Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[StAquanis]

I can barely believe StA is doing the "if I was wrong my feelings would be hurt so you're just as intolerant and bigoted as you say I am for denying gay marriage rights!" defense.

I'm just saying we should respect one another

We respect others. You don't respect their right to marry who they choose. You're argument's a joke

how

I'm just saying the hunt can be freely defined from person to person. i cant tell anyone there not hurt by something. A marriage gay or strait could hurt anyone and is thus irrelevant to truth

It's been explained a while ago that you can't argue against gay marriage because it might hurt someone unless you can demonstrate it would hurt someone in ways that straight marriage wouldn't. Arguing that denying someone the right to be a bigot will hurt them just earns derisive laughter.

how

Okay, really? Not even a question mark? Is this really then a question of how efficiently you can continue to gain responses?

The question was, How is my argument wrong

You said homosexual marriage hurts people.

It doesn't. I have never seen a homosexual marriage injure, either mentally, physically, or emotionally, anyone. Now, marriage I have, but if that's the case let's just ban marriage.

Just because you have not seen it doesn't mean it is not possible, And besides that was a response to an objection not the argument

[Tmutarakhan]

I agree, Everyone disagrees with my premises but the argument is formally correct

No, you have not made any kind of rational argument. If you think you have one, you have certainly failed to convey it. Why don't state, like in a numbered list, what your "premises" are and what "conclusion" you think follows from them?

[Vesser]

I can barely believe StA is doing the "if I was wrong my feelings would be hurt so you're just as intolerant and bigoted as you say I am for denying gay marriage rights!" defense.

I'm just saying we should respect one another

We respect others. You don't respect their right to marry who they choose. You're argument's a joke

how

I'm just saying the hunt can be freely defined from person to person. i cant tell anyone there not hurt by something. A marriage gay or strait could hurt anyone and is thus irrelevant to truth

It's been explained a while ago that you can't argue against gay marriage because it might hurt someone unless you can demonstrate it would hurt someone in ways that straight marriage wouldn't. Arguing that denying someone the right to be a bigot will hurt them just earns derisive laughter.

how

Okay, really? Not even a question mark? Is this really then a question of how efficiently you can continue to gain responses?

The question was, How is my argument wrong

You said homosexual marriage hurts people.

It doesn't. I have never seen a homosexual marriage injure, either mentally, physically, or emotionally, anyone. Now, marriage I have, but if that's the case let's just ban marriage.

Just because you have not seen it doesn't mean it is not possible, And besides that was a response to an objection not the argument

Fine, give me possibilities that aren't included with heterosexual marriage (E.G spousal abuse, cheating, etc.)

[Flameswroth]

I don't respect bigots, and I don't have to.

I agree, although my personal line of thought extends to...well, everyone. You don't have to respect anyone, let alone people you disagree with. I think, though, that constructive discussion requires a mutual respect. After all, you get a black panther and a kkk member in the same room, they're not going to be engaging in thought provoking debate...

If you want a straightforward answer to why gay marriage should be allowed, the simplest and best explanation is that no one can provide a good reason to prohibit it. In the end, nothing else matters.

I'm not entirely sure I'm down with this logic, but I'm not sure how else you'd approach a lot of this stuff.

The analogy that jumps to my mind is a dry, loam-filled riverbed during the fall. I can look at that and, with my limited knowledge, discern there's no good reason not to walk down that river bed. As I walk down it, I accidentally step on a copperhead moving under the leaves, and it gives me a nasty bite. From then on in, I know that there's a good reason to avoid riverbeds covered in loam during the fall.

Now, how does that factor in? Well, from our collective perspective at this point in time there isn't a good reason to prohibit SSM. However, without some prior knowledge of how that might impact us, it's silly to use that as logic to say we should do it, because there's no way to tell.

On the flip side, many a autumn walk would have gone untaken if people let unknown variables stop them, and most end in an acceptable way. The same could be said of this. So ultimately, the only thing one who accepted this sort of thing, or saw no reason not to accept it, can do is try it and see.

I mean after all, if massive natural disasters began to occur, or a new disease began to spread, or whatever the case may be, we can always repeal it again if need be.

[Farnhamia]

I don't like gay people. They are weak and funny sounding.

Indeed? I know several whom I daresay could disabuse you of that opinion quite forcefully.

[StAquanis]

I can barely believe StA is doing the "if I was wrong my feelings would be hurt so you're just as intolerant and bigoted as you say I am for denying gay marriage rights!" defense.

I'm just saying we should respect one another

We respect others. You don't respect their right to marry who they choose. You're argument's a joke

how

You don't believe in gay marriage.

As such, you do not wish two loving, consenting couples to get married.

That is disrespectful.

its not calling them derogatory names would be saying something is wrong is not disrespectful if i said 1+1=4 would you be disrespect of correcting me? Call me stupid thats whats disrespectful

[Treznor]

You said homosexual marriage hurts people.

It doesn't. I have never seen a homosexual marriage injure, either mentally, physically, or emotionally, anyone. Now, marriage I have, but if that's the case let's just ban marriage.

Just because you have not seen it doesn't mean it is not possible, And besides that was a response to an objection not the argument

You still made the argument. And just because it's possible that people might abandon technology and revert to hunter-gather lifestyles doesn't mean it's going to happen. You can't base your argument on what might be, because there's no end of possibilities in the human condition. In order to argue against something like gay marriage, you have to present evidence of what is likely, and be willing to back it up.

[Zeppy]

I don't like gay people. They are weak and funny sounding.

Indeed? I know several whom I daresay could disabuse you of that opinion quite forcefully.

Not Karsol.

[StAquanis]

I can barely believe StA is doing the "if I was wrong my feelings would be hurt so you're just as intolerant and bigoted as you say I am for denying gay marriage rights!" defense.

I'm just saying we should respect one another

We respect others. You don't respect their right to marry who they choose. You're argument's a joke

how

You don't believe in gay marriage.

As such, you do not wish two loving, consenting couples to get married.

That is disrespectful.

its not calling them derogatory names would be saying something is wrong is not disrespectful if i said 1+1=4 would you be disrespectful by correcting me? Call me stupid thats whats disrespectful

[Vesser]

I don't like gay people. They are weak and funny sounding.

Indeed? I know several whom I daresay could disabuse you of that opinion quite forcefully.

I know a few who have a sense of humor.

[Tekania]

If same-sex marriage remains illegal... It allows for the continued damage of the legal position of same-sex partners living in what would normally be marital situations.

If same-sex marriage is legalized; it has no impact upon the legal operations of opposite-sex marriage.

As such, there is no "harm" (damage) done to SSM opponents by legalizing SSM, but there is "harm" (damage) continued unon same-sex partners in the continuing and denying of SSM.

[StAquanis]

You said homosexual marriage hurts people.

It doesn't. I have never seen a homosexual marriage injure, either mentally, physically, or emotionally, anyone. Now, marriage I have, but if that's the case let's just ban marriage.

Just because you have not seen it doesn't mean it is not possible, And besides that was a response to an objection not the argument

You still made the argument. And just because it's possible that people might abandon technology and revert to hunter-gather lifestyles doesn't mean it's going to happen. You can't base your argument on what might be, because there's no end of possibilities in the human condition. In order to argue against something like gay marriage, you have to present evidence of what is likely, and be willing to back it up.

No thats not the argument i am making is irreverent what hurts people, but i am done with this for today I've got something to do if you go back though these post you'll see that the argument presented is at least formally correct you can deny the premises but it is logically sound

[Farnhamia]

I don't like gay people. They are weak and funny sounding.

Indeed? I know several whom I daresay could disabuse you of that opinion quite forcefully.

I know a few who have a sense of humor.

In this thread, given some of the posts, and the fact that I don't know Communist Phanafia, I'll assume serious.

[Unchecked Expansion]

I can barely believe StA is doing the "if I was wrong my feelings would be hurt so you're just as intolerant and bigoted as you say I am for denying gay marriage rights!" defense.

I'm just saying we should respect one another

We respect others. You don't respect their right to marry who they choose. You're argument's a joke

how

You don't believe in gay marriage.

As such, you do not wish two loving, consenting couples to get married.

That is disrespectful.

its not calling them derogatory names would be saying something is wrong is not disrespectful if i said 1+1=4 would you be disrespectful by correcting me? Call me stupid thats whats disrespectful

You say they are wrong, unnatural and going against 'objective purpose' (whatever that is). That's pretty derogatory

[Vesser]

I don't like gay people. They are weak and funny sounding.

Indeed? I know several whom I daresay could disabuse you of that opinion quite forcefully.

I know a few who have a sense of humor.

In this thread, given some of the posts, and the fact that I don't know Communist Phanafia, I'll assume serious.

About six minutes ago he made a thread titled A Bit Intoxicated. Quick search would have brought you do that.

[Vesser]

Fine, give me possibilities that aren't included with heterosexual marriage (E.G spousal abuse, cheating, etc.)

Go ahead.

[Treznor]

If you want a straightforward answer to why gay marriage should be allowed, the simplest and best explanation is that no one can provide a good reason to prohibit it. In the end, nothing else matters.

I'm not entirely sure I'm down with this logic, but I'm not sure how else you'd approach a lot of this stuff.

The analogy that jumps to my mind is a dry, loam-filled riverbed during the fall. I can look at that and, with my limited knowledge, discern there's no good reason not to walk down that river bed. As I walk down it, I accidentally step on a copperhead moving under the leaves, and it gives me a nasty bite. From then on in, I know that there's a good reason to avoid riverbeds covered in loam during the fall.

Now, how does that factor in? Well, from our collective perspective at this point in time there isn't a good reason to prohibit SSM. However, without some prior knowledge of how that might impact us, it's silly to use that as logic to say we should do it, because there's no way to tell.

On the flip side, many a autumn walk would have gone untaken if people let unknown variables stop them, and most end in an acceptable way. The same could be said of this. So ultimately, the only thing one who accepted this sort of thing, or saw no reason not to accept it, can do is try it and see.

I mean after all, if massive natural disasters began to occur, or a new disease began to spread, or whatever the case may be, we can always repeal it again if need be.

Well, that's the thing. There are practically infinite possibilities open to us, given the complexities of human thought and relationships. If someone comes up with an idea or an action that has no inherent consequences for anyone else, then it's up to us to find a good reason to prohibit it. Otherwise, all we're doing is suppressing someone else.

Just because I can think of something bad that might happen doesn't mean it's likely, or that it's even related. In the case of gay marriage, relationships can go bad for a number of reasons. None of them can be laid exclusively at the feet of homosexuality, which makes them bad arguments for why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.

[Treznor]

You said homosexual marriage hurts people.

It doesn't. I have never seen a homosexual marriage injure, either mentally, physically, or emotionally, anyone. Now, marriage I have, but if that's the case let's just ban marriage.

Just because you have not seen it doesn't mean it is not possible, And besides that was a response to an objection not the argument

You still made the argument. And just because it's possible that people might abandon technology and revert to hunter-gather lifestyles doesn't mean it's going to happen. You can't base your argument on what might be, because there's no end of possibilities in the human condition. In order to argue against something like gay marriage, you have to present evidence of what is likely, and be willing to back it up.

No thats not the argument i am making

You didn't argue that humans could abandon technology and live like cave-men, no. But that's an example of proposing something bad (we shouldn't promote new technology because it might make us revert to cave-men!) without backing it up for why it's a viable argument. You've made lots of responses in this thread that simply boil down to "because I said so," and we've called you on it. Whether or not you recognize that is irrelevant.

[Farnhamia]

I don't like gay people. They are weak and funny sounding.

Indeed? I know several whom I daresay could disabuse you of that opinion quite forcefully.

I know a few who have a sense of humor.

In this thread, given some of the posts, and the fact that I don't know Communist Phanafia, I'll assume serious.

About six minutes ago he made a thread titled A Bit Intoxicated. Quick search would have brought you do that.

Why on earth would I search for him? I did see the thread, all locked down nice and tight, so okay, I'll cut him some slack. I like jokes, I really do, but they kind of have to be funny.

[StAquanis]

I can barely believe StA is doing the "if I was wrong my feelings would be hurt so you're just as intolerant and bigoted as you say I am for denying gay marriage rights!" defense.

I'm just saying we should respect one another

We respect others. You don't respect their right to marry who they choose. You're argument's a joke

how

You don't believe in gay marriage.

As such, you do not wish two loving, consenting couples to get married.

That is disrespectful.

its not calling them derogatory names would be saying something is wrong is not disrespectful if i said 1+1=4 would you be disrespectful by correcting me? Call me stupid thats whats disrespectful

You say they are wrong, unnatural and going against 'objective purpose' (whatever that is). That's pretty derogatory

So it is then derogatory for you to call me wrong

[Unchecked Expansion]

I can barely believe StA is doing the "if I was wrong my feelings would be hurt so you're just as intolerant and bigoted as you say I am for denying gay marriage rights!" defense.

I'm just saying we should respect one another

We respect others. You don't respect their right to marry who they choose. You're argument's a joke

how

You don't believe in gay marriage.

As such, you do not wish two loving, consenting couples to get married.

That is disrespectful.

its not calling them derogatory names would be saying something is wrong is not disrespectful if i said 1+1=4 would you be disrespectful by correcting me? Call me stupid thats whats disrespectful

You say they are wrong, unnatural and going against 'objective purpose' (whatever that is). That's pretty derogatory

So it is then derogatory for you to call me wrong

You're opinions are wrong. You're existence and lifestyle? I'd hesitate to say that.

[Treznor]

You say they are wrong, unnatural and going against 'objective purpose' (whatever that is). That's pretty derogatory

So it is then derogatory for you to call me wrong

You keep trying to establish equivalence where it doesn't exist. Pointing out your opinion is wrong is nowhere near as derogatory as claiming someone's sexual orientation is unnatural.

[Farnhamia]

You say they are wrong, unnatural and going against 'objective purpose' (whatever that is). That's pretty derogatory

So it is then derogatory for you to call me wrong

You keep trying to establish equivalence where it doesn't exist. Pointing out your opinion is wrong is nowhere near as derogatory as claiming someone's sexual orientation is unnatural.

And that because of that sexual orientation, that person only qualifies for a subset of the rights of other people with a different orientation.

[Greal]

Denying the right of two people to marry is stupid. Enough said.

[StAquanis]

You said homosexual marriage hurts people.

It doesn't. I have never seen a homosexual marriage injure, either mentally, physically, or emotionally, anyone. Now, marriage I have, but if that's the case let's just ban marriage.

Just because you have not seen it doesn't mean it is not possible, And besides that was a response to an objection not the argument

You still made the argument. And just because it's possible that people might abandon technology and revert to hunter-gather lifestyles doesn't mean it's going to happen. You can't base your argument on what might be, because there's no end of possibilities in the human condition. In order to argue against something like gay marriage, you have to present evidence of what is likely, and be willing to back it up.

No thats not the argument i am making

You didn't argue that humans could abandon technology and live like cave-men, no. But that's an example of proposing something bad (we shouldn't promote new technology because it might make us revert to cave-men!) without backing it up for why it's a viable argument. You've made lots of responses in this thread that simply boil down to "because I said so," and we've called you on it. Whether or not you recognize that is irrelevant.

You have not called me on anything, I've already said this isn't the case if am appealing to something outside of myself that i believe exist in reality then its not because i said so