Board 8 > seriously though, there isn't a single good argument against gay marriage

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Master Epyon 02/23/12 2:33:00 PM #51:	Not at all. The statement was not that gay marriage should be allowed, it was that there are no arguments against it. That a very different claim. And amusingly, not one has shown up yet. Incidentally, this is a perfect reason why it's not always a good idea to play devil's advocate. Sometimes you're just playing the devil. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:830967] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Not at all. The statement was not that gay marriage should be allowed, it was that there are no arguments against it. That a very different claim.And amusingly, not one has shown up yet.Incidentally, this is a perfect reason why it's not always a good idea to play devil's advocate. Sometimes you're just playing the devil. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dark Young Link 02/23/12 2:33:00 PM #52:	*Master Epyon posted...* You'll get what's coming to you Ulti, wait and see. - Takfloyd_mkII__ Board 8 - Saturday Morning Cartoon Villains? Best thing about that? I believe he said that over Ulti making this.. http://board8.wikia.com/wiki/Takfloyd_mkII -- You'll get what's coming to you Ulti, wait and see. - Takfloyd_mkII__ <cite>Dark Young Link posted [p:830968] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Master Epyon posted...You'll get what's coming to you Ulti, wait and see. - Takfloyd_mkII__ Board 8 - Saturday Morning Cartoon Villains?Best thing about that? I believe he said that over Ulti making this..http://board8.wikia.com/wiki/Takfloyd_mkII -- You'll get what's coming to you Ulti, wait and see. - Takfloyd_mkII__ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 02/23/12 2:34:00 PM #53:	Is it insulting to say "the sky is blue" when it's blue? You're leaving no room for anyone to respectfully disagree with you and say "the sky is actually purple." <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:830969] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Is it insulting to say "the sky is blue" when it's blue? You're leaving no room for anyone to respectfully disagree with you and say "the sky is actually purple." </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JeffreyRaze 02/23/12 2:35:00 PM #54:	Actually, I have a ton of respect for how red sox handles these sorts of topics, though I normally see him in topics for the other "side" of things. I am 100% for gay marriage, and I feel that is the only reasonable position. But for people who don't feel that way, this topic must look just as condescending as a topic titled "There's no good argument for unrestricted abortions". If you can't justify for your own position, then it's hypocritical to attack the other "side" for not justifying theirs. Of course, sometimes you hold positions you can't justify. But you shouldn't debate those anyways, stating them is enough. -- MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn <cite>JeffreyRaze posted [p:830970] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Actually, I have a ton of respect for how red sox handles these sorts of topics, though I normally see him in topics for the other "side" of things. I am 100% for gay marriage, and I feel that is the only reasonable position. But for people who don't feel that way, this topic must look just as condescending as a topic titled "There's no good argument for unrestricted abortions". If you can't justify for your own position, then it's hypocritical to attack the other "side" for not justifying theirs. Of course, sometimes you hold positions you can't justify. But you shouldn't debate those anyways, stating them is enough. -- MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below!http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paperwarior 02/23/12 2:35:00 PM #55:	I'm not convinced by any of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage. And that might've made a better topic title than what you had. -- The tragedy continues! <cite>paperwarior posted [p:830971] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> I'm not convinced by any of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage. And that might've made a better topic title than what you had. -- The tragedy continues! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 2:37:00 PM #56:	. But for people who don't feel that way, this topic must look just as condescending as a topic titled "There's no good argument for unrestricted abortions". Both sides don't always deserve equal time. "The sun is hot." "The sun is cold." Who deserves more time? Sometimes, one side is simply wrong. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:830972] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> . But for people who don't feel that way, this topic must look just as condescending as a topic titled "There's no good argument for unrestricted abortions".Both sides don't always deserve equal time."The sun is hot.""The sun is cold."Who deserves more time? Sometimes, one side is simply wrong. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dilated Chemist 02/23/12 2:38:00 PM #57:	If for some reason a disease killed off all the non-gays (made by gays?), we'd be **ed. -- GT: TriggerTRE / PSN: SolidTRE Life is short. Smile while you still have teeth! <cite>Dilated Chemist posted [p:830973] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> If for some reason a disease killed off all the non-gays (made by gays?), we'd be **ed. -- GT: TriggerTRE / PSN: SolidTRELife is short. Smile while you still have teeth! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 02/23/12 2:39:00 PM #58:	But for people who don't feel that way, this topic must look just as condescending as a topic titled "There's no good argument for unrestricted abortions". There is no good argument against gay marriage, though. Just because some people might find that condescending doesn't mean you shouldn't post it. A lot of people find a lot of stuff condescending. If you can't justify for your own position, then it's hypocritical to attack the other "side" for not justifying theirs. 1) Just because Grapefruit didn't justify his position doesn't mean he can't. 2) He didn't actually attack the other side for not justifying their position. <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:830974] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> But for people who don't feel that way, this topic must look just as condescending as a topic titled "There's no good argument for unrestricted abortions".There is no good argument against gay marriage, though. Just because some people might find that condescending doesn't mean you shouldn't post it. A lot of people find a lot of stuff condescending.If you can't justify for your own position, then it's hypocritical to attack the other "side" for not justifying theirs.1) Just because Grapefruit didn't justify his position doesn't mean he can't.2) He didn't actually attack the other side for not justifying their position. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dark Young Link 02/23/12 2:40:00 PM #59:	This topic could have been worded better, but basic human rights really shouldn't require an argument for it... -- You'll get what's coming to you Ulti, wait and see. - Takfloyd_mkII__ <cite>Dark Young Link posted [p:830975] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> This topic could have been worded better, but basic human rights really shouldn't require an argument for it... -- You'll get what's coming to you Ulti, wait and see. - Takfloyd_mkII__ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 2:41:00 PM #60:	If for some reason a disease killed off all the non-gays (made by gays?), we'd be **ed. Epic fail. Gays can still actually reproduce, and some are actually involved in straight marriages. If a disease were capable of doing something that...incredibly specific and not-at-all absurd, the LGBT population could easily take it upon themselves to repopulate humanity due to in vitro if needed. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:830976] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> If for some reason a disease killed off all the non-gays (made by gays?), we'd be ****ed.Epic fail. Gays can still actually reproduce, and some are actually involved in straight marriages. If a disease were capable of doing something that...incredibly specific and not-at-all absurd, the LGBT population could easily take it upon themselves to repopulate humanity due to in vitro if needed. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 2:41:00 PM #61:	Because no one who has shown up in this topic as of yet wants to argue against allowing gay marriage. But here are some quick arguments I suppose: 1. God says gay marriage is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. Wrong things should be illegal. Therefore gay marriage should be illegal. 2. The purpose of marriage is to produce children. Gay marriage does not produce children. Gay marriage does not achieve the purpose of marriage. Therefore gay marriage is not marriage. Therefore the state should not call gay marriage marriage. 3. Marriage has always been understood to be heterosexual. Therefore the definition of the word marriage involves 2 people of different sexes. Therefore a gay marriage is not a marriage by definition. Therefore it is silly for the state to try to define gay marriage as something it is obviously not, just like defining red as blue by fiat. You can disagree with any of these arguments, or any of the other arguments against gay marriage, of course. None of them offers conclusive proof. Your biggest problem with these 3 arguments at least is the basic premise. Does God really think gay marriage is wrong? Well, whether he does or not, that's not an issue with the argument anymore, but with the underlying facts. The argument can be reasonable even if the underlying facts can't be shown to be correct, or even if they are wrong. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:830977] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Because no one who has shown up in this topic as of yet wants to argue against allowing gay marriage. But here are some quick arguments I suppose:1. God says gay marriage is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. Wrong things should be illegal. Therefore gay marriage should be illegal.2. The purpose of marriage is to produce children. Gay marriage does not produce children. Gay marriage does not achieve the purpose of marriage. Therefore gay marriage is not marriage. Therefore the state should not call gay marriage marriage.3. Marriage has always been understood to be heterosexual. Therefore the definition of the word marriage involves 2 people of different sexes. Therefore a gay marriage is not a marriage by definition. Therefore it is silly for the state to try to define gay marriage as something it is obviously not, just like defining red as blue by fiat.You can disagree with any of these arguments, or any of the other arguments against gay marriage, of course. None of them offers conclusive proof.Your biggest problem with these 3 arguments at least is the basic premise. Does God really think gay marriage is wrong? Well, whether he does or not, that's not an issue with the argument anymore, but with the underlying facts. The argument can be reasonable even if the underlying facts can't be shown to be correct, or even if they are wrong. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SlymDayspring 02/23/12 2:42:00 PM #62:	If for some reason a disease killed off all the non-gays (made by gays?), we'd be **ed. as a gay person I can safely say I would be able to bang a girl to save our species. -_- in addition to the fact that we can create babies without intercourse at this point. -- I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png <cite>SlymDayspring posted [p:830978] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> If for some reason a disease killed off all the non-gays (made by gays?), we'd be ****ed.as a gay person I can safely say I would be able to bang a girl to save our species. -_-in addition to the fact that we can create babies without intercourse at this point. -- I'm "kind of a big deal".http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GrapefruitKing 02/23/12 2:42:00 PM #63:	From: paperwarior \| #055 I'm not convinced by any of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage. And that might've made a better topic title than what you had. true. but saying that "there isn't a single good argument" and saying that "no argument has convinced me" are similar to me -- http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp3yjnfEQ31qzn70vo1_500.gif <cite>GrapefruitKing posted [p:830979] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: paperwarior \| #055I'm not convinced by any of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage. And that might've made a better topic title than what you had.true.but saying that "there isn't a single good argument" and saying that "no argument has convinced me" are similar to me -- http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp3yjnfEQ31qzn70vo1_500.gif </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SlymDayspring 02/23/12 2:44:00 PM #64:	The argument can be reasonable too bad none of the ones you posted are reasonable. -- I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png <cite>SlymDayspring posted [p:830980] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> The argument can be reasonabletoo bad none of the ones you posted are reasonable. -- I'm "kind of a big deal".http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Leebo86 02/23/12 2:44:00 PM #65:	From: red sox 777 \| #061 1. God says gay marriage is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. Wrong things should be illegal. Therefore gay marriage should be illegal. Was this supposed to be a good argument? Using one religion's interpretation as the basis of a law is not a good argument. -- Connecticut Huskies <cite>Leebo86 posted [p:830981] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: red sox 777 \| #0611. God says gay marriage is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. Wrong things should be illegal. Therefore gay marriage should be illegal.Was this supposed to be a good argument? Using one religion's interpretation as the basis of a law is not a good argument. -- Connecticut Huskies </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 2:44:00 PM #66:	Sure they are, they just rely on facts you probably don't agree with. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:830982] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Sure they are, they just rely on facts you probably don't agree with. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JeffreyRaze 02/23/12 2:45:00 PM #67:	From: Master Epyon \| #056 . But for people who don't feel that way, this topic must look just as condescending as a topic titled "There's no good argument for unrestricted abortions". Both sides don't always deserve equal time. "The sun is hot." "The sun is cold." Who deserves more time? Sometimes, one side is simply wrong. I realize this, but... There undeniably is a HUGE number of people holding the other position. If 30% of the population believed the sun was cold, as absurd a position as that is you can't just handwave it off and be done with it. There is no good argument against gay marriage, though. Just because some people might find that condescending doesn't mean you shouldn't post it. A lot of people find a lot of stuff condescending. Well, I completely agree with you. It's not the condescending part so much as this is precisely what's going through the head of someone making a topic like that. Being one-hundred percent self assured means nothing, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. 1) Just because Grapefruit didn't justify his position doesn't mean he can't. 2) He didn't actually attack the other side for not justifying their position. 1) I realize this, but this topic would be a lot better had the position been justified by him. Without having done so, there's nothing to stop someone like red sox coming in and ripping you a new one. 2) Actually, my statement there was somewhat unrelated to the topic at hand. But even so, it makes one easily attack should someone want to. -- Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it. <cite>JeffreyRaze posted [p:830983] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: Master Epyon \| #056. But for people who don't feel that way, this topic must look just as condescending as a topic titled "There's no good argument for unrestricted abortions".Both sides don't always deserve equal time."The sun is hot.""The sun is cold."Who deserves more time? Sometimes, one side is simply wrong.I realize this, but... There undeniably is a HUGE number of people holding the other position. If 30% of the population believed the sun was cold, as absurd a position as that is you can't just handwave it off and be done with it. There is no good argument against gay marriage, though. Just because some people might find that condescending doesn't mean you shouldn't post it. A lot of people find a lot of stuff condescending.Well, I completely agree with you. It's not the condescending part so much as this is precisely what's going through the head of someone making a topic like that. Being one-hundred percent self assured means nothing, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. 1) Just because Grapefruit didn't justify his position doesn't mean he can't.2) He didn't actually attack the other side for not justifying their position.1) I realize this, but this topic would be a lot better had the position been justified by him. Without having done so, there's nothing to stop someone like red sox coming in and ripping you a new one.2) Actually, my statement there was somewhat unrelated to the topic at hand. But even so, it makes one easily attack should someone want to. -- Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 02/23/12 2:45:00 PM #68:	they just rely on facts you probably don't agree with. You agree with opinions, not facts. <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:830984] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> they just rely on facts you probably don't agree with.You agree with opinions, not facts. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 2:46:00 PM #69:	Because no one who has shown up in this topic as of yet wants to argue against allowing gay marriage. But here are some quick arguments I suppose: 1. God says gay marriage is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. Wrong things should be illegal. Therefore gay marriage should be illegal. God also says not to eat shrimp. Shrimp is not outlawed. Therefore why aren't we rallying to ban shrimp? 2. The purpose of marriage is to produce children. Laughable. Married couples don't always have children. Gays can have children via in vitro anyway. 3. Marriage has always been understood to be heterosexual. By who? Your biggest problem with these 3 arguments at least is the basic premise. Does God really think gay marriage is wrong? Well, whether he does or not, that's not an issue with the argument anymore, but with the underlying facts. The argument can be reasonable even if the underlying facts can't be shown to be correct, or even if they are wrong. "My magical fairy says it's wrong so it's wrong! We shouldn't let women vote either or let those uppity negros have any rights! My fairy SAID SO!" -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:830985] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Because no one who has shown up in this topic as of yet wants to argue against allowing gay marriage. But here are some quick arguments I suppose:1. God says gay marriage is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. Wrong things should be illegal. Therefore gay marriage should be illegal.God also says not to eat shrimp. Shrimp is not outlawed. Therefore why aren't we rallying to ban shrimp?2. The purpose of marriage is to produce children.Laughable. Married couples don't always have children. Gays can have children via in vitro anyway.3. Marriage has always been understood to be heterosexual.By who?Your biggest problem with these 3 arguments at least is the basic premise. Does God really think gay marriage is wrong? Well, whether he does or not, that's not an issue with the argument anymore, but with the underlying facts. The argument can be reasonable even if the underlying facts can't be shown to be correct, or even if they are wrong."My magical fairy says it's wrong so it's wrong! We shouldn't let women vote either or let those uppity negros have any rights! My fairy SAID SO!" -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GrapefruitKing 02/23/12 2:47:00 PM #70:	I didn't explain my position because the fact that everybody should be considered equal is obvious to me... Master Epyon said it the best From: Master Epyon \| #045 Human beings deserve to be treated equally and gays not being allowed to marry is discrimination. Done. -- http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp3yjnfEQ31qzn70vo1_500.gif <cite>GrapefruitKing posted [p:830986] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> I didn't explain my position because the fact that everybody should be considered equal is obvious to me...Master Epyon said it the bestFrom: Master Epyon \| #045Human beings deserve to be treated equally and gays not being allowed to marry is discrimination.Done. -- http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp3yjnfEQ31qzn70vo1_500.gif </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 2:47:00 PM #71:	I realize this, but... There undeniably is a HUGE number of people holding the other position. If 30% of the population believed the sun was cold, as absurd a position as that is you can't just handwave it off and be done with it. Argument ad populum. There is literally a portion of the population of the U.S. who believe in geocentrism, but that doesn't make it reality, nor should people who believe in such be taken seriously at all. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:830987] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> I realize this, but... There undeniably is a HUGE number of people holding the other position. If 30% of the population believed the sun was cold, as absurd a position as that is you can't just handwave it off and be done with it. Argument ad populum. There is literally a portion of the population of the U.S. who believe in geocentrism, but that doesn't make it reality, nor should people who believe in such be taken seriously at all. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 2:48:00 PM #72:	Was this supposed to be a good argument? Using one religion's interpretation as the basis of a law is not a good argument. In this argument we relied not on religious interpretation but fact. We assumed that God definitively said that gay marriage was wrong. You can disagree about facts of course. But the correctness of facts is usually not something that logical argument is going to solve. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:830988] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Was this supposed to be a good argument? Using one religion's interpretation as the basis of a law is not a good argument.In this argument we relied not on religious interpretation but fact. We assumed that God definitively said that gay marriage was wrong. You can disagree about facts of course. But the correctness of facts is usually not something that logical argument is going to solve. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Leebo86 02/23/12 2:49:00 PM #73:	From: red sox 777 \| #072 In this argument we relied not on religious interpretation but fact. We assumed that God definitively said that gay marriage was wrong. You can disagree about facts of course. But the correctness of facts is usually not something that logical argument is going to solve. What? When did anyone agree to anything about God? -- Connecticut Huskies <cite>Leebo86 posted [p:830989] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: red sox 777 \| #072In this argument we relied not on religious interpretation but fact. We assumed that God definitively said that gay marriage was wrong. You can disagree about facts of course. But the correctness of facts is usually not something that logical argument is going to solve.What? When did anyone agree to anything about God? -- Connecticut Huskies </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dark Young Link 02/23/12 2:49:00 PM #74:	*Master Epyon posted...* . God also says not to eat shrimp. He does? **! No way I'm not going to hell... -- You'll get what's coming to you Ulti, wait and see. - Takfloyd_mkII__ <cite>Dark Young Link posted [p:830990] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Master Epyon posted....God also says not to eat shrimp. He does?**! No way I'm not going to hell... -- You'll get what's coming to you Ulti, wait and see. - Takfloyd_mkII__ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SlymDayspring 02/23/12 2:49:00 PM #75:	Sure they are, they just rely on facts you probably don't agree with. What facts? the first argument relies on no facts, the second argument relies on no facts, the third argument relies on no facts. all of those arguments are based on opinions that have been formed based on incorrect reasoning, aka not reasonable. -- I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png <cite>SlymDayspring posted [p:830991] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Sure they are, they just rely on facts you probably don't agree with.What facts? the first argument relies on no facts, the second argument relies on no facts, the third argument relies on no facts.all of those arguments are based on opinions that have been formed based on incorrect reasoning, aka not reasonable. -- I'm "kind of a big deal".http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 2:50:00 PM #76:	You agree with opinions, not facts. That's a common misconception. People can and do disagree on facts all the time. That's the function of juries actually, to decide what the facts are! -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:830992] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> You agree with opinions, not facts.That's a common misconception. People can and do disagree on facts all the time. That's the function of juries actually, to decide what the facts are! -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 2:52:00 PM #77:	What facts? the first argument relies on no facts, the second argument relies on no facts, the third argument relies on no facts. all of those arguments are based on opinions that have been formed based on incorrect reasoning, aka not reasonable. The first sentence of each of them. Again, you probably think these facts are wrong. There was no incorrect reasoning as far as I can see in any of them. It's just that you don't accept the factual premise. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:830993] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> What facts? the first argument relies on no facts, the second argument relies on no facts, the third argument relies on no facts.all of those arguments are based on opinions that have been formed based on incorrect reasoning, aka not reasonable.The first sentence of each of them. Again, you probably think these facts are wrong. There was no incorrect reasoning as far as I can see in any of them. It's just that you don't accept the factual premise. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 2:53:00 PM #78:	I have a magical invisible fairy beside me that tells me that it's okay to steal from people, and if you argue against this you're arguing against the facts. Circular logic in this thread. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:830994] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> I have a magical invisible fairy beside me that tells me that it's okay to steal from people, and if you argue against this you're arguing against the facts.Circular logic in this thread. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Leebo86 02/23/12 2:53:00 PM #79:	If there's some proof that God feels this way, it shouldn't be hard to establish it as a fact. -- Connecticut Huskies <cite>Leebo86 posted [p:830995] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> If there's some proof that God feels this way, it shouldn't be hard to establish it as a fact. -- Connecticut Huskies </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JeffreyRaze 02/23/12 2:54:00 PM #80:	1. God says gay marriage is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. Wrong things should be illegal. Therefore gay marriage should be illegal. Separation of church and state. 2. The purpose of marriage is to produce children. Gay marriage does not produce children. Gay marriage does not achieve the purpose of marriage. Therefore gay marriage is not marriage. Therefore the state should not call gay marriage marriage. Marriage does not have a fertility requirement. Otherwise the elderly could not marry. 3. Marriage has always been understood to be heterosexual. Therefore the definition of the word marriage involves 2 people of different sexes. Therefore a gay marriage is not a marriage by definition. Therefore it is silly for the state to try to define gay marriage as something it is obviously not, just like defining red as blue by fiat. Defined by whom? Argument ad populum. There is literally a portion of the population of the U.S. who believe in geocentrism, but that doesn't make it reality, nor should people who believe in such be taken seriously at all. Not applicable. I'm not making the statement that people holding the position makes it true, only that it cannot be simply dismissed. Even if it can be easily conclusively demonstrated that they're wrong, you need to actually do so. -- Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it. <cite>JeffreyRaze posted [p:830996] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> 1. God says gay marriage is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. Wrong things should be illegal. Therefore gay marriage should be illegal.Separation of church and state.2. The purpose of marriage is to produce children. Gay marriage does not produce children. Gay marriage does not achieve the purpose of marriage. Therefore gay marriage is not marriage. Therefore the state should not call gay marriage marriage.Marriage does not have a fertility requirement. Otherwise the elderly could not marry.3. Marriage has always been understood to be heterosexual. Therefore the definition of the word marriage involves 2 people of different sexes. Therefore a gay marriage is not a marriage by definition. Therefore it is silly for the state to try to define gay marriage as something it is obviously not, just like defining red as blue by fiat.Defined by whom?Argument ad populum. There is literally a portion of the population of the U.S. who believe in geocentrism, but that doesn't make it reality, nor should people who believe in such be taken seriously at all.Not applicable. I'm not making the statement that people holding the position makes it true, only that it cannot be simply dismissed. Even if it can be easily conclusively demonstrated that they're wrong, you need to actually do so. -- Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 2:54:00 PM #81:	What? When did anyone agree to anything about God? I never said those arguments would be convincing, or that you would agree with their factual premises. Many people in the country, of course, do agree with those facts, and if they reason based on those facts, their reasoning is fine. So you shouldn't make a claim like "there isn't a single good argument against gay marriage." You'd be better off telling people, "your facts are wrong." -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:830997] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> What? When did anyone agree to anything about God?I never said those arguments would be convincing, or that you would agree with their factual premises. Many people in the country, of course, do agree with those facts, and if they reason based on those facts, their reasoning is fine. So you shouldn't make a claim like "there isn't a single good argument against gay marriage." You'd be better off telling people, "your facts are wrong." -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 02/23/12 2:55:00 PM #82:	In this argument we relied not on religious interpretation but fact. We assumed that God definitively said that gay marriage was wrong. You can disagree about facts of course. But the correctness of facts is usually not something that logical argument is going to solve. The assumption that God said gay marriage is wrong doesn't make it a fact you can disagree with. It's an assumption without evidence. <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:830998] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> In this argument we relied not on religious interpretation but fact. We assumed that God definitively said that gay marriage was wrong. You can disagree about facts of course. But the correctness of facts is usually not something that logical argument is going to solve.The assumption that God said gay marriage is wrong doesn't make it a fact you can disagree with. It's an assumption without evidence. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 2:55:00 PM #83:	It's a fact that a fictional character hates gay people (actually, that's arguable due to interpretations of the bible but I digress) but what the hell does that have to do with marriage whatsoever? -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:830999] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> It's a fact that a fictional character hates gay people (actually, that's arguable due to interpretations of the bible but I digress) but what the hell does that have to do with marriage whatsoever? -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SlymDayspring 02/23/12 2:56:00 PM #84:	God says gay marriage is wrong. opinion that even if true for your god, does not mean that this should affect a secular governments policy. The purpose of marriage is to produce children. opinion that has ABSOLUTELY no basis. unless the government specifically said the purpose of marriage is to produce children, which they have not. Marriage has always been understood to be heterosexual. not even an opinion, just straight up historically and factually definitively incorrect. gay marriage has happened for years now. -- I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png <cite>SlymDayspring posted [p:831000] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> God says gay marriage is wrong. opinion that even if true for your god, does not mean that this should affect a secular governments policy. The purpose of marriage is to produce children.opinion that has ABSOLUTELY no basis. unless the government specifically said the purpose of marriage is to produce children, which they have not. Marriage has always been understood to be heterosexual.not even an opinion, just straight up historically and factually definitively incorrect. gay marriage has happened for years now. -- I'm "kind of a big deal".http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paperwarior 02/23/12 2:57:00 PM #85:	The first one is definitely weak from a legal standpoint, as the state is not supposed to favor any one religion, and not all religions (or people's interpretations of their religions) are against gay marriage. The second one proposes a decent argument for not calling gay marriage marriage, but not for treating it differently than marriage. The person who proposes this ought to support civil unions. And gays, like infertile couples, can provide a different beneficial role by adopting. This one seems a little sketchy on the premises. It's an over-generalization to say that marriage has always been understood as heterosexual, as there have been cultures in which it wasn't. And appealing to tradition isn't very strong either, as tradition has often been changed and considered to have been bizarre in retrospect. Finally, my argument for gay marriage is that it isn't harmful to allow it, society is ready for the law to change, and if you have to decide whether to make a law against something that is controversial but not directly harmful, it is usually better to err on the side of freedom. See, now we're actually arguing about gay marriage. -- The tragedy continues! <cite>paperwarior posted [p:831001] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> The first one is definitely weak from a legal standpoint, as the state is not supposed to favor any one religion, and not all religions (or people's interpretations of their religions) are against gay marriage.The second one proposes a decent argument for not calling gay marriage marriage, but not for treating it differently than marriage. The person who proposes this ought to support civil unions. And gays, like infertile couples, can provide a different beneficial role by adopting.This one seems a little sketchy on the premises. It's an over-generalization to say that marriage has always been understood as heterosexual, as there have been cultures in which it wasn't. And appealing to tradition isn't very strong either, as tradition has often been changed and considered to have been bizarre in retrospect.Finally, my argument for gay marriage is that it isn't harmful to allow it, society is ready for the law to change, and if you have to decide whether to make a law against something that is controversial but not directly harmful, it is usually better to err on the side of freedom.See, now we're actually arguing about gay marriage. -- The tragedy continues! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 2:58:00 PM #86:	1. God says gay marriage is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. Wrong things should be illegal. Therefore gay marriage should be illegal. Separation of church and state. Separation of church and state wasn't addressed in this quick argument, but I actually got around it. First we reasoned that gay marriage was wrong, then we used the fact that it was wrong to get to illegal. God only told us it was wrong. 2. The purpose of marriage is to produce children. Gay marriage does not produce children. Gay marriage does not achieve the purpose of marriage. Therefore gay marriage is not marriage. Therefore the state should not call gay marriage marriage. Marriage does not have a fertility requirement. Otherwise the elderly could not marry. Maybe we should ban elderly marriage then, to be consistent. 3. Marriage has always been understood to be heterosexual. Therefore the definition of the word marriage involves 2 people of different sexes. Therefore a gay marriage is not a marriage by definition. Therefore it is silly for the state to try to define gay marriage as something it is obviously not, just like defining red as blue by fiat. Defined by whom? By 99.99% of humans throughout history. Example: Ancient Sparta had common homosexual relationships, but they never thought of it as marriage. A man could have a wife and have sexual relations with men even and this was seen as normal. But never homosexual marriage. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:831002] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> 1. God says gay marriage is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. Wrong things should be illegal. Therefore gay marriage should be illegal.Separation of church and state.Separation of church and state wasn't addressed in this quick argument, but I actually got around it. First we reasoned that gay marriage was wrong, then we used the fact that it was wrong to get to illegal. God only told us it was wrong.2. The purpose of marriage is to produce children. Gay marriage does not produce children. Gay marriage does not achieve the purpose of marriage. Therefore gay marriage is not marriage. Therefore the state should not call gay marriage marriage.Marriage does not have a fertility requirement. Otherwise the elderly could not marry.Maybe we should ban elderly marriage then, to be consistent.3. Marriage has always been understood to be heterosexual. Therefore the definition of the word marriage involves 2 people of different sexes. Therefore a gay marriage is not a marriage by definition. Therefore it is silly for the state to try to define gay marriage as something it is obviously not, just like defining red as blue by fiat.Defined by whom?By 99.99% of humans throughout history. Example: Ancient Sparta had common homosexual relationships, but they never thought of it as marriage. A man could have a wife and have sexual relations with men even and this was seen as normal. But never homosexual marriage. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Leebo86 02/23/12 2:58:00 PM #87:	From: red sox 777 \| #081 I never said those arguments would be convincing, or that you would agree with their factual premises. Many people in the country, of course, do agree with those facts, and if they reason based on those facts, their reasoning is fine. So you shouldn't make a claim like "there isn't a single good argument against gay marriage." You'd be better off telling people, "your facts are wrong." Your wording of "we assumed" made it sound like there was some kind of established discussion where this was taken as a given. As I said before, I can't accept religion as an argument for the legality of this, and there's pretty much no getting around that. -- Connecticut Huskies <cite>Leebo86 posted [p:831003] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: red sox 777 \| #081I never said those arguments would be convincing, or that you would agree with their factual premises. Many people in the country, of course, do agree with those facts, and if they reason based on those facts, their reasoning is fine. So you shouldn't make a claim like "there isn't a single good argument against gay marriage." You'd be better off telling people, "your facts are wrong."Your wording of "we assumed" made it sound like there was some kind of established discussion where this was taken as a given.As I said before, I can't accept religion as an argument for the legality of this, and there's pretty much no getting around that. -- Connecticut Huskies </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KingButz 02/23/12 2:59:00 PM #88:	From: GrapefruitKing \| #063 true. but saying that "there isn't a single good argument" and saying that "no argument has convinced me" are similar to me That's ridiculous. I could make a topic saying the exact opposite and then say well "no argument has convinced me lolol." A good argument doesn't have to necessarily be conclusive and doesn't have to convince everyone. A good argument is logical, credible, and appeals to sympathies and sensibility. Whether or not you agree with the argument has nothing to do with its strength. For example, I am against the definition of life starting at conception and regardless of the arguments for it, I will not be convinced otherwise. It doesn't mean that good arguments don't exist. -- http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Ok everyone this is Bartz so just remember. <cite>KingButz posted [p:831004] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: GrapefruitKing \| #063true.but saying that "there isn't a single good argument" and saying that "no argument has convinced me" are similar to meThat's ridiculous. I could make a topic saying the exact opposite and then say well "no argument has convinced me lolol."A good argument doesn't have to necessarily be conclusive and doesn't have to convince everyone. A good argument is logical, credible, and appeals to sympathies and sensibility. Whether or not you agree with the argument has nothing to do with its strength.For example, I am against the definition of life starting at conception and regardless of the arguments for it, I will not be convinced otherwise. It doesn't mean that good arguments don't exist. -- http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.pngOk everyone this is Bartz so just remember. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:00:00 PM #89:	By 99.99% of humans throughout history. If 99.9% of the population believes the sky is purple, does that make it true? -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831005] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> By 99.99% of humans throughout history.If 99.9% of the population believes the sky is purple, does that make it true? -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Leebo86 02/23/12 3:01:00 PM #90:	It wouldn't matter if God came down and lobbied in Congress, his thoughts don't make laws here. -- Connecticut Huskies <cite>Leebo86 posted [p:831006] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> It wouldn't matter if God came down and lobbied in Congress, his thoughts don't make laws here. -- Connecticut Huskies </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:01:00 PM #91:	It's so easy to take a perch on the fence when you have nothing at stake. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831007] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> It's so easy to take a perch on the fence when you have nothing at stake. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SlymDayspring 02/23/12 3:01:00 PM #92:	The second one proposes a decent argument for not calling gay marriage marriage, but not for treating it differently than marriage. The person who proposes this ought to support civil unions. And gays, like infertile couples, can provide a different beneficial role by adopting. This pisses me off. People need to stop accepting that as reasonable. Marriage...if it is recognized by the government and not just the church is ....A CIVIL UNION. Creating a whole new civil union called 'civil union' that is the same thing as marriage is for no purpose but to discriminate against gay people, and that is not a good argument. If the government recognized marriage for procreation, they would not allow infertile/couples that do not plan to have kids to marry. -- I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png <cite>SlymDayspring posted [p:831008] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> The second one proposes a decent argument for not calling gay marriage marriage, but not for treating it differently than marriage. The person who proposes this ought to support civil unions. And gays, like infertile couples, can provide a different beneficial role by adopting.This pisses me off. People need to stop accepting that as reasonable. Marriage...if it is recognized by the government and not just the church is ....A CIVIL UNION. Creating a whole new civil union called 'civil union' that is the same thing as marriage is for no purpose but to discriminate against gay people, and that is not a good argument. If the government recognized marriage for procreation, they would not allow infertile/couples that do not plan to have kids to marry. -- I'm "kind of a big deal".http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:01:00 PM #93:	It wouldn't matter if God came down and lobbied in Congress, his thoughts don't make laws here. Absolutely correct. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831009] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> It wouldn't matter if God came down and lobbied in Congress, his thoughts don't make laws here.Absolutely correct. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KingButz 02/23/12 3:01:00 PM #94:	From: Master Epyon \| #089 By 99.99% of humans throughout history. If 99.9% of the population believes the sky is purple, does that make it true? If they do, you should probably take another look at the definition of the word "purple." -- http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Ok everyone this is Bartz so just remember. <cite>KingButz posted [p:831010] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: Master Epyon \| #089By 99.99% of humans throughout history.If 99.9% of the population believes the sky is purple, does that make it true?If they do, you should probably take another look at the definition of the word "purple." -- http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.pngOk everyone this is Bartz so just remember. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 3:02:00 PM #95:	Anyway, the thing is those arguments were not intended to actually convince anyone that gay marriage should be banned. Your attacks on them have all been on issues other than the actual reasoning of the arguments themselves. And guess what? People are free to disagree on the facts! If you don't agree with the factual premise of an argument, you don't have to agree with its conclusion. Even though the reasoning is perfectly valid. That way people can have a respectful discussion and try to convince each other. There is no need to jump to: your reasoning is logically wrong, you are stupid. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:831011] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Anyway, the thing is those arguments were not intended to actually convince anyone that gay marriage should be banned. Your attacks on them have all been on issues other than the actual reasoning of the arguments themselves.And guess what? People are free to disagree on the facts! If you don't agree with the factual premise of an argument, you don't have to agree with its conclusion. Even though the reasoning is perfectly valid. That way people can have a respectful discussion and try to convince each other. There is no need to jump to: your reasoning is logically wrong, you are stupid. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paperwarior 02/23/12 3:04:00 PM #96:	It wouldn't matter if God came down and lobbied in Congress, his thoughts don't make laws here. If we have definite proof of a religion, I don't think it's unreasonable to start following that religion. And I'm sure Congress doesn't want to get smote. -- The tragedy continues! <cite>paperwarior posted [p:831012] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> It wouldn't matter if God came down and lobbied in Congress, his thoughts don't make laws here.If we have definite proof of a religion, I don't think it's unreasonable to start following that religion. And I'm sure Congress doesn't want to get smote. -- The tragedy continues! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JeffreyRaze 02/23/12 3:04:00 PM #97:	Separation of church and state wasn't addressed in this quick argument, but I actually got around it. First we reasoned that gay marriage was wrong, then we used the fact that it was wrong to get to illegal. God only told us it was wrong. Regardless, without invoking god you'd need to find a different way of declaring it wrong. In this case the burden would be on those making the claim it is wrong. Maybe we should ban elderly marriage then, to be consistent. If people who were against gay marriage pushed for this it would be more consistent, which would make it a harder position to attack. Of course, the (vast) majority of anti gay marriage people out there do not hold this position, so it's relatively irrelevant. By 99.99% of humans throughout history. Example: Ancient Sparta had common homosexual relationships, but they never thought of it as marriage. A man could have a wife and have sexual relations with men even and this was seen as normal. But never homosexual marriage. Alright. However, tradition isn't a basis for position in itself. -- Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it. <cite>JeffreyRaze posted [p:831013] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Separation of church and state wasn't addressed in this quick argument, but I actually got around it. First we reasoned that gay marriage was wrong, then we used the fact that it was wrong to get to illegal. God only told us it was wrong.Regardless, without invoking god you'd need to find a different way of declaring it wrong. In this case the burden would be on those making the claim it is wrong.Maybe we should ban elderly marriage then, to be consistent.If people who were against gay marriage pushed for this it would be more consistent, which would make it a harder position to attack. Of course, the (vast) majority of anti gay marriage people out there do not hold this position, so it's relatively irrelevant. By 99.99% of humans throughout history. Example: Ancient Sparta had common homosexual relationships, but they never thought of it as marriage. A man could have a wife and have sexual relations with men even and this was seen as normal. But never homosexual marriage.Alright. However, tradition isn't a basis for position in itself. -- Sig space for rent. Got something you'd like to see spread around? Give me a shout out, I'll probably sig it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 3:04:00 PM #98:	If 99.9% of the population believes the sky is purple, does that make it true? Actually........yes. Now if they insisted the sky and the pavement were the same color, you could say they were wrong. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:831014] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> If 99.9% of the population believes the sky is purple, does that make it true?Actually........yes. Now if they insisted the sky and the pavement were the same color, you could say they were wrong. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SlymDayspring 02/23/12 3:05:00 PM #99:	There is no factual premise to those arguments, that is the point. There are incorrect assumptions based on false reasoning or just reality denial (in the case of marriage always being heterosexual), which is an unreasonable basis for an argument aka AN UNREASONABLE ARGUMENT. -- I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png <cite>SlymDayspring posted [p:831015] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> There is no factual premise to those arguments, that is the point. There are incorrect assumptions based on false reasoning or just reality denial (in the case of marriage always being heterosexual), which is an unreasonable basis for an argument aka AN UNREASONABLE ARGUMENT. -- I'm "kind of a big deal".http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:05:00 PM #100:	If they do, you should probably take another look at the definition of the word "purple. Mind = blown Oh and redsox, nothing you said is factual at all. Not even the first "argument" - as some interpretations of the bible believe that Leviticus was referring to men lying with boys. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831016] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> If they do, you should probably take another look at the definition of the word "purple.Mind = blownOh and redsox, nothing you said is factual at all. Not even the first "argument" - as some interpretations of the bible believe that Leviticus was referring to men lying with boys. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Board 8 > seriously though, there isn't a single good argument against gay marriage (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > seriously though, there isn't a single good argument against gay marriage