Anything worth talking about, is worth blogging about

The march to marriage equality goes on.

Hat tip to City of Ladies.

Advertisements

Comments on: "New York to introduce a bill legalizing same-sex marriage" (14)

  1. Referring to oxymoronic “same sex marriage” as relating to equality is simply a lie.

    “Same-sex marriage” is as logical as a square circle (“the same sex union of a man and a woman”).

    These unions do not by nature or design produce the next generation.

    These unions can never provide a mother and a father to a child. Never.

    The same rationale used for “same-sex marriage” would also justify marriages involving polygamy, incest or bestiality. And don’t say, “That could never happen.” Did you predict twenty years ago that the Left would want to teach kindergarteners about “same-sex marriage?”

    Therefore, while the relationships are legal and gays are free to love as they see fit, there is no reason for the government to endorse or affirm these relationships. You could only claim that we were trying to force others to live according to our beliefs if we prevented the relationships completely (i.e., Middle Eastern Islam).

    There is nothing unequal about only recognizing marriage between a man and a woman. It is the only logical position to take. Anyone holding an opposing view is either advancing the homosexual agenda or they have been suckered by it.

  2. “These unions do not by nature or design produce the next generation.”

    This is obviously why you are in favour of banning marriages between infertile couples and old people, because they can’t procreate.

    “These unions can never provide a mother and a father to a child. Never.”

    This must be why you are obviously in favour of banning single-parenthood and forcibly remarrying widowed people.

    “The same rationale used for “same-sex marriage” would also justify marriages involving polygamy, incest or bestiality. And don’t say, “That could never happen.” Did you predict twenty years ago that the Left would want to teach kindergarteners about “same-sex marriage?””

    This is a slippery slope argument. A thought experiment often used to demonstrate why it is fallacious involves a Druid who worships oak trees (in this example, I’ll say that the Druid English Oaks, Quercus robur). What do oak trees develop from? Through a series of gradual changes, an oak tree develops from an acorn. The Druid sees that and seeks to demontrate that acorns are worship-worthy the same way oak trees are. Clearly, an acorn is not identical with an oak tree, although not being identical is not the same as not being similar. How might an acorn and an oak tree be similar? Well, why does the Druid worship oak tree? The Driud does so because oak trees have a “divine essence” because they share this property with oak trees. As an alternative, the Druid argues that they are both members of the species Quercus robur. But in neither case does this indicate that acorns are worship worthy. This leads the Druid to, instead of showing that acorns are worship-worthy because they develop into oak trees and because oak trees are worship worthy by nature of having membership in the species Quercus robur or possess some “divine essence”, to instead show that they are worship worthy because acorns already possess some property sufficient for being so. This is simply question begging.

    Similar reasoning defeats the slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage: since that argument implicity gives same-sex marriage the same property that makes incest, polygamy, and bestiality worthy of opposition, and then argues that we should oppose it because it possesses that property, the slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage is also question begging.

    Also, laws against polygamy are constitutional; see Reynolds v. United States. Regarding incest, the Westermarck effect means that someone who lived with someone else for the first six years of the first person’s life, there is a kind of “reverse imprinting” that prevents sexual attraction. And if two long-seperated siblings get married and then find out that they are siblings, the marriage in that case should simply be dissolved; prosecution would be impossible because there is no mens rea. And regarding bestiality, it might be news to you, but dogs, cats, and other animals do not have the capacity to sign a contract.

    “Therefore, while the relationships are legal and gays are free to love as they see fit, there is no reason for the government to endorse or affirm these relationships. You could only claim that we were trying to force others to live according to our beliefs if we prevented the relationships completely (i.e., Middle Eastern Islam).”

    I have refuted the arguments earlier in the comment, and hence this conclusion is unsupported.

    “There is nothing unequal about only recognizing marriage between a man and a woman. It is the only logical position to take. Anyone holding an opposing view is either advancing the homosexual agenda or they have been suckered by it.”

    I find it pretty hard to see how giving differents sets of rights to different groups of people is anything but unequal. Also, there’s no such thing as the homosexual agenda.

  3. This is obviously why you are in favour of banning marriages between infertile couples and old people, because they can’t procreate.

    Gee, never heard that before. Even if a man and a woman don’t procreate they still meet the definition of marriage. Words mean things.

    And infertile couples can adopt and provide a mother and a father to a child. The gov’t doesn’t have to have omniscience over who will or won’t parent. It does have an obligation to society, which obviously benefits from intact families headed by a man and a woman.

    This must be why you are obviously in favour of banning single-parenthood and forcibly remarrying widowed people.

    Nice non-sequitor. Of course, if you had stayed on topic you would have had to say that I’m in favor of banning single people being married to themselves. So try again. Explain how a gay couple can provide a mother and a father to a child. Just because there are exceptions for infertility and single parents doesn’t mean we should nuke the ideal.

    Not all slippery slopes are logical fallacies. And I didn’t claim it was a slippery slope, you just trotted out your sound bite. It is a “cliff” argument, where all the rationale for other perversions is already in place when your preferred perversion is recognized by the gov’t.

    I have refuted the arguments earlier in the comment, and hence this conclusion is unsupported.

    Typing words and declaring victory does not a refutation make.

    And regarding bestiality, it might be news to you, but dogs, cats, and other animals do not have the capacity to sign a contract.

    Right, but by definition you can’t have a “same sex union of a man and a woman,” either. Logic has never gotten in the way of “gay rights” propoganda. So why can’t other rules be changed? You all are just intolerant of other perversions and just want to pull up the drawbridge once you get your “rights.” You guys are great marketers, I’ll grant you that.

    Also, there’s no such thing as the homosexual agenda.

    Hee hee. Gee, since you said so. A whole bunch of gay activists running their playbook disagree. I encourage your readers to check out the link and decide for themselves. They’ve been played for fools.

  4. “Gee, never heard that before. Even if a man and a woman don’t procreate they still meet the definition of marriage. Words mean things.”

    As a reason to be against same-sex marriage, you offered the lack of procreation. And then I pointed out that I would also apply to old and infertile people. You then claim that this objection does not apply to different-sex marriages. This is a post hoc alteration of the procreation objection to explain away how it does not “really” apply to different-sex marriage. Classic no true Scotsman.

    “And infertile couples can adopt and provide a mother and a father to a child. The gov’t doesn’t have to have omniscience over who will or won’t parent. It does have an obligation to society, which obviously benefits from intact families headed by a man and a woman.”

    LGBT people are part of society. Since “will parent” and “won’t parent” are collectively exhaustive, laws denying same-sex couples the ability to adopt gives the government omniscience over who can and cannot become adoptive parents (because the two possibilities are collectively exhaustive), which contradicts what you just said. And by denying that it results in more children being in foster care unnecessarily due to there being fewer potential parents. And following the “It does have an obligation to society, which obviously benefits from intact families headed by a man and a woman.” sentence literally would mean that society has no benefits from single parents.

    “Nice non-sequitor. Of course, if you had stayed on topic you would have had to say that I’m in favor of banning single people being married to themselves. So try again. Explain how a gay couple can provide a mother and a father to a child. Just because there are exceptions for infertility and single parents doesn’t mean we should nuke the ideal.”

    A non sequitur (correctly spelled) is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument does not follow from its premises. But worrying about the set of parents of a child consisting of elements having one gender would entail worrying about all of the instances of that set. Hence, going from worrying about the set of parents of a child where the elements form a same-sex couple to where the element is a single-parent is a reasonable progression, and hence is not a non sequitur. An attempt to alter the definition of marriage by adding exceptions so that a previous objection does not apply is another no true Scotsman.

    Any sort of argument that bases an objection to same sex marriage based on children having only one sex of parents must also explain why it does not apply to single parents. People do not need a parent of their sex in order to develop proper gender identity. Consider the case of David Reimer. To abbreviate what happened, he was born a boy, and after a botched circumcision, he was reassigned as a girl and raised as such, being given more surgery, hormone treatment, etc. He lived with his mother and his father and his brother. Despite that, hee never developed a female gender identity and in his teenage years reverted to living as a boy. This shows that a child does not need a parent of their own sex in order to develop gender identity. Hence, it is unnecessary to demonstrate that a child needs parents of both sexes.

    “Not all slippery slopes are logical fallacies. And I didn’t claim it was a slippery slope, you just trotted out your sound bite. It is a “cliff” argument, where all the rationale for other perversions is already in place when your preferred perversion is recognized by the gov’t.”

    You can claim the daylight sky is not blue all you want, but that won’t make the sky change colour. Things are what they are, not what people say they are. A cliff is simply a steep slope. Slippery slopes are logical fallacies unless they demonstrate a connection between each part of the slope. You have failed to do that and furthermore have ignored the reasons offered to doubt the existence of a connection between each part of the slope. Furthermore, your attempt to dismiss my refutation of one of your arguments is a strawman. You imply that I claimed that your argument was a slippery slope. In reality, I claimed that it was a slippery slope that incorporated question begging, which is subtly different from just a slippery slope. (Specifically, the set “slippery slopes that incorporate question begging” is a subset of “slippery slopes”. Since there are slippery slopes without question begging, and question begging that does not involve slippery slopes, the set “slippery slopes” consists of the subsets “slippery slopes that incorporate question begging” and the set “slippery slopes not incorporating question begging”, it has more elements than the set “slippery slopes incorporating question begging”. Since one set has more elements than the other they cannot be equal, and hence “slippery slopes” and “slippery slopes incorporating question begging” are different things.) That was demonstrated by the Druid/acorn/oak tree example. And by saying “It is a “cliff” argument, where all the rationale for other perversions is already in place when your preferred perversion is recognized by the gov’t. (emphasis added)” you have just admitted that your own argument incorporates question begging because it has the hidden premise “same-sex marriage is the rationale for polygamy, incest, and bestiality.”

    “Typing words and declaring victory does not a refutation make.”

    You have simply come back with no true Scotsman and a strawman. You have not refuted any of my refutations.

    “Right, but by definition you can’t have a “same sex union of a man and a woman,” either. Logic has never gotten in the way of “gay rights” propoganda. So why can’t other rules be changed? You all are just intolerant of other perversions and just want to pull up the drawbridge once you get your “rights.” You guys are great marketers, I’ll grant you that. ”

    This is a non sequitur. “Same-sex union” and “different-sex union” are collectively exhaustive. Nothing in the claim “…dogs, cats, and other animals do not have the capacity to sign a contract.” leads to the idea that the definition of “same-sex union” includes two people of different sexes. Indeed, a same-sex union of two people of different sexes is a contradiction. Any attempt to argue that “…dogs, cats, and other animals do not have the capacity to sign a contract.” leads to “same sex union of a man and a woman” is an irrelevant conclusion. Also, coming in with a strawman, an irrelevant conclusion, and no true Scotsmen is not my idea of logic. Finally, I demonstrated why same-sex marriage does not lead to bestiality. And then you come over and unilaterally change the terms of the debate from “why same sex marriage does not lead to bestiality” to “why can’t the rules be changed?”. This is, of course, the fallacy of moving the goalposts. Also, vitriol is not a good way of convincing people to adopt your views.

    “Hee hee. Gee, since you said so. A whole bunch of gay activists running their playbook disagree. I encourage your readers to check out the link and decide for themselves. They’ve been played for fools.”

    And again, there is no homosexual agenda. The supposed existence of a homosexual agenda implies that LGBT people are some sort of sinister, unified horde. In reality, LGBT people are diverse goals and disagree on as many issues as they agree with. If the “homosexual agenda” is anything, it is a form of political framing intended to get people worked up over issues and get them to vote for people who likely will not deal with it because then there would be less of a vote getter.

    And finally, what have LGBT people done to you? I’ve never seen someone so hateful and vitriolic towards their fellow human beings in my life.

  5. Rob, please brush up on your logical fallacy definitions. Your comments are very hard to follow due to their incoherence. I realize you’ll come back with more gibberish about druids and acorns but really, words mean things and you can’t get past square one: Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. You want to change that to mean, “not just the union of one man and one woman,” but in your bigotry and bias you want to restrict that to just gays.

    I’m not sure why you are such a hater against those who practice bestiality and polygamy, but that’s between you and your conscience. Logically speaking you’ve done nothing to refute my arguments except ramble indiscriminately from your Big Book O’ Logical Fallacies. Those folks are part of society as well, but you want to dismiss them because they are a small percentage. Pretty evil and inconsistent, eh?

    Foster care is far superior to gay parents. Heck, so are orphanages. Would it be better to have the “best” of gay “parents” versus abusive parents? Perhaps, but only in the sense that it is better bump your head once instead of twice.

    You lie when you say there is no agenda. Credibility going . . . going . . . gone.

    In fact, your last line is typical of the pro-gay agenda that you deny exists. Demonize, demonize, demonize, right? I get along great with gays. You are just prejudiced and bigoted in assuming otherwise.

    I was just visiting with a few yesterday at my daughters’ dance rehearsal. I don’t try to “fix” them, I just treat them like I would anyone else (we’re all sinners in need of a savior). But if they asked, I wouldn’t encourage them in their behavior any more than I’d encourage anyone to commit any other sins, sexual or otherwise.

    I’m also not hateful enough to destroy the innocence of children as young as 5 with the lies that homosexual, bisexual and transgender behavior is in any way normal or desirable. But you and the MSM perpetuate your prejudices against anyone who dares to disagree with you. That’s OK, I’d rather be on the side of right (accurate) and right (good) than popular.

    But you find it oh-so-easy to claim I’m hateful and vitriolic of them. Ad hominem, anyone? Just more evidence that you don’t have any real arguments.

    And I’m not wimpy like so many others who can’t stand up and state the obvious:

    – “Same-sex marriage” is as logical as a square circle (“the same sex union of a man and a woman”). That’s really all you need, but there is more.

    – These unions do not by nature or design produce the next generation. (The typical response about infertile couples fails on several levels, such as that the government is not omniscient about such things and adoption is always possible. Exceptions make bad rules.)

    – These unions can never provide a mother and a father to a child. NEVER. (This also addresses the “What about infertile couples” question.)

    – The same rationale used for “same-sex marriage” would also justify marriages involving polygamy, incest or bestiality. And don’t say, “That could never happen.” Did you predict twenty years ago that the Left would want to teach kindergarteners about “same-sex marriage?”

    So have fun in bigoted stereotype land, but I’m going to stick to my facts and logic.

  6. “Same sex marriage” is oxymoronic and gay adoptions are wrong as well, but under no circumstance can the gay lobby advance both causes simultaneously in any logical way. If they play the “they are born that way” card (a big lie, but let’s assume it is true for argument’s sake) then of course that would make gay adoptions unnatural by definition.

    Sexual preference with respect to partners is considered immutable and paramount – i.e., a gay guy can never change and he has to have another gay guy as a partner. A masculine woman just won’t do, nor will a biological female who thinks she is really a male.

    But sexual preference with respect to parents is supposedly irrelevant – it doesn’t matter if a child’s parents are M/F, M/M or F/F (or who knows what combination). They are all supposedly equal in value.

    So does sex matter or not? Let’s put the interests of the children first on this one and not repeat the big lie that adults are vulnerable but children are not.

  7. “Rob, please brush up on your logical fallacy definitions. Your comments are very hard to follow due to their incoherence. I realize you’ll come back with more gibberish about druids and acorns but really, words mean things and you can’t get past square one: Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. You want to change that to mean, “not just the union of one man and one woman,” but in your bigotry and bias you want to restrict that to just gays.”

    Nowhere here have I said that marriage should be restricted to only gays, and claiming I did is another strawman. You are the one who is insisting it be restricted to different-sex couples. And regarding words having meaning: meanings can change, be added, etc. You claim asserting that since “words mean things”, changing or adding another meaning is wrong. That is fallacious because it presupposes that meanings cannot change. This is an example of the fallacy of many questions.

    “I’m not sure why you are such a hater against those who practice bestiality and polygamy, but that’s between you and your conscience. Logically speaking you’ve done nothing to refute my arguments except ramble indiscriminately from your Big Book O’ Logical Fallacies. Those folks are part of society as well, but you want to dismiss them because they are a small percentage. Pretty evil and inconsistent, eh?”

    If an argument is fallacious, it means that its conclusion is not supported by the premises given. Since all of the arguments here are fallacious, none of the conclusions they assert are supported by their premises. Furthermore, nowhere in this discussion have I asserted that I hate those people, although you implied that they were a perversion and called those things ills. Furthermore, saying what an assumption or premise leads to is different from actually supporting or advocating it. This is hence another strawman. Also, providing reasons to doubt a premise and showing that some implied necessity is not are both refutations. Claiming that I have not done these is yet another strawman.

    “Foster care is far superior to gay parents. Heck, so are orphanages. Would it be better to have the “best” of gay “parents” versus abusive parents? Perhaps, but only in the sense that it is better bump your head once instead of twice.”

    This claim is completely contradicted by the evidence. The American Psychological Association reports that (inline APA-style citations removed; my emphasis):

    Despite the significant presence of at least 163,879 households headed by lesbian or gay parents in U.S. society, three major concerns about lesbian and gay parents are commonly voiced. These include concerns that lesbians and gay men are mentally ill, that lesbians are less maternal than heterosexual women, and that lesbians’ and gay men’s relationships with their sexual partners leave little time for their relationships with their children. In general, research has failed to provide a basis for any of these concerns. First, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. Although exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation may cause acute distress, there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation. Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing. Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners. The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation. On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.

    A report from the Canadian Department of Justice that was released through the Access to Information Act states, (Section 6.1, p.49; my emphasis):

    The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusion.

    The above studies show that same-sex parents are just as good as different-sex parents. You said that “Foster care is far superior to gay parents. Heck, so are orphanages.” If foster care and orphanages are “far superior” to same-sex parenting (as you claim), and same-sex parenting is just as good as different-sex parenting, it follows that orphanages and foster parents are better than different-sex parents as well.

    “You lie when you say there is no agenda. Credibility going . . . going . . . gone.”

    I provided evidence against there being an agenda.

    “In fact, your last line is typical of the pro-gay agenda that you deny exists. Demonize, demonize, demonize, right? I get along great with gays. You are just prejudiced and bigoted in assuming otherwise.”

    Calling same-sex marriage a perversion is not hateful? Saying that it leads to “polygamy and other ills” is not hateful?

    “I was just visiting with a few yesterday at my daughters’ dance rehearsal. I don’t try to “fix” them, I just treat them like I would anyone else (we’re all sinners in need of a savior). But if they asked, I wouldn’t encourage them in their behavior any more than I’d encourage anyone to commit any other sins, sexual or otherwise.”

    “[T]reat[ing] them [gays] like I would anyone else”, obviously means that you want to outlaw different-sex marriage and take all children from their parents. After all, “anyone else” includes straight people.

    “I’m also not hateful enough to destroy the innocence of children as young as 5 with the lies that homosexual, bisexual and transgender behavior is in any way normal or desirable. But you and the MSM perpetuate your prejudices against anyone who dares to disagree with you. That’s OK, I’d rather be on the side of right (accurate) and right (good) than popular.”

    There is nothing wrong with being gay. People do not choose to be gay, and there is nothing anyone can do about their sexual orientation. What is wrong is arbitrarily denying them the same rights as others.

    Also, the mainstream media is not biased against you; read up on the hostile media effect.

    “But you find it oh-so-easy to claim I’m hateful and vitriolic of them. Ad hominem, anyone? Just more evidence that you don’t have any real arguments.”

    Calling something a perversion for no good reason isn’t hateful and vitriolic? Denying them the same rights as everyone else is not hateful? Going over and writing the word never in all capital letters, which in netiquette means you’re shouting at them, is not vitriolic?

    “- “Same-sex marriage” is as logical as a square circle (”the same sex union of a man and a woman”). That’s really all you need, but there is more.”

    See above.

    “- These unions do not by nature or design produce the next generation. (The typical response about infertile couples fails on several levels, such as that the government is not omniscient about such things and adoption is always possible. Exceptions make bad rules.)”

    By using laws to deny same-sex couples the opportunity to become parents is making the government omniscient over whether or not same-sex couples can adopt. I’d also like to point out that assisted reproductive technology exists, which allows seme-sex couples to conceive with the help of donated gametes. In the future technology may exist to allow the creation of female sperm or male ova. In this case, same-sex couples are able to produce the next generation.

    “- These unions can never provide a mother and a father to a child. NEVER. (This also addresses the “What about infertile couples” question.)”

    Children do not need parents of both genders, as I demonstrated in a previous comment. Repeating something that has already been refuted does not make it true. Also, children with single parents are missing one parent (either the father or the mother). Who provides the missing parent to them?

    “- The same rationale used for “same-sex marriage” would also justify marriages involving polygamy, incest or bestiality. And don’t say, “That could never happen.” Did you predict twenty years ago that the Left would want to teach kindergarteners about “same-sex marriage?””

    I was too young to predict anything twenty years ago.

    “So have fun in bigoted stereotype land, but I’m going to stick to my facts and logic.”

    You mean nonfacts and logical fallacies.

  8. ““Same sex marriage” is oxymoronic and gay adoptions are wrong as well, but under no circumstance can the gay lobby advance both causes simultaneously in any logical way. If they play the “they are born that way” card (a big lie, but let’s assume it is true for argument’s sake) then of course that would make gay adoptions unnatural by definition.”

    You call the “they are born that way” card “big lie”. This implies that you think that sexual orientation is not something someone is born with. Let’s assume this and see where it leads us.

    Since we’re assuming here that people are not born with a sexual orientation, this implies that it develops later in life. This therefore results in two possibilities: a person has control over their sexual orientation’s development, or they do not. If they do not, there is nothing they can do about it; a person’s sexual orientation is immutable. Hence, if this is true, why do you consider it right to discriminate against someone because of something they have no control over?

    The other possibility is that people have control over their sexual orientation. This implies choice about it. In that case, when did you choose not to be gay? And when did you choose to be straight?

    And if you are worrying about “unnatural” things, why aren’t you worrying about things such as electronic communications, nylon, cars, etc? They’re unnatural too.

    “Sexual preference with respect to partners is considered immutable and paramount – i.e., a gay guy can never change and he has to have another gay guy as a partner. A masculine woman just won’t do, nor will a biological female who thinks she is really a male.”

    This is confusing sexual orientation with gender identity. They’re different things.

    “But sexual preference with respect to parents is supposedly irrelevant – it doesn’t matter if a child’s parents are M/F, M/M or F/F (or who knows what combination). They are all supposedly equal in value.”

    See my previous comment; same-sex parents are just as good at parenting as different-sex parents.

    “So does sex matter or not? Let’s put the interests of the children first on this one and not repeat the big lie that adults are vulnerable but children are not.”

    There is no contradiction here because different things are being compared. It is comparing the sexual orientation/gender identity of a person and their partner with the sexual orientation/gender identity of a child’s parents. One of these is from the perspective of the child and one of these is from the perspective of one of the adults. This is hence different things. Since studies have shown that same-sex parents are just as good as different-sex parents, unnecessarily reducing the number of possible parents is not in anyone’s interests.

  9. No time to read all of this, so I grabbed a quote out of the middle at random.

    Denying them the same rights as everyone else is not hateful?

    You can’t get past step one, let alone the rest of my arguments. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. You want to change that. So be honest about it. Gays have as much “right” to that as I have to any other oxymoron such as a square circle. You use a combo straw man / ad hom in saying we are denying “rights.” What is that, step 2a of the homosexual agenda?

    You deny there is a homosexual agenda. You are lying again and again. I would respect you and read the rest of what you have to say if you’d at least be honest on that point.

    Feel free to have the last word. I am totally comfortable that anyone reading the whole thread can see through your transparent fallacies.

  10. “…You can’t get past step one, let alone the rest of my arguments. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. You want to change that. So be honest about it. Gays have as much “right” to that as I have to any other oxymoron such as a square circle. You use a combo straw man / ad hom in saying we are denying “rights.” What is that, step 2a of the homosexual agenda?”

    By using an analogy regarding a “square circle”, you consider same-sex marriage an impossibility. Even though it is possible. And by supporting the restricting of marriage to only different-sex couples, you are giving one set of couples more rights than another set. And that is exactly what denying rights is, giving one set of people different rights than another set for no good reason.

    Then, right after that you claim that I am conducting a personal attack by saying something that is accurate? And shining light on your fallacies, showing inconsistencies in your use of properties, demonstrating necessary consequences of your assumptions, and tearing your analogies to shreds; all of those involved your arguments. By doing that I have shown that your arguments against marriage equality do no such thing.

    “You deny there is a homosexual agenda. You are lying again and again. I would respect you and read the rest of what you have to say if you’d at least be honest on that point.”

    I have provided reasons and evidence to doubt the existence of a homosexual agenda.

    “Feel free to have the last word. I am totally comfortable that anyone reading the whole thread can see through your transparent fallacies.”

    You are the one who has made fallacies.

  11. And that is exactly what denying rights is, giving one set of people different rights than another set for no good reason.

    No good reason? Heh.

    1. They don’t meet the definition of the word. Oh, you can find where a few have changed the word after a few thousand years, but that begs the question. You are arguing why we should change the definition of the word itself, and you are cheating.

    2. By nature and design, only heterosexuals produce the next generation. No exceptions.

    3. Gay couples can never provide a mother and a father to a child. Never.

    You try to say those aren’t good reasons, but your arguments fail. And incestuous and polygamous couples could come up with plenty of reasons that they consider “good.” Humans rationalize all sorts of bizarre things. You must have a deep seated bigotry, hatred and prejudice against those people for not seeing the definition of good the way they do.

    Gay couples have the “rights” to be together, get married in apostate churches, etc. They just don’t have the right to gov’t approval, which they crave out of their attempt to rationalize their sins. They remind me of Michael Scott of The Office and his utter narcissism and desperate need for approval: “Do I need to be liked? Absolutely not. I like to be liked. I enjoy being liked. I have to be liked. But it’s not this compulsive need to be liked, like my need to be praised.”

    I have provided reasons and evidence to doubt the existence of a homosexual agenda.

    Sure. And I’ve demonstrated why you are deceived and/or a deceiver — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/there-is-no-homosexual-agenda/

    I’m confident to let any unbiased readers decide who is engaging in logical fallacies.

  12. Oops, you took so long to post comment 9 that I forgot that I promised you the last word. I don’t want to renege, so feel free to delete comment 11 or have another “last word.”

  13. “1. They don’t meet the definition of the word. Oh, you can find where a few have changed the word after a few thousand years, but that begs the question. You are arguing why we should change the definition of the word itself, and you are cheating.”

    The only words that do not change meaning are dead ones. And the meaning of marriage has changed in recent times; otherwise Loving V. Virginia is meaningless and that divorce is illegal. These counterexamples clearly show that the meaning of marriage has changed in recent times (20th century is recent). Also, if a word changed in meaning over the course of a few thousand years, the change would have been contemporary to someone.

    “2. By nature and design, only heterosexuals produce the next generation. No exceptions.”

    This must be why things such as assisted reproductive techonology, donor gametes, in vitro fertilization, and the future possibilities of male eggs and female sperm are all figments of my imagination. And if you mean “[b]y nature and design” to mean that same-sex couples having children is “unnatural”, well in that case it is a fallacy because everyone does unnatural things. When you comment a photo appears, and I assume that it is you. It has short hair, and in that case you are interfering with with natural tendancy to grow real long. This is an “unnatural” thing, yet you have no problem doing it. I suggest you stop your ignoring of naturalness for convenient circumstances and resurrecting from oblivion of naturalness concerns when it provides support for your positions.

    “3. Gay couples can never provide a mother and a father to a child. Never.”

    So could a single parent who has no interest in (re)marrying.

    “You try to say those aren’t good reasons, but your arguments fail. And incestuous and polygamous couples could come up with plenty of reasons that they consider “good.” Humans rationalize all sorts of bizarre things. You must have a deep seated bigotry, hatred and prejudice against those people for not seeing the definition of good the way they do.”

    It’s impossible to prove absolutely with 100% certainty any sort of negative, the same way it’s impossible to prove that the sign of the Coulomb force constant won’t change. It could happen (though extremely unlikely) and that does not make forming a contingency plan about what to do it like charges attract, opposites repel, and compasses point south a productive use of time. Similarly, worrying about SSM leading to polygamy and incest is not a productive use of time and energy. Polygamy for the reasons I have mentioned in previous comments, as well as the fact that of all religions and cultures that allow polygamy, none require it (they are still predominantly monogamous, and Mormon Fundamentalists don’t count because they are using their religion to justify the expulsion of boys and rape of girls, which are perfectly good reasons for going after them.). Just because something is allowed does not mean it is required; drinking beer is legal, but you won’t be thrown in jail for abstaining from alcohol. This will defeat any religion/culture based argument for polygamy. Regarding incest, for the reasons I gave in previous comments. Also, the definition of incest is partially culturally determined. In some societies, parallel cousins (children of your father’s brothers or your mother’s sisters) are considered siblings, whereas cross cousins (children of your mother’s brothers and your father’s sisters) are not. In biological terms, there is no difference between cross cousins and parallel cousins. And yet some societies treat them different, considering incest to take place between parallel cousins but not cross cousins. However, every society considered sex between lineal relatives and siblings to be incestual.

    “Gay couples have the “rights” to be together, get married in apostate churches, etc. They just don’t have the right to gov’t approval, which they crave out of their attempt to rationalize their sins. They remind me of Michael Scott of The Office and his utter narcissism and desperate need for approval: “Do I need to be liked? Absolutely not. I like to be liked. I enjoy being liked. I have to be liked. But it’s not this compulsive need to be liked, like my need to be praised.”

    Calling other churches “apostate” is meaningless because they consider you an apostate for the same reasons you consider them one. And calling it a sin is also meaningless because citing scripture is only going to convince people who follow the samne scripture and interpret it the same way. Also, I suggest you follow your own scripture consistently and not cherry pick the “sins” you worry about. Start denouncing mixed-fiber clothing, the eating of pork and shellfish, and the non-amputation of body parts that cause people to sin, and then you’ll no longer be cherry picking.

    Also, this conflates weddings with marriage, even though they are different things. A common law marriage has no wedding, but is a legitimate marriage. Until a marriage contract is signed, a wedding is just a ceremony. Not recognizing a marriage means that, in legal terms, the couple might as well be complete strangers because the benefits associated with marriage are arbitrarily denied to them.

    “Sure. And I’ve demonstrated why you are deceived and/or a deceiver — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/there-is-no-homosexual-agenda/

    The real scandal of the evangelical mind is that there isn’t much of an evangelical mind. That previous sentence and bad pun expresses a fact that happens to not be true. How then did it originate? Because of a perception that they are closed-minded, theocracy-wanting, anti-intellectual bigots. Is there at least one evangelical who is a closed-minded, theocracy-wanting, anti-intellectual bigot? Yes. But does that mean that every evangelical is a closed-minded, theocracy-wanting, anti-intellectual bigot? No. Why then is it appropriate to indiscriminantly lump all LGBT people in one group with one “agenda”? There is as much diversity amongst LGBT people, for example gay conservatives exist, and it silly to claim that all LGBT people are a unified group with one agenda because there is no unified LGBT group. This is why the “homosexual agenda” does not exist.

    And what makes you so certain that you are not being deceived into falsely thinking that a homosexual agenda exists?

    And regarding final words, comments are about to expire here.

  14. […] equality in New York on several occasions, even arguing with someone else at one time. It is glad to see that marriage equality will finally come to pass […]

Feel free to leave a reply.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: