The Truth and Light wrote:I swear, I could explain the definition of "legal contract between two adult citizens" one thousand times and it would never stick.
Maybe you forgot the glue.
Advertisement
by Lost heros » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:31 pm
The Truth and Light wrote:I swear, I could explain the definition of "legal contract between two adult citizens" one thousand times and it would never stick.
by Olthar » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:31 pm
by The Truth and Light » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:32 pm
by Regnum Dominae » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:34 pm
Caladaria wrote:2. Source against your argument:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/wri ... ohomo.html
by Ainin » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:35 pm
Caladaria wrote:Ainin wrote:There's so many genetic fallacies in there it hurts. But let's give it a shot.
1) Your definition of marriage is wrong. 2000 years ago, before Jesus and company came to town, homosexual marriage existed.
2) That's bullshit, and has been scientifically debunked.
3) Yes it is. The right to gay marriage is part of the right to equal treatment under the law.
4) A blatant appeal to nature, and a false one at that.
1) I referred to homosexual practices in ancient Greece in my arguments! You clearly did not fully understand what I was presenting. And it describes homosexual relationships, not actual unions recognized in law.
2. Source against your argument:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/wri ... ohomo.html
3. Gay marriage is not a issue like the continuing inequality between African-Americans and Caucasians:
http://micheletravis.hubpages.com/hub/A ... rimination
http://www.charismamag.com/life/culture ... vil-rights
http://caapus.org/black-pastors-gay-rig ... il-rights/
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/poll-55 ... vil-rights
4. I know that animals have been homosexual: however, my statement is that in general, genders are the basis from which proper marriage was derived.
by Liriena » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:35 pm
Caladaria wrote:I typed this myself. Why would I copy and paste? I present my arguments in my own writing. I do not merely copy blindly what others have written.
1) A logical fallacy...yet my argument is correct.
2. Two dads would not be the proper parents.
3. You're proving my point!
4) An appeal to science...and an appeal to common sense.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by The Republic of Llamas » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:37 pm
by Ifreann » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:38 pm
The Republic of Llamas wrote:I like it, so long as they keep the religious exemptions.
by The Truth and Light » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:39 pm
by Liriena » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:40 pm
Caladaria wrote:Ainin wrote:There's so many genetic fallacies in there it hurts. But let's give it a shot.
1) Your definition of marriage is wrong. 2000 years ago, before Jesus and company came to town, homosexual marriage existed.
2) That's bullshit, and has been scientifically debunked.
3) Yes it is. The right to gay marriage is part of the right to equal treatment under the law.
4) A blatant appeal to nature, and a false one at that.
1) I referred to homosexual practices in ancient Greece in my arguments! You clearly did not fully understand what I was presenting. And it describes homosexual relationships, not actual unions recognized in law.
2. Source against your argument:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/wri ... ohomo.html
3. Gay marriage is not a issue like the continuing inequality between African-Americans and Caucasians:
http://micheletravis.hubpages.com/hub/A ... rimination
http://www.charismamag.com/life/culture ... vil-rights
http://caapus.org/black-pastors-gay-rig ... il-rights/
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/poll-55 ... vil-rights
4. I know that animals have been homosexual: however, my statement is that in general, genders are the basis from which proper marriage was derived.
This is also in response to Liriena's rebuttal.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by New Frenco Empire » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:41 pm
Caladaria wrote:~Snip
by Urmanian » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:45 pm
Caladaria wrote:1) Gay marriage would upset the whole definition of marriage For thousands of years, ever since Man first gained consciousness of himself as a being, the relationship that has been established is between men and women. Men and women are biologically and psychologically compatible to each other: the means by which they procreate and the means by which they fall in love with each other thus shows that there is a natural background thus, to the formation of the institution of marriage. Over time, this was formalized: every society, since the dawn of civilization, has acknowledged marriage between men and women. Now, of course homosexuality has existed throughout history, and it was a practice in the societies of Greece and Rome: but in the end, heterosexual marriage was confirmed in its position, especially during the Middle Ages and in fact, all the way up into the twentieth century. Historical considerations provide great support for the logic that argues for why gay marriage is wrong. If you legalized it, you would be upsetting the established balance: that is, the way would be opened to absurd relationships, such as bestiality, and eventually, even to polygamy. Gay marriage cannot be allowed. Marriage is for one man and one woman.
Caladaria wrote:
2) Marriage denies a child proper parents For some strange reason, it seems as if homosexual couples adopt varying roles: for example, the one acts "feminine" while the other acts "masculine". However, even with this, the child raised by that couple will not be raised in the proper manner. He or she will not have a true, proper father, and (in the case of male homosexual couples) a true, proper mother. This has a psychological impact upon their development, as they do not have the counterbalancing male and female influences in their lives (at least from their parents). The child is left in conflict with himself and is left wondering about his "parents". This will eventually impact the course of their own relationships.
Caladaria wrote:3)Gay rights are not the same as civil rights Gay rights advocates claim that their movement for the legalization of gay marriage is the same as civil rights. This is false. Sexual orientation and race are of two completely different planes. African-Americans, for example, were enslaved and put under Jim Crowism for a very long time in the United States. Jews, for example, were persecuted on the basis of their race and religion. In my view, slavery, racial discrimination, and genocide are of a far more serious nature then of merely denying homosexuals the right to marriage. Besides this, people of varying races, and different genders can marry, without being in contradiction to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. Homosexual couples, however, would not follow this, as they are unable to procreate and have children of their own (unless if they use artificial techniques, in the case of female couples, or adopt) and have never been the norm of relationships. Thus, I would march, with all of my being, for justice for those who have been lynched or shut out of a store because of a sign saying "No Coloreds allowed". I would never march for something which is against the laws of society and against common sense.
Caladaria wrote:4) The BIOLOGICAL aspect! My fourth and final major reason for why gay marriage is wrong results from common sense. As stated in my first reason, marriage between men and women developed because it was universally recognized that men and women were biologically and psychologically compatible to each other. This is not the case for homosexual couples: two homosexual men or two homosexual women cannot procreate a child. This in itself argues against gay marriage! If they cannot have children, then why should they be in a legally recognized union?
by Caladaria » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:47 pm
Liriena wrote:Caladaria wrote:
1) I referred to homosexual practices in ancient Greece in my arguments! You clearly did not fully understand what I was presenting. And it describes homosexual relationships, not actual unions recognized in law.
2. Source against your argument:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/wri ... ohomo.html
3. Gay marriage is not a issue like the continuing inequality between African-Americans and Caucasians:
http://micheletravis.hubpages.com/hub/A ... rimination
http://www.charismamag.com/life/culture ... vil-rights
http://caapus.org/black-pastors-gay-rig ... il-rights/
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/poll-55 ... vil-rights
4. I know that animals have been homosexual: however, my statement is that in general, genders are the basis from which proper marriage was derived.
This is also in response to Liriena's rebuttal.
1) Stop appealing to tradition. It's a lazy, and ultimately irrelevant argument.
2) Your "source" is not only blatantly biased, but it's also lacking in bibliography. What is this social research he speaks of? Who are the authors? What was their method of study?
3) First source is irrelevant, the second is Charisma (a notoriously vitriolic anti-LGBT magazine with a history of incoherent and uninformed bullshit), the third only expresses the personal opinions of certain pastors, and the fourth is a poll (in other words, an appeal to numbers).
4) You are using another appeal to tradition as an ad hoc to save face, now that your appeal to nature has been debunked.
by Liriena » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:51 pm
Caladaria wrote:And this is by a doctor.
Caladaria wrote:Now, you grant homosexuals the right to gay marriage, but why where African Americans never granted compensation for slavery? And why do African Americans continue to be discriminated? Surely, you don't believe that Jim Crowism and lynchings are the same as homosexuals fighting for the right to marriage....
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Caladaria » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:56 pm
Liriena wrote:Caladaria wrote:And this is by a doctor.
Appeal to authority. Your argument is dismissed.Caladaria wrote:Now, you grant homosexuals the right to gay marriage, but why where African Americans never granted compensation for slavery? And why do African Americans continue to be discriminated? Surely, you don't believe that Jim Crowism and lynchings are the same as homosexuals fighting for the right to marriage....
Considering the fact that LGBT people are still being discriminated by society and the law in most of the world, and often blatantly persecuted by both, yeah, pretty much. For several centuries, while people of African descent were enslaved, homosexuals were executed, often in gruesome ways.
That being said, slavery and compensations, as well as still-existing discrimination against African Americans, is not the topic of this thread.
by Mavorpen » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:01 pm
Caladaria wrote:Now, I have said repeatedly that I am not prejudiced against homosexuals. They are equal to everyone else in this society, but because of biological considerations, it would be impractical to allow them to marry. I am only opposed to gay marriage.
Caladaria wrote:Homosexuals are capable of accomplishing great achievements in this world, and of making great contributions to society. But I don't have to support them being able to marry. Thousands of years of custom and precedent would be overturned.
by Rocopurr » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:02 pm
Caladaria wrote:Liriena wrote:Appeal to authority. Your argument is dismissed.
Considering the fact that LGBT people are still being discriminated by society and the law in most of the world, and often blatantly persecuted by both, yeah, pretty much. For several centuries, while people of African descent were enslaved, homosexuals were executed, often in gruesome ways.
That being said, slavery and compensations, as well as still-existing discrimination against African Americans, is not the topic of this thread.
Now, I have said repeatedly that I am not prejudiced against homosexuals. They are equal to everyone else in this society, but because of biological considerations, it would be impractical to allow them to marry. I am only opposed to gay marriage. Homosexuals are capable of accomplishing great achievements in this world, and of making great contributions to society. But I don't have to support them being able to marry. Thousands of years of custom and precedent would be overturned. And also, you keep on disregarding my sources and points because of reliance on authority. However, the arguments presented in these sources are valid. This source is by somebody who bears no ill will against gay people, but disagrees with gay marriage: http://www.summatix.com/logical-argumen ... -marriage/
by Blasveck » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:03 pm
Caladaria wrote:Liriena wrote:Appeal to authority. Your argument is dismissed.
Considering the fact that LGBT people are still being discriminated by society and the law in most of the world, and often blatantly persecuted by both, yeah, pretty much. For several centuries, while people of African descent were enslaved, homosexuals were executed, often in gruesome ways.
That being said, slavery and compensations, as well as still-existing discrimination against African Americans, is not the topic of this thread.
Now, I have said repeatedly that I am not prejudiced against homosexuals. They are equal to everyone else in this society, but because of biological considerations, it would be impractical to allow them to marry. I am only opposed to gay marriage. Homosexuals are capable of accomplishing great achievements in this world, and of making great contributions to society. But I don't have to support them being able to marry. Thousands of years of custom and precedent would be overturned. And also, you keep on disregarding my sources and points because of reliance on authority. However, the arguments presented in these sources are valid. This source is by somebody who bears no ill will against gay people, but disagrees with gay marriage: http://www.summatix.com/logical-argumen ... -marriage/
by Seperates » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:07 pm
Caladaria wrote:The second source may be anti-gay in your view, but it brilliantly presents my argument. I would venture to say that this whole movement for gay marriage is nothing like the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, here is one of your supporters, one who actually supports same-sex unions, but nevertheless believes gay marriage is not the same as the civil rights movement: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... -struggle/
Yet another source to support my arguments: http://www.cc2w.org/gay-marriage-is-not ... heres-why/
And this is by a doctor.
Now, you grant homosexuals the right to gay marriage, but why where African Americans never granted compensation for slavery? And why do African Americans continue to be discriminated? Surely, you don't believe that Jim Crowism and lynchings are the same as homosexuals fighting for the right to marriage....
by Caladaria » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:10 pm
by Liriena » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:12 pm
Caladaria wrote:Liriena wrote:Appeal to authority. Your argument is dismissed.
Considering the fact that LGBT people are still being discriminated by society and the law in most of the world, and often blatantly persecuted by both, yeah, pretty much. For several centuries, while people of African descent were enslaved, homosexuals were executed, often in gruesome ways.
That being said, slavery and compensations, as well as still-existing discrimination against African Americans, is not the topic of this thread.
Now, I have said repeatedly that I am not prejudiced against homosexuals.
Caladaria wrote:They are equal to everyone else in this society, but because of biological considerations, it would be impractical to allow them to marry.
Caladaria wrote:I am only opposed to gay marriage.
Caladaria wrote:Homosexuals are capable of accomplishing great achievements in this world, and of making great contributions to society. But I don't have to support them being able to marry.
Caladaria wrote:Thousands of years of custom and precedent would be overturned.
Caladaria wrote:And also, you keep on disregarding my sources and points because of reliance on authority.
Caladaria wrote:However, the arguments presented in these sources are valid.
Caladaria wrote:This source is by somebody who bears no ill will against gay people, but disagrees with gay marriage: http://www.summatix.com/logical-argumen ... -marriage/
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Geilinor » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:16 pm
Caladaria wrote:
And I was talking about the institution of marriage itself.....Polygamy, sex slavery, etc. were horrid abuses, but marriage between a man and a woman is not.
by Geilinor » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:17 pm
Caladaria wrote: However, I only rely upon what is in the right.
by Valendia » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:18 pm
Caladaria wrote:Is there not a single person on this website who is in the right? Not a single person who disagrees with gay marriage? And the people here are very uncivilized. A civilized forum would not see such vitriol spewed out. Reasonable people would see the points in my argument.
And I was talking about the institution of marriage itself.....Polygamy, sex slavery, etc. were horrid abuses, but marriage between a man and a woman is not. Logical fallacies, contradictions, and so on and so forth: this is what I have been confronted with. And always the case that one who opposes gay marriage is automatically a homophobe or a bigot. Why would the focus be on gay marriage: it should be on economic and educational equality and on fulfilling the dream of Dr. King's speech. Slavery and Jim Crowism were far more horrid then anything experienced by homosexuals in this country: then of course, you would say that you are right and I am wrong. I know of Matthew Shephard and of others who were murdered because they were homosexuals. Now, I believe that he and others should never have died, and that they were born as Nature made them. Homosexuals are equal to everyone else, with the same rights as everyone else...But gay marriage does not fall under that definition. You will of course say that I rely too much on authority, on tradition, and on religion. However, I only rely upon what is in the right. These are my own beliefs, and I stand firmly behind them.
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” This is the essential basis of my beliefs.
by Menassa » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:18 pm
Geilinor wrote:Caladaria wrote:
And I was talking about the institution of marriage itself.....Polygamy, sex slavery, etc. were horrid abuses, but marriage between a man and a woman is not.
To those who are excluded, it is an abuse, just like the banning of interracial marriage in the South was an abuse.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Corporate Collective Salvation, Eurocom, Gorutimania, Love Peace and Friendship, Ors Might, Port Carverton, The Golden Pig, The Jerichowan Country, Tiami, Tungstan, Umeria
Advertisement