Gay Marriage page 97

3421 posts

Flag Post

MyTie, you seem to think you can maintain morality and invalidated prejudice at the same time as long as you don’t advocate for institutional prejudice. I disagree.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by MyTie:

I do not believe homosexuals should be discriminated against by government. Anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want, without government benefit, or penalty. I do not endorse anyone else’s marriage, homosexual or heterosexual. That’s for them, and their deity, not me.

Then that is incompatible with your repeated claims that we should just let the status quo stand. That is what you have been saying each time you enter this thread. “Live and let live”. Leave them alone and let them fumble about under the same reduced rights they have now. That’s no different from a practical standpoint as willfully propagating discrimination, as the end result is the same.

Ugh, vika. Knock it off. I never indicated that we should let the status quo stand. I believe we should live and let live, and I don’t believe the law does that. I don’t believe the law right now, as it is, is right. I believe it should be changed… HOLY SHIT IM GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN!!!! …to say that any person should be allowed to marry any other consenting person. Are you going to keep putting words into my mouth? Why don’t you knock that shit off? It’s getting old.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

MyTie, you seem to think you can maintain morality and invalidated prejudice at the same time as long as you don’t advocate for institutional prejudice. I disagree.

I advocate for the repeal of prejudice, even against that which I disagree with. Can you understand this? Can you read the words I’ve been posting over and over? I have my doubts.

 
Flag Post

I do not believe homosexuals should be discriminated against by government. Anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want, without government benefit, or penalty. I do not endorse anyone else’s marriage, homosexual or heterosexual. That’s for them, and their deity, not me.

That seems sufficiently tolerant to me. Although would you then also agree that, if homosexuals were allowed to marry, benefits currently offered to heterosexual couples should be curtailed or even entirely stopped?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I do not believe homosexuals should be discriminated against by government. Anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want, without government benefit, or penalty. I do not endorse anyone else’s marriage, homosexual or heterosexual. That’s for them, and their deity, not me.

That seems sufficiently tolerant to me. Although would you then also agree that, if homosexuals were allowed to marry, benefits currently offered to heterosexual couples should be curtailed or even entirely stopped?

I completely agree. There is no need for government to subsidize marriage, or any other personal, or religious, institution. Again, I assert that I do not support other people’s marriages, homosexual or heterosexual. None of this relates to my personal views that homosexuality is wrong, just in the way I believe government should be non discriminating.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

MyTie, you seem to think you can maintain morality and invalidated prejudice at the same time as long as you don’t advocate for institutional prejudice. I disagree.

I advocate for the repeal of prejudice, even against that which I disagree with. Can you understand this? Can you read the words I’ve been posting over and over? I have my doubts.

Cool, good for you, you don’t want the government to be prejudice. Why are you prejudiced against homosexuals?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

MyTie, you seem to think you can maintain morality and invalidated prejudice at the same time as long as you don’t advocate for institutional prejudice. I disagree.

I advocate for the repeal of prejudice, even against that which I disagree with. Can you understand this? Can you read the words I’ve been posting over and over? I have my doubts.

Cool, good for you, you don’t want the government to be prejudice. Why are you prejudiced against homosexuals?

Against homosexuality. Homosexuals are people who decide to do what it is that they do, and that’s on them. It isn’t of consequence to me, nor do I care what they do. I have myself to worry about. You certainly won’t find actions in my history that are discriminatory against homosexuals. You’ll find my history equally devoid of approval of their actions. Live and let live.

On a side note, your demand for an explanation of my beliefs is as comical to me as a demand from me to you to explain how you hold God’s commands in contempt would be comical to you. Stop trying to attack how I think. Peer pressure isn’t an effective way to change my mind.

 
Flag Post

I’ll bet you eat shellfish and wear mixed threads.

By the way, distinguishing between the act and individual of homosexuality is absurd and offensive. I don’t dislike black people, I just dislike that people are black. Being homosexual isn’t a choice, and acting on homosexuality isn’t wrong because it doesn’t hurt anyone and isn’t malicious. The behavior of homosexuality is part of being homosexual. A sexual predator is a bad person even if they don’t act on their sexual deviance. There is no comparable instance where a thing an individual cannot change about themselves is selectively different than their actions as that thing. It’s as if you’re not against bees, just their ability to sting. Not against cars, just against car accidents.

 
Flag Post

If his prejudice doesn’t interfere with government regulation – such as through voting or public activism, which as a preacher he’s well-placed for – then his prejudice should be irrelevant. If I – hypothetically – hate Jews, and refuse to be friends with any, or share meals or whatever with them, and tell other people that they killed Jesus, so long as I don’t argue that they should be stripped of their rights, or beaten up, or ghettoized, then my anti-semitism is similarly irrelevant.

Theoretically.

 
Flag Post

Oh, don’t be ridiculous. You certainly do not need religion to conclude that there is no gay right to get married.

People are drawn to numerous different dangerous and harmful things. Being attracted to people of the same sex is not particularly different, though, it does, like other things, present its own set of difficulties. Life long married sex is actually healthy for the spouses. I do not know what the physical downsides of lesbian sex are, but they don’t have these positive health side effects. Anal sex is harmful to the human body. And, yes, I know that some heterosexuals practice anal sex, that is beside the point. Thus, it could certainly make sense to tolerate anal sex, despite that fact that it is unhealthy. Of course we should warn people that anal sex is unhealthy and not pretend that it isn’t. Even bringing this up is often considered a low blow by people who watch these debates, but, as a matter of fact, it’s extremely biased to make that assertion. Also, it makes sense to reinforce these relationships that have the upside of life long heterosexual married love, which, also, has the incredible upside of reproduction attached to it.

Now, lurkers will note that attacks made against this thesis rely on, either insulting me, or marginalizing the goods of heterosexual sex in some way (such as pointing at the flaws in the population). Attached to this is usually and idealized version gay love, one this is, even, impossibly rare, especially impossibly rare for study (such as long lasting gay relationships that do not include sex outside with persons outside the couple).

 
Flag Post

Vague references to the negative effects of particular people getting married that applies to more than those particular people is not a thesis, it’s selective application of invalidated suppositions in order to imply logical coherency without actually containing any. For example, even if what you’re arguing is correct, which it isn’t, it isn’t much of a legal argument against homosexuality. You’re just asserting that sex is about procreation and that individual’s who’s primary sexual expression being potentially dangerous is a reason to abhor or mitigate the lifestyle. These are not objective arguments that could be applied to common law, they’re your opinion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Vague references to the negative effects of particular people getting married that applies to more than those particular people is not a thesis, it’s selective application of invalidated suppositions in order to imply logical coherency without actually containing any. For example, even if what you’re arguing is correct, which it isn’t, it isn’t much of a legal argument against homosexuality.

You mean that the fact that anal sex is harmful to the rectum and anus is not a legal argument against gay marriage… It also seems that your are challenging this assertion.

The assertion regarding the legal argument appears to be that even if this is true, we should be barred from doing the logical thing, which is refusing to call equal that which is inherently unequal.

 
Flag Post

First: Gay marriage is not buttsex.
Second: Straight people can have buttsex.
Third: Consenting adults can make decisions about their own personal risks.
Forth: Risks related to homosexual expression can be significantly mitigated and improved with education, far more than legislation could ever hope to provide.

You sound like the liberals who regulated the size of soda in New York. Personally police yourself.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

First: Gay marriage is not buttsex.
Second: Straight people can have buttsex.
Third: Consenting adults can make decisions about their own personal risks.
Forth: Risks related to homosexual expression can be significantly mitigated and improved with education, far more than legislation could ever hope to provide.

You sound like the liberals who regulated the size of soda in New York. Personally police yourself.

Now, notice how this response precisely reflects the logically failures that I asserted are common, necessary even, in asserting that gay marriage is some sort of legal necessity.

Originally posted by Beegum:

Oh, don’t be ridiculous. You certainly do not need religion to conclude that there is no gay right to get married.



Now, lurkers will note that attacks made against this thesis rely on, either insulting me, or marginalizing the goods of heterosexual sex in some way (such as pointing at the flaws in the population). Attached to this is usually and idealized version gay love, one this is, even, impossibly rare, especially impossibly rare for study (such as long lasting gay relationships that do not include sex outside with persons outside the couple).

Establishing the direct link necessary to craft a true argument in logic is not possible. Thus, the legal means of doing this is significantly different when the judges not considered liberal outright reject the notion of logic being used in this argument.

 
Flag Post

BSG uses Applied Logical Consistency! But it misses.
Beegum uses Genetic Fallacy! But it has no effect.

Am I being incoherent? You said that buttsex is your problem, and even acknowledged that buttsex can be had by straight people, but you didn’t explain how one group can be singled out for their sexual actions, but the other group cannot, despite the fact that many people in the homosexual community do not practice buttsex because they don’t feel the risks are worth the reward. You said that individual decisions to address risks related to sexual expression is not a right some individuals should have (again, selective application), but your obvious conservative values are in contradiction to this assertion. Nothing I said was a claim of my own, I was addressing your posts and you undercut them entirely.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

BSG uses Applied Logical Consistency! But it misses.
Beegum uses Genetic Fallacy! But it has no effect.

Am I being incoherent? You said that buttsex is your problem, and even acknowledged that buttsex can be had by straight people, but you didn’t explain how one group can be singled out for their sexual actions, but the other group cannot, despite the fact that many people in the homosexual community do not practice buttsex because they don’t feel the risks are worth the reward. You said that individual decisions to address risks related to sexual expression is not a right some individuals should have (again, selective application), but your obvious conservative values are in contradiction to this assertion. Nothing I said was a claim of my own, I was addressing your posts and you undercut them entirely.

I said:

Originally posted by Beegum:

Thus, it could certainly make sense to tolerate anal sex, despite that fact that it is unhealthy.

This is actually a tolerant position. What you are asserting is that I need to disengage from reality to the point that I can no longer discern the great positive role of heterosexual love in human ecology to define what marriage is.

 
Flag Post

What? So… your position is that homosexual marriage should be illegal because it’s unsafe, but we should tolerate buttsex (the unsafe part that only some of homosexuals express) simply because straight people have it as well? At this point I don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about. Can I get one single sentence on why gay people shouldn’t be able to get married? Kettle logic.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

What? So… your position is that homosexual marriage should be illegal because it’s unsafe, but we should tolerate buttsex (the unsafe part that only some of homosexuals express) simply because straight people have it as well? At this point I don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about. Can I get one single sentence on why gay people shouldn’t be able to get married?

Originally posted by Beegum:

… What you are asserting is that I need to disengage from reality to the point that I can no longer discern the great positive role of heterosexual love in human ecology to define what marriage is.

 
Flag Post

Holy shit, stop avoiding the argument. I read your posts, you didn’t address anything I said. I specifically addressed your points. You’re not making any sense. The thing you keep repeating is shifting the burden of proof and strawmanning my argument. Can you muster one single sentence without mixed comparisons that links your argument about risks to all gay marriage?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Holy shit, stop avoiding the argument. I read your posts, you didn’t address anything I said. I specifically addressed your points. You’re not making any sense. The thing you keep repeating is shifting the burden of proof.

If I tolerate anal sex, then I tolerate it for married people as well, but, I reject it as some good that is attained, because it is not positive. However, I recognize the unique goods that come from heterosexual love and sex, and I seek to guide and nurture these goods by providing a likewise unique structure supporting an idea of marriage that predates even history itself. Thus, even if these goods are not strictly provided by the institution of marriage, marriage, nonetheless guides and protects these unique qualities.

OR I COULD JUST SAY:

Originally posted by Beegum:

… What you are asserting is that I need to disengage from reality to the point that I can no longer discern the great positive role of heterosexual love in human ecology to define what marriage is.

 
Flag Post

Again, what? Something needs to contribute goods to society to be useful? What were you originally trying to say about homosexuality that makes it legally wrong in relation to harm/risk/buttsex? Another completely unrelated argument that doesn’t actually provide any premises, just conclusions.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Again, what? Something needs to contribute goods to society to be useful? What were you originally trying to say about homosexuality that makes it legally wrong in relation to harm/risk/buttsex? Another completely unrelated argument that doesn’t actually provide any premises, just conclusions.

You appear to have pointed out and rejected a reasonable assertion of the purpose of having a law. For what reason should we regulate and support gay love?

 
Flag Post

Burden of proof is on you. What reason should we bar gay people from getting married?

The arguments I think you’re making:
1. Anal sex doesn’t produce babies.
2. Anal sex has a higher risk of harm.

The reason these arguments aren’t valid is because they’re inconsistent:
1. Heterosexuals have sex that doesn’t produce babies either.
2. Taking personal risks are considered a paramount, flagship right in America, and in-particular, conservatives.
3. These points don’t address why homosexual marriage should continue to be unrecognized.

Correct me, specifically on these points, if I’m wrong. Stop changing the discussion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Burden of proof is on you. What reason should we bar gay people from getting married?

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Again, what? Something needs to contribute goods to society to be useful?

Thus, you are arguing that gay marriage is the logical conclusion because marriage is an illogical law.

I reject the notion that we need change marriage into an institutions without a readily discernible purpose.

 
Flag Post

Sex is not required for a legal marriage.
So, what the hell are you talking about?