, regardless.

Quote:

Anyway, your entire theory is based on the premise that everyone who opposes gay marriage hates gays. Yes, some people who oppose gay marriage hate gays but, then again, not everyone who opposes gay marriage hate gays. I'm still waiting to know how I'm a bigot. Please... Don't say that I'm a bigot because I oppose gay marriage.

You are a bigot. 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.

[quoet]If we wanted to follow that line of logic, I guess I'd be a bigot for opposing incestral marriage or opposing bestiality (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).[/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.

Quote:

I wasn't arguing. I was merely pointing out that simply because someone opposes gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot. And, as far as the homophobia-thing goes, I answered that somewhere near the beginning.

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.

boatin · 07-19-2006, 11:20 AM

1) Marriage has benefits.

2) Two adults fall in love, get married, and receive those benefits.

Two other adults fall in love, aren't allowed to get married and don't receive those benefits.

3) If one person, couple or group doesn't get the benefits another person, couple or group gets (because of 'differences'), then that's discrimination.

I'm not sure sure where the breakdown in 'logic' is occuring in some of these posts. If you don't agree with #1, then I could see a person thinking "no problem, what's the big deal?". But #1 is demonstrably false. Gilda gave a great (partial) list earlier in this thread. #1 is just simple fact, and I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise.

#2 also seems like simple fact. It stands on point 1, but it's sort of the premise everyone accepts to have this conversation - gay people can't get married.

#3 seems to be where the stickiness is. This also hinges on point 1. It seems people want to argue against point 3, while ignoring point 1. That doesn't really fly, does it?

I'm certainly no master of logic, but this doesn't seem that complicated.

THGL · 07-19-2006, 12:45 PM

Here's my 2 cents:
Am I against gay marriage? Yes.
Am I against a civil union between two same-sex people? Not at all.

Marriage is a union, in the eyes of God, between a man and a woman. Period. The only way to make "gay marriage" legal is for the churches to accept homosexuals... but that'll probably never happen in our lifetimes.

The word "marriage" is what's causing all the uproar. It's a religious term and all the ultra conservatives will fight with every ounce of strength (and money) they have to keep it from happening. If the homosexual community would fight for "same-sex civil unions" they'd face a less-daunting task than fighting for "gay marriage".

I believe that if two people want to "legally" join and have all the rights, protections, benefits, etc. that they receive then they should have every right to no matter their sexual preference.

Infinite_Loser · 07-19-2006, 01:04 PM

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.

Quote:

You are a bigot.

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.

pornclerk · 07-19-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Wow. I guess I'd better tell my Mom and her current husband and a number of my other married hetero friends that they'd better get making babies or their marriage is null and void.

Childeren are only a part of what a marriage *can* be. It is *not* an essential component of marriage.

True, but even if two gay people decide to have children the option is a lot more difficult. I was not saying that all married people should reproduce, I am simply saying that it is much more difficult for gay people to do it.

Kittie Rose · 07-19-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Here's my 2 cents:
Am I against gay marriage? Yes.
Am I against a civil union between two same-sex people? Not at all.

Marriage is a union, in the eyes of God, between a man and a woman. Period.

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.

Quote:

I believe that if two people want to "legally" join and have all the rights, protections, benefits, etc. that they receive then they should have every right to no matter their sexual preference.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

Correction; Those are extreme examples of what can happen.

Examples of what DOES happen.

Quote:

Unfortunately, there's always an extreme to any situation.

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

Quote:

It doesn't mean that this type of thing is indicative to the majority.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

It's good to see that you have slightly backed off of your ridiculous statement that "All people who oppose gay marriage are homophobic".

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.

Quote:

By the way, I only call ad hominem when you blatantly insult me (As you did in the post which Charlatan edited).

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

I've already explained why I disprove of gay marriage on pages prior. You could always read go back and find them for yourself.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

That's a rather noble concept, but not one which is feasible.

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

This is getting kina' old... I'm not a bigot.

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.

Quote:

You're right. I do oppose gay marriage because it goes against my moral code. That doesn't make me a bigot, though.

*sigh*

Quote:

Bigotry is a form of intolerance.

You are intolerant of homosexuals marrying.

Quote:

I'm not intolerant of gays;

You are intolerant of them marrying.

Quote:

I don't sit on the corner of the street protesting their right to exist;

You are protesting their right to marry.

Quote:

I don't exclaim that the government jail them;

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

Quote:

And I certainly don't believe that they be on the receiving end of hate crimes.

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

Quote:

You need to learn the difference between bigotry and disagreement.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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,

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.

Quote:

According to many people's standards, gay marriage is wrong.

That doesn't make it right.

Quote:

I hate to break it to you, but very nearly all of our modern laws and rules stem from religious and/or moral beliefs.

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.

Frosstbyte · 07-19-2006, 03:05 PM

Are you on the debate team, Kittie? Did you just take logic? Did you find a textbook on logical fallacies wedged underneath your couch? For someone who got after Infinite for nitpicking, you're sure being picky about responding to his posts and making sure every logical fallacy is identified and used with exacting precision. We're having a discussion on an emotionally charged issue. Carving a swath through it with perfectly constructed treatises on logic isn't going to help us much.

I'm the first to concede, as I made evident throughout this thread, that, to me, there is a fundamental disconnect in Infinite's adamant stance against gay marriage and his contention that he has no problems with gays. So I, and everyone else, I think, stopped posting, because attacking that point over and over didn't move the discussion anywhere. We'd made our points and that was that.

I don't understand where re-hashing 5 pages of thread has gotten us. If Infinite was looking to be convinced, he has ample evidence to allow him to change his mind. If you were looking for his reasoning, you have opportunity to read several pages of it. I guess your tone and how you've gone after Infinite feels to me like you're looking for a fight in an effort to force everyone to "listen to logic so many of the 'blurry lines' would becoem [sic] distinct." Though in principle I agree with you, your approach is very hostile, and I can't figure out why.

Kittie Rose · 07-19-2006, 04:27 PM

Wait, I don't get that.

Oh, logical fallacies! You just took a Debating 101! Amirite? Amirite?

His argument is clearly based on two huge fallacies. That's not nitpicking. It's pointing out the entire premise for his argument is wrong.

If we can't use logic because it's an "emotional" argument, what CAN we use? This is my problem with arguing on the internet in general - facts and logic become suspended just so some hypothetical moron can have an opinion. If you want to know why I seem so "hostile" that's exactly why.

Logic is there for a reason. Fallacies don't determine the whole nature of the universe, but they do point out invalid reasoning. Somethings are just plain wrong and we need to accept that.

Infinite_Loser · 07-19-2006, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kittie Rose

If we can't use logic because it's an "emotional" argument, what CAN we use? This is my problem with arguing on the internet in general - facts and logic become suspended just so some hypothetical moron can have an opinion. If you want to know why I seem so "hostile" that's exactly why.

Have you ever heard of civility? It never really killed anyone. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I respect your opinions without feeling the need to insult you, so I would have expected the same from you but meh... I suppose that's wishful thinking.

There really isn't any point in debating with someone who name-calls and/or flamebaits every other sentence.

Kittie Rose · 07-19-2006, 04:49 PM

There definitely isn't any point in debating with someone who refuses to adhere to basic logic. Logic rarely kills anyone- lack of logic has, however, as stupid, arrogant decisions are often made that cost lives.

There's more to life than "respecting opinions", and it doesn't make you a better person just for claiming to "respect my opinion" when I do not respect yours. There are real issues in the real world, and sometimes agreeing and disagreeing isn't enough, it has to be determined what is actually right. Having the guts to stand up for what's right is often preferable to "agreeing to disagree" - which leads nowhere.

There is no place for relativism here. Gay Marriage either works or it doesn't. The majority has no right to control the minority in a way that doesn't affect them. Gay Marriage has been successfully legalised in various countries around the world, and it hasn't hurt a soul.

And that's pretty much the end of it.

If you TRULY believed in respecting everyone equally, then you wouldn't "disagree" with this, seperating your personal preference from what you think should happen.

So I'm going to take your "look at me I'm so respectful" with a bag or two of salt.

Infinite_Loser · 07-19-2006, 05:03 PM

Some issues some people will agree with you on and some they will not; However, you should still respect my opinion just like I respect yours. That's basically what it boils down to. It's as if you can't accept the fact that people have opinions which are differing to your own.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and no one needs to be insulted for them. Differing opinions are no reason to be abrasive, rude and just flat out beligerent.

You instantly attack anyone who holds an opinion which you don't agree with. Why that is well... I really don't know.

Charlatan · 07-19-2006, 05:35 PM

This thread had died a troubled, put relatively painless, death.

The revival has been nothing but a lurching zombie in flames.

Beating a dead horse is never a good thing. All it does is make your arms tired.

Thread Closed.

analog · 07-20-2006, 02:10 AM

This thread is a great example of when one person gets just a little too personal, and then one or two others spend the entire rest of the thread whining and crying about it, rather than attempting to steer it in a better direction or just hitting their back button and not continuing to bait the person who "started it".

If you want to complain about someone's tactics, report their post using the "report this post" link on the post itself, and keep us informed, don't continue to make post after post telling the person how you're done talking to them. Because you aren't. You had no intentions to actually stop arguing or else you'd have said your peace and not posted again. When you post "i'm not going to argue with..." 3 times in a row to the other person's subsequent responses, you're still arguing with them.

And this thread was actually going really well for a bit there. Shame.

07-01-2006, 08:44 AM	#164 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Yes, marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman. The fact that this is the current definition is in no way a legitimate reason not to redefine the word __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

07-18-2006, 07:16 PM	#167 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Kittie Rose, please stick around... I like what I am reading. Cheers! __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

07-19-2006, 07:20 AM	#171 (permalink)
pornclerk Insane Location: Ontario, Canada	I don't really care what people do behind their bedroom doors, but what really bothers me about gay marriage is the fact that they cannot reproduce. Of course there are other ways that they can raise children, like adoption, but those are often difficult and expensive to come by. If it is too difficult for a couple then they may decide not to do it. __________________ Who wants a twig when you can have the whole tree?

07-19-2006, 12:45 PM	#177 (permalink)
THGL Psycho Location: Louisville, KY	Here's my 2 cents: Am I against gay marriage? Yes. Am I against a civil union between two same-sex people? Not at all. Marriage is a union, in the eyes of God, between a man and a woman. Period. The only way to make "gay marriage" legal is for the churches to accept homosexuals... but that'll probably never happen in our lifetimes. The word "marriage" is what's causing all the uproar. It's a religious term and all the ultra conservatives will fight with every ounce of strength (and money) they have to keep it from happening. If the homosexual community would fight for "same-sex civil unions" they'd face a less-daunting task than fighting for "gay marriage". I believe that if two people want to "legally" join and have all the rights, protections, benefits, etc. that they receive then they should have every right to no matter their sexual preference. __________________ "The truth is merely an excuse for lack of imagination." - Garak

07-19-2006, 04:27 PM	#182 (permalink)
Kittie Rose Upright	Wait, I don't get that. Oh, logical fallacies! You just took a Debating 101! Amirite? Amirite? His argument is clearly based on two huge fallacies. That's not nitpicking. It's pointing out the entire premise for his argument is wrong. If we can't use logic because it's an "emotional" argument, what CAN we use? This is my problem with arguing on the internet in general - facts and logic become suspended just so some hypothetical moron can have an opinion. If you want to know why I seem so "hostile" that's exactly why. Logic is there for a reason. Fallacies don't determine the whole nature of the universe, but they do point out invalid reasoning. Somethings are just plain wrong and we need to accept that. Last edited by Kittie Rose; 07-19-2006 at 04:30 PM..

07-19-2006, 12:33 AM	#169 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	Well said Kittie Rose. I've read two of your posts and I like you a lot already. Gilda

07-19-2006, 11:20 AM	#176 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	1) Marriage has benefits. 2) Two adults fall in love, get married, and receive those benefits. Two other adults fall in love, aren't allowed to get married and don't receive those benefits. 3) If one person, couple or group doesn't get the benefits another person, couple or group gets (because of 'differences'), then that's discrimination. I'm not sure sure where the breakdown in 'logic' is occuring in some of these posts. If you don't agree with #1, then I could see a person thinking "no problem, what's the big deal?". But #1 is demonstrably false. Gilda gave a great (partial) list earlier in this thread. #1 is just simple fact, and I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise. #2 also seems like simple fact. It stands on point 1, but it's sort of the premise everyone accepts to have this conversation - gay people can't get married. #3 seems to be where the stickiness is. This also hinges on point 1. It seems people want to argue against point 3, while ignoring point 1. That doesn't really fly, does it? I'm certainly no master of logic, but this doesn't seem that complicated.

07-19-2006, 03:05 PM	#181 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	Are you on the debate team, Kittie? Did you just take logic? Did you find a textbook on logical fallacies wedged underneath your couch? For someone who got after Infinite for nitpicking, you're sure being picky about responding to his posts and making sure every logical fallacy is identified and used with exacting precision. We're having a discussion on an emotionally charged issue. Carving a swath through it with perfectly constructed treatises on logic isn't going to help us much. I'm the first to concede, as I made evident throughout this thread, that, to me, there is a fundamental disconnect in Infinite's adamant stance against gay marriage and his contention that he has no problems with gays. So I, and everyone else, I think, stopped posting, because attacking that point over and over didn't move the discussion anywhere. We'd made our points and that was that. I don't understand where re-hashing 5 pages of thread has gotten us. If Infinite was looking to be convinced, he has ample evidence to allow him to change his mind. If you were looking for his reasoning, you have opportunity to read several pages of it. I guess your tone and how you've gone after Infinite feels to me like you're looking for a fight in an effort to force everyone to "listen to logic so many of the 'blurry lines' would becoem [sic] distinct." Though in principle I agree with you, your approach is very hostile, and I can't figure out why.

07-19-2006, 04:49 PM	#184 (permalink)
Kittie Rose Upright	There definitely isn't any point in debating with someone who refuses to adhere to basic logic. Logic rarely kills anyone- lack of logic has, however, as stupid, arrogant decisions are often made that cost lives. There's more to life than "respecting opinions", and it doesn't make you a better person just for claiming to "respect my opinion" when I do not respect yours. There are real issues in the real world, and sometimes agreeing and disagreeing isn't enough, it has to be determined what is actually right. Having the guts to stand up for what's right is often preferable to "agreeing to disagree" - which leads nowhere. There is no place for relativism here. Gay Marriage either works or it doesn't. The majority has no right to control the minority in a way that doesn't affect them. Gay Marriage has been successfully legalised in various countries around the world, and it hasn't hurt a soul. And that's pretty much the end of it. If you TRULY believed in respecting everyone equally, then you wouldn't "disagree" with this, seperating your personal preference from what you think should happen. So I'm going to take your "look at me I'm so respectful" with a bag or two of salt. Last edited by Kittie Rose; 07-19-2006 at 04:54 PM..

07-19-2006, 05:03 PM	#185 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	Some issues some people will agree with you on and some they will not; However, you should still respect my opinion just like I respect yours. That's basically what it boils down to. It's as if you can't accept the fact that people have opinions which are differing to your own. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and no one needs to be insulted for them. Differing opinions are no reason to be abrasive, rude and just flat out beligerent. You instantly attack anyone who holds an opinion which you don't agree with. Why that is well... I really don't know. __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 07-19-2006 at 05:06 PM..

07-19-2006, 05:35 PM	#186 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	This thread had died a troubled, put relatively painless, death. The revival has been nothing but a lurching zombie in flames. Beating a dead horse is never a good thing. All it does is make your arms tired. Thread Closed. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 07-19-2006 at 05:39 PM..

07-20-2006, 02:10 AM	#187 (permalink)
analog Banned	This thread is a great example of when one person gets just a little too personal, and then one or two others spend the entire rest of the thread whining and crying about it, rather than attempting to steer it in a better direction or just hitting their back button and not continuing to bait the person who "started it". If you want to complain about someone's tactics, report their post using the "report this post" link on the post itself, and keep us informed, don't continue to make post after post telling the person how you're done talking to them. Because you aren't. You had no intentions to actually stop arguing or else you'd have said your peace and not posted again. When you post "i'm not going to argue with..." 3 times in a row to the other person's subsequent responses, you're still arguing with them. And this thread was actually going really well for a bit there. Shame.