Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

[puppydog85]

Stalin the great has spoken. I will shut up. Nice way of dealing with opposing arguments. At least I make a claim to some higher being to get my arrogance. You seem to think that your word alone is sufficient. You might try listening to Buffalo Springfield's For What It's Worth. You know, the part about waving your little flags that say hoorah for my side.

[crispybits]

Stalin the great has spoken. I will shut up. Nice way of dealing with opposing arguments. At least I make a claim to some higher being to get my arrogance. You seem to think that your word alone is sufficient. You might try listening to Buffalo Springfield's For What It's Worth. You know, the part about waving your little flags that say hoorah for my side.

Translation: I have no comeback so I'll use another logical fallacy (ad hominem) to attack the person arguing against me instead of even attempting to use any decent, non-circular logic to make my own case....

[puppydog85]

Why waste time with someone who states that his opponents need to shut up and go home? In my experience, the time to leave a discussion is when your opponent starts cursing you instead of engaging in a discussion. Start your own thread, I will talk with you.

[InkL0sed]

In my experience, the time to leave a discussion is when your opponent starts cursing you instead of engaging in a discussion.

Wait, so that monster wall of text wasn't engaging in a discussion?

You know what "instead" means, right? You're saying he didn't engage you in the discussion, and was only "cursing" you. Except that's blatantly wrong.

Also, by the way, he wasn't engaging in ad hominem. He was reaching the conclusion that you are a bigot through logical argument. Example of the difference here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131231&hilit=ad+hominem

[Haggis_McMutton]

Also, by the way, he wasn't engaging in ad hominem. He was reaching the conclusion that you are a bigot through logical argument. Example of the difference here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131231&hilit=ad+hominem

Forgot about that one. That was a good re-read.

[BigBallinStalin]

Stalin the great has spoken. I will shut up. Nice way of dealing with opposing arguments. At least I make a claim to some higher being to get my arrogance. You seem to think that your word alone is sufficient. You might try listening to Buffalo Springfield's For What It's Worth. You know, the part about waving your little flags that say hoorah for my side.

(1) We eagerly await your argument which supports discriminating against gays, i.e. why should equality before the law not be upheld in regard to gay couples receiving the same state-granted benefits of heterosexual married couples?

(2) Please explain why consenting adults should NOT be free to love another.

(3) Your adherence to forcing people to abide by parts of Christian Theocracy has been exposed, and theocracies have been shown to be horrid for a country--as much as you tried to deny this. You clearly did because of that contradiction. Stop being intellectually dishonest, please.

(4) An explanation on your cherry-picking habits from the Bible would be much appreciated.

(5) An argument that explains why majority rule is just whenever it applies Christian Theocratic policies would be appreciated.

(6) Explain why morality is not independent of God, and why arbitrary commands of God are the only true basis of morality.

(7) Finally, you don't have a "claim to a higher being" in that vague, deistic sense. You have a claim to an Abrahamic God as described in the Bible. And since this Bible supports bigoted and discriminatory practices, why should it be held as the word of God--as compared to other claimed works of God? Surely, the credibility of such a bigoted work of art which contradicts the teachings of Jesus should be discarded in this case.

Hey, your arrogance is based on a depiction of a bigoted God. How am I not surprised??

My arguments are sufficient. If you can't respond with anything but an ad hominem attack followed by a straw man fallacy, then I'll take that as a "yes, you're right, Stalin" or "I have no logical counter-argument, yet I feel that I'm still correct" (which isn't a logical argument). I must conclude that I can't take you seriously until you come back to logic and reason.


Conclusion:
Given all the above problems with the opposition against gay marriage and their continued failure to address the problems of their stance, it becomes clear that any reasonable person--even a sensible Christian--would find it difficult to continue supporting policies which oppress gays.

[puppydog85]

Thanks, guys. Thread's over. You bigots can pack your shit and go away.

When someone closes a spiel with that statement I take them for what they are saying. I pack up and go home.

[puppydog85]

I would be quite willing to engage in further discussion. It was just getting to the point where we were actually engaging with each other. But BBS has a limit of about 10 posts before he starts engaging in name calling and my tolerance for name calling is zero.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thanks, guys. Thread's over. You bigots can pack your shit and go away.

When someone closes a spiel with that statement I take them for what they are saying. I pack up and go home.

Hey, unless you have a logical counter-argument, then leave. Apparently, your stunning silence on my points betrays your lack of any logical counter-arguments. Thank you for inadvertently admitting to us that you're a bigot who supports discriminatory policies against gays. It was a pleasure debating with you.

I would be quite willing to engage in further discussion. It was just getting to the point where we were actually engaging with each other. But BBS has a limit of about 10 posts before he starts engaging in name calling and my tolerance for name calling is zero.

Name-calling? I've led myself through a series of logical arguments to conclude that you're a bigot. So far, it's correct, and if you don't like that, then continuing to engage in these straw man fallacies will not help you. It's only making your position look worse.

The truth is that you're not willing to engage in further discussion. You're excusing yourself from making any logical counter-arguments by throwing up straw man fallacies and lame excuses (e.g. "Clearly, I'm not wanted, but I'll disregard the condition that if I can't make any logical counter-arguments, then I must leave").

Please. Stop crying and get logical.

[AndyDufresne]

Stop crying and get logical.

This would make an excellent slogan for something. Or a bumper sticker. BBS, quick, TM that.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Stop crying and get logical.

This would make an excellent slogan for something. Or a bumper sticker. BBS, quick, TM that.


--Andy

©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©
Stop crying and get logical. ©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©


IT"S COPYRIGHTED, BABY!. SEE! RIGHT HERE!! BAM.


Is that how it works?

[AndyDufresne]

I don't know, where is TGD when you need him and his lawyerosityness?


--Andy

[Army of GOD]

stop crying and get logical

[rdsrds2120]

Don't get crying, get logical.

-rd

[crispybits]

Got logical?

[PLAYER57832]

The problem with legalizing gay marriage is freedom of religion. Because you know as well as I, as soon as it's legal some gay couple will sue some pastor who refuses to marry them based on HIS religious beliefs. Then what? He goes to jail for not complying with mans laws because he refuses to be a part of breaking God's laws?

.[/quote]
I see, so you are aware of cases where A Roman Catholic Priest, Jewish Rabbis or perhaps Mormon leader have been taken to court for refusing to marry a Muslim or HIndu?

In fact, even within the military, chaplains are not required to marry those outside their own faith, just to help facilitate such rites.

Its possible that something could be said of a captain on the high seas who refuses, but for the captain to have the recognized authority to marry, he must be outside national boundaries... and so I have a hard time understanding how a US law might impact that?

[Symmetry]

Plus of course there are Christian denominations and churches that support same-sex marriage and are being denied their religious freedom to perform them and have them recognised, though I don't see that coming up too often among those who think it's an assault on religious belief.

[rdsrds2120]

Plus of course there are Christian denominations and churches that support same-sex marriage and are being denied their religious freedom to perform them and have them recognised, though I don't see that coming up too often among those who think it's an assault on religious belief.

You devilish schemer and post-righteous blasphemer. We know that that's not what God wanted, and those Christians better get their act together! Therefore, the argument can be dismissed.

-rd

[Symmetry]

Plus of course there are Christian denominations and churches that support same-sex marriage and are being denied their religious freedom to perform them and have them recognised, though I don't see that coming up too often among those who think it's an assault on religious belief.

You devilish schemer and post-righteous blasphemer. We know that that's not what God wanted, and those Christians better get their act together! Therefore, the argument can be dismissed.

-rd

It is kind of interesting that people won't let Christian churches perform the gay marriages they want to perform as part of their religious beliefs, because they feel it infringes on other Christians who don't want to perform the ceremony, and aren't being asked to.

Curious people. It's almost as if they think that other Christians shouldn't be allowed to practice their religion if it deviates from their own beliefs, and they'd like to see that enshrined in law.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow ConquerClubbers, I may have declared victory to soon for us defenders of gay marriage in this thread; however, given the tough obstacles which the opposition must overcome:

(1) Defend: majority rule that supports certain Christian beliefs is just
(2) Defend: morality is dependent only on God, thus morality is arbitrarily determined by God--and NOT by humans
(3) Defend: therefore, other forms of morality (e.g. libertarian, pro-individual liberty, pro-equality before the law, moral consequentialism, etc.) are invalid if they're contradictory to Christian God Morality.
(4) Overcome: different religions, which adhere to a similar God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and segments within those religions, have contradictory rules and policies for and against gays
(5) Overcome: conflicting religions use similar appeals to authority and circular reasoning to assert themselves as the true religion, so which religion (or segment of a religion) is the true one?
(6) Ignores: why oppose gay marriage if churches won't be forced to oversee gay marriages?
(7) Defend: cherry-picking of Bible, and arbitrary reasoning for justifying following X but not Y in the Bible
(8) Defend: why equality before the law should not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage.
(9) Defend: the application of force by the state onto minority groups so that they must abide by particular Christian beliefs.

Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow ConquerClubbers, that list is so difficult, I completely forgot what I wanted to say... Yes! We're back! So, after seeing this list of obstacles faced by the opposition, and after already seeing the opposition repeatedly fail to defend or overcome several of these obstacles, I couldn't fathom any logical means for them to overcome this list, thus our victory was declared at an appropriate time. Their last retort was one of ad hominems and straw man fallacies, which shall be reasonably rejected.


I alone could not have defended gay marriage, for this was OUR finest moment. With the help of my fellow CC'ers and from the knowledge gained from readings and from discussions with you fine people, we have overcome the opposition, which so far is correctly labelled as "bigoted--in a bad way." Furthermore, they should stop crying and get logical.

Give yourselves a round of applause, a pat on the back, and if you're not alone at the moment, outsource the patting-job to a loved one.







(@the opposition: if any of you care to logically address that list of obstacles, we eagerly await you.)

[rdsrds2120]

BBS has seemingly successfully created a wall of logic that can't be torn down!

From that wall and my easy-bake-oven, cupcakes for all!



(There's a special one with a star on top next to the rainbow, but not too close, for BBS)

-rd

[Nola_Lifer]

You can't just walk into a Church and demand a wedding. This is a false logic. You have to be a member of that church. You have to prove that you are welling to follow those traditions of marriage in that church. To expect a gay couple to walk into a church and demand a wedding is a bit of a fail. Why would they? This isn't about religion. It about rights.

[Woodruff]

You can't just walk into a Church and demand a wedding. This is a false logic. You have to be a member of that church. You have to prove that you are welling to follow those traditions of marriage in that church. To expect a gay couple to walk into a church and demand a wedding is a bit of a fail. Why would they?

Correct. And even then, the pastor may still deny it or have requirements that must be met first (marriage counseling, etc...).

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, exactly. They're basing their stance on a slippery slope argument, which has very little merit.

The list of obstacles for the opposition expands...

[comic boy]

The puppy slopes back home , humiliated yet still convinced of the veracity of his stone age reasoning.