Let me give you a hint.
I never mislead anyone at any point. I stated early on that I support SSM personally.
I was arguing positions that have been argued against me, those can be taken or left. If you feel your time was wasted why did you engage me in the first place?
I was dealing with all sorts of logical fallacies it was like logical fallacy bingo. There was of course the inability to separate the argument from the person arguing, that was a big one. There was the bigotry ad hominem, that one was popular. There was argument by assertion, that was probably the biggest. There was appeals to emotion, all the while claiming it was the more rational position.
shrugs
You wouldn’t be still waiting if you’d asked for something specifically, but as you are a bad faith interlocutor you waited until it could be used as a zinger.
You successfully _ _ _ _ _ _ _ me congrats, now play Hangman.
I find the statement implausible at best.
This is an utterly dumbfounding post. I cannot begin to comprehend why you would make it. Of course it needed to be said, because you are arguing as though your side of the argument has merit, when it doesn’t have a logical leg to stand on. You might as well say that any argument in favor of SSM goes without saying, yet we apparently feel the need to say it.
Honestly, your presence in this thread is baffling. You claim to be a proponent of SSM and are simply playing devil’s advocate, but it’s harder and harder to accept that you’re arguing in good faith. Your posts read as though you’re truly swayed by the meritless and facile talking points of the other side and you get irritated when people argue against you. What’s next, you’re going to claim that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?
This is an official Warning that you are out of line.
(And plaease don’t come back with the canard that other people were abusing you and I let them. You are the one who has hurled insults while everyone else has gritted their teeth and attacked the “arguments” (such as they were).
[ /Moderating ]
Now you’re lying. I was called a liar on several occasions by a single poster. There are at least a dozen of his posts where he straight up accuses me of lying. Several of the other posters did as well. You are selective. I don’t give a toss about your warnings. Stand behind them, thats fine, but I’m not going to listen to you hypocritically explain how I was out of line because I insulted someone who had been insulting me for a couple of days. You single me out like this regularly, you warn me after I finally hurl an insult that I’d been eating for several pages of a thread. So ban me, or shut up about it and so will I, but don’t condescend to tell me you aren’t singling me out, because you are.
Not my problem if you can’t read. shrugs
My argument was that the bigotry cut both ways. You fail at reading comprehension if you think what you said needed to be said.
Right, I don’t accept the argument by assertion. Because I won’t be beaten into submission by people constantly saying they are ‘meritless and facile’ as though that’s a fact. It’s not a fact. It’s your opinion. I happen to agree with SSM but I have sympathy for the other side too. Because I don’t unthinkingly reject it like you you have to break the rules of the forum and call me a liar. It’s ok though, because the mod singles me out and lets anyone say anything the want to me, but if I retort I get into trouble. shrugs So because I don’t share your bigotry against Christianity it means I must be lying about my position.
Mertiless and facile indeed.
Are you bigoted against white supremacists?
It’s okay to be look down on mainstream Christianity because they’re being bigoted.
I don’t care if the reason someone is against SSM is their Christian faith. It doesn’t matter, they’re still bigots and have no rational argument for their beliefs.
To further illustrate, neo nazis want all Jews dead. It doesn’t matter that they really believe it to be a good idea, they’re still bigots.
All mainstream Christianity does is provide an explanation for bigotry. It doesn’t excuse it.
That’s the thing you don’t seem to be getting. Just because we call it ‘meritless’, ‘facile’, ‘bigoted’, etc. does not mean we’re blind and unthinking, giving the other side no chance at all.
Look at this thread. It’s gone on for 15 pages, and it is hardly the first thread on SSM we’ve had here. It’s at least the third or fourth thread in which magellan01 has made and defended his proposal. Some of what goes on is just straightforward scorn and derision, but just as much of it is good-faith discussion and argument.
I’ve listened. For years, I’ve paid attention to arguments about SSM. I’m not gay, but I sympathize strongly. I’ve wanted one, one clear, concise argument against SSM. There are scores of clear and concise arguments for SSM, but I’ve wanted a good reason why so many people should be fighting against it, even if only to understand what approach to take to construct my own arguments.
Every position that is more than mere ick factor is rife with inconsistencies. Those who argue from the Bible don’t seem to notice that there are many things in the Bible that not even devout Christians observe in this day. Those who argue from a language standpoint like magellan01 don’t seem to notice that language can and will evolve, and though he tries, his arguments for the sanctity, the sheer undeniable objectivity of this single word “marriage” simply don’t hold water when you consider there is apparently no other word like it in the English language. Why is it this issue upon which the Bible must be adhered to, and this issue upon which we must not dare think about expanding the definition of the key word?
Every single argument constructed against SSM has been quickly and clearly refuted, and those refutations go unanswered. They are not acknowledged, and the original arguments simply continue being made, and these threads simply devolve into chasing each other in a circle.
I don’t call anti-SSM arguments meritless because it’s the left-wing thing to do. I call them meritless because that is the only conclusion I can come to. Others call them bigoted because that is the only conclusion they can come to. Quite honestly, this insistence that those of us who utterly reject the same anti-SSM arguments that get tossed around every time these threads come up do so simply because we haven’t thought about it is offensive.
Oh, I can read. And I can even recognize inconsistencies. Don’t take it personally, though. If there was someone in this thread who said:
…and he kept insisting that he was in opposition even while his every other statement undercut him, his credibility would evaporate, too.
Is it your position that bigotry against Christianity is a requirement of supporting gay marriage?
Another couple of hundred posts read, and I’m caught up once again. But to no further purpose. When I left it was **magellan01 **offering opinions instead of evidence; now it’s mswas. Same nonsense, different source.
**mswas **claims in post 711 “The real issue here is not about equal legal rights at all, it’s about who gets to define the word marriage.”
Well of course it is about equal legal rights, or what would be the point? Gays are not engaging in this merely as an intellectual exercise. They and their hetero supporters are endeavoring to gain acceptance for and legality of an equal right to marriage for all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation. And they do so precisely because *marriage *has become a legal codification, not merely a word in the dictionary.
Oh, you mean that for social conservatives, it is really about maintaining some cherry picked and otherwise artificially limited definition of marriage? I agree with that, at least. And the only reasons offered translate to “gays disgust me, but I can’t say that without being branded a homophobe”.
I have waded through over 700 posts and still have not seen a single actual piece of evidence that might even debatably suggest societal harm from SSM.
This whole "The sky is falling! Think of all the children that aren’t going to be born to those gays unless they use the same medical procedures that straight people use… er, ah-- oh yeah, I mean to say – Resulting inevitably in the human race dying out!! " is clearly nonsense. It’s equivalent to fearing alien abduction. If some people choose to fear it, there is no requirement for the rest of us to pander to their foolishness.
Actually, the only parts of the human race likely to die out are those whose world view is so constricted by social conservative fantasies (i.e., internalized religious dogma) that they cannot function in the actual world as it exists.
C’mon. Nobody today actually maintains that each act of sex should be for the sole purpose of, and if possible resulting in, the conception of a child. Even social conservatives accept the idea that sex is sometimes just for fun. And yet the slippery slope into moral degeneracy beginning with promiscuity and ending-- where? has been presented as a “reasonable opposition” to everything from condoms to MTV, and now with special emphasis to SSM.
There is no societal harm from SSM. All these posts, and not a single offering of one. Only declaratively presented opinions, and “it’s too early to tell!!” for contervailing evidence.
It really, truly, is all about the ecckkk factor. Really.
Well, there is a new argument being offered, finally. Apparently allowing gays to marry betokens the death of Christendom, and furthermore is just incredibly crass.
Let’s see:
Claiming a poster (that would be me, in this case), is lying in GD.
Arguing a mod call in GD instead of taking to ATMB which is the correct forum.
Fine. Here is another Warning and if you really want to be suspended, I might ask the staff to consider it, although that is not my intention.
You are the only poster who has called you a liar; the other posters simply challenged your rhetoric. I have even taken the time to wander through this entire thread looking for the examples I might have missed, (and you chose to not report). There was a bit of back-and-forth between magellan01 and Miller regarding lies. There was a rhetorical device employed by ElvisL1ves that claimed a phrase you had not employed was a lie, but he was attacking the group that hypothetically employs the phrase, not you. There was an exchange among several posters about bigotry after you injected the claim of “honest opinion.” However, the word “lie” only appears twice and the word “dishonest” or phrase “not honest” only a couple more times and none of them were dirtected at you.
You can invent whatever persecution you wish, but you will need to take it out of this thread to ATMB, (where you might be asked to support it).
[ /Moderating ]
ElvisL1ves, I don’t think it is a new argument. This is the first reference I find, but it may not be the first one presented. I’m too lazy to bother searching further.
Note that the quoted portion follows a reference to Pontius Pilate and Biblical searching for truth. I think this allows me to define “traditional family” below as “Christian family” thus heralding the demise of Christiandom.
I didn’t look for references to crass, but if “sticking a finger in someone’s eye” is crass, then calling for SSM has also been called crass quite some way back in this thread.
Sigh. Still waiting for an actual demonstration of societal harm.
Not at all. You’re the one who who raised the issue of genetic defects in comparison or contrast to homosexuality, the one who questioned the positive or negative impact of genetic conditions on a person’s value, and the one who implied that we might not want to promote qualities that have a negative impact on that value. So I’ll ask again: You, and others, have an inborn condition that you consider a negative quality. What LEGAL rights are denied to you but permitted to others on this basis alone?
It’s coincidental that, in some cases, civil law promotes or punishes the same behavior as does Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or Flying-Spaghetti-Monster-ism). I have no reason to believe that an explicitly atheist government wouldn’t also craft laws to forbid and punish murder, theft, and so forth. In general, the courts are happy to invalidate laws that have no other purpose than to enforce the strictures of a particular religion, and this government does not make new laws with the goal of matching the teachings of a particular religion.
Perhaps correct (I’m too busy to look it up), but how is this relevant to the topic at hand? We routinely add to the body of law in order to adapt to the changing nature of society, to take into account new technology, and so forth. How does this support your arguments (not your personal beliefs) against extending marriage rights to same-sex couples?
Great idea, but not germane to the topic of this thread, and not a compelling rationale for continuing to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
Right, but you are not paying attention to the response. I am elucidating what the ‘rationale’ is and people are so obsessed with their own navals that it’s more important to them to seek ‘proof’ which is irrelevant. The anti-SSM contingent is worried about future harm over the course of generations, something we CANNOT HAVE data for.
The reality though is that they are right, SSM does destroy THEIR NOTION of civilization. Your side vacillates between, ‘Good riddance’ and ‘Prove it to me’.
Mswas claims there’s evidence of the destruction of society caused by gay marraige(notwithstanding that by his own account, the evidence is about what’s happened since the “sexual revolution”–i.e. long before gay marriage was first legalized, and so unrelated to gay marriage).
He says so right here:
However, apparently, we don’t get to see it. I just don’t understand the value of his stance–if the evidence he has is what opponents are using to justify opposition to gay marriage, then
(1) either it makes sense–it supports their conclusion, in which case rational people will be swayed to support their claims, or
(2) it doesn’t.
That can’t be argued in the abstract–it turns on what the evidence is. That’s why we need to see it.
Let me be clear: I absolutely accept his contentions–that the evidence exists, and that opponents rely on it-- that’s exactly why we should find out what it is, and discuss it here. I’m asking again, very politely, and in the aim of serious debate–I’ll look at the evidence objectively, and reasonably. Others will. You can point out where I don’t do so, if I don’t. But I can’t do that without seeing what this evidence is.
You are taking it too far. All I said was that the ‘it’s genetic’ argument doesn’t hold water. There are lots of things that are genetic, something being genetic doesn’t make it acceptable, and that’s the point. What makes homosexuality acceptable is the emotional aspect, which is why it’s absurd to try and paint one side as emotional and the other side as rational. Both sides are arguing emotional reasons. That’s why the crux of the debate is who gets to define marriage.
It’s not coincidental at all, it’s causal, because our society sprang from a Judeo-Christian civilization. We have picked and chosen which parts of the religious law we choose to implement, but that doesn’t make it coincidental.
It establishes a through-line for the marriage narrative in our society. It’s not my job to argue the position, I am still trying to fulfill one part of the OP and that is to discern the rationale. As far as I am concerned people telling me their opinions on Gay marriage is merely a hijack. The debate should be about what people who oppose it believe, the SSM debate has been done over and over again. It’s like the atheism/religion argument where the atheists think that people are confused over what atheism means. No one is confused, we all understand exactly why people support SSM, it is the other side that people don’t understand. And if this thread is any indication they don’t want to. That’s why the constant arguments of, “prove that has merit”, they are attempts to hijack the thread so people may return to the comfortable ground of righteous indignation.
Agreed on both points.
At this point I am not going to even entertain requests for me to prove that the other side’s arguments have merit, they are irrelevant to the discussion. If you want this to be interesting, I can try and fight cites of people making arguments similar to what I am making, proving that people believe things as I say they believe them, but I am uninterested in debating the merits of SSM or not. I should’ve drawn this line in the very beginning.