Post Reply
Page 8 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 47 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 5:38PM #71
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 29, 2012 -- 5:29PM, mainecaptain wrote:



May 29, 2012 -- 4:12PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 3:17PM, Ken wrote:


Marriage may or may not be crap. That is not the point of this thread. The entire point of this thread is that if straights can marry, gays should be able to marry too. And the gay marriages shouldn't be called "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," "connubial contraptions," or some other stupid name. They should be called "marriages," and any straights who don't like it should be told where to shove it.




So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage has been the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships. And anybody who might question this bizzare and pandering rationalization should just sit down and shut up.


Good luck with that one. 





Marriage has not throughout history been sacred. To say this is to not know any history at all.


Marriage is only as sacred as the couple getting married. It is by and large a legal contract. Its specialness only imparted by the couple. And the couple can be male and female, male and male or female and female.


Other then that is a legal contract.



Up until very recently women were sold by their fathers and purchased by their husbands. Not sacred at all.





And... another old standby:


"Because people did really weird (at least by present standards) and/or unfair, sexist things in relation to marriage in the past, gays are entitled to it."


Once again, not a very good argument. 




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 5:39PM #72
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 29, 2012 -- 5:30PM, Ken wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 5:20PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 4:47PM, Ken wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 4:12PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage has been the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships. And anybody who might question this bizzare and pandering rationalization should just sit down and shut up.



Yes. Screw the "entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage." The argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. For somebody who claims to be rational, you seem awfully fond of logical fallacies.



You missed the point. Your idea seems to hinge upon the notion that marriage has existed, and evolved (so much for "tradition") up until now, in order to pander to the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships.


No. I'm saying it can and should be made to do so.


May 29, 2012 -- 5:20PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

And anybody who disagrees should just bow down to the adolecent rage sentiments of "screw it" and "sit down and shut up if you don't like it."


I wouldn't phrase it quite that way, but in essence, yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.




I don't agree. But I appreciate your clarity. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 5:42PM #73
mountain_man
Posts: 39,704

May 29, 2012 -- 4:12PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage...


It's funny that marriage has become so sacred, so in need of protection, since gays have wanted to get married. Before that it was just a legal contract.


....has been the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships.


No, gays have not been allowed to "affirm" their relationships with a legal marriage. Letting them do so would not change a thing. Marriage for heterosexuals will not change. Nothing will change, so why all the fuss?


And anybody who might question this bizzare[sic] and pandering rationalization should just sit down and shut up.


Yes, your argument against gay marriage is pretty bizarre.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 5:44PM #74
mountain_man
Posts: 39,704

May 29, 2012 -- 5:20PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You missed the point. Your idea seems to hinge upon the notion that marriage has existed, and evolved ....


It has. Everything evolves, changes over time. What's wrong with one more step in the evolution of marriage?


The gay marriage saga is circus of irrationality.


Yet you, or anyone else, has been able to come up with a rational argument against marriage equality. It seems the circus is on the anti equality side.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 5:48PM #75
Do_unto_others
Posts: 9,020

May 29, 2012 -- 5:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 4:42PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 4:12PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 3:17PM, Ken wrote:


Marriage may or may not be crap. That is not the point of this thread. The entire point of this thread is that if straights can marry, gays should be able to marry too. And the gay marriages shouldn't be called "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," "connubial contraptions," or some other stupid name. They should be called "marriages," and any straights who don't like it should be told where to shove it.




So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage



Balderdaash and codswallop. Overblown bloviating.


The "entire history" began as purely a business arrangement between two men - the exchange of property. Soooo "sacred" - NOT!


And, with a 52% DIVORCE rate amongst heterosexuals, it hardly adds a modicum of 'sanctity' to the institution, which you heterosexuals have turned into a TV game show ('Who Want To Marry, um, That Guy Over There', and it only has to last 55 hours thanks to the VERY heterosexual  Ms Spears). Yes, SOOOOOO 'sanctified' - NOT!


May 29, 2012 -- 4:12PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

has been the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships.



Nope. But it IS the affirmation that ALL citizens deserve equal protections of the law.


Try again.




Ah, the old argument:


"Some heterosexuals have failed at and/or made a mockery of marriage. Therefore, gays are entitled to it."


That's not a reasonable argument. 





If I had made that argument, I would agree that it would not be a reasonable one.


Keep tryin', though.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 5:51PM #76
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 29, 2012 -- 5:44PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 5:20PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You missed the point. Your idea seems to hinge upon the notion that marriage has existed, and evolved ....


It has. Everything evolves, changes over time. What's wrong with one more step in the evolution of marriage?


The gay marriage saga is circus of irrationality.


Yet you, or anyone else, has been able to come up with a rational argument against marriage equality. It seems the circus is on the anti equality side.




I agree, the "anti" side has utterly failed to even roll out the really good arguments. Or, actually, to make the point that the burden of argument was on the party asking for the change to begin with. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 5:52PM #77
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 29, 2012 -- 5:48PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 5:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 4:42PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 4:12PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 3:17PM, Ken wrote:


Marriage may or may not be crap. That is not the point of this thread. The entire point of this thread is that if straights can marry, gays should be able to marry too. And the gay marriages shouldn't be called "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," "connubial contraptions," or some other stupid name. They should be called "marriages," and any straights who don't like it should be told where to shove it.




So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage



Balderdaash and codswallop. Overblown bloviating.


The "entire history" began as purely a business arrangement between two men - the exchange of property. Soooo "sacred" - NOT!


And, with a 52% DIVORCE rate amongst heterosexuals, it hardly adds a modicum of 'sanctity' to the institution, which you heterosexuals have turned into a TV game show ('Who Want To Marry, um, That Guy Over There', and it only has to last 55 hours thanks to the VERY heterosexual  Ms Spears). Yes, SOOOOOO 'sanctified' - NOT!


May 29, 2012 -- 4:12PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

has been the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships.



Nope. But it IS the affirmation that ALL citizens deserve equal protections of the law.


Try again.




Ah, the old argument:


"Some heterosexuals have failed at and/or made a mockery of marriage. Therefore, gays are entitled to it."


That's not a reasonable argument. 





If I had made that argument, I would agree that it would not be a reasonable one.


Keep tryin', though.




That's exaclty the argument being made. 


Argumentum ad Brittney Spears. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:03PM #78
Ken
Posts: 33,859

May 29, 2012 -- 5:51PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 5:44PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 5:20PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You missed the point. Your idea seems to hinge upon the notion that marriage has existed, and evolved ....


It has. Everything evolves, changes over time. What's wrong with one more step in the evolution of marriage?


The gay marriage saga is circus of irrationality.


Yet you, or anyone else, has been able to come up with a rational argument against marriage equality. It seems the circus is on the anti equality side.




I agree, the "anti" side has utterly failed to even roll out the really good arguments. Or, actually, to make the point that the burden of argument was on the party asking for the change to begin with. 



It isn't. The party asking for it has made it clear that they want it. Wanting something is always a sufficient reason for asking for it. The burden is on those who would deny it to them. They must demonstrate that definite harm would result from letting them have it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:06PM #79
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 29, 2012 -- 6:03PM, Ken wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 5:51PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 5:44PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 5:20PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You missed the point. Your idea seems to hinge upon the notion that marriage has existed, and evolved ....


It has. Everything evolves, changes over time. What's wrong with one more step in the evolution of marriage?


The gay marriage saga is circus of irrationality.


Yet you, or anyone else, has been able to come up with a rational argument against marriage equality. It seems the circus is on the anti equality side.




I agree, the "anti" side has utterly failed to even roll out the really good arguments. Or, actually, to make the point that the burden of argument was on the party asking for the change to begin with. 



It isn't. The party asking for it has made it clear that they want it. Wanting something is always a sufficient reason for asking for it. The burden is on those who would deny it to them. They must demonstrate that definite harm would result from letting them have it.




Wanting is a sufficent reason for asking. 


Not for getting. 


In order to get, the request must be justified. 


Harm at that point is irrelevant. If you want something, and ask for it, you have to justify why you should get it. Or, in this case, are entitled to it. 


"I want it, and it won't hurt anybody if I get it" does not represent sound justification for entitlement.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:13PM #80
Ken
Posts: 33,859

May 29, 2012 -- 6:06PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 6:03PM, Ken wrote:

The party asking for it has made it clear that they want it. Wanting something is always a sufficient reason for asking for it. The burden is on those who would deny it to them. They must demonstrate that definite harm would result from letting them have it.



Wanting is a sufficent reason for asking. 


Not for getting. 


In order to get, the request must be justified.


That it is wanted is sufficient justification. Nothing more is needed. 




Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 47 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook