Scotland to legalize Gay Marriage

[Joshua Truksa]

Here is the problem with this. Marriage is a word deeply rooted in the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions.

No, it's not. Marriage is a universal concept over which no religion has any copyright.

If you insist that marriage is merely a civil institution, then why don't we just take the word "marriage" out of the legal system and consider everyone as having a civil union?

Because there's no pressing need to do that. Asides from discrimination against some minorities, a problem that society and the state are already addressing, the current system for regulating relationships and families works just fine with civil marriage.

This idea of removing marriage from secular discourse seems rather childish, a scorched earth policy of sorts in the face of religious organizations losing their grip on secular institutions.

I'm sorry, but I consider someone shouting "Your deeply held faith is bigoted!" anything but tolerant.

Then you don't understand what the word "tolerance" means. Tolerance is not exemption from criticism.

Here in the United States, we have "corporate personhood," as many other English common law countries do as well.

As do many Continental law countries, actually. What does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

A lot of people disagree with it but it actually makes sense if you look at it.

Again, what does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

Anyway, why shouldn't corporations be allowed to "marry?"

Not the topic of this debate, Mr. Red Herring.

They already effectively do, they just call it a "merger" instead of a "marriage."

Oh, now I see where this is going.

Also, one of the largest problems with this is that you can't patent a precedent.

Whatever do you mean, I wonder?

Whether you like it or not, same-sex "marriage" will be used as an argument of precedent for the legalization of both polygamy and possibly even lowering the age of consent and recognizing "civil unions," if you will, between owners and their pets.

Yeah, I saw this bullshit coming.

I'm sorry, Mr. Slippery Slope, but whether the same arguments used to defend same-sex marriage (by the way, I find your use of quotations over the word marriage insulting, but at least it shows your true colours) can be used in favour of polyamory, bestiality (unlikely, since pets are not people, genius) or child molestation (really stretching it there, buddy) does not in any way invalidate the arguments. It's like claiming that the arguments in favour to giving the vote to women could be used in favour of giving the vote to pets. It's irrelevant. It doesn't actually affect the legitimacy of those arguments. I'm sorry, but that was one piece of shit of a fallacy you committed.

I am sure that someone will accuse that assertion as being a slippery slope,

And rightfully so.

but I am also sure that in 1967 if I said that the legalization of interracial marriage would be used as an argument of precedent for the legalization of same-sex "marriage," I would be accused of employing a slippery slope argument, but that is exactly what has happened.

And yet the veracity and validity of those arguments was not affected in the least. But please, do keep appealing to that fallacy. It looks good on you.

People also say that this is acceptable because it was "acceptable in the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece."

I don't. What Rome and Greece accepted is irrelevant to the discussion on current issues, much in the same way that what the Holy Roman Empire accepted is irrelevant. However, I will admit that I do appeal to the cases of Rome and Greece (along with China and Japan) when, for example, a certain individual claims that homosexuality has "never been accepted by any civilization", or that "acceptance of homosexuality causes the collapse of civilizations".

If this were true, it should be obvious that this is then regress, not progress.

Not necessarily a bad thing if said regress yields positive results.

It is a regression to a pre-Christian morality.

A morality that sometimes had it merits, and sometimes did not.

The truth of the idea that same-sex "marriage" was practised before Christianity or Judaism, however, I can find no substantiation for.

That's half-true. Evidence of same-sex unions previous to the rise of Abrahamic religions is somewhat vague and/or ambiguous... but it's there.

The only same-sex "marriage" known to have taken place in ancient times was that of Nero and one of his eunuchs.

Not quite true.

Ancient Greece and Rome were also more tolerant of pederasty than today's society, and NAMbLA likes to point that out just as much as the LGBT lobby likes to point out that they were more tolerant of homosexuality.

Ancient Greece and Rome were not the only civilizations that endorsed consensual intercourse between adults and minors in certain contexts. By today's standards, I'm pretty sure many women who were married under an Abrahamic faith in ancient times would have been considered victims of child molestation and sexual slavery in our times.

People who support same-sex "marriage" but then dogmatically say that pederasty or pædophilia cannot be validated because of the consent issue don't seem to realize that before the 20th Century the age of sexual consent in most English common law states and countries was only 10 years old, including the United States where the ages ranged from 7 in Delaware to 12 in a few others, with most setting it at 10.

I'd ask for a source... but I'm not going to entertain your fallacies any further.

The age of sexual consent was only raised because of the influence of the feminist progressive movement in the late 19th Century, the same crowd that pushed for prohibition.

Well, something good came out of that movement, didn't it?

In the late 1920's and later the 1950's, there were "Homosexual Rights" groups, though they were obscure and most people never heard of them. You have the same situation today with zoophile rights groups. There is going to be a huge argument over who and what can consent to sexual activity in the future and the road to acceptance for other sexual minorities will have been cleared of many obstacles by the homosexual movement, whether the homosexuals like it or not, or want to acknowledge it or not.

So fucking what? That still doesn't invalidate arguments for same-sex marriage.

I suggest everyone read Peter Singer's essay, "Heavy Petting" (http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/2001----.htm) and learn about the group E.F.A.- (http://equalityforall.net/), as well as watch the film "Coming Soon" by Sir Tijn Po (http://www.comingsoon.cz/).

No. I said I was not going to entertain your fallacies any further, and I will uphold that promise.

I would also suggest people learn about Peter Tatchell, one of the most well known human rights and "gay rights" activists in the UK, and his and his respective organizations' ties to pro-pædophile movements- (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z0zUDbYaj2).

Disregarding the fact that the Daily Fail is a source of dubious reliability, this still does not actually invalidate any arguments for same-sex marriage. If true, it would only demonstrate that one gay rights activist from the UK had ties to pro-pædophile movements. One activist out of thousands.

The links between the homosexual movement and the pro-pædophile movement, and their levels of mutual support between prominent members of the respective groups, is sometimes simply astounding.

In the early days? Yeah, some gay rights activists were also in favour of lowering the age of consent. So fucking what? Are you still trying to milk this fallacy? Stop.

Just... stop.

Your fallacy is dead.

This fallacy of yours... this fallacy...

This fallacy is no more.

It has ceased to be.

It's expired and gone to meet its maker.

This is a late fallacy.

It's a stiff.

Bereft of life, it rests in peace.

If you hadn't nailed it to your post, it would be pushing up the daisies.

It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.

This is an ex-fallacy!

People on here will inevitably accuse me of being a "homophobe," but I am giving you facts and your problem shall be with them and not with me.

Indeed, you're not a homophobe.

No... You are a dishonest, manipulative man, who went to shameful lengths in his quest to insult our collective intelligence with one massive fallacy.

Unfortunately for you, I saw right through your bullshit, and now I'm going to sip on some jasmine tea to wash off your rancid taste, and read a few chapters of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms to cleanse my mind of the revolting memory of this pathetic excuse for a post that I had to suffer through.

Thank you, and good night.

Indeed, four sources in my post (which you of course ignored), and not a single one in yours. I also did not see a necessity in employing expletives to get my point across. And I'm the illogical one? LOL.

[Neutraligon]

Have you ever tried to surpress all sexual urges because you feel perverted?

Thought not. Depression and self hatred aren't fun. So stop pretending like you're helping, and recognize how harmful what you're advocating actually is.

God is the only real way of curing depression and self-hatred. I don't think anyone can truly feel fulfilled with their life without him.

Then God fails miserably considering the number of people who are clinically depressed. I know of plenty of atheists who lead perfectly fulfilling lives. They are also some of the kindest people I have met.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Have you ever tried to surpress all sexual urges because you feel perverted?

Thought not. Depression and self hatred aren't fun. So stop pretending like you're helping, and recognize how harmful what you're advocating actually is.

God is the only real way of curing depression and self-hatred. I don't think anyone can truly feel fulfilled with their life without him.

Wow. You know nothing of depression, nor self hatred. I would stay away from these topics because you have not a god damn clue what you are saying. Don't insult me.

[Wisconsin9]

So what exactly is the difference between this and marriage?

The name. It seems to be a matter of principle, which could go both ways, since principally, giving gay marriages a different classification is still a form of discrimination, albeit a rather mild form.

I know. I was mostly just trying to get him to say it. Mate in three, and you just blew my gambit.

[Othelos]

Not everyone is your religion. Not everyone considers that sin.

Obviously, which is why I must try to change that fact. That's the whole point of me debating here...try plant the seeds of righteousness in a few of you. Even if it does not blossom today...maybe later in your life.

Religion is irrelevant to the secular institution of civil marriage.

[Solaray]

The name. It seems to be a matter of principle, which could go both ways, since principally, giving gay marriages a different classification is still a form of discrimination, albeit a rather mild form.

I know. I was mostly just trying to get him to say it. Mate in three, and you just blew my gambit.

I just felt like saying it myself.

Whoops.

[Phoenixfox]

"You can't make me eat my veggies, mommy! It's oppression! Raah!"

Ah but not eating your veggies can cause quite significant physical harm, and in addition we are not talking about children. Marriage between those of the same sex does not cause harm, and is not dealing with children.

If only you knew how wrong you are on both accounts

[Wisconsin9]

I know. I was mostly just trying to get him to say it. Mate in three, and you just blew my gambit.

I just felt like saying it myself.

Whoops.

Eh, it's fine.

Ah but not eating your veggies can cause quite significant physical harm, and in addition we are not talking about children. Marriage between those of the same sex does not cause harm, and is not dealing with children.

If only you knew how wrong you are on both accounts

Care to explain how it causes harm and why exactly children are important in this?

[Neutraligon]

Ah but not eating your veggies can cause quite significant physical harm, and in addition we are not talking about children. Marriage between those of the same sex does not cause harm, and is not dealing with children.

If only you knew how wrong you are on both accounts

So what actual physical does a marriage between two loving people cause. And no, people over the age of majority are not children.

[Krazakistan]

Ah but not eating your veggies can cause quite significant physical harm, and in addition we are not talking about children. Marriage between those of the same sex does not cause harm, and is not dealing with children.

If only you knew how wrong you are on both accounts

Care to prove him wrong without using arguments from a 2500 year old book written by men?

[Phoenixfox]

"You can't make me eat my veggies, mommy! It's oppression! Raah!"

There is substantial evidence that vegetables are good for your health. Christianity has an old book. They are not equal.

There is tons of evidence that knowing God is good for you Ask any believer how he has changed their life...

[Othelos]

Have you ever tried to surpress all sexual urges because you feel perverted?

Thought not. Depression and self hatred aren't fun. So stop pretending like you're helping, and recognize how harmful what you're advocating actually is.

God is the only real way of curing depression and self-hatred. I don't think anyone can truly feel fulfilled with their life without him.

God *was* the reason for my depression and self hatred.

Accepting myself and leaving Christianity were two of the best desicions I could have made in my life.

[Utceforp]

Ah but not eating your veggies can cause quite significant physical harm, and in addition we are not talking about children. Marriage between those of the same sex does not cause harm, and is not dealing with children.

If only you knew how wrong you are on both accounts

Go on, tell us how gay people marrying harms people. I'm in the mood for a laugh.

[Liriena]

Have you ever tried to surpress all sexual urges because you feel perverted?

Thought not. Depression and self hatred aren't fun. So stop pretending like you're helping, and recognize how harmful what you're advocating actually is.

God is the only real way of curing depression and self-hatred. I don't think anyone can truly feel fulfilled with their life without him.

Research suggests you're wrong, and dangerously so.

[Ainin]

Ah but not eating your veggies can cause quite significant physical harm, and in addition we are not talking about children. Marriage between those of the same sex does not cause harm, and is not dealing with children.

If only you knew how wrong you are on both accounts

He is perfectly right. Gay marriage causes absolutely no harm to anyone (it hurts the feelings of some social conservatives, but too bad).

[Neutraligon]

There is substantial evidence that vegetables are good for your health. Christianity has an old book. They are not equal.

There is tons of evidence that knowing God is good for you Ask any believer how he has changed their life...

There is plenty of reason to believe knowing someone God is bad for you, ask any Jew who lived through the Spanish inquisition, Pogroms, and the Holocaust. Ask any one of those people how knowing God has changed their lives.

[Phoenixfox]

Of course not. Forced conversion is not conversion at all.

I do not intent to shove anything down throats, just show you the path and allow you follow it if you so choose.

And then, if they don't choose to, you start trying to push.

Not quite, just trying to shine some light on the right path for you

[Gaelic Celtia]

Ah but not eating your veggies can cause quite significant physical harm, and in addition we are not talking about children. Marriage between those of the same sex does not cause harm, and is not dealing with children.

If only you knew how wrong you are on both accounts

Tell met, have you ever met one with homosexual parents?

Clearly you have not. Stop being on a high horse and thinking you know what it does to children and people because clearly, you have not a flying fucking clue about anything you have been saying.

[Liriena]

There is substantial evidence that vegetables are good for your health. Christianity has an old book. They are not equal.

There is tons of evidence that knowing God is good for you Ask any believer how he has changed their life...

That's anedcotal. Hardly a reliable source.

[Othelos]

There is substantial evidence that vegetables are good for your health. Christianity has an old book. They are not equal.

There is tons of evidence that knowing God is good for you Ask any believer how he has changed their life...

Ask any ex-believer how much better they feel now.

The truth is, 'God' isn't for everyone.

[The Black Forrest]

Ah but not eating your veggies can cause quite significant physical harm, and in addition we are not talking about children. Marriage between those of the same sex does not cause harm, and is not dealing with children.

If only you knew how wrong you are on both accounts

Of course you have evidence for the claim?

What am I saying? Of course you don't.

[Krazakistan]

There is substantial evidence that vegetables are good for your health. Christianity has an old book. They are not equal.

There is tons of evidence that knowing God is good for you Ask any believer how he has changed their life...

On the contrary, you can ask numerous atheists how becoming an atheist has benefited their life.

[Neutraligon]

And then, if they don't choose to, you start trying to push.

Not quite, just trying to shine some light on the right path for you

No, what you are doing is pushing them down a rather disgusting path.

[Phoenixfox]

Of course not. Forced conversion is not conversion at all.

I do not intent to shove anything down throats, just show you the path and allow you follow it if you so choose.

Except that by trying to prevent the recognition of marriage between homosexuals you are forcing your religion down other people's throats.

By defiling the sanctity of marriage, you are forcing the homosexual lifestyle into my religion.

[Wytenigistan]

Good.