More of the same.:rolleyes: You know, if the excellent job mswas did in explaining things in the last few pages was not able to penetrate, I doubt explaining the same things using different words will help. So much for stupidity.
That’s a claim, not proof. I guess you really don’t know what the word means after all.
Lazy. Fed up. Take your pick. It’s there if you want it. If not, that’s fine with me.
The problem is you’re spouting the same gibberish as MSWAS. Just because two unfocused, illogical arguments resonate between the two of you doesn’t make it right. It just means that otherwise intelligent people can internalize vapid stupidity and argue it 'till the carpal tunnel sets in.
The problem is your definition of rational is self-serving. You base rationality on the starting premises and assume that yours are more rational. They are both equally emotionally based, and both equally based in tradition. The modern egalitarianism that informs your view is every bit as ideological as theirs.
I was assuming you were using it in the vernacular. I didn’t expect you really know what a logical argument is, since you’re convinced you’re making them and only spouting drivel.
Correlation can indeed suggest causation; it just doesn’t prove it.
Are you hallucinating? I said “until we see rational arguments or evidence, I don’t think we need to worry about “proof”.” What part of “I don’t think we have to worry about proof” equates to “I want proof” to you?
I probably know more about what “proof” means than you do, because I don’t expect either side to provide it. The larger issue that that the anti-SSM marriage can’t seem to provide anything argumentively compelling.
Those who are asking for proof are asking for a really high bar from their opponents, often because they can’t clear an ankle-high bar themself and wish to make sure that their opposition can’t clear the bar either. (Other times people are speaking hyperbolically - though hopefully not *just *after pointing out the existence of a difference between argument, evidence, and proof.)
And, there’s ample reason to believe that urinating on human rights is a bad thing, yes? Banning marriages between consenting adults without a reason is a bad thing and pisses both on civil rights and, when you do it to a small group, equal rights. Removing moronic, bigoted, and evil blockades to civil and equal rights is very arguably a benefit. I’ll worry more about wether it outweighs any negatives (and thus is an overall benefit) when there is an evidence whatsoever of even the slightest negative effect of SSM.
I don’t think it’s there. And if you don’t mind me thinking that, that’s fine with me too.
This logic is flawed. You see hypocrisy where the reality is merely a level of pragmatism. They are fighting the battle on the ground where it’s set. A lot of the things you are referring to ARE things they have tried to address at different times and in different places. It’s not like they are ‘allowing’ those things, just that they currently aren’t the battleground.
Well my point is that a Christian society with a large degree of agreement would function just fine, just as a Modernist Secular society with a large degree of agreement functions just fine. The argument is about how to order society. Yes, I brought up the lack of inspiration to fight a system based on usury earlier in this thread, it is one of the major sticking points to argue against the wholistic system that they want to create. Unlike the your ‘fellacious’ 
argument above this one shows a deeper hypocrisy. They WOULD get rid of fellatio if they could, but they arent’ even addressing usury.
Yes they do, and it is part of the reason they cannot put together a rational and cohesive alternative. It’s why they are losing. Now we are getting to the point where viewing them as a group breaks down. There are obviously as many opinions as there are individuals who oppose gay marriage. No doubt a large proportion ARE driven by ‘Fags are Yucky’. I don’t dispute that Fags are Yucky is a major part of this debate, my problem with it was the reducing the entire debate to simply that. It’s more complex than that, but it definitely plays a major role.
Well that’s certainly true for some, but I know quite a few Christians who are far more concerned about consumerism and a culture of usury than they are about gay marriage. So there is a spectrum of opposition here. People can oppose gay marriage for reasons other than ‘fags are yucky’. But yes, there are plenty of bigots out there for whom that is the overwhelming reason for it. But the reality is the vast majority of people think on a very rudimentary level that can barely be conceived as actual ‘thinking’ in the philisophical sense of the term.
You’ll never find me arguing that the impetus for populism on any side is not driven by base impulses to a large degree.
I still don’t understand the framing of the debate in this fashion. What’s the endgame here? Ban same-sex marriage and scare all the homosexuals straight? People who have self-identified as gay and are in a committed enough relationship to consider marriage are just as qualified for marriage as a straight couple is: That is, they both are willing to go through with the ceremonial and legal proceedings. Either one could break apart a week later or last until both partners’ dying days. Both sets of couples can produce/bear offspring, adopt, or forego children altogether. Both sets of couples can be kinkier than the weirdest porn you’ve ever seen on 4chan, or they can be sex-free.
What I’m getting at here is that you’re the only one putting emphasis on this idea that gay marriage promotes sexual promiscuity over procreation.
But so are you. Your philosophical adherence to egalitarian ideals is also a form of special pleading and argument for emotion. You have to demonstrate that sexual egalitarianism is in and of itself something worth valuing before we can move on to the real argument. That it is a value is just presumed by your side of the debate.
Why should I regard sexual egalitarianism as a value worth upholding? To turn the tables and get you to defend your side, ‘rationally’.
I think forty years is a good number as the people coming of age to marriage will have grown up in a society in which the debate is old news. They will enter a society in which SSM is the default. I think that that generation will grow in a society in which marriage isn’t viewed as being so special, that it will not be viewed as strongly as it is now as being a special way in which to show the love you have for the person you want to go through life with and procreate.
Good. Then we shouldn’t have a problem.
No one claimed to have any either. In fact, it’s been pointed out by both me and mswas (who is pro-SSM) that the proof is unavailable (without a time machine).
Somewhat true. I did offer the example of Welfare, although that simply goes to the fact that what we may think is a good idea today may prove to be detrimental to society decades down the road.
First, I think there was only one indication of actual benefit, so the singular seems called for. But since you are trained as a scientist, I’m sure you’re aware that the correlation that might exist should not be confused with causation. That it is possible that SSM might have had nothing to do with any benefit. In fact that it might have had a detrimental effect that was over-ridden by other factors. Right?
And again. We’re talking about the effects on a culture in Denmark, which does not have SSM over just 15 years.
Already addressed.
A rational argument need to comport with the rules of logic, which mine certainly does. If you believe it does not, point to the specific problem areas. otherwise, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Gay marriage cannot by its very nature lead to procreation, so the very act in and of itself is fornication. Sodomy is ALWAYS fornication from the perspective of one who suborns sex to procreation. That is the qualitative difference.
A gay couple is capable of raising a child that contains the genetic material of at least one of the parents. I’m willing to bet that at some point in the future, two females will be able to raise a daughter that contains genetic material from each of them (two X chromosomes = girl).
Besides, who the are you to say that two people can’t marry because they only want to fuck? How do you know? If anything, the fact that they’re interested in marriage would seem to suggest that they see value in something more than just plain old sex. You don’t need to get married to have that. Why doesn’t this equally apply to straight couples who don’t plan on/aren’t capable of having kids.
Maybe this is just me, but it seems like the burden of proof falls on the person in favor of restricting equality.
Yes, and they would oppose that as well.
I answered this question in the post you replied to just now.
Why is that? Why should the person in favor of the status quo have the burden of proof? Shouldn’t the burden of proof fall upon the person seeking to alter the status quo?
You are correct. I meant to type “equal”. Still it is of zero proof (which I’m sure you agree with) and little evidence, given all the dissimilarities.
For you. And that’s fine. Because I think what a person might find compelling is based on their predisposition to the issue. Though, I admit that I do find some of the arguments for SSM more compelling than others.
Well said.
Here’s where things get sticky. And those things we agree to be rights, we have no problem. But there is an assumption of on the other side that a man has a right to marry another man. Since that comports so poorly with both nature (two men can’t procreate) and tradition, I have an hard time seeing it as a “right”.
Then we’re good.
I don’t follow. You said that gay marriage cannot lead to procreation. I stated that it can. You said that gay marriage inherently has a proclivity to fornication for fornication’s sake. I stated that the fact that many gays are seeking marriage indicates that they want more out of a relationship than mindless sex (i.e. a legally recognized marriage with all the legal benefits that entails). Where’s your refutation??
Not if altering the status quo results in equal protection under the law. Justice should not differentiate between the gender of the involved parties (at least in the case of marriage). I didn’t realize that granting everyone equal opportunity and privilege would be such a radical idea to some people.
So… sex is yucky? That’s great, but the incidence of recreational sex in a hetero relationship is of no legal significance when determining if a marriage is valid, so why should it mater to a homosexual relationship?
I get that you (or at least the people you claim to represent) have hang-ups about sex-for-fun, but if you (or they) want to punish people for having sex-for-fun, at least set a good example by giving it up first.
Here’s my entirely nondesperate response - the views you describe are in conflict with the spirit of equal treatment before a secular body of law. There was a time, not long ago at all, when fear and/or disgust with homosexuality made this kind of expansion to marriage law inconceivable. Well, through a gradual shift in society’s views, it’s conceivable now and though the resistant attitude persists, a resistant attitude is all it is - it has no foundation in reason, no supporting empirical evidence, and no indication the result would be negative in any objectively measurable way.
But the principles around which you order your society, I thought, were described in your Constitution, which contains some language about securing the “blessings of liberty”, and nothing about sexual mores.
There is indeed a growing conflict in America, perhaps the beginning of a major chapter in its history where the separation of church and state goes from an ideal to a reality.
No, you stated that men can have a child out of wedlock with a woman and RAISE it within the marriage, and then began to talk about science fiction scenarios where one day a woman can get another woman pregnant.
You clearly do not understand the usage of the term fornication. ANY sex EVEN IN wedlock that is not devoted to procreative purposes, is fornication. (By the standard that I am arguing.)
You are using equal protection as a buzzword. You still haven’t established why homosexuals should be given equal protection based upon sexual proclivities. They have equal protection outside of their sexuality. Why should equal protection factor sexuality into the equation?
As much as I am inclined to take you as an authority on all things concerning “vapid stupidity”, I think you conflate “logical” and “right”. Neither of us will convince the other of which argument is “right”, I’m sure. But you claim that some argument of mine or hers is “illogical”. Can you point to that argument you so characterize and show where the logical flaws are?
I think your doing so will benefit the discussion greatly.
Bryan Ekers,
When I last left this thread I promised to answer your questions, and asked for clarification as to what you liked answered. Were the questions in your Post #637 your reply?