Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[Hammurab]

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.

I'll buy that. What he's doing is at least disingenuous.

It actually kind of reminds me of the way the zombies started dancing together in the Thriller video, as if their undead confusion could only be harnessed into something useful by rhythmically herding them into a lockstep set of maneuvers that were uniform in style and vaguely threatening in content. Except this bunch of horseshit has no rhythm.

[Muravyets]

I'll buy that. What he's doing is at least disingenuous.

It actually kind of reminds me of the way the zombies started dancing together in the Thriller video, as if their undead confusion could only be harnessed into something useful by rhythmically herding them into a lockstep set of maneuvers that were uniform in style and vaguely threatening in content. Except this bunch of horseshit has no rhythm.

Can't even dance to it. It ain't good for nuthin'.

Yeah, I feel basically like I'm trying to have a debate, but my opponent is just playing Simon Says with someone who's not in the forum.

EDIT: But now it's almost 8pm and I have a room and half to clean before tomorrow morning, when my landlady is going to traipse through my apartment with a building inspector. My stove is dirty enough to have her look for ways to break my lease, so bye for now.

[Hammurab]

I'll buy that. What he's doing is at least disingenuous.

It actually kind of reminds me of the way the zombies started dancing together in the Thriller video, as if their undead confusion could only be harnessed into something useful by rhythmically herding them into a lockstep set of maneuvers that were uniform in style and vaguely threatening in content. Except this bunch of horseshit has no rhythm.

Can't even dance to it. It ain't good for nuthin'.

Yeah, I feel basically like I'm trying to have a debate, but my opponent is just playing Simon Says with someone who's not in the forum.

I do like this idea of just saying things and then insisting they are "objective reality" lacking any "formal problem".

"Marriage is good for one thing". See? That's "objective reality" now.

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

[Muravyets]

I'll buy that. What he's doing is at least disingenuous.

It actually kind of reminds me of the way the zombies started dancing together in the Thriller video, as if their undead confusion could only be harnessed into something useful by rhythmically herding them into a lockstep set of maneuvers that were uniform in style and vaguely threatening in content. Except this bunch of horseshit has no rhythm.

Can't even dance to it. It ain't good for nuthin'.

Yeah, I feel basically like I'm trying to have a debate, but my opponent is just playing Simon Says with someone who's not in the forum.

I do like this idea of just saying things and then insisting they are "objective reality" lacking any "formal problem".

"Marriage is good for one thing". See? That's "objective reality" now.

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

You're probably right.

[Gift-of-god]

....Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

That would make it even sweeter.

[Treznor]

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

What is subjective reality?

You make claims about objective reality. All we have to do is point out where you're wrong. We don't have to supply an alternative to objective reality, because we all have subjective perspectives. I can't tell you what objective reality is because I don't have a purely objective perspective. It's the same reason why you can't tell me what objective reality is, because you have your own subjective point of view.

[Tmutarakhan]

Call me stupid thats whats disrespectful

We are NOT calling you "stupid": we are calling your opinion "wrong" but, since we assume you are not stupid, you could re-think your opinion.
Now ME you are being disrespectful to: you are not calling my opinion wrong, you are calling my heart wrong, my sense of love and beauty, everything that is special to me you call wrong, and that is very disrespectful.

[Nobel Hobos]

How about adoption rights for single people, then? How about granting this particular government benefit of marriage, to an individual ?

Are you under the erroneous impression that single people who demonstrate the ability to care for a child cannot adopt?

It seems I have made the mistake of taking on faith the assertion that adoption in the US is denied to same-sex couples.

I shouldn't accept such things as true, just because they come from an ideological ally.

Is there any merit in the rest of that post you replied to ? I did switch to the example of adoption rights half-way through...

[Nobel Hobos]

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

Or you could try making a "character" who debates in good faith without ever resorting to parody or rhetorical questions.

Such a "character" would defeat the arguments of others regularly, yet win no sympathy for their opinions due to unbearable arrogance. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

[Vesser]

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

Or you could try making a "character" who debates in good faith without ever resorting to parody or rhetorical questions.

Such a "character" would defeat the arguments of others regularly, yet win no sympathy for their opinions due to unbearable arrogance. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

It's really funny, but I had the strangest feeling you were hinting at something. It must've been the air quotes.

[Hammurab]

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

Or you could try making a "character" who debates in good faith without ever resorting to parody or rhetorical questions.

Such a "character" would defeat the arguments of others regularly, yet win no sympathy for their opinions due to unbearable arrogance. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

I actually have debated that way several times, and evidently you fulfilled your own prediction and...failed to notice.

[United Dependencies]

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

Or you could try making a "character" who debates in good faith without ever resorting to parody or rhetorical questions.

Such a "character" would defeat the arguments of others regularly, yet win no sympathy for their opinions due to unbearable arrogance. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

I actually have debated that way several times, and evidently you fulfilled your own prediction and...failed to notice.

Speaking of homosexuality, how did that thing with your son turn out? Or was that someone elses's son?

[Hammurab]

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

Or you could try making a "character" who debates in good faith without ever resorting to parody or rhetorical questions.

Such a "character" would defeat the arguments of others regularly, yet win no sympathy for their opinions due to unbearable arrogance. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

I actually have debated that way several times, and evidently you fulfilled your own prediction and...failed to notice.

Speaking of homosexuality, how did that thing with your son turn out? Or was that someone elses's son?

It turns out he's not gay, he's just stylish. They caught him kissing all the girls in daycare.

[Muravyets]

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

Or you could try making a "character" who debates in good faith without ever resorting to parody or rhetorical questions.

Such a "character" would defeat the arguments of others regularly, yet win no sympathy for their opinions due to unbearable arrogance. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

I actually have debated that way several times, and evidently you fulfilled your own prediction and...failed to notice.

Speaking of homosexuality, how did that thing with your son turn out? Or was that someone elses's son?

It turns out he's not gay, he's just stylish. They caught him kissing all the girls in daycare.

Aww...little Don Juan Hammurab! You'll be a grandpa before you know it.

[United Dependencies]

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

Or you could try making a "character" who debates in good faith without ever resorting to parody or rhetorical questions.

Such a "character" would defeat the arguments of others regularly, yet win no sympathy for their opinions due to unbearable arrogance. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

I actually have debated that way several times, and evidently you fulfilled your own prediction and...failed to notice.

Speaking of homosexuality, how did that thing with your son turn out? Or was that someone elses's son?

It turns out he's not gay, he's just stylish. They caught him kissing all the girls in daycare.

Not only is he not gay he gets around too! Well not like that.

[Hammurab]

Aww...little Don Juan Hammurab! You'll be a grandpa before you know it.

Last month he toddled over to a woman (likely an off-duty stripper) in line at a Subway Sandwhich shop on Paradise in Vegas, and before I could stop him, he pulled up his shirt and dropped his pants. She started gushing at how adorable he was and asked if she could pick him up.

I hope the little fucker knows there is a limited window of time for that shit.

[Nobel Hobos]

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

Or you could try making a "character" who debates in good faith without ever resorting to parody or rhetorical questions.

Such a "character" would defeat the arguments of others regularly, yet win no sympathy for their opinions due to unbearable arrogance. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

I actually have debated that way several times, and evidently you fulfilled your own prediction and...failed to notice.

You have? Goodness! And I thought that was one of your "characters"! You poor thing.

[Nobel Hobos]

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

Or you could try making a "character" who debates in good faith without ever resorting to parody or rhetorical questions.

Such a "character" would defeat the arguments of others regularly, yet win no sympathy for their opinions due to unbearable arrogance. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

It's really funny, but I had the strangest feeling you were hinting at something. It must've been the air quotes.

Thankyou.

[United Dependencies]

Aww...little Don Juan Hammurab! You'll be a grandpa before you know it.

Last month he toddled over to a woman (likely an off-duty stripper) in line at a Subway Sandwhich shop on Paradise in Vegas, and before I could stop him, he pulled up his shirt and dropped his pants. She started gushing at how adorable he was and asked if she could pick him up.

I hope the little fucker knows there is a limited window of time for that shit.

Who your son or the striper?

[Hammurab]

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

Or you could try making a "character" who debates in good faith without ever resorting to parody or rhetorical questions.

Such a "character" would defeat the arguments of others regularly, yet win no sympathy for their opinions due to unbearable arrogance. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

I actually have debated that way several times, and evidently you fulfilled your own prediction and...failed to notice.

You have? Goodness! And I thought that was one of your "characters"! You poor thing.

I'm betting you don't even know which nation I'm talking about, particularly since you decry parody while in the same breath resorting to its puerile little brother, trite sarcasm.

I guess your "good faith" debate doesn't include practicing what you preach. Pointing that out might be "unbearable arrogance" by your usage.

[Hammurab]

Aww...little Don Juan Hammurab! You'll be a grandpa before you know it.

Last month he toddled over to a woman (likely an off-duty stripper) in line at a Subway Sandwhich shop on Paradise in Vegas, and before I could stop him, he pulled up his shirt and dropped his pants. She started gushing at how adorable he was and asked if she could pick him up.

I hope the little fucker knows there is a limited window of time for that shit.

Who your son or the striper?

Mostly my son, although I guess the stripper eventually will lose her ability to just make males drop trou in line at Subway...

[United Dependencies]

Aww...little Don Juan Hammurab! You'll be a grandpa before you know it.

Last month he toddled over to a woman (likely an off-duty stripper) in line at a Subway Sandwhich shop on Paradise in Vegas, and before I could stop him, he pulled up his shirt and dropped his pants. She started gushing at how adorable he was and asked if she could pick him up.

I hope the little fucker knows there is a limited window of time for that shit.

Who your son or the striper?

Mostly my son, although I guess the stripper eventually will lose her ability to just make males drop trou in line at Subway...

I do sure you followed up the whole experience on how things are really done.

[Nobel Hobos]

Aww...little Don Juan Hammurab! You'll be a grandpa before you know it.

Last month he toddled over to a woman (likely an off-duty stripper) in line at a Subway Sandwhich shop on Paradise in Vegas, and before I could stop him, he pulled up his shirt and dropped his pants. She started gushing at how adorable he was and asked if she could pick him up.

I hope the little fucker knows there is a limited window of time for that shit.

Who your son or the striper?

Mostly my son, although I guess the stripper eventually will lose her ability to just make males drop trou in line at Subway...

There you go, blaming the victim ...

[Nobel Hobos]

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.

Quite right, Treznor. When speaking of whether something should be banned or permitted by law, we should take the default position to be 'permit everything' and place the onus of proof on whoever would ban that thing.

We don't even require "proof" to a logical standard. A plausible "copperhead in the loam" would deserve consideration ... but I'm not seeing it.

Take Flameswroth's analogy, and for the sake of argument* say that the "copperhead" is HIV infection. Does allowing gays to marry put us at risk of more HIV infection, posing a risk to others who didn't opt to take that risk themselves (eg, people who did not know that their partner is having unprotected anal sex) ? I don't think it does. On the contrary: a marriage is harder to conceal than a casual sexual relationship.

So what is the "loam"? What is the concealing factor which limits our ability to forsee bad consequences of SSM ? I specify that it is the assumption made by opponents that same-sex marriage will promote more gay sex. Gays however do not have their "view" obscured that way, because they know their sexual liasons can be persued WITH OR WITHOUT marriage to the partner of their choice.

The "loam" which hides possible threats is the loam in the eyes of the opponents, who it seems are applying their own standard 'marriage is required before sex' as though it applied to everyone. There may be gays who deny themselves sex before marriage, and not being permitted to marry therefore remain celibate. But surely, such an insignificant number as not to be a reason to deny them marriage.

[Nobel Hobos]

It really makes me want to do a character that's a Freshman philosophy major who just pretentiously parrots content from his class without penetrating it enough to apply it in any coherent way. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

Or you could try making a "character" who debates in good faith without ever resorting to parody or rhetorical questions.

Such a "character" would defeat the arguments of others regularly, yet win no sympathy for their opinions due to unbearable arrogance. Unfortunately, on this board...nobody would notice.

I actually have debated that way several times, and evidently you fulfilled your own prediction and...failed to notice.

You have? Goodness! And I thought that was one of your "characters"! You poor thing.

I'm betting you don't even know which nation I'm talking about, particularly since you decry parody while in the same breath resorting to its puerile little brother, trite sarcasm.

I guess your "good faith" debate doesn't include practicing what you preach. Pointing that out might be "unbearable arrogance" by your usage.

I was offended by your assertion that nobody on this board would notice the difference between pretentious parroting and genuine thought at a Freshman level. Perhaps I just took that the wrong way, but it bothered me more than a comment like "You're all stupid on this forum" precisely because it came from someone with genuine capacity and inclination for philosophy.

So I tried to hint to you that I considered that an arrogant attitude. From your reply I couldn't tell if you had taken that hint. Vesser noticed the hint. If only I'd seen Vesser's reply before using a heavier hand on you, I would have left it at that. The third party hinting that there was a hint there would have been enough.

In the best faith I can muster then: my point has been made, and I regret letting the veil of humour slip in the way I made that point. I'd like to just leave it there, if that's alright with you. If it sweetens the offer, I will admit that I took too seriously the jibe at "this board".