NationStates

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.

Seperates wrote:

Olthar wrote:How did you know that!?

Did the same thing to my cat. I figured it was standard Western practice.

Ah. It was a lucky guess then. That makes sense.

Lost heros wrote:

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.

Maybe you should have put it on my grocery list, babe. :b

Caladaria wrote:2. Source against your argument:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/wri ... ohomo.html

Just going to point out that this is only "bad" if it is assumed that homosexuality is wrong, which it is not.

Those numbers are also wrong. The APA has concluded that children of homosexual parents are not more likely to be homosexual.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf

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.

1) Marriage is nothing but a union recognised in law.
2) And that has fuckall to do with your point that "marriage denies a child proper parents".
3) Opinion is not fact. An appeal to popularity is not fact. Editorials are not fact.
4) Your definition of proper marriage is simply that. Yours. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one. Don't stop other from getting one because of your own regressive opinions.

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.

1) A logical fallacy may be true or false, yet it remains an invalid argument. I can claim that gay marriage is right because "my opponents kill babies", but whether it's true or not it still doesn't actually prove my original claim. It's an argument with a faulty structure.

2) I take it you have peer-reviewed research that proves it?

3) He's proving your simplistic assertion true (in certain regards), but the assertion itself remains irrelevant.

4) "Common sense" is the least common of senses, and science disagrees with you.

I like it, so long as they keep the religious exemptions.

The Republic of Llamas wrote:I like it, so long as they keep the religious exemptions.

Religious exemptions? Doesn't like something marriage law would need.

Ifreann wrote:

The Republic of Llamas wrote:I like it, so long as they keep the religious exemptions.

Religious exemptions? Doesn't like something marriage law would need.

It's a tough life for religious people, Iffy. No longer controlling civil marriage and what not.

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.

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.

Caladaria wrote:~Snip

1. Being a reactionary =/= in the right. Homosexual marriage has existed in Greece and even Rome in some aspects.
2. Any actual sites that can give a legitimate source to back it up?
3. So, since it isn't as important as racism, we shouldn't do it? Bullshit. Civil rights are civil rights, no matter the importance.
4. Hey, pretty boy, I can show you how homosexual intercourse works. But seriously, love and sexual attraction isn't measured by how many kids you can have.
5. Those "God's Laws" are illogical for one reason: I myself didn't choose to be attracted to other men. Why would some deity make me this way? Even if he did have a problem with it, fuck him. I don't think I'm inclined to listen to a malevolent tyrant who just so happens to be a god. Not to mention, I'm sure all those countries that have already legalized same-sex marriage are in a vile state of anarchy and civil war, correct?

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.

Not only is this an appeal to tradition, but it's also a flawed one, because for thousands of years, there was a number of cultures that approved of and had traditions of homosexual/transgender relations. Even the Catholic church used to bless same-sex unions (even though it wasn't strictly marriage). A few hundred latest years of European history "every society, since the dawn of civilization" do not make.

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.

Gay marriage does deny a child "proper" parents, but you are yet to prove that that would have a negative impact on their upbringing. There is no proof that there will be any sort of "psychological impact upon their development" that you have provided. I can say that children growing up in homosexual families are superior in playing the piano than their peers brought up in hetero families. Absurd and baseless? No more than your assertion.

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.

Gay rights do not only include marriage rights, but also freedom from discrimination, persecution, violence, etc. This argument operates on a false premise, and I don't see what it has to do with why gay marriage should be allowed at all. If gay marriage was indeed the only issue for the LGBT Rights crowd, would that be a reason alone to oppose it? Isn't that absurd?

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?

This major reason operates on a false premise. Marriage is not about procreation. No marriage code in the world, I am sure, requires intent or ability to procreate to create legal unions.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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/

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.

So you aren't prejudiced against homosexuals, you just don't want to give them equal rights.

You do realize that's precisely what being prejudiced against homosexuals means, right?

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.

We already have done that.

Banning polygamy overturned thousands of years of custom and precedent.
Banning selling your daughter overturned thousands of years of custom and precedent.
Banning slavery overturned thousands of years of custom and precedent.

Get an argument that isn't shitty, please.

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/

You do realize that reproduction is not the only reason people marry and that homosexuals can still have babies, right?

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/

Marriage is not a religious institution.

Not nowadays, at least. Nor is it primarily for procreation.

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....

Here's the thing. Essentially, what you are attempting to do is tell my friends, people whom I care about, whom I have grown up with throughout the years with, that they are not allowed to make legal associations with each other, because it is 'wrong'. This is the same bullshit that happened in the South between inter-racial couples. If you define their relationship as second-class, inferior in the eyes of the law, 'wrong', 'bad', then people will believe it. And when people believe it, they will see them as an 'other', a 'freak', 'abnormal'... and people fear what they do not understand... and then they lash out at it. As long as it is defined as 'second-class' it will be seen as second class along with the people associated with it. And that is the pure essence of the Jim Crow laws. Separate is inherently un-equal.

I am for granting compensation for slavery and our treatment of the native population, because their compensation is long overdue. And I am for granting the right for my friends to marry.

So I don't care who you quote. I don't care how much of an 'expert' they are. They don't know my friends, so they can't say shit.

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.

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.

You are just prejudiced against them having the exact same human rights as everybody else, because god forbid we grant same-sex couples spousal benefits and joint custody of their children.

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.

Impractical how?

Caladaria wrote:I am only opposed to gay marriage.

I'm grateful you do not oppose our very existence, that's for sure, but insisting on denying me the human right to marry is still a tad bit inhumane.

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.

Of course not. Not everybody is empathetic enough to see beyond the happiness of themselves and their peers.

Caladaria wrote:Thousands of years of custom and precedent would be overturned.

Just like slavery, institutionalized misogyny, child labour, feudalism, bans on interreligious marriages, etc.

Tradition is not necessarily a good thing, and preserving tradition because it is tradition is not only circular thinking, but it is also irresponsible.

Caladaria wrote:And also, you keep on disregarding my sources and points because of reliance on authority.

I'm pretty sure that was the first time I called you out on appealing to authority.

Caladaria wrote:However, the arguments presented in these sources are valid.

Not really. They are other people's versions of your own arguments.

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/

That somebody makes an awful lot of already thoroughly debunked claims and irrelevancies. It misrepresents the arguments in favour of same-sex marriage, makes assertions without proof and claiming the opposite to be illogical without actually demonstrating it, and appeals to traditions (both existent and inextistent).

Truth be told, I find that somebody's incoherent ramblings a lot more offensive than those of, say, Scott Lively, because he/she/they constantly claims to bear no ill will against gay people while constantly demeaning the value of same-sex couples and their children and refusing to recognize actual reasons for the legalization fo same-sex marriage besides love.

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.

Caladaria wrote: However, I only rely upon what is in the right.

The right is right because it's the right? Circular logic.

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.

Your definition of "in the right" is as subjective as the opposing arguments. Actually, no, it is more so given that the pro-gay marriage side actually has historical fact regarding the legal union on their side.

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.

The funny thing is, these sorts of arguments have been used before - in order to deny people the right to marry outside their race.

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.

If they are religious, they would well to know that many of the religious heroes were polygamists.