So Vermont law lets me file a joint tax return with my same-sex partner? Vermont civil unions have portability so that they’re recognized in other states?
Umm, how? Give me a specific example of someone who is harmed by me marrying my partner, as opposed to entering into a civil union.
I’ll have you know, formatting this properly was quite the chore.
If it’s obvious that gay marriage won’t be mandatory, then why did the OP say “…if the whole human race practiced it the whole human race would be extinct.”? What does that have to do with anything? If the whole human race became celibate, we’d all end up extinct too. Why aren’t you out there arguing against celibacy?
If you’ll notice, I was extending the methods that the hostile monk used to condemn homosexuality to show the ridiculousness of this method. It’s a relatively common debating tactic; I was pointing out that he was using the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
Lack of reading comprehension. Common.
Truly, your grammatical structure is unique.
But what does it all mean?
It goes directly to the quote in the hostile monk’s post you referred to above, to wit: “some believe the point of exsistence is to survive and reproduce, and gay marriage would defy the latter.” If gay people already have children, how can they be defying reproduction?
However, he did use the fallacious idea that homosexual people can’t reproduce as the basis of his stance against allowing gay people to marry. Which means that addressing this point is pretty much de rigeur.
So what else is marriage about which would exclude the participation of gay people?
Wow. Interesting technique. Post an incomprehensible mess that no-one can parse, and then claim that it’s true because it’s irrefutable. Puts the writings of William S. Burroughs into a whole new light.
With the exception of the synonym Righteous, no definition specifically requires a religious element for morals. In fact, the synonym Virtuous specifically suggests that it’s possible to be moral without being religious.
1)Lets define slippery slope: “a certain event sets off a chain reaction which result in disastrous consequences.” Now, I think we all agree that if there were no reproduction, we would become extinct. A gay couple cannot by themselves reproduce, therefore, if everyone were gay, we would be extinct if no means of reproduction would be practiced. This one example is not a slippery slope because it does not result in numerous other events occuring, just one event: no reproduction, therefore extinction. There is only one link to the claim, not enough to make a chain.
2)You claimed the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum (which I proved above was not reductio ad absurdum by showing it was not slippery slope) while you committed the logical fallacy of Ipse Dixit. Therefore, your claim to reductio ad absurdum is not valid. Don’t claim logical fallacies at random, that is itself illogical.
However, originally, this was not my argument, please remember that. My belief is that the fact that gay couples cannot reproduce is not the only reason gay marriage is wrong. It transends many other harmful, morally wrong results.
I find that it is hard to be that sympathic toward someone who already owns a half interest in a house worth at least $3 million (since federal estate taxes do not attach to an estate worth less than $1.5 million).
I know many gay couples who have reproduced. Therefore, your argument is invalid not only because it is irrational, but because at least one of its premises is false.
Did you just start introduction to logical reasoning or something? I’ve never seen the terminology for discussing logical argument so badly abused before.
I, and everyone else here, wait with bated breath for you to offer an argument against gay marriage, instead of feckless prattle about other people’s arguments studded with random phrases out of Rhetoric 101 textbooks.
Wow. The question of which religion should dictate morality in America hinges on my belief in moral absolutes? I never knew they cared so much about my opinion.
Rather than answer your question, I think I’ll bask in the glow of my overwheming power! Muwahahahaha!
I’m no tax attorney, but there are both inheritance taxes and estate taxes. From this site:
I believe Robbbb referred specifically to federal inheritance tax, which actually doesn’t seem to exist. However he might get hit harder by state inheritance tax than if he was married to his partner.
Yeah, sorry, I was confused between Federal estate taxes (which had a much lower threshold only a couple years ago, coupled with my stupid inability to do math to make me think it would apply to me) and state inheritance taxes. Thankfully, I don’t have any experience dealing with it firsthand.
Are you being obtuse on purpose? My point was that the line of reasoning given above, in order to be valid, must be applicable to all situations which result in a lack of reproduction. Contraception results in a lack of reproduction. So does abstinence. Thus, given the above argument, both contraception and abstinence are morally wrong to the same extent as you believe homosexuality to be. This leaves you with two choices:
[ol][li]Homosexuality is not acceptable due to the argument given above, and thus neither are contraception and abstinence.[/li][li]The above argument is flawed.[/ol][/li]
So which is it? Is the above argument flawed, or is abstinence morally reprehensible?
Incorrect. You have failed to demonstrate such. The logical conclusion of the argument posited results in every action that prevents reproduction as being “wrong”. This is an absurd conclusion, and thus the reductio ad absurdum stands.
Just wondering, what are of you pro-homosexuals going to do when and if an amendment gets passed by Bush establishing that the union of marriage must be between a man and a woman? Muwahahahaha
First of all, this isn’t so much about being pro-homosexual as it is about being anti-discrimination. For instance, I’m very much anti-KKK, but they have a right to enjoy all the freedoms of this country, and I would never want them to be deprived of those rights. I am neither pro- nor anti-homosexual. To me, sexual orientation is no different from preferring brunettes. However, I find it appalling that people want to discriminate against homosexuals simply because they find homosexuality to be “unnatural”, “icky”, or “sinful”. Those simply are not good enough reasons to deny homosexuals the same oppurtunities that heterosexuals have in regards to “the persuit of happiness”.
As to what I would do if an amendment is passed, I will gladly sign petitions asking for the revocation of such an amendment, as well as making sure that my votes reflected my opinions. I would be greatly disappointed to have the US decide to encode discrimination into its constitution.
He specifically said federal inheritance tax, which, as you note, does not exist. I interpreted that as a reference to the federal estate tax, which has a $1.5 million exemption (less any amount applied during the life of the decendent to avoid gift taxes), an exemption which is sufficient to exclude all but roughly 2% of all estates from taxation.
I make no claim regarding state taxes; those obviously vary by state and may be substantial. However, if Robbbb wants to complain about state taxes, he should not refer to federal taxation regimes.
Three options:
[ol]
[li]Agitate for a constitutional convention to rewrite the Constitution to remove the offensive language;[/li][li]Start a civil uprising to overthrow the obviously corrupt government of the United States by force; or[/li][li]Move.[/li][/ol]I’m leaning toward #3, myself, not being the sort of person who cares for leading rebellions and not sanguine on the likelihood that a convention would lead to a Constitution with the odious language removed.
By the way, I just heard Bill O’Reilly say that tomorrow he’s going to San Fran with several women and plans to marry them. If anybody opposes him he’ll say it’s got to be legal under the equal protection law, just as gay marriage is.
I know he’s trying to make an anti-gay marriage statement, but I personally hope that, if he does this the city officials just say “great, how many are in your party?”
