Religion - Politics & Religion - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Charicature

Age: 49
Location: Vermont

joannajewsom wrote:

JohnnyRocketFingers wrote:

Just because a argument is long does not mean it is good

Perfectly stated. Charicature's post was one of the most nonsensical arguments that I have encountered in my entire life. Apparently, gay marriage discriminates against straight people because straight people can't get gay married. And gay marriage is just like affirmative action? My head just exploded.

If you think that's nonsense it explains a lot. Instead of just insults, why don't you make a logical - not emotional, if you can tell the two apart - argument picking apart each argument I made one by one. You've written an essay before, I trust? You should know the logical course of an argument...so let's see you make one.

Gay marriage discriminates against straight people because - whereas homosexuals can engage in a heterosexual marriage for reasons of convenience and financial benefit instead of love, a heterosexual can not enter into a gay marriage for the same purpose. Or do you actually believe the only reason people get married is out of love or some kind of religious commitment to each other?

Let's put this in simple terms: You don't have to be straight to enter into a heterosexual marriage. You DO have to be homosexual to enter into a gay marriage. Ergo, it's discriminatory and unfair.

Why shouldn't two male roommates in an owned apartment, for instance, be able to marry to protect each other's property rights and claim the tax benefits of a married couple, even if they don't have homosexual love for each other? A gay man can marry a woman he lives with for that purpose (and I've known one that did, incidentally). Why is it fair to allow one group of people to do something that you deny to another group?
_________________
<(: @ Smile

>

maxxy

Gender: Male
Location: PA

Marriage is not just a legal union, it means a lot to people. What would you think if you were straight (which I think you are) and only gay people were allowed to marry? Hurt? Shunned?

The same problems exist for traditional marriage as you say they would if gay marriage was legal. If you just change the existing marriage laws to be nondiscriminatory against sexuality without actually creating a new set of laws, then you won't have given homosexuals "special" rights.
_________________
"I'm so ugly but that's OK cause so are you"

maxxy

Gender: Male
Location: PA

Harvos wrote:

Religion is great! Especially if you are a robber, pawn shop broker or window repair man. With church each sunday, it makes it very easy to know the best time for breaking and entering.

Hahahaha as much as I don't agree with you musically, you are funny. Smile

_________________
"I'm so ugly but that's OK cause so are you"

Charicature

Age: 49
Location: Vermont

maxxy wrote:

The same problems exist for traditional marriage as you say they would if gay marriage was legal. If you just change the existing marriage laws to be nondiscriminatory against sexuality without actually creating a new set of laws, then you won't have given homosexuals "special" rights.

Exactly, and I have no real problem with that at all. I know a lot of the Christian Right does because it's immoral to them, but my own belief is let God judge those behaviours of others which does not directly harm you.

Granted, I'd be more comfortable with homosexuals if it weren't for the invention of ass-less chaps, but that's another issue that has to do with identity, and it doesn't apply to all homosexuals, just far too many of the ones we see on TV and in politics.

But there does come a point where you have to make a moral judgement, regardless of where you define it - and some people don't like that idea. But ultimately you have to ask: are you going to allow polygamy and incestuous marriages as well, and if not, what's your justification for not allowing them if you don't believe in passing moral judgement on other people's lifestyles? That's the harder question to answer.

But since I notice there are a lot of students posting in this thread, I'll say this: just because the question is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try to answer it...but with your head, not your heart.
_________________
<(: @ Smile

>

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

Charicature wrote:

joannajewsom wrote:

JohnnyRocketFingers wrote:

Just because a argument is long does not mean it is good

Perfectly stated. Charicature's post was one of the most nonsensical arguments that I have encountered in my entire life. Apparently, gay marriage discriminates against straight people because straight people can't get gay married. And gay marriage is just like affirmative action? My head just exploded.

If you think that's nonsense it explains a lot. Instead of just insults, why don't you make a logical - not emotional, if you can tell the two apart - argument picking apart each argument I made one by one. You've written an essay before, I trust? You should know the logical course of an argument...so let's see you make one.

Gay marriage discriminates against straight people because - whereas homosexuals can engage in a heterosexual marriage for reasons of convenience and financial benefit instead of love, a heterosexual can not enter into a gay marriage for the same purpose. Or do you actually believe the only reason people get married is out of love or some kind of religious commitment to each other?

Let's put this in simple terms: You don't have to be straight to enter into a heterosexual marriage. You DO have to be homosexual to enter into a gay marriage. Ergo, it's discriminatory and unfair.

Why shouldn't two male roommates in an owned apartment, for instance, be able to marry to protect each other's property rights and claim the tax benefits of a married couple, even if they don't have homosexual love for each other? A gay man can marry a woman he lives with for that purpose (and I've known one that did, incidentally). Why is it fair to allow one group of people to do something that you deny to another group?

Your argument was not logical at all, and now you so condescendingly try to lecture me on logic. I didn't reply with a logical argument because it would be a waste of time. I'm not going to form a logical argument to an illogical argument that you presented. If someone comes up to me and says, "2+2=5. Prove me wrong!", I won't even pay them any mind, like I did your argument. I will briefly indulge your nonsense, though. Very briefly.

Your complaint is that a heterosexual can't enter into a gay marriage for financial reasons. First, explain to me why a gay person can enter into a heterosexual marriage and a straight person can't enter into a homosexual marriage, if gay marriage were allowed. If gay marriage were allowed, both sides would have an opportunity to be dishonest and marry for these reasons. I'm not saying that marrying for money is dishonest (people marry for different reasons, fine), but when you put on a facade and pretend to be someone you're not in order to benefit from marriage, that is dishonest. This is absurd. You're speculating on a non-existent threat, and this is your entire argument? Even if this were the case, are you so determined to provide everyone with an equal opportunity to enter into sham marriages, that you are willing to prevent a significant percentage of the population of honest people to marry for love?

Logic? I'm sorry but I have to quote you again.
"Let's put this in simple terms: You don't have to be straight to enter into a heterosexual marriage. You DO have to be homosexual to enter into a gay marriage. Ergo, it's discriminatory and unfair."

I think I get it now. Like left-handed guitars are discriminatory because you have to be left-handed to play one. Forget about all those right-handed people with their own guitars.

Your entire argument is illogical. And your last paragraph is a little unclear. It sounds like you're arguing for gay marriage.

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

Charicature wrote:

maxxy wrote:

The same problems exist for traditional marriage as you say they would if gay marriage was legal. If you just change the existing marriage laws to be nondiscriminatory against sexuality without actually creating a new set of laws, then you won't have given homosexuals "special" rights.

But ultimately you have to ask: are you going to allow polygamy and incestuous marriages as well, and if not, what's your justification for not allowing them if you don't believe in passing moral judgement on other people's lifestyles? That's the harder question to answer.

What? Why don't you throw bestiality in there while you're at it? Explain how homosexual marriages are as equally harmful as polygamy and incest, and why they need to be mentioned in the same discussion. It's unfair to associate gay marriage with these two things. We can make progress as a society without going to the extreme.

Charicature

Age: 49
Location: Vermont

joannajewsom wrote:

What? Why don't you throw bestiality in there while you're at it? Explain how homosexual marriages are as equally harmful as polygamy and incest, and why they need to be mentioned in the same discussion. It's unfair to associate gay marriage with these two things. We can make progress as a society without going to the extreme.

"unfair" is not a logical argument. It's a word with arbitrary, subjective meaning. It's "unfair" that I'm the only one arguing my side of this argument against three or four other people. Should I be demanding some of you drop out of the discussion because it's "unfair"? And from what perspective do you say what's an extreme or not? Some people believe that requiring us to commit to one spouse when we can love more than one is "unfair." Some have an unnatural love for a sibling and the fact they can't be in a relationship is "unfair" - who are you to judge?

Incidentally, you proved that you didn't bother reading my initial argument since you don't realize I already brought up and discounted bestiality.

I'm not advocating any of these, by the way, simply trying to understand by what perspective you say that "this thing that was considered immoral should now be okay, but these other things are still going to be immoral because we say so." In which case, you can say "we'd like to change this" but you really lack the moral high ground to criticize anyone who opposes your point unless you really don't want any moral judgements at all.
_________________
<(: @ Smile

>

joannajewsom

Location: Philadelphia

Charicature wrote:

joannajewsom wrote:

What? Why don't you throw bestiality in there while you're at it? Explain how homosexual marriages are as equally harmful as polygamy and incest, and why they need to be mentioned in the same discussion. It's unfair to associate gay marriage with these two things. We can make progress as a society without going to the extreme.

"unfair" is not a logical argument. It's a word with arbitrary, subjective meaning. It's "unfair" that I'm the only one arguing my side of this argument against three or four other people. Should I be demanding some of you drop out of the discussion because it's "unfair"? And from what perspective do you say what's an extreme or not? Some people believe that requiring us to commit to one spouse when we can love more than one is "unfair." Some have an unnatural love for a sibling and the fact they can't be in a relationship is "unfair" - who are you to judge?

Incidentally, you proved that you didn't bother reading my initial argument since you don't realize I already brought up and discounted bestiality.

I'm not advocating any of these, by the way, simply trying to understand by what perspective you say that "this thing that was considered immoral should now be okay, but these other things are still going to be immoral because we say so." In which case, you can say "we'd like to change this" but you really lack the moral high ground to criticize anyone who opposes your point unless you really don't want any moral judgements at all.

Why don't you reply to my other post when I pointed the utter drivel that your argument is? I like how you skipped over that. By 'unfair', I mean that gay marriage is not associated with polygamy or incest, and it is ridiculous to demand that supporters of gay marriage justify anything other than gay marriage. To place such a responsibility on supporters of gay marriage, as if they also have to answer for all other "alternative" lifestyles, is absurd. Instead of 'unfair', I should have said 'absurd'. There are people who support gay marriage who don't support polygamy. What you're trying to do is paint anyone who supports gay marriage as some extreme, irrational liberal who is arbitrarily open to anything at all. Liberals (I don't care too much for labels, but it makes things easier to discuss) are open to things as long as they are not objectively harmful to others.

I did read your initial argument, and saw that you discounted bestiality, but you still arbitrarily associate homosexuality with polygamy and incest. Bestiality has just as much an association with homosexuality as the other two. When I ask 'why not bestiality', it's a rhetoric device that points out how arbitrary your association of one "alternative lifestyle" with every other truly is. You fail to show the connection, and you have yet to justify mentioning these things.

I think you're failing to realize that my argument is not one of morality, meaning that I don't think that one thing should be legal and one thing should not simply because one is right and one is wrong, to me. I believe that, basically, objectively harmful things should be illegal and harmless things should be illegal. I consider things that impede on the freedom and safety of others are harmful, and gay marriage does not meet that criteria. Exactly what is 'harmful' and 'harmless' and 'freedom' and 'safety' could be expanded on if you would like to continue to talk in circles, but I feel as if that is a sufficient working definition right now.

I have no interest in pushing my morality onto people, and that is what those who are opposed gay marriage are doing, and that is what those people who made up the rule all those years ago were doing. It really shows where your head is at, making the argument about morality. So, to indulge your query of "this thing that was considered immoral should now be okay, but these other things are still going to be immoral because we say so". Well, you hit it right on the head. Cultures that outlaw gay marriage, and in some places, homosexuality are making this a question of morality, and they are making laws based on nothing but their subjective morality. And yes, if there are laws that have been created simply because the authority figures a long time ago said that it was 'immoral', then we need to question these laws and make changes. More than people thinking it is immoral, the issue at hand is people thinking it should be illegal. That's my problem and that's what we're talking about here. All that is illegal is not immoral and all that is immoral is not illegal, neither does all that is immoral have to be illegal. Our laws should not be determined by the bigoted and arbitrary morality of our ancestors, which has been indoctrinated into generations of people throughout history.

The fact remains that gay marriage is not harmful. Until you prove that it is indeed significantly harmful enough that we should prevent the happiness and freedom of harmless homosexual couples, you have no argument. Do that and I'll shut up.

pawelzietek

Location: Sabadell

There's one thing you forget about... many people believe in God and are NOT part of any religion...
Also using Bible as a benchmark is at least ridiculous... I understand that you are (and I as well) "raised and educated" surrounded by it (home, TV, christian churches, school, grandma's stories) as most of you are "western-world" grown people but there's probably thousands of religions and you shouldn't talk religion with use of only one example of "holy-book"...
_________________
we used to be alright...

Charicature

Age: 49
Location: Vermont

joannajewsom wrote:

Why don't you reply to my other post when I pointed the utter drivel that your argument is?

Because it was all based on your opinion, so how do I argue with your opinion when reason doesn't reach you? Moreover, when you get insulting in your immediate response, why should I bother? You're obviously not really interested in discourse, you're interested in proselytizing about your own beliefs and therefore get upset when anyone - such as myself - questions them.

I hate to tell you since I know your opinion of yourself is quite otherwise, but it shows you are anything but open minded.

For the record, your last post simply reinforces that you haven't actually read any of my posts...skimmed, maybe, but not read.

On that note, since I was regrettably mistaken in thinking this thread was started for conversation and not just for cheerleading one position, I'll end my part here. You can all celebrate now. I won't bother with your political "discussions" anymore, since dialogue is clearly not of interest to any of you. I should have known what with the state of American political discourse these days.

EDIT: I should exclude maxxy from the above statement, however.
_________________
<(: @ Smile

>