Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[StAquanis]

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.

But you would agree that it is indeed derogatory to call someone wrong though less then calling homosexuality wrong

[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.

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

But you would agree that it is indeed derogatory to call someone wrong though less then calling homosexuality wrong

Why would we agree to that, since we don't?

[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.

But you would agree that it is indeed derogatory to call someone wrong though less then calling homosexuality wrong

Derogatory? I don't know. We disagree, I say you're wrong. That's not implying you're a bad person, or a thief or a criminal or ... what have you. I do happen to think you are wrong here. It's not an insult.

[Treznor]

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

As I said, whether or not you recognize that we've called you on it is irrelevant. But you've done nothing to validate your argument, which means your arguments really do boil down to "because I said so." You've spoken a lot about "objective reality" while using subjective arguments to justify it, inherently defeating your own point.

[Muravyets]

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

You're not even right about that. Your argument is not formally correct. It is entirely comprised of logical fallacies, including, but not limited to, such classics as No True Scotsman (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily narrow the body of evidence to suit your conclusion), False Dichotomy (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily restrict the options available for debate, again to suit your conclusion), and Strawman (by which you have attempted to claim that your opponents are arguing against objective standards of right and wrong, when in fact no one has done that at all).

Formally, your argument is a laughable mess.

[Vesser]

StAquanis

Please list any possible way gay marriage could harm someone in a way straight marriage cannot, as I asked you two pages ago. If you cannot, your argument is invalid.

[Muravyets]

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.

Me too. In particular, I know some gays who have no sense of humor at all and thus never sound funny.

[StAquanis]

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

You're not even right about that. Your argument is not formally correct. It is entirely comprised of logical fallacies, including, but not limited to, such classics as No True Scotsman (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily narrow the body of evidence to suit your conclusion), False Dichotomy (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily restrict the options available for debate, again to suit your conclusion), and Strawman (by which you have attempted to claim that your opponents are arguing against objective standards of right and wrong, when in fact no one has done that at all).

Formally, your argument is a laughable mess.

This was my original post:
New to the dicussion
by StAquanis » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:33 am

Someone may have already put forth this argument( i didn't go all the post)but, I think that the union between a man and a women is the very definition of marriage meaning that any other union is not a marriage whether a state agrees or not. I believe that society is built by strong families and most the social problems in a society can be attributed to weak ones. By families I am referring to those built by procreation which i think is the real purpose of marriage(commitment and love are important but they are not purposes). Though many married couples do not reproduce it does not change the purpose.The argument is a pragmatic one, it is good for humanity and society to uphold heterosexual marriage because of the importance of natural an stable families. I don't think this and issue of equality( in the U.S. at least) because the gay man and the straight man are protected by the same rights. They both can marry any women and inversely neither can marry should a man. Rights are determined by humanity not sexuality.

[StAquanis]

StAquanis

Please list any possible way gay marriage could harm someone in a way straight marriage cannot, as I asked you two pages ago. If you cannot, your argument is invalid.

thats not my argument

[Vesser]

StAquanis

Please list any possible way gay marriage could harm someone in a way straight marriage cannot, as I asked you two pages ago. If you cannot, your argument is invalid.

thats not my argument

...

What is your argument then, if you don't mind me asking? 'Cause it just seems like that's all you've been saying.

[StAquanis]

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

As I said, whether or not you recognize that we've called you on it is irrelevant. But you've done nothing to validate your argument, which means your arguments really do boil down to "because I said so." You've spoken a lot about "objective reality" while using subjective arguments to justify it, inherently defeating your own point.

That simply not true I said that objective reality is self-evident to deny objective reality is a contradiction

[Farnhamia]

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

As I said, whether or not you recognize that we've called you on it is irrelevant. But you've done nothing to validate your argument, which means your arguments really do boil down to "because I said so." You've spoken a lot about "objective reality" while using subjective arguments to justify it, inherently defeating your own point.

That simply not true I said that objective reality is self-evident to deny objective reality is a contradiction

And we disagree with your definition of "objective reality," since it seems to us to be based on religious teachings. We say that you're wrong.

[Muravyets]

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

As I said, whether or not you recognize that we've called you on it is irrelevant. But you've done nothing to validate your argument, which means your arguments really do boil down to "because I said so." You've spoken a lot about "objective reality" while using subjective arguments to justify it, inherently defeating your own point.

That simply not true I said that objective reality is self-evident to deny objective reality is a contradiction

Did you say "objective reality"? Once again:

So an objective standard does not exist? It that an objective fact of is that just your opinion

Once again, and for the last time, you don't get to dress up your personal prejudices as objective facts and wrap yourself in the mantle of objective rightness. When you do so, you are lying, and it's really really obvious. You know perfectly well that your claims of objectivity are false -- you have made comments in some of your posts that reveal this -- and that makes your repeated claims that your argument represents some kind of objective fact an obvious and bald-faced lie. And it makes your claims that if we disagree with you, we are denying the very existence of facts and objectivity nothing but bullshit.

That's it. We're done on this point. Any further claims by you that you are being objective and that we are denying facts will be met by a link back to this post.

[Muravyets]

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

You're not even right about that. Your argument is not formally correct. It is entirely comprised of logical fallacies, including, but not limited to, such classics as No True Scotsman (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily narrow the body of evidence to suit your conclusion), False Dichotomy (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily restrict the options available for debate, again to suit your conclusion), and Strawman (by which you have attempted to claim that your opponents are arguing against objective standards of right and wrong, when in fact no one has done that at all).

Formally, your argument is a laughable mess.

This was my original post:
New to the dicussion
by StAquanis » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:33 am

Someone may have already put forth this argument( i didn't go all the post)but, I think that the union between a man and a women is the very definition of marriage meaning that any other union is not a marriage whether a state agrees or not. I believe that society is built by strong families and most the social problems in a society can be attributed to weak ones. By families I am referring to those built by procreation which i think is the real purpose of marriage(commitment and love are important but they are not purposes). Though many married couples do not reproduce it does not change the purpose.The argument is a pragmatic one, it is good for humanity and society to uphold heterosexual marriage because of the importance of natural an stable families. I don't think this and issue of equality( in the U.S. at least) because the gay man and the straight man are protected by the same rights. They both can marry any women and inversely neither can marry should a man. Rights are determined by humanity not sexuality.

Like I said, a laughable mess of logical fallacies, and it's only gotten worse since then.

[StAquanis]

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

As I said, whether or not you recognize that we've called you on it is irrelevant. But you've done nothing to validate your argument, which means your arguments really do boil down to "because I said so." You've spoken a lot about "objective reality" while using subjective arguments to justify it, inherently defeating your own point.

That simply not true I said that objective reality is self-evident to deny objective reality is a contradiction

And we disagree with your definition of "objective reality," since it seems to us to be based on religious teachings. We say that you're wrong.

then what is objective reality

[StAquanis]

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

You're not even right about that. Your argument is not formally correct. It is entirely comprised of logical fallacies, including, but not limited to, such classics as No True Scotsman (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily narrow the body of evidence to suit your conclusion), False Dichotomy (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily restrict the options available for debate, again to suit your conclusion), and Strawman (by which you have attempted to claim that your opponents are arguing against objective standards of right and wrong, when in fact no one has done that at all).

Formally, your argument is a laughable mess.

This was my original post:
New to the dicussion
by StAquanis » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:33 am

Someone may have already put forth this argument( i didn't go all the post)but, I think that the union between a man and a women is the very definition of marriage meaning that any other union is not a marriage whether a state agrees or not. I believe that society is built by strong families and most the social problems in a society can be attributed to weak ones. By families I am referring to those built by procreation which i think is the real purpose of marriage(commitment and love are important but they are not purposes). Though many married couples do not reproduce it does not change the purpose.The argument is a pragmatic one, it is good for humanity and society to uphold heterosexual marriage because of the importance of natural an stable families. I don't think this and issue of equality( in the U.S. at least) because the gay man and the straight man are protected by the same rights. They both can marry any women and inversely neither can marry should a man. Rights are determined by humanity not sexuality.

Like I said, a laughable mess of logical fallacies, and it's only gotten worse since then.

show me the errors i am not claiming to be a logician so if you could help me out i'd appreciate it

[Vesser]

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

You're not even right about that. Your argument is not formally correct. It is entirely comprised of logical fallacies, including, but not limited to, such classics as No True Scotsman (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily narrow the body of evidence to suit your conclusion), False Dichotomy (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily restrict the options available for debate, again to suit your conclusion), and Strawman (by which you have attempted to claim that your opponents are arguing against objective standards of right and wrong, when in fact no one has done that at all).

Formally, your argument is a laughable mess.

This was my original post:
New to the dicussion
by StAquanis » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:33 am

Someone may have already put forth this argument( i didn't go all the post)but, I think that the union between a man and a women is the very definition of marriage meaning that any other union is not a marriage whether a state agrees or not.
So if the dictionary changes the definition of something, it's still the original definition?

I believe that society is built by strong families and most the social problems in a society can be attributed to weak ones.
Define weak.

By families I am referring to those built by procreation which i think is the real purpose of marriage(commitment and love are important but they are not purposes). Though many married couples do not reproduce it does not change the purpose.
What? If they're not procreating, they are "just as bad" as homosexual couples.

The argument is a pragmatic one, it is good for humanity and society to uphold heterosexual marriage because of the importance of natural an stable families.
Define stable.

I don't think this and issue of equality( in the U.S. at least) because the gay man and the straight man are protected by the same rights. They both can marry any women and inversely neither can marry should a man. Rights are determined by humanity not sexuality.

Okay, but you don't want to marry a man just like he doesn't want to marry a woman. That's like saying, "interracial relationships don't create an issue of equality. I can't marry a black woman that I'm not attracted to, and a black man can't marry a white woman that he is attracted to."

[StAquanis]

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

You're not even right about that. Your argument is not formally correct. It is entirely comprised of logical fallacies, including, but not limited to, such classics as No True Scotsman (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily narrow the body of evidence to suit your conclusion), False Dichotomy (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily restrict the options available for debate, again to suit your conclusion), and Strawman (by which you have attempted to claim that your opponents are arguing against objective standards of right and wrong, when in fact no one has done that at all).

Formally, your argument is a laughable mess.

This was my original post:
New to the dicussion
by StAquanis » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:33 am

Someone may have already put forth this argument( i didn't go all the post)but, I think that the union between a man and a women is the very definition of marriage meaning that any other union is not a marriage whether a state agrees or not.
So if the dictionary changes the definition of something, it's still the original definition?

I believe that society is built by strong families and most the social problems in a society can be attributed to weak ones.
Define weak.

By families I am referring to those built by procreation which i think is the real purpose of marriage(commitment and love are important but they are not purposes). Though many married couples do not reproduce it does not change the purpose.
What? If they're not procreating, they are "just as bad" as homosexual couples.

The argument is a pragmatic one, it is good for humanity and society to uphold heterosexual marriage because of the importance of natural an stable families.
Define stable.

I don't think this and issue of equality( in the U.S. at least) because the gay man and the straight man are protected by the same rights. They both can marry any women and inversely neither can marry should a man. Rights are determined by humanity not sexuality.

Okay, but you don't want to marry a man just like he doesn't want to marry a woman. That's like saying, "interracial relationships don't create an issue of equality. I can't marry a black woman that I'm not attracted to, and a black man can't marry a white woman that he is attracted to."

none of these are formal problems

[Muravyets]

show me the errors i am not claiming to be a logician so if you could help me out i'd appreciate it

I and every other poster in this thread already did that, several times over. Vesser did it again just now. Far from appreciating the effort, you haven't even responded honestly. You have simply attempted to plaster your absurd declarations and repetitive childish questions (how, how, how, how...etc) over them as if you could somehow smother opposition by redundancy and obtuseness. So when you say you would appreciate it if someone would show you your errors, that's another thing you are lying about.

[Vesser]

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

You're not even right about that. Your argument is not formally correct. It is entirely comprised of logical fallacies, including, but not limited to, such classics as No True Scotsman (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily narrow the body of evidence to suit your conclusion), False Dichotomy (by which you have attempted to arbitrarily restrict the options available for debate, again to suit your conclusion), and Strawman (by which you have attempted to claim that your opponents are arguing against objective standards of right and wrong, when in fact no one has done that at all).

Formally, your argument is a laughable mess.

This was my original post:
New to the dicussion
by StAquanis » Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:33 am

Someone may have already put forth this argument( i didn't go all the post)but, I think that the union between a man and a women is the very definition of marriage meaning that any other union is not a marriage whether a state agrees or not.
So if the dictionary changes the definition of something, it's still the original definition?

I believe that society is built by strong families and most the social problems in a society can be attributed to weak ones.
Define weak.

By families I am referring to those built by procreation which i think is the real purpose of marriage(commitment and love are important but they are not purposes). Though many married couples do not reproduce it does not change the purpose.
What? If they're not procreating, they are "just as bad" as homosexual couples.

The argument is a pragmatic one, it is good for humanity and society to uphold heterosexual marriage because of the importance of natural an stable families.
Define stable.

I don't think this and issue of equality( in the U.S. at least) because the gay man and the straight man are protected by the same rights. They both can marry any women and inversely neither can marry should a man. Rights are determined by humanity not sexuality.

Okay, but you don't want to marry a man just like he doesn't want to marry a woman. That's like saying, "interracial relationships don't create an issue of equality. I can't marry a black woman that I'm not attracted to, and a black man can't marry a white woman that he is attracted to."

none of these are formal problems

Okay, my patience is running dangerously thin. What the hell is a formal problem, and what does that have to do with your errors in logic and basic thinking?

[Hammurab]

show me the errors i am not claiming to be a logician so if you could help me out i'd appreciate it

I and every other poster in this thread already did that, several times over. Vesser did it again just now. Far from appreciating the effort, you haven't even responded honestly. You have simply attempted to plaster your absurd declarations and repetitive childish questions (how, how, how, how...etc) over them as if you could somehow smother opposition by redundancy and obtuseness. So when you say you would appreciate it if someone would show you your errors, that's another thing you are lying about.

Neo Art explained this to me one time.

There exists a set of individuals sufficiently literate to repeat a term they've heard used in discourse, but not sufficiently apt to understand how or why to use it. I've been lurking in this thread watching this guy, and its clear he doesn't really grasp many of the words he's using.

He may not be lying, he just doesn't understand and doesn't understand that he doesn't understand.

[Lithatrius]

St. Aquanis is failing a little because all of his justifications are "I think". I.e. he's forcing his opinion on other people.

[Banded Nations]

This seems to be a commonly torn subject between people so I will remain netural.

[Our L Lawliet]

This seems to be a commonly torn subject between people so I will remain netural.

You won't form an opinion because it's too controversial?

[Muravyets]

show me the errors i am not claiming to be a logician so if you could help me out i'd appreciate it

I and every other poster in this thread already did that, several times over. Vesser did it again just now. Far from appreciating the effort, you haven't even responded honestly. You have simply attempted to plaster your absurd declarations and repetitive childish questions (how, how, how, how...etc) over them as if you could somehow smother opposition by redundancy and obtuseness. So when you say you would appreciate it if someone would show you your errors, that's another thing you are lying about.

Neo Art explained this to me one time.

There exists a set of individuals sufficiently literate to repeat a term they've heard used in discourse, but not sufficiently apt to understand how or why to use it. I've been lurking in this thread watching this guy, and its clear he doesn't really grasp many of the words he's using.

He may not be lying, he just doesn't understand and doesn't understand that he doesn't understand.

That's a strong possibility. However, based on other people I've observed, I think it may be that he is ineptly copying the tactics of certain idealogues from whom he gets these notions. Certain types of fundamentalist preachers, radio pundits, editorialists, etc, who are real masters of the Limbaugh-Beck Method of Obfuscation.

That method typically uses the steps St Aquanis has used here: First declare your premise. Then declare that it is an objective fact. Then make your argument. Then, when people attack both your argument and your premise, counter-attack by misdirection -- focus entirely on your claim of factuality and attempt to put your opponents on the defensive by demanding that they account for "objective reality" and/or their supposed denial of it instead of addressing the actual topic of the debate.

It's a smoke and mirrors trick, and we can tell that by the fact that there is not a single reference -- let alone a link to an actual source -- to any information that would back up his claims of fact. No science, no scripture, nothing. Hell, after pages and pages of claiming he is a god-believing Christian, he even dared, in one post, to question the source and validity of "do unto others", demanding to know where that came from. He twists and turns like a con-artist running a monte game, and he can't even be bothered to avoid contradicting himself.

The method he is using in this thread is fundamentally dishonest. Misdirection, misleading, and deflection are its core, and it consists of nothing but lies. If he didn't originally make up the lies and if he doesn't even understand the lies as he repeats them, that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing honest in anything he has said here.

St Aquanis strikes me as someone who wants to be in the "in-crowd", who wants his faction to be right. Only he doesn't have the chops to carry their argument to victory. So he just copies the moves of the leaders he listens to, even though he can't really pull off their act.

And why would he do that? Because, like those people who can't really comprehend these issues, it sounded good to him. Of course, if he can't understand it that might account for why he likes it.