quote:
Nobody really understood why Zaza wrote:
You can't impose your "family is a family" values on everyone. Sorry, but you can't. If you're gonna go like that, you might as well forbid divorce, define the woman's role as being home with the kids, and make her wear a burka.
All that is next on the list I'd imagine.
quote:
Talonus still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
No, I was targetting more towards the fact that marriage is a general religion thing and not a Christian only thing. Plenty of legal male-female marriages take place that aren't Christian.
There are plenty of legal marriages which aren't religious, period. Marriage is a secular institution nowadays. It may have its basis in ancient tribal mythology, but citing the source is simply an appeal to tradition.
Besides, if you hadn't taken my quote out of context, you would've seen that it was meant as a jab at the assumption that because the majority of people in the U.S. are Christians of some variety, this nation is Christian, or, the even more ludicrous assumption that only Christian morality matters/is absolutely correct.
quote:
If you're going to be specific though, target Protestants. They're the vast majority of Christian elected officials. Hell, there's a stigma against Catholic officials.
Well, as we all know, all Catholic officials are telepathically controlled by the Pope so that he can turn the U.S. into the New Vatican. Think of how narrowly we averted disaster when J.F.K. was President!
*someone whispers in Karnaj's ear*
Oh, right. He was actually one of the most vocal presidents for Church-State separation. Well, disproof by exception, then. The stigma is wholly unfounded, and, frankly, for this dicussion, a red herring. I don't care what flavor of Christianity an official subscribes to: if he or she tries to legislate morality from the Bible, he or she is a douche.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Blindy wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Not neccessarily, while legalizing gay marriage has absolutely no legal effect on prostitution or stachitory rape, legalizing prostitution does have a legal effect on prostitution, and the right of the government to determine when a person is old enough to make money with her body can directly be questioned. What exactly stops a teen from getting a prostitution licence with a fake ID?Do you realize exactly how incredibly popular teenage prostitution is in other countries? Girls are whoring themselves out for ipods all over the damn place already. Legalizing any form of sex for money exchange nationally will not help.
That made no sense...
Getting a prostition license with a fake ID would still be illegal, both for her and anyone caught WITH her who would be charged with Stat Rape. You could get a marriage license with a fake ID too if you were say, gay, and wanted to get married without your family knowing or whatever. If gay marriage was legal. Same still applies, and that would be illegal for the fraud, as well as for the person caught with them, who would be charged with Stat Rape.
If prostitution is legal, or if Gay marriage is legal, Stat Rape will remain illegal. There are no legal changes to anything by making one or the other legal.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Blindy who doth quote:
Do you realize exactly how incredibly popular teenage prostitution is in other countries? Girls are whoring themselves out for ipods all over the damn place already. Legalizing any form of sex for money exchange nationally will not help.
So? Just think of all the economic activity that'd generate 
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Captain Planet:
I'd like to see some hard evidence that a child raised in a "traditional family" is somehow better off than a child raised in a "non-traditional" family, such as a gay family.Since that seems to be a big assumption of those who oppose gay marriage.
Not factual, but it is kinda common for parents to project onto thier kids, by way of thier own values and such, which could make things sway in the other direction. In a way I can see how, mentally, it could affect a childs outlook as they develop, and sway thier tendancies.
Of course I add no factual information, I don't even think there have been any major studies done, just refences used from other studies on child development that would apply.
quote:
Noxhil came out of the closet to say:
Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman.
No it hasn't. Christians treat it as such, however, marriage did not originate within Christianity.
quote:
Noxhil came out of the closet to say:
It's worked well for millenia and I don't see a reason to change what is working. Look, we're not suggesting that we start hunting for gays and killing them, and we know that fags are recorded as far back as Rome, which makes that quite an old trend as well.
Yes and "fags" were getting married back then too.
quote:
Noxhil came out of the closet to say:
Gays are still stigmatized in society
Yes, thanks to viewpoints like yours.
quote:
Noxhil came out of the closet to say:
By allowing gay marriage, we open up a whole new can of worms regarding other family rights. Because marriage = family and that is what we try to protect.
If you truly want to protect families, and the "sanctity of marriage", you should work on fixing the problem where half of all straight marriages end in divorce. It's a much larger problem and solving it would have a much bigger impact on protecting families.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Delphi Aegis!
Wait... so having a set of gay parents makes you ridiculed in school? Wow. How horrible. They've been ridiculed for having a lazy eye, or a scar, or for talking funny, but OBVIOUSLY having two loving, caring fathers or mothers is SO SO SO much worse then anything else. Because you say so.I really wish this was a flame thread.
Yes, having gay parents will most likely result in the child being ridiculed. Don't you remember being young? Up until maybe late middle school having gay parents will be the point of ridicule for a young child. You cannot argue against this. (well you can but you will be wrong...)
quote:
Noxhil got served! Noxhil got served!
Wow I guess these boards are pretty liberal... Azizza is getting dogpiled on. I think I'll play devils advocate then for this thread.Why Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal-
Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. It's worked well for millenia and I don't see a reason to change what is working. Look, we're not suggesting that we start hunting for gays and killing them, and we know that fags are recorded as far back as Rome, which makes that quite an old trend as well.
APPEAL TO TRADITION. BZZT, INVALID ARGUMENT. TRY AGAIN.
quote:
What many people don't seem to realize is that we may or may not agree with gays, but most of us are for letting them continue what we view as a rather unnatural act, but we want to protect what is one of the last bastions of linearality (sorry this was a joke between some friends and I...).
APPEAL TO TRADITION. BZZT, INVALID ARGUMENT. TRY AGAIN.
quote:
There are social and economic repercussions to having Gay marriage if you look. One of the most glaring is having kids and the traditional family. I know that if I were to be adopted as a very young person I would be mortified by having gay parents, especially as a guy... I'm not as sure about girls. Gays are still stigmatized in society and the child would face ridicule and it would not be something nice.
APPEAL TO TRADITION. BZZT, INVALID ARGUMENT. TRY AGAIN.
quote:
Now you may say adoption has nothing to do with marriage, but it does have to do with family. The issue is, the nuclear family is what has sustained america for the last century and people do not want to move away from it. The fairy family cannot work simply because it is missing key components. (like not having a slower...) Yes there are families with one parent etc, and that is a trend I would like to see go away to.
RED HERRING. BZZT, INVALID ARGUMENT. TRY AGAIN.
quote:
By allowing gay marriage, we open up a whole new can of worms regarding other family rights. Because marriage = family and that is what we try to protect.
SLIPPERLY SLOPE. BZZT, INVALID ARGUMENT. GAME OVER. THANKS FOR PLAYING.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Maradon! probably says this to all the girls:
Legalize prostitution and you can tax it, regulate it, and make it safer.There's no reason it should be illegal.
Also, since it was posted earlier;
Animals lack any capacity for cognative thought, and are thereby incapable of consciously either consenting or revoking sexual advances. One animal cannot "rape" another, this is a fallacy derived from the human desire to project traits that are exclusively human onto animals.
Actually many higher order mammals have the capacity for some lesser degree of cognitive thought. You can teach an ape sign-language for example. It's creative thought that seperates and defines us. We're the only ones that could see our pointy stick would work better if it's lighter, and that putting a sharp bit of rock on the end would make it better still... In anycase, animals can't give consent, but they do know what they do and don't want to have sex with.
quote:
Noxhil came out of the closet to say:
Yes, having gay parents will most likely result in the child being ridiculed. Don't you remember being young? Up until maybe late middle school having gay parents will be the point of ridicule for a young child. You cannot argue against this. (well you can but you will be wrong...)
"Won't someone think of the children?!?!"
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris impressed everyone with:
Not factual, but it is kinda common for parents to project onto thier kids, by way of thier own values and such, which could make things sway in the other direction. In a way I can see how, mentally, it could affect a childs outlook as they develop, and sway thier tendancies.Of course I add no factual information, I don't even think there have been any major studies done, just refences used from other studies on child development that would apply.
Exactly.. Look at what Noxhil says:
quote:
I know that if I were to be adopted as a very young person I would be mortified by having gay parents, especially as a guy...
He's already made up his mind that he's a biggot, and will never be swayed. But unfortunatly for us, he'll continue to pop in on moral debates like this, spewing random, unfounded, chock full of holes arguments for his "one true way" to raise a family, or live our lives.. All because his parents were the exact same way. He got slapped and beaten any time he touched his penis, spanked if he tried to look up a girls dress, and the crap beat out of him when he looked at porn. It's almost sad ( 
), but the most we can do is cut his arguments to ribbons and make him retreat for a bit longer.
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
If you truly want to protect families, and the "sanctity of marriage", you should work on fixing the problem where half of all straight marriages end in divorce. It's a much larger problem and solving it would have a much bigger impact on protecting families.
Yes the state of families in America is very sad right now, and you're absolutely right that family values need to be reaffirmed. But your argument that "well it's broken right now so let's let it become more broken" is absolutely ridiculous. That's like taking a car that won't start and beating its engine with a crowbar until satisfied.
(lol)
quote:
Noxhil came out of the closet to say:
Yes the state of families in America is very sad right now, and you're absolutely right that family values need to be reaffirmed. But your argument that "well it's broken right now so let's let it become more broken" is absolutely ridiculous. That's like taking a car that won't start and beating its engine with a crowbar until satisfied.
Except that you haven't provided any objective reasons that allowing gay marriage would have the same effect as "let it become more broken".
Let's welcome them to the community.
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about (_|_):
[QB][/QB]
Ack you missed categorizing one of my arguments. The children one really isn't an appeal to tradition per se.
quote:
Noxhil Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Yes the state of families in America is very sad right now, and you're absolutely right that family values need to be reaffirmed. But your argument that "well it's broken right now so let's let it become more broken" is absolutely ridiculous. That's like taking a car that won't start and beating its engine with a crowbar until satisfied.(lol)
Again: I wish, I wish, I wish this was a flame thread.
quote:
This one time, at Noxhil camp:
Yes, having gay parents will most likely result in the child being ridiculed. Don't you remember being young? Up until maybe late middle school having gay parents will be the point of ridicule for a young child. You cannot argue against this. (well you can but you will be wrong...)
Actually, I can. I do remember being young. I remember being made fun of because I was smart. Being made fun of because I was different.
I don't remember being made fun of because of my parents. Or what my parents did.
I don't see any of my friends being ridiculed because their parents were different.. or gay.
Come back with valid arguments.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Drysart:
Except that you haven't provided any objective reasons that allowing gay marriage would have the same effect as "let it become more broken".
Well I'd like to respond to that but I honestly don't know the view on what exactly it does to break families.
quote:
Noxhil spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Well I'd like to respond to that but I honestly don't know the view on what exactly it does to break families.
Wow. Just wow.
It is 'natural' for people to do many things, including murder, rape, live in caves and hunt mammoths for survival. If there is any way that we can improve ourselves beyond the base state of what we are naturally (adapted to living in forests) then we should. If we could replace our eyes with some sort of advanced future cameras then we should. If we could build interfaces from our brain directly into a computer to help us memorize things better, then we should. Keeping ourselves to the form that we slid into by evolving in primal Africa just because we consider the 'natural order' something worth preserving could cost us dearly when we reach the point at which we can decisively improve on the current standard human being.
The things that tend to be natural, tend to also suck, like being eaten by lions, killed by someone of a different tribe for your buffalo herds or freezing to death because of a harsh, prolonged winter, while some may here point out that sex is something that is completely natural, I'd say that the usual natural outcome of sex, offspring, is something that in a whole lot of situations can be less then desirable and in some even utterly devastating to a person's life. Things that are unnatural tend to almost universally be good, like planes, burritos, power plants, the internet or Star Trek.
quote:
Zaza wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Again: I wish, I wish, I wish this was a flame thread.
Stop being a ***** and put forth your arguments. Saying that you cannot respond to something because you're unable to make it civilized is worthy of being flamed in itself.
quote:
Noxhil had this to say about Duck Tales:
Well I'd like to respond to that but I honestly don't know the view on what exactly it does to break families.
So you admit that gay marriage has no effect on breaking families?
Great! We'll be done by page four.
quote:
Noxhil came out of the closet to say:
Well I'd like to respond to that but I honestly don't know the view on what exactly it does to break families.
So your whole platform is instead based on your other argument, which boils down to "it should be illegal just because I don't want them to do it"?
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Optimus Prime:
SLIPPERLY SLOPE. BZZT, INVALID ARGUMENT. GAME OVER. THANKS FOR PLAYING.
You know, I really hate it when you guys pull the whole fallacy in logic thing. Not because you are wrong or anything, but I dunno, personally that annoys me more than just responding to moronic arguments normally. I don't really know why, it just bugs me.
I guess it's kinda like eqauting it to someone who ALWAYS does the right thing because it is the right thing, even though doing the wrong thing sometimes is the right thing to do.. If that makes any sense.
And I am well aware you are smarter than I, thats not a personal attack or anything. 
Just something that bugs me for some reason.
quote:
Noxhil thought about the meaning of life:
Stop being a ***** and put forth your arguments. Saying that you cannot respond to something because you're unable to make it civilized is worthy of being flamed in itself.
Your arguments were already trashed by Karnaj, Drysart, and so on. I just wanted to point out how goddamn stupid you are.
quote:
Liam thought about the meaning of life:
I hear there's negroes and jews in the area.Let's welcome them to the community.
Liam
quote:
Noxhil screamed this from the crapper:
Ack you missed categorizing one of my arguments. The children one really isn't an appeal to tradition per se.
You are absolutely right. That only applied to the first part of the paragraph in question. This part:
quote:
I know that if I were to be adopted as a very young person I would be mortified by having gay parents, especially as a guy... I'm not as sure about girls. Gays are still stigmatized in society and the child would face ridicule and it would not be something nice.
Perhaps if you live in Butt-Fuck, Nebraska, this is true, but that's a non-issue in the more tolerant, less rural parts of this country. I'll name this one a red herring, because it has absolutely no bearing on the gay marriage argument.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about Robocop:
You know, I really hate it when you guys pull the whole fallacy in logic thing.Not because you are wrong or anything, but I dunno, personally that annoys me more than just responding to moronic arguments normally. I don't really know why, it just bugs me.
I guess it's kinda like eqauting it to someone who ALWAYS does the right thing because it is the right thing, even though doing the wrong thing sometimes is the right thing to do.. If that makes any sense.
And I am well aware you are smarter than I, thats not a personal attack or anything.
Just something that bugs me for some reason.
If we were to stop using that, people would start thinking fallacies are acceptable. They are not. Critical thinking is a good thing.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris came out of the closet to say:
You know, I really hate it when you guys pull the whole fallacy in logic thing.
How else are you supposed to debate with someone who doesn't follow the rules of proper debate? If they're making statements that are factually correct (e.g., "it's never been that way before") but are completely detached from the issue at hand; why bother? You'll never get anywhere arguing about two different things.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Pvednes said:
If we were to stop using that, people would start thinking fallacies are acceptable. They are not.Critical thinking is a good thing.
Yes, I know.. I wasn't ponting out Karnaj exactly, because he HAS brought arguments to the table, it was just that one post, not his entire involvement. It was more to the people who only name the fallacy, and the explaination of it, but offer nothing to the argument themselves.
Like say you made an argument, I came in and just pointed out that your argument was a fallacy and thefore invalid, but didn't really counter argue the point or anything. Just said that your point was invalid based on a fallacy alone, with nothing else to add.
Note, Karnaj did not do this, he has added to the conversation, I was just using that one post he made to point something out. He is not one of the guilty parties.
quote:
Drysart had this to say about dark elf butts:
How else are you supposed to debate with someone who doesn't follow the rules of proper debate? If they're making statements that are factually correct (e.g., "it's never been that way before") but are completely detached from the issue at hand; why bother? You'll never get anywhere arguing about two different things.
Read responce to Pved.
EC loves it's Drama Liam fucked around with this message on 04-03-2004 at 09:50 PM.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris came out of the closet to say:
Read responce to Pved.
I think our side's been made, and we're not getting anything but fallacies in response. There's no need to do anything more than point them out.
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Faelynn LeAndris liberally with Old Spice!
You know, I really hate it when you guys pull the whole fallacy in logic thing.
In debating, it's mere common courtesy to say why arguments are invalid, but if you're familiar with the informal fallacies, or in a hurry to rebut, you may simply cite it and move on. It's by no means necessary, however, to explain. If the person you're rebutting doesn't know what that fallacy means and chooses to ignore it(rather than asking you why it's an invalid), then that's his problem, not yours.
quote:
I guess it's kinda like eqauting it to someone who ALWAYS does the right thing because it is the right thing, even though doing the wrong thing sometimes is the right thing to do.. If that makes any sense.
I'm sorry, I don't think I getcha.
quote:
And I am well aware you are smarter than I, thats not a personal attack or anything.
No harm, no foul. And I'm just an idiot who found a webpage detailing fallacies, so don't put too much stock in my intellect. 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj said this about your mom:
Perhaps if you live in Butt-Fuck, Nebraska, this is true, but that's a non-issue in the more tolerant, less rural parts of this country. I'll name this one a red herring, because it has absolutely no bearing on the gay marriage argument.
Wouldn't that also be an appeal to emotion, since by the way it is written it is used in a way to try and generate a 'feeling' on the subject and not an actual fact based responce? Basically by saying "I would feel this way" making the reader think more about how THEY would feel about it?
quote:
Drysart thought about the meaning of life:
How else are you supposed to debate with someone who doesn't follow the rules of proper debate? If they're making statements that are factually correct (e.g., "it's never been that way before") but are completely detached from the issue at hand; why bother? You'll never get anywhere arguing about two different things.
I seem to be off of my "I can justify anything" thread right now so I'll calla a halt before I go watch Lost in Translation.
It is extremely hard to logically argue for gay marriage because most of the popular arguments are not based off of logic, they are based off it being unnatural; person stigmatas that people have aginst something that they cannot understand. (No I don't understand it either)
Even some of the more educated and talented debaters I know conceed that the debate against gay marriage (they are anti-gay marriage) is based primarily on it being "wrong" in the bible, and the fact that it is unnatural. So to ever convince someone who is anti-gay marriage that they are wrong you CANNOT USE FACTS. You need to argue abstract concepts and tolerance, neither of which any of you did.
quote:
From the book of Drysart, chapter 3, verse 16:
I think our side's been made, and we're not getting anything but fallacies in response. There's no need to do anything more than point them out.
I know. Like I said, it didn't really apply to the situation at hand since Karnaj has actually offered up. It was just pointing out something.. I think the side was made up two pages ago.
It's wrong in a book. Wow! Maybe I should write a book saying it's wrong NOT to kill people. Then I can kill anybody I want (Hay, maybe even YOU!), and when people call me on it, I'll say "But this book says it's wrong NOT to kill people! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!", and they'll just HAVE to say "Oh, okay" and agree with me, because it's in a BOOK!
