Post Reply
Page 9 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 47 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:19PM #81
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 29, 2012 -- 6:13PM, Ken wrote:


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. 







Wow.


Really?


That's the epitome of the entitlement mentality. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:41PM #82
Ken
Posts: 33,859

May 29, 2012 -- 6:19PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 6:13PM, Ken wrote:


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. 







Wow.


Really?


I am no longer participating in the Hot Topics Zone.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:42PM #83
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 29, 2012 -- 6:41PM, Ken wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 6:19PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 6:13PM, Ken wrote:


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. 







Wow.


Really?


I am no longer participating in the Hot Topics Zone.




Will miss you.


You're about the only other one here as hard-headed as me, and your arugments were challenging.  Smile

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:48PM #84
Thetwofish
Posts: 581

mighty:


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.


Please provide ONE valid argument as to why those that want it should not have it.


I agree with Ken, the side keeping them out need to give a VALID reason why.


Religious/moral arguemnts do not count as this is a LEGAL issue governed by the laws of this land.  And, last I heard, the churches do NOT have a hand in that.


Peace


<'{{><

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:53PM #85
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 29, 2012 -- 6:48PM, Thetwofish wrote:


mighty:


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.


Please provide ONE valid argument as to why those that want it should not have it.


I agree with Ken, the side keeping them out need to give a VALID reason why.


Religious/moral arguemnts do not count as this is a LEGAL issue governed by the laws of this land.  And, last I heard, the churches do NOT have a hand in that.


Peace


<'{{><




You can't just "want" something, and expect an entitlement to it.


You are correct, that in terms of pure legal concepts, gay marriage will probably win out.


However, if this had been a matter of rational reasoning of values, the burden would have been on the side making the request.


The side resistant to the suggeted change would have had to ask only three things:


1: Please provide justification for your request.


2: Please provide arguments for why having a sexually pleasing marriage partner is a basic human right.


3: Please provide a rational explaination for how homosexuality is objectively equal to heterosexuality.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 8:30PM #86
mountain_man
Posts: 39,658

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

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.


They have; equal rights. The pro discrimination responses to that have been less than coherent... as is to be expected.

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 - 8:33PM #87
Thetwofish
Posts: 581

May 29, 2012 -- 6:53PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 6:48PM, Thetwofish wrote:


mighty:


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.


Please provide ONE valid argument as to why those that want it should not have it.


I agree with Ken, the side keeping them out need to give a VALID reason why.


Religious/moral arguemnts do not count as this is a LEGAL issue governed by the laws of this land.  And, last I heard, the churches do NOT have a hand in that.


Peace


<'{{><




You can't just "want" something, and expect an entitlement to it.


You are correct, that in terms of pure legal concepts, gay marriage will probably win out.


However, if this had been a matter of rational reasoning of values, the burden would have been on the side making the request.


The side resistant to the suggeted change would have had to ask only three things:


1: Please provide justification for your request.


2: Please provide arguments for why having a sexually pleasing marriage partner is a basic human right.


3: Please provide a rational explaination for how homosexuality is objectively equal to heterosexuality.






1:  There is no valid reason to NOT allow homosexuals to get married.  None...whatsoever.


2: It's in the constitution.  That whole pursuit of happiness deal, ya know.


3: I already have.  They form relationships just like heterosexuals do.  The only thing they CAN'T do (in the eyes of the fed gov) is get married.  And, no they can't have babies...but then neither do a LOT of heterosexuals by either choice or biology.


Now, please provide a VALID reason they should not be allowed to enter into a MARRIAGE.


Peace


<'{{><

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 8:36PM #88
mountain_man
Posts: 39,658

May 29, 2012 -- 6:53PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You can't just "want" something, and expect an entitlement to it.


You can when there is no valid reason to deny the request.


However, if this had been a matter of rational reasoning of values, the burden would have been on the side making the request.


Equal rights is a matter that's not something to be requested.


The side resistant to the suggeted[sic] change would have had to ask only three things:


1: Please provide justification for your request.


No, provide sufficient reason to deny the request.


2: Please provide arguments for why having a sexually pleasing marriage partner is a basic human right.


Section 16 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


3: Please provide a rational explaination[sic] for how homosexuality is objectively equal to heterosexuality.


Irrelevant and nonsensical question.

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 - 8:40PM #89
Thetwofish
Posts: 581

And I would still like an answer to a question I posted on the other board.  Where is your compassion for your fellow human beings?


What would you tell your son or daughter if they came to you and told you they were in love and wanted to get married.  And then they dropped the bomb that the person they were in love with was the same sex.


What would YOU say to them?


I'm not gay.  And even before I found out that my nephew was, I still didn't have a problem with gays getting married.  Now it's personal, but before that, I had no dog in the fight, so to speak.  And yet, I have compassion and empathy for their position.


They work, pay taxes, eat, feel sad, feel happy, have a LIFE, just like heterosexuals.  They are EQUAL in every way but ONE.  They are not recognized by the federal government as a normal member of society who deserve, not WANT, to have the same right to marriage that the straights have.


Peace


<'{{><

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 8:47PM #90
Thetwofish
Posts: 581

Please provide arguments for why having a sexually pleasing marriage partner is a basic human right.


I've seen this a couple of times from you and a thought pops into my head.


Why would anyone want to NOT have a sexually pleasing marraige partner?  For Christ's sake, man, is this really one of your arguments???  Seriously???


Yeah...I'm gonna go out and find me a man that does NOTHING for me in bed...then I'm gonna marry that man because, after all, I have no human right to WANT to have a sexually pleasing partner. (strong sarcasm)


That argument makes NO SENSE!!!  Not even heterosexuals would go for that line.  They want a sexually pleasing partner...and go through a lot of partners to find one.


I can't imagine a more HORRIBLE existance than to be in a marriage to someone I didn't wanna get naked with or have touch me.


YUCK!!!


Peace


<'{{><

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 9 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 47 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook