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

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Leebo86 02/23/12 3:05:00 PM #101:	From: paperwarior \| #096 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. Well, if you're going to assume that God coming down means everyone converted and there's no separation of church and state, the argument is moot. -- Connecticut Huskies <cite>Leebo86 posted [p:831017] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: paperwarior \| #096If 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.Well, if you're going to assume that God coming down means everyone converted and there's no separation of church and state, the argument is moot. -- Connecticut Huskies </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JeffreyRaze 02/23/12 3:05:00 PM #102:	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? Dammit. Stop using that wrong. This isn't a statement of truth. -- http://img.imgcake.com/AlecTrevylan006/JeffRaze1pngdy.png <cite>JeffreyRaze posted [p:831018] 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?Dammit. Stop using that wrong. This isn't a statement of truth. -- http://img.imgcake.com/AlecTrevylan006/JeffRaze1pngdy.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:06:00 PM #103:	Actually........yes. Argument ad populum. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831019] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Actually........yes.Argument ad populum. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 02/23/12 3:06:00 PM #104:	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. The thing is that you have a weird definition of "facts," to say the least. You make it sound like what constitutes as facts is dependent on whatever person is talking about said facts. If I claim I'm able to fly, that doesn't mean I was discussing a fact that other people might disagree with. It means I was talking BS. <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:831020] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> 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.The thing is that you have a weird definition of "facts," to say the least. You make it sound like what constitutes as facts is dependent on whatever person is talking about said facts.If I claim I'm able to fly, that doesn't mean I was discussing a fact that other people might disagree with. It means I was talking BS. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:07:00 PM #105:	Dammit. Stop using that wrong. This isn't a statement of truth. lolwut should I have picked a different color? -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831021] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Dammit. Stop using that wrong. This isn't a statement of truth.lolwutshould I have picked a different color? -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 3:09:00 PM #106:	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. An unreasonable argument is where the premises do not support the conclusion. We do not question the truth of the premises in deciding whether an argument is reasonable or not. It'd be fair for you to ask someone to justify why their premises are true. But then that would be a different argument. For those 3, I think you'll find it just about impossible to conclusively disprove those premises. Even if you would never accept them. That's my point here: you don't have to. 2 reasonable people do not have to disagree. Maybe 2 omniscient people would have to agree or disagree on everything (there could still be value judgments that would probably prevent that even then). But for us, certainly not. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:831022] 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.An unreasonable argument is where the premises do not support the conclusion. We do not question the truth of the premises in deciding whether an argument is reasonable or not.It'd be fair for you to ask someone to justify why their premises are true. But then that would be a different argument. For those 3, I think you'll find it just about impossible to conclusively disprove those premises. Even if you would never accept them.That's my point here: you don't have to. 2 reasonable people do not have to disagree. Maybe 2 omniscient people would have to agree or disagree on everything (there could still be value judgments that would probably prevent that even then). But for us, certainly not. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JeffreyRaze 02/23/12 3:10:00 PM #107:	A statement of definition is not the same as a statement of truth. if 99.9% of the population defines something in a certain way... Well, definition is solely the provence of the population, when not using definition in a scientific manner. -- http://img.imgcake.com/Punny/FDpnggy.png <cite>JeffreyRaze posted [p:831023] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> A statement of definition is not the same as a statement of truth. if 99.9% of the population defines something in a certain way... Well, definition is solely the provence of the population, when not using definition in a scientific manner. -- http://img.imgcake.com/Punny/FDpnggy.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paperwarior 02/23/12 3:11:00 PM #108:	I feel like Separation of Church and State is based on our current definition of religion. If religion is synonymous with fact, it would not be wrong to make laws based on it. -- http://img.imgcake.com/paperpngvu.png <cite>paperwarior posted [p:831024] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> I feel like Separation of Church and State is based on our current definition of religion. If religion is synonymous with fact, it would not be wrong to make laws based on it. -- http://img.imgcake.com/paperpngvu.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JeffreyRaze 02/23/12 3:12:00 PM #109:	By 99.99% of humans throughout history. This is a statement of who set a definition. If 99.9% of the population believes the sky is purple, does that make it true? Although one could make an argument that this would change the definition of purple, ignoring that and using the current defninition that is conclusively wrong. Whereas the first is absolutely not something you can declare as wrong like that. Language is relative, not absolute. -- MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn <cite>JeffreyRaze posted [p:831025] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> By 99.99% of humans throughout history.This is a statement of who set a definition.If 99.9% of the population believes the sky is purple, does that make it true?Although one could make an argument that this would change the definition of purple, ignoring that and using the current defninition that is conclusively wrong. Whereas the first is absolutely not something you can declare as wrong like that. Language is relative, not absolute. -- 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 3:13:00 PM #110:	On the other hand, we could have a malevolent god, in which case we're pretty much screwed anyway because who can make war unto Him? -- I had a nightmare where Ulti forced me to eat brain matter. ;_;-MegaWentEvil <cite>paperwarior posted [p:831026] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> On the other hand, we could have a malevolent god, in which case we're pretty much screwed anyway because who can make war unto Him? -- I had a nightmare where Ulti forced me to eat brain matter. ;_;-MegaWentEvil </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 02/23/12 3:13:00 PM #111:	Well redsox is "basically right" in principle (other than calling what should be called "assumptions" "facts"); I think part of the problem is with the original question, where we haven't defined what constitutes a "good argument." Is an argument against gay marriage only good if it's in keeping with one of the assumptions the country was founded on, that all men are created equal? If we take that stance, then I think we can safely say none of the arguments red sox posted as examples are good, because they do nothing to address the inequality present in denying a group of people the same rights as everyone else. But ultimately, it's an issue of practicality; I may agree with your premise, and so may another 80% of the board (perhaps we even agree that it's obvious), but unless you explain your reasoning you're not really going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. -- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:831027] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Well redsox is "basically right" in principle (other than calling what should be called "assumptions" "facts"); I think part of the problem is with the original question, where we haven't defined what constitutes a "good argument."Is an argument against gay marriage only good if it's in keeping with one of the assumptions the country was founded on, that all men are created equal? If we take that stance, then I think we can safely say none of the arguments red sox posted as examples are good, because they do nothing to address the inequality present in denying a group of people the same rights as everyone else.But ultimately, it's an issue of practicality; I may agree with your premise, and so may another 80% of the board (perhaps we even agree that it's obvious), but unless you explain your reasoning you're not really going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. -- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - GuigaI wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 3:15:00 PM #112:	If I claim I'm able to fly, that doesn't mean I was discussing a fact that other people might disagree with. It means I was talking BS. Well, if your claim to fly was at issue in court for some reason, and the jury decided you could indeed fly, the judge (with some caveats) would be powerless to overturn their decision. But if the jury decided your ability to fly meant you were guilty of tax evasion, even though there was zero evidence brought at trial other than your flying ability, the judge could overrule their decision because it was logically incorrect. Being able to fly does not show tax evasion in any way, so it is bad reasoning. With gay marriage, many people do believe those 3 premises I listed. If you want to change their minds, attacking their reasoning on gay marriage will get you nowhere, you've got to convince them their premises are wrong. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:831028] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> If I claim I'm able to fly, that doesn't mean I was discussing a fact that other people might disagree with. It means I was talking BS.Well, if your claim to fly was at issue in court for some reason, and the jury decided you could indeed fly, the judge (with some caveats) would be powerless to overturn their decision. But if the jury decided your ability to fly meant you were guilty of tax evasion, even though there was zero evidence brought at trial other than your flying ability, the judge could overrule their decision because it was logically incorrect. Being able to fly does not show tax evasion in any way, so it is bad reasoning.With gay marriage, many people do believe those 3 premises I listed. If you want to change their minds, attacking their reasoning on gay marriage will get you nowhere, you've got to convince them their premises are wrong. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KingButz 02/23/12 3:17:00 PM #113:	I can't think of many good arguments, but how about this one? "Every time legalization of gay marriage has been put to a popular vote, it has consistent been rejected? Public polling has shown for years that Americans are against gay marriage. Because the majority of Americans do not want same-sex marriage to be legal, it should not be legalized." Again, I don't think this will convince anyone and is not a conclusive argument, but it is a valid argument. -- http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Ok everyone this is Bartz so just remember. <cite>KingButz posted [p:831029] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> I can't think of many good arguments, but how about this one?"Every time legalization of gay marriage has been put to a popular vote, it has consistent been rejected? Public polling has shown for years that Americans are against gay marriage. Because the majority of Americans do not want same-sex marriage to be legal, it should not be legalized."Again, I don't think this will convince anyone and is not a conclusive argument, but it is a valid argument. -- http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.pngOk everyone this is Bartz so just remember. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dark Young Link 02/23/12 3:18:00 PM #114:	In other words Good reason =/= convincing reason. -- You'll get what's coming to you Ulti, wait and see. - Takfloyd_mkII__ <cite>Dark Young Link posted [p:831030] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> In other wordsGood reason =/= convincing reason. -- You'll get what's coming to you Ulti, wait and see. - Takfloyd_mkII__ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
metroid13 02/23/12 3:20:00 PM #115:	From: KingButz \| #113 "Every time legalization of gay marriage has been put to a popular vote, it has consistent been rejected? Public polling has shown for years that Americans are against gay marriage. Because the majority of Americans do not want same-sex marriage to be legal, it should not be legalized." tyranny by the majority, etc. Even the founding fathers were wary (justified or not, as is the case with women and blacks, hell even people who didn't own land initially weren't allowed to vote) of letting the whole electorate decide every issue. That's why we're a republic and not a true democracy, and why we have a system of checks and balances. -- http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7267/chillsloth.gif It's hard work living as a sloth, but he finds time to relax. <cite>metroid13 posted [p:831031] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: KingButz \| #113"Every time legalization of gay marriage has been put to a popular vote, it has consistent been rejected? Public polling has shown for years that Americans are against gay marriage. Because the majority of Americans do not want same-sex marriage to be legal, it should not be legalized."tyranny by the majority, etc. Even the founding fathers were wary (justified or not, as is the case with women and blacks, hell even people who didn't own land initially weren't allowed to vote) of letting the whole electorate decide every issue. That's why we're a republic and not a true democracy, and why we have a system of checks and balances. -- http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7267/chillsloth.gifIt's hard work living as a sloth, but he finds time to relax. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 3:21:00 PM #116:	A statement of definition is not the same as a statement of truth. if 99.9% of the population defines something in a certain way... Well, definition is solely the provence of the population, when not using definition in a scientific manner. What does it mean to have a marriage but what marriage is defined as? Consider the situation in California right now- legally a civil union is identical to a marriage in every way, except for the name (or at least that's what the 9th Circuit Panel said in their opinion, I kind of doubt it is actually identical). Let's say President Cheney (surprise entry into a divided Republican Convention) gets a new federal law passed requiring all the states to recognize gay marriage. Some churches in response begin offering a new form of marriage they call "heterosexual marriage." Could gay people then demand to be allowed to have "heterosexual marriages" based on equal rights? -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:831032] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> A statement of definition is not the same as a statement of truth. if 99.9% of the population defines something in a certain way... Well, definition is solely the provence of the population, when not using definition in a scientific manner.What does it mean to have a marriage but what marriage is defined as? Consider the situation in California right now- legally a civil union is identical to a marriage in every way, except for the name (or at least that's what the 9th Circuit Panel said in their opinion, I kind of doubt it is actually identical).Let's say President Cheney (surprise entry into a divided Republican Convention) gets a new federal law passed requiring all the states to recognize gay marriage. Some churches in response begin offering a new form of marriage they call "heterosexual marriage." Could gay people then demand to be allowed to have "heterosexual marriages" based on equal rights? -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JeffreyRaze 02/23/12 3:25:00 PM #117:	Hrm. If civil unions and marriage were 100% equal in all but the name I personally wouldn't take issue with it, but I'm not gay, so I'm not really qualified to speak of such things. -- http://img.imgcake.com/AlecTrevylan006/JeffRaze1pngdy.png <cite>JeffreyRaze posted [p:831033] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Hrm. If civil unions and marriage were 100% equal in all but the name I personally wouldn't take issue with it, but I'm not gay, so I'm not really qualified to speak of such things. -- http://img.imgcake.com/AlecTrevylan006/JeffRaze1pngdy.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SlymDayspring 02/23/12 3:25:00 PM #118:	"Every time legalization of gay marriage has been put to a popular vote, it has consistent been rejected? Public polling has shown for years that Americans are against gay marriage. Because the majority of Americans do not want same-sex marriage to be legal, it should not be legalized." in addition to the fact that civil rights being put to a popular vote is absolutely unamerican and insane.... public polling has turned around recently (even from 2008) and now a majority nationally support gay marriage. FUN FACT: when interracial marriage was legalized by the courts, only about a third of the country supported it. -- I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png <cite>SlymDayspring posted [p:831034] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> "Every time legalization of gay marriage has been put to a popular vote, it has consistent been rejected? Public polling has shown for years that Americans are against gay marriage. Because the majority of Americans do not want same-sex marriage to be legal, it should not be legalized."in addition to the fact that civil rights being put to a popular vote is absolutely unamerican and insane.... public polling has turned around recently (even from 2008) and now a majority nationally support gay marriage. FUN FACT: when interracial marriage was legalized by the courts, only about a third of the country supported it. -- I'm "kind of a big deal".http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
metroid13 02/23/12 3:26:00 PM #119:	From: JeffreyRaze \| #117 Hrm. If civil unions and marriage were 100% equal in all but the name I personally wouldn't take issue with it, but I'm not gay, so I'm not really qualified to speak of such things. It's also a matter of pride, to be completely honest. Do we really need our own "special" kind of marriage? Seriously? -- http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7267/chillsloth.gif It's hard work living as a sloth, but he finds time to relax. <cite>metroid13 posted [p:831035] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: JeffreyRaze \| #117Hrm. If civil unions and marriage were 100% equal in all but the name I personally wouldn't take issue with it, but I'm not gay, so I'm not really qualified to speak of such things.It's also a matter of pride, to be completely honest. Do we really need our own "special" kind of marriage? Seriously? -- http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7267/chillsloth.gifIt's hard work living as a sloth, but he finds time to relax. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YetAnothrShadow 02/23/12 3:28:00 PM #120:	From: metroid13 \| #119 It's also a matter of pride, to be completely honest. Do we really need our own "special" kind of marriage? Seriously? Uh no? Cause there wouldn't be anything special about it. Unless people make it out to be special. -- Brawl is like ZSS' breasts. Well rounded for casual players http://ib.skaia.net/image/32143.gif <cite>YetAnothrShadow posted [p:831036] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: metroid13 \| #119It's also a matter of pride, to be completely honest. Do we really need our own "special" kind of marriage? Seriously?Uh no? Cause there wouldn't be anything special about it. Unless people make it out to be special. -- Brawl is like ZSS' breasts. Well rounded for casual playershttp://ib.skaia.net/image/32143.gif </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JeffreyRaze 02/23/12 3:29:00 PM #121:	I can certainly see that. But his example is a puzzling one. I'm trying to stick with logic and logic alone in this topic, so there's not much I can do with the matter. -- 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:831037] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> I can certainly see that. But his example is a puzzling one. I'm trying to stick with logic and logic alone in this topic, so there's not much I can do with the matter. -- 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!
JeffreyRaze 02/23/12 3:30:00 PM #122:	Well, I have to go. But this topic has been a pretty fun one. -- 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:831038] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Well, I have to go. But this topic has been a pretty fun one. -- 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!
SlymDayspring 02/23/12 3:31:00 PM #123:	Hrm. If civil unions and marriage were 100% equal in all but the name I personally wouldn't take issue with it, but I'm not gay, so I'm not really qualified to speak of such things. Of course you would see no issue with it. You are not being told you aren't allowed in the club because you are different for no legal reason beyond not wanting to offend a cult. -- I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png <cite>SlymDayspring posted [p:831039] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Hrm. If civil unions and marriage were 100% equal in all but the name I personally wouldn't take issue with it, but I'm not gay, so I'm not really qualified to speak of such things.Of course you would see no issue with it. You are not being told you aren't allowed in the club because you are different for no legal reason beyond not wanting to offend a cult. -- I'm "kind of a big deal".http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 02/23/12 3:34:00 PM #124:	Hrm. If civil unions and marriage were 100% equal in all but the name I personally wouldn't take issue with it, but I'm not gay, so I'm not really qualified to speak of such things. The 9th Circuit panel actually used this as their justification for striking down the gay marriage ban. Their reasoning was that if there was no difference besides the name, then the law could have no purpose other than discrimination, since it couldn't achieve any other purpose. They didn't decide whether a law that also barred gay civil unions in addition to gay marriage was okay, but they said it might be and would have to be decided in a different case if it came up. Strange reasoning......I suspect they are trying to avoid getting overturned by the US Supreme Court. Or at least avoid a general ruling from the US Supreme Court saying that it is okay for states to ban gay marriage. This approach gives them an out where they don't have to decide that question. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:831040] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Hrm. If civil unions and marriage were 100% equal in all but the name I personally wouldn't take issue with it, but I'm not gay, so I'm not really qualified to speak of such things.The 9th Circuit panel actually used this as their justification for striking down the gay marriage ban. Their reasoning was that if there was no difference besides the name, then the law could have no purpose other than discrimination, since it couldn't achieve any other purpose. They didn't decide whether a law that also barred gay civil unions in addition to gay marriage was okay, but they said it might be and would have to be decided in a different case if it came up.Strange reasoning......I suspect they are trying to avoid getting overturned by the US Supreme Court. Or at least avoid a general ruling from the US Supreme Court saying that it is okay for states to ban gay marriage. This approach gives them an out where they don't have to decide that question. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 02/23/12 3:35:00 PM #125:	I'm not sure, but you may be able to apply the "separate but equal is inherently bad" argument, because you're making classes for no reason, and classes basically serve to divide. Legally, there's certainly no reason to give two different names to the same thing and decide which name your contract is given by the XOR of the genders of the people in question. -- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:831041] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> I'm not sure, but you may be able to apply the "separate but equal is inherently bad" argument, because you're making classes for no reason, and classes basically serve to divide. Legally, there's certainly no reason to give two different names to the same thing and decide which name your contract is given by the XOR of the genders of the people in question. -- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - GuigaI wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:36:00 PM #126:	JeffreyRaze Posted 2/23/2012 7:25:29 PM message detail quote Hrm. If civil unions and marriage were 100% equal in all but the name I personally wouldn't take issue with it, but I'm not gay, so I'm not really qualified to speak of such things. The other problem with it is that the two may as well be the exact same in that case. Just call both marriage and save the headaches. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831042] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> JeffreyRazePosted 2/23/2012 7:25:29 PMmessage detailquoteHrm. If civil unions and marriage were 100% equal in all but the name I personally wouldn't take issue with it, but I'm not gay, so I'm not really qualified to speak of such things.The other problem with it is that the two may as well be the exact same in that case. Just call both marriage and save the headaches. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KingButz 02/23/12 3:39:00 PM #127:	From: metroid13 \| #115 tyranny by the majority, etc. Even the founding fathers were wary (justified or not, as is the case with women and blacks, hell even people who didn't own land initially weren't allowed to vote) of letting the whole electorate decide every issue. That's why we're a republic and not a true democracy, and why we have a system of checks and balances. As opposed to tyranny by the minority? If a majority of the people are given emotional or mental damage from something, then what is the difference? Opponents of gay marriage usually are very passionate about it. It's not usually "I don't like gay people so f* them," but "I feel that gay marriage is morally wrong." From a utilitarian standpoint, there is an argument that legalization of same sex marriage could possibly do more harm than good. From: SlymDayspring \| #118 public polling has turned around recently (even from 2008) and now a majority nationally support gay marriage. Bradley effect -- http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Ok everyone this is Bartz so just remember. <cite>KingButz posted [p:831043] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: metroid13 \| #115tyranny by the majority, etc. Even the founding fathers were wary (justified or not, as is the case with women and blacks, hell even people who didn't own land initially weren't allowed to vote) of letting the whole electorate decide every issue. That's why we're a republic and not a true democracy, and why we have a system of checks and balances.As opposed to tyranny by the minority? If a majority of the people are given emotional or mental damage from something, then what is the difference? Opponents of gay marriage usually are very passionate about it. It's not usually "I don't like gay people so f* them," but "I feel that gay marriage is morally wrong." From a utilitarian standpoint, there is an argument that legalization of same sex marriage could possibly do more harm than good.From: SlymDayspring \| #118 public polling has turned around recently (even from 2008) and now a majority nationally support gay marriage. Bradley effect -- http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.pngOk everyone this is Bartz so just remember. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:41:00 PM #128:	As opposed to tyranny by the minority? Poor, persecuted majority. They can cope with all of the...nothing that will happen to them once it's legalized. It's not usually "I don't like gay people so f** them,"* It usually boils down to that, even if they don't say so. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831044] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> As opposed to tyranny by the minority?Poor, persecuted majority. They can cope with all of the...nothing that will happen to them once it's legalized.It's not usually "I don't like gay people so f*** them,"It usually boils down to that, even if they don't say so. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YetAnothrShadow 02/23/12 3:41:00 PM #129:	Save the headaches? Serve to divide? That's what this entire thing has been from the beginning. Trying to get gay marriage legalized has done nothing but cause headaches and divide people. I see no legit reason other than pride that you can't just change the name of it. It literally moots ANY points religious people have and give the same rights. It's just an effin name. let it go. -- Brawl is like ZSS' breasts. Well rounded for casual players http://ib.skaia.net/image/32143.gif <cite>YetAnothrShadow posted [p:831045] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Save the headaches? Serve to divide?That's what this entire thing has been from the beginning. Trying to get gay marriage legalized has done nothing but cause headaches and divide people.I see no legit reason other than pride that you can't just change the name of it. It literally moots ANY points religious people have and give the same rights.It's just an effin name. let it go. -- Brawl is like ZSS' breasts. Well rounded for casual playershttp://ib.skaia.net/image/32143.gif </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KingButz 02/23/12 3:45:00 PM #130:	From: Master Epyon \| #128 As opposed to tyranny by the minority? Poor, persecuted majority. They can cope with all of the...nothing that will happen to them once it's legalized. If they wouldn't receive significant emotional distress from it being legalized they wouldn't oppose it so adamantly. -- http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Ok everyone this is Bartz so just remember. <cite>KingButz posted [p:831046] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: Master Epyon \| #128As opposed to tyranny by the minority?Poor, persecuted majority. They can cope with all of the...nothing that will happen to them once it's legalized.If they wouldn't receive significant emotional distress from it being legalized they wouldn't oppose it so adamantly. -- http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.pngOk everyone this is Bartz so just remember. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 02/23/12 3:45:00 PM #131:	*KingButz posted...* As opposed to tyranny by the minority? If a majority of the people are given emotional or mental damage from something, then what is the difference? Opponents of gay marriage usually are very passionate about it. It's not usually "I don't like gay people so f*** them," but "I feel that gay marriage is morally wrong." From a utilitarian standpoint, there is an argument that legalization of same sex marriage could possibly do more harm than good. Tyranny of the majority is basically a civil rights thing. We let the majority win on all other arguments (well mod undue influence of money); civil rights issues don't actually impact the majority at all, except possibly removing an unfair advantage they shouldn't have had in the first place (like women getting to vote lowers the impact of a man's vote). But really, a person's civil rights and a person's "right" to not allow anything to happen that makes him or her "uncomfortable" without affecting him/her directly are not of equal importance. That's why the courts have time and time again led the charge in expanding civil rights. -- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:831047] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> KingButz posted...As opposed to tyranny by the minority? If a majority of the people are given emotional or mental damage from something, then what is the difference? Opponents of gay marriage usually are very passionate about it. It's not usually "I don't like gay people so f*** them," but "I feel that gay marriage is morally wrong." From a utilitarian standpoint, there is an argument that legalization of same sex marriage could possibly do more harm than good.Tyranny of the majority is basically a civil rights thing. We let the majority win on all other arguments (well mod undue influence of money); civil rights issues don't actually impact the majority at all, except possibly removing an unfair advantage they shouldn't have had in the first place (like women getting to vote lowers the impact of a man's vote). But really, a person's civil rights and a person's "right" to not allow anything to happen that makes him or her "uncomfortable" without affecting him/her directly are not of equal importance. That's why the courts have time and time again led the charge in expanding civil rights. -- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - GuigaI wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:46:00 PM #132:	Trying to get gay marriage legalized has done nothing but cause headaches and divide people. "Trying to get women to vote has done nothing but cause headaches and divide people." I would propose that either it all be called marriage or that all "marriages" be redefined to civil unions. Prop LGBT folk up or drag everyone else "down". Easy solution. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831048] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Trying to get gay marriage legalized has done nothing but cause headaches and divide people."Trying to get women to vote has done nothing but cause headaches and divide people."I would propose that either it all be called marriage or that all "marriages" be redefined to civil unions. Prop LGBT folk up or drag everyone else "down". Easy solution. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SlymDayspring 02/23/12 3:48:00 PM #133:	Bradley effect not really a good argument when you said NATIONALLY and there was not a national vote on gay marriage. and the only time it has been up for a public vote in a state where it had anywhere close to majority support was California, and that was in 2008, and public support in California has increased since then. In addition, in the time leading up the election the polling was never a majority against prop 8, and even in most cases where 'against' prop 8 was winning, if you took into account the margin of error and undecideds, the outcome was not shocking. -- I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png <cite>SlymDayspring posted [p:831049] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Bradley effectnot really a good argument when you said NATIONALLY and there was not a national vote on gay marriage. and the only time it has been up for a public vote in a state where it had anywhere close to majority support was California, and that was in 2008, and public support in California has increased since then. In addition, in the time leading up the election the polling was never a majority against prop 8, and even in most cases where 'against' prop 8 was winning, if you took into account the margin of error and undecideds, the outcome was not shocking. -- I'm "kind of a big deal".http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:48:00 PM #134:	If they wouldn't receive significant emotional distress from it being legalized they wouldn't oppose it so adamantly. Their emotional distress is unfounded. If they feel so threatened by it, they should just grow up and deal with it. That's all there is to it. A majority whining about an issue doesn't make them correct or ethical about that issue. Tyranny of the majority is basically a civil rights thing. We let the majority win on all other arguments (well mod undue influence of money); civil rights issues don't actually impact the majority at all, except possibly removing an unfair advantage they shouldn't have had in the first place (like women getting to vote lowers the impact of a man's vote). But really, a person's civil rights and a person's "right" to not allow anything to happen that makes him or her "uncomfortable" without affecting him/her directly are not of equal importance. That's why the courts have time and time again led the charge in expanding civil rights. Correct. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831050] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> If they wouldn't receive significant emotional distress from it being legalized they wouldn't oppose it so adamantly.Their emotional distress is unfounded. If they feel so threatened by it, they should just grow up and deal with it. That's all there is to it. A majority whining about an issue doesn't make them correct or ethical about that issue.Tyranny of the majority is basically a civil rights thing. We let the majority win on all other arguments (well mod undue influence of money); civil rights issues don't actually impact the majority at all, except possibly removing an unfair advantage they shouldn't have had in the first place (like women getting to vote lowers the impact of a man's vote). But really, a person's civil rights and a person's "right" to not allow anything to happen that makes him or her "uncomfortable" without affecting him/her directly are not of equal importance. That's why the courts have time and time again led the charge in expanding civil rights.Correct. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#135	Post #135 was unavailable or deleted.
YetAnothrShadow 02/23/12 3:50:00 PM #136:	Women voting is an entirely different situation. That situation didn't hinge on a single, effin, word. That's literally what this entire thing is about. Every single argument I've heard from my religious parents and their friends about being against it has been about the word marriage. -- Brawl is like ZSS' breasts. Well rounded for casual players http://ib.skaia.net/image/32143.gif <cite>YetAnothrShadow posted [p:831052] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Women voting is an entirely different situation. That situation didn't hinge on a single, effin, word.That's literally what this entire thing is about. Every single argument I've heard from my religious parents and their friends about being against it has been about the word marriage. -- Brawl is like ZSS' breasts. Well rounded for casual playershttp://ib.skaia.net/image/32143.gif </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SlymDayspring 02/23/12 3:51:00 PM #137:	There is no good argument against it, but it should be a states rights issue. The less federal laws, the better. in this case, your marriage being recognized federally actually matters for taxes. maybe some other rights too, i really don't know, maybe some married person like yourself could shed some light on that. -- I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png <cite>SlymDayspring posted [p:831053] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> There is no good argument against it, but it should be a states rights issue. The less federal laws, the better.in this case, your marriage being recognized federally actually matters for taxes. maybe some other rights too, i really don't know, maybe some married person like yourself could shed some light on that. -- I'm "kind of a big deal".http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:51:00 PM #138:	There is no good argument against it, but it should be a states rights issue. The less federal laws, the better. There are several federal-level benefits given through legal marriage. Couples are denied these rights when the marriage is not recognized federally. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831054] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> There is no good argument against it, but it should be a states rights issue. The less federal laws, the better.There are several federal-level benefits given through legal marriage. Couples are denied these rights when the marriage is not recognized federally. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#139	Post #139 was unavailable or deleted.
YetAnothrShadow 02/23/12 3:52:00 PM #140:	From: UltimaterializerX \| #139 It's not the word, it's that civil unions aren't offered the same rights as a married couple in most states. Also that diagram Epyon posted was really one-sided and terrible. Than make them have the same rights. That's what people should be striving for. -- Brawl is like ZSS' breasts. Well rounded for casual players http://img.imgcake.com/YetAnotherShadow/Gameboyfeverjpegez.jpg <cite>YetAnothrShadow posted [p:831056] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: UltimaterializerX \| #139It's not the word, it's that civil unions aren't offered the same rights as a married couple in most states. Also that diagram Epyon posted was really one-sided and terrible.Than make them have the same rights. That's what people should be striving for. -- Brawl is like ZSS' breasts. Well rounded for casual playershttp://img.imgcake.com/YetAnotherShadow/Gameboyfeverjpegez.jpg </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KingButz 02/23/12 3:52:00 PM #141:	Eh, I'm not going to further that argument as I don't believe it. But I do think that it is a good/valid argument, all the same. -- http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Ok everyone this is Bartz so just remember. <cite>KingButz posted [p:831057] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Eh, I'm not going to further that argument as I don't believe it.But I do think that it is a good/valid argument, all the same. -- http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.pngOk everyone this is Bartz so just remember. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SlymDayspring 02/23/12 3:52:00 PM #142:	That's literally what this entire thing is about. Every single argument I've heard from my religious parents and their friends about being against it has been about the word marriage. uh if it is all about ONE SINGLE EFFIN WORD why can't THE OTHER SIDE just give up the word, then? Why do gay people have to be the ones who give up the argument over this one word? Not our fault that religious people cannot understand the way our government works and that its civil union being called marriage does not mean it has anything to do with their church or it would be illegal in the first place to recognize it and give it benefits. -- I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png <cite>SlymDayspring posted [p:831058] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> That's literally what this entire thing is about. Every single argument I've heard from my religious parents and their friends about being against it has been about the word marriage.uh if it is all about ONE SINGLE EFFIN WORDwhy can't THE OTHER SIDE just give up the word, then? Why do gay people have to be the ones who give up the argument over this one word? Not our fault that religious people cannot understand the way our government works and that its civil union being called marriage does not mean it has anything to do with their church or it would be illegal in the first place to recognize it and give it benefits. -- I'm "kind of a big deal".http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#143	Post #143 was unavailable or deleted.
SlymDayspring 02/23/12 3:54:00 PM #144:	If your only real defense for gay marriage is to get a better federal tax credit on April 15th, you're probably not getting married for the right reasons. ...that...was not what anyone was saying.... -- I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png <cite>SlymDayspring posted [p:831060] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> If your only real defense for gay marriage is to get a better federal tax credit on April 15th, you're probably not getting married for the right reasons....that...was not what anyone was saying.... -- I'm "kind of a big deal".http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:55:00 PM #145:	That's literally what this entire thing is about. Every single argument I've heard from my religious parents and their friends about being against it has been about the word marriage. Easiest way to handle it is to just adopt what Canada has done - the Civil Marriage Act. Not even just Canada either, but several other countries that allow for equal rights. A union between two consenting adults. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831061] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> That's literally what this entire thing is about. Every single argument I've heard from my religious parents and their friends about being against it has been about the word marriage.Easiest way to handle it is to just adopt what Canada has done - the Civil Marriage Act. Not even just Canada either, but several other countries that allow for equal rights. A union between two consenting adults. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YetAnothrShadow 02/23/12 3:55:00 PM #146:	From: SlymDayspring \| #142 That's literally what this entire thing is about. Every single argument I've heard from my religious parents and their friends about being against it has been about the word marriage. uh if it is all about ONE SINGLE EFFIN WORD why can't THE OTHER SIDE just give up the word, then? Why do gay people have to be the ones who give up the argument over this one word? Not our fault that religious people cannot understand the way our government works and that its civil union being called marriage does not mean it has anything to do with their church or it would be illegal in the first place to recognize it and give it benefits. Than this is a matter of pride. Like I said, no legit reason other than pride. -- Brawl is like ZSS' breasts. Well rounded for casual players http://img.imgcake.com/YetAnotherShadow/Gameboyfeverjpegez.jpg <cite>YetAnothrShadow posted [p:831062] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> From: SlymDayspring \| #142That's literally what this entire thing is about. Every single argument I've heard from my religious parents and their friends about being against it has been about the word marriage.uh if it is all about ONE SINGLE EFFIN WORDwhy can't THE OTHER SIDE just give up the word, then? Why do gay people have to be the ones who give up the argument over this one word? Not our fault that religious people cannot understand the way our government works and that its civil union being called marriage does not mean it has anything to do with their church or it would be illegal in the first place to recognize it and give it benefits.Than this is a matter of pride. Like I said, no legit reason other than pride. -- Brawl is like ZSS' breasts. Well rounded for casual playershttp://img.imgcake.com/YetAnotherShadow/Gameboyfeverjpegez.jpg </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#147	Post #147 was unavailable or deleted.
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:57:00 PM #148:	Also that diagram Epyon posted was really one-sided and terrible. Then you must have a good argument against it. Present it here. If your only real defense for gay marriage is to get a better federal tax credit on April 15th, you're probably not getting married for the right reasons. Bullspit. Why should two LGBT folk not be allowed the same benefits as two straight people? Even for something as 'minor' as that (and do you ever speak from privilege to call that a minor issue) this is something that must be treated equally. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831064] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Also that diagram Epyon posted was really one-sided and terrible.Then you must have a good argument against it. Present it here.If your only real defense for gay marriage is to get a better federal tax credit on April 15th, you're probably not getting married for the right reasons.Bullspit. Why should two LGBT folk not be allowed the same benefits as two straight people? Even for something as 'minor' as that (and do you ever speak from privilege to call that a minor issue) this is something that must be treated equally. -- Geologists will date anything. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dark Young Link 02/23/12 3:58:00 PM #149:	Sadly, "Us vs them" won't die until we get rid of all the fear mongering. Naturally people in fear are more easily controlled. -- You'll get what's coming to you Ulti, wait and see. - Takfloyd_mkII__ <cite>Dark Young Link posted [p:831065] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Sadly, "Us vs them" won't die until we get rid of all the fear mongering.Naturally people in fear are more easily controlled. -- You'll get what's coming to you Ulti, wait and see. - Takfloyd_mkII__ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Master Epyon 02/23/12 3:59:00 PM #150:	Again, it's really easy to perch oneself on a fence and talk about minority rights when you're not that minority. -- Geologists will date anything. <cite>Master Epyon posted [p:831066] in seriously ... [t:62043868]...</cite> <quote> Again, it's really easy to perch oneself on a fence and talk about minority rights when you're not that minority. -- 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