It has been one of my main arguments throughout this thread.
I guess you haven’t been paying attention?[/quote]
Yes, I have been paying attention, and I am telling you it isn’t an argument at all. Your claim is this: “if gay marriag wouldn’t have an effect on your marriage, then it deserves to be enacted.” Your argument.
No such principle. The question is not whether it affects my marriage or not. I used an example: a marriage between a man and his sister would have exactly no effect on [b]my[/b] marriage, but that doesn’t mean we should permit incestuous marriages.
Whether or not we permit a kind of marriage goes to the broader question of how it affects society.
You offered this principle as your reason to enact gay marriage. It is wrong, false, and stupid, no matter how many times you repeated it in this thread.
Good, you keep supporting the idea that government should be out of the marriage business. Just stick to that. It’s false, but at least you are coherent on this one.
You seem very confused - I never make any claims about how “good” I am…I simply point out how ridiculously awful you are. And, you are.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No such principle. The question is not whether it affects my marriage or not. I used an example: a marriage between a man and his sister would have exactly no effect on marriage, but that doesn’t mean we should permit incestuous marriages.
[/quote]
Well, if it’s a marriage between brother and brother we can cover two issues at once! Minus the deformed offspring objections, even.
What did I type in the paragraph highlighted do you not understand? Kansas state laws denying gay marriage are “constitutuional” because the equal protection clause allows for “rational discrimination”, or whatever word you used. Sexual preference is not covered under the clause.
I said that the law is discriminatory and needs to be amended/changed by mob vote.
Laws allowing gay marriage are “constitutional” because they used your democratic (mob rule) process and had the state laws amended/changed.
I understood this whole time, but you felt the need to keep bringing it back as a point for debate. [/quote]
Horseshit. I asked you:
Well, which is it then? Is it “unconstitutional”? Or is it “unfair”? They are not synonymous - so which are you asking about?
You replied:
Both. How is it constitutional to say one group of consenting adults can marry and the other can’t. Just because the “the law says so” doesn’t legitimize it. I can bring up numerous laws of the past that were discriminatory, unfair, unjust, or whatever.
Now, suddenly - conveniently - you start bleating that you understood it to be constitutional the whole time, right after you claimed it wasn’t.
Next time, do me the favor of just saying “I have no idea” so you won’t have to trip over your contradictions in the future.
Another pathetic straw man - I never made that claim. I said it would lead to the demise of marriage being recognized by government at all, i.e., it would privatize the whole affair. That would be bad, of course, but it certainly isn’t some claim that Western civilization is going to end.
It must make you feel good to make up arguments and then attack them - but better stick to the ones being made, junior.
You haven’t made an argument because you are too much of a coward to defend the “argument” you put forward (see the end of this post where you whistle past the questions and snivel “no time - start a new thread”).
You make claims that the state shouldn’t discriminate against gays on the basis that their consenting relationship is just as good as a union between a man and a woman. Well, with that principle in mind - your principle - supporting the enactment of gay marriage, what other relationships does that principle - your principle require marriage for?
This is a weakness in your vaunted “argument” that you won’t address.
More nonsense. That quote referenced the power of the words agreed to by a lawmaking body to have the force of law. Whether we enact gay marriage or not has to do with its own merits as a policy.
[quote]Slavery is a violation of natural rights. Laws restricting marriage to a man and woman is not.
Whatever you say thunder.[/quote]
See my answer to Fighting Irish above. What, the educated anarchist is ignorant of natural law? Shame.
Trust me, I could.
You wouldn’t know a good argument from a good garden hose - and the point is that marriage is a positive right. Doesn’t matter if you disagree - it isn’t a topic for disagreement - it is a fact. Whether homosexuals should get that positive right is a separate question.
The gay marriage movement is not about the government staying out of people’s lives - it is about the opposite: it is about gays seeking validation through government by formal recognition.
Christ Almighty, I can’t believe how awful you have gotten. Gay marriage advocates don’t want to be “left alone” - they want public recognition of their relationship in law.
Even if I were “one of the most arrogant, condescending motherfuckers on this board”, what does that have to do with the fact that:
You tried to sound haughty and superior
And you made yourself look like an idiotic clown
You embarrassed yourself - don’t blame me.
[quote]This has nothing to do with nine year olds. I never mentioned anything of the sort.
We’re discussing consenting adults who happen to be gay. [/quote]
No, we are discussing your argument that because a gay marriage doesn’t affect my marriage, gay marriage should be enacted.
Your principle, your reasonimg as to why we should enact gay marriage.
I rebutted with an example demonstrating how there are all kinds of marriages that “don’t affect my marriage” personally but that we do not allow for other public policy reasons.
So, unless you are willing to permit incestuous marriages or marriages to 9 year olds - neither of which would have any effect on your marriage - then you your principle upon which you based your reason to enact gay marriage is faulty.
Defend the principle you raised, or stop wasting my time.
I haven’t ignored anything what you claim I did, because I never said gay marriage would lead “to the end of the world”. Tighten up, Einstein.
And, no, it doesn’t inform the debate - see directly above.
No, states have the right because the people are sovereign and may exercise that right to exercise sovereignty. The “writing” part is just a means.
Don’t need to - it is a logical extension of the argument you made. Can’t handle having to defend it? Don’t raise it.
Pathetic. Your argument drawn to its natural conclusion, and you look for a way out when pressed on its weaknesses.
Such is every argument with you - always disappointing.
[quote]TKDCadet04 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
TKDCadet04 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I do not think I have made myself clear, it is not about not sinning, it is about having faith in Jesus and what he did for us. And have the respect to at least try and do things right. We are not the Jews, we do not have a reward/punishment system. We have an all or nothing system, so did the Jews, but they see it different. Prove it doubles your risk.
Brother
So being in love with someone is not “do[ing] things right”?
No, being in love with someone is fine, but I am in love with Pamela Anderson. But if I have sex with her that would be not doing things right.
You love her or you lust her? HUGE difference. When you find the woman you end up marrying, that’ll be love. It’s not just about sex, not for you, not for me, not for anyone. Everyone is looking for their other half in this world where, at times, we feel so alone. Why is it that you can have yours, but I can’t have mine?
[/quote]
If I lusted her, I would plan to take her away from her husband. I do not lust her, I love her. Difference, you confuse the definition of lust and love.
P.S. I am actually not talking about PA she’s cute, but she’s a complete idiot when it comes to other things. Just used it as an example, but I am in love with someone and I am not married to them.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I do not think I have made myself clear, it is not about not sinning, it is about having faith in Jesus and what he did for us. And have the respect to at least try and do things right. We are not the Jews, we do not have a reward/punishment system. We have an all or nothing system, so did the Jews, but they see it different. Prove it doubles your risk.
Brother
So you think people should have double the risk of suicidal thoughts, drug/alcohol abuse, anxiety, and depression on the whim that maybe their belief system will one day prove to be true, although there is admittedly no evidence for it at the present time? Seriously? I can maybe understand having “faith” in something for which there’s no evidence, if it does good things for your life, but this is not one of those cases. Many believers from my former religion, and from other religions, have actually committed suicide because they were unable to reconcile their sexual orientation with their “faith” that they were inherently flawed, perverse, and bound for hell.
In 2001, Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder found that 88% of participants in reparative therapy failed to achieve a sustained change in their sexual behavior and 3% reported changing their orientation to heterosexual. The remainder reported either losing all sexual drive or struggling to remain celibate. Schroeder said many of the participants who failed felt a sense of shame. Many had gone through reparative therapy programs over the course of many years. Of the 8 respondents (out of a sample of 202) who reported a change in sexual orientation, 7 were employed in paid or unpaid roles as ‘ex-gay’ counselors or group leaders, something which has led many to question whether even this small ‘success’ rate is in fact reliable.
Schroeder and Shidlo found that the large majority of respondents reported being left in a poor mental and emotional state after the therapy, and that rates of depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse and suicidal feelings were roughly doubled in those who underwent reparative therapy.[/quote]
202? That is about as reliable as my dozen. So, out of all the gay people I know (which is much less than 202, and the ones I know that have gone through therapy, much less than 202, I know more people that have turned to a heterosexual life than this study. Where did they go for this study Castro?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If I lusted her, I would plan to take her away from her husband. I do not lust her, I love her. Difference, you confuse the definition of lust and love.
P.S. I am actually not talking about PA she’s cute, but she’s a complete idiot when it comes to other things. Just used it as an example, but I am in love with someone and I am not married to them.[/quote]
Well, when you say Pamela Anderson, and not “the girl I really love”, it makes it easy for me…or anyone…to “confuse the definition of lust and love”
So again, I repeat my question: How come it’s perfectly fine for you to have the one you love, but not okay for me to?
Yes, I have been paying attention, and I am telling you it isn’t an argument at all. Your claim is this: “if gay marriag wouldn’t have an effect on your marriage, then it deserves to be enacted.” Your argument.
No such principle. The question is not whether it affects my marriage or not. I used an example: a marriage between a man and his sister would have exactly no effect on [b]my[/b] marriage, but that doesn’t mean we should permit incestuous marriages.
Whether or not we permit a kind of marriage goes to the broader question of how it affects society.
You offered this principle as your reason to enact gay marriage. It is wrong, false, and stupid, no matter how many times you repeated it in this thread.
[/quote]
I’m not convinced that someone shouldn’t be allowed to marry their sister. As unappealing as that sounds to me, I’m not sure it should be denied to two consenting adults.
By your own argument, an incestuous marriage is harmful in that it has a high chance of producing unhealty offspring, the care of which would be expensive to society. How exactly is gay marriage anything but beneficial? Does society not gain from having homosexuals in stable relationships rather than sleeping around?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
202? That is about as reliable as my dozen. So, out of all the gay people I know (which is much less than 202, and the ones I know that have gone through therapy, much less than 202, I know more people that have turned to a heterosexual life than this study. Where did they go for this study Castro?[/quote]
Have you ever taken a course in statistics? Many experimental designs are based on similar sample sizes. I had around the same n when I did my dissertation. More importantly, this was a peer reviewed article, published in a respected scientific journal, and it meets scientific standards.
Now why do you think that you are more qualified to draw conclusions on homosexuality than the major medical and mental health organizations, all of whom have conducted 40 years of research and reached unanimous conclusions that contradict your own?
[quote]TKDCadet04 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
If I lusted her, I would plan to take her away from her husband. I do not lust her, I love her. Difference, you confuse the definition of lust and love.
P.S. I am actually not talking about PA she’s cute, but she’s a complete idiot when it comes to other things. Just used it as an example, but I am in love with someone and I am not married to them.
Well, when you say Pamela Anderson, and not “the girl I really love”, it makes it easy for me…or anyone…to “confuse the definition of lust and love”
So again, I repeat my question: How come it’s perfectly fine for you to have the one you love, but not okay for me to?[/quote]
You can do whatever you want, but since mine is the opposite sex of me that is why it’s okay.
Now, suddenly - conveniently - you start bleating that you understood it to be constitutional the whole time, right after you claimed it wasn’t.
Next time, do me the favor of just saying “I have no idea” so you won’t have to trip over your contradictions in the future.
[/quote]
I caught the mistake I made and I went back and corrected it with the first paragraph of my last post.
I have no problem admitting that I made a mistake. It’s something you should try.
You made the slippery slope, alternative marriages will ruin society argument.
No, just the arguments you made old man.
I did, liar. I don’t believe the government should decide or dictate who can get married at all. That’s a separate debate, however.
And no, I don’t feel like getting into that debate with you at the moment because it has nothing to with gay marriage. If you want to start a thread and call me out do so and I’ll get to it when I can.
I do actually like posting here and debating these issues. I just don’t have the time at the moment.
Are you going to admit your mistake? I doubt it…
I haven’t ignored anything.
Adult consent, aside from that their is no other criteria. It’s an individual choice, not for you or me to decide.
That’s fine, but that proverbial “force of law” has maintained some dubious laws over the years. That doesn’t make them legit or just.
I made that comment because it is still discrimination, just a different kind.
I never said a word about natural laws or whether I was ignorant of them. You attacked me off of a baseless claim.
Your typical hypocrisy that we have all grown to love.
I would expect nothing less from you.
thunder said it to be true, so it must be.
The actually reality is, is that it is not a state matter.
Then quite responding. It’s quite simple if I’m bothering you that bad.
To get the benefits that every other married couple have, yes. Unfortunately, that is the route they have to take. Ideally, the state wouldn’t decide who gets married, but that isn’t the way things are. How does this go against what I have been saying?
You are just that and I wasn’t. You made a silly comment/argument and I pointed it out. Kind of like how you do with everyone else.
Those types of marriages wouldn’t effect me, so what the hell do I care if those odd types of marriages occur. For the 107th time, it’s not a state matter, but in the current political climate gays have to use the government to get rights that everyone else has.
I’ll do what I want, thank you. If you don’t like it, don’t respond.
You said that it would lead other “alternative marriages”, which it hasn’t in Canada, hence my comment.
Look at the first sentence. I answered your question, this, now the second time. I did it earlier as well. If you want to debate this specific topic, start a new thread and I’ll get to it when I can.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
TKDCadet04 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
If I lusted her, I would plan to take her away from her husband. I do not lust her, I love her. Difference, you confuse the definition of lust and love.
P.S. I am actually not talking about PA she’s cute, but she’s a complete idiot when it comes to other things. Just used it as an example, but I am in love with someone and I am not married to them.
Well, when you say Pamela Anderson, and not “the girl I really love”, it makes it easy for me…or anyone…to “confuse the definition of lust and love”
So again, I repeat my question: How come it’s perfectly fine for you to have the one you love, but not okay for me to?
You can do whatever you want, but since mine is the opposite sex of me that is why it’s okay.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
202? That is about as reliable as my dozen. So, out of all the gay people I know (which is much less than 202, and the ones I know that have gone through therapy, much less than 202, I know more people that have turned to a heterosexual life than this study. Where did they go for this study Castro?
Have you ever taken a course in statistics? Many experimental designs are based on similar sample sizes. I had around the same n when I did my dissertation. More importantly, this was a peer reviewed article, published in a respected scientific journal, and it meets scientific standards.
Now why do you think that you are more qualified to draw conclusions on homosexuality than the major medical and mental health organizations, all of whom have conducted 40 years of research and reached unanimous conclusions that contradict your own?[/quote]
Well we have a few more generations before I think I could conclude that forty years of research (just to make sure that agenda’s are not at play) before all the contradictory proof (so much of unanimous conclusions) can be dismissed and your scientific proof becomes ‘truth’. So, we’ll see when it comes around. I still have a problem with modernistic science because I am not enough of a narcissist to think just because I live in this generation that I am smarter than past generations and all future generations.
[quote]TKDCadet04 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
TKDCadet04 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
If I lusted her, I would plan to take her away from her husband. I do not lust her, I love her. Difference, you confuse the definition of lust and love.
P.S. I am actually not talking about PA she’s cute, but she’s a complete idiot when it comes to other things. Just used it as an example, but I am in love with someone and I am not married to them.
Well, when you say Pamela Anderson, and not “the girl I really love”, it makes it easy for me…or anyone…to “confuse the definition of lust and love”
So again, I repeat my question: How come it’s perfectly fine for you to have the one you love, but not okay for me to?
You can do whatever you want, but since mine is the opposite sex of me that is why it’s okay.
Debate fail.
Seriously, the worst rebuttal I’ve heard.[/quote]
I am thinking you can not read, You can do whatever you want. It’s a free country, but I see my actions as fine because it does not break any laws of my faith.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Well we have a few more generations before I think I could conclude that forty years of research (just to make sure that agenda’s are not at play) before all the contradictory proof (so much of unanimous conclusions) can be dismissed and your scientific proof becomes ‘truth’. So, we’ll see when it comes around. I still have a problem with modernistic science because I am not enough of a narcissist to think just because I live in this generation that I am smarter than past generations and all future generations.[/quote]
Heh. Do you have any idea how much scientific progress has been made in the past 40 years? Just think about where technology was in the 1960s, compared to where it is today.
If nothing else, you should at least be willing to accept the unanimous conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization as being more reliable than your own very, very, very limited observations informed by an admittedly biased (Christian) perspective. Not that you will, but you should
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Well we have a few more generations before I think I could conclude that forty years of research (just to make sure that agenda’s are not at play) before all the contradictory proof (so much of unanimous conclusions) can be dismissed and your scientific proof becomes ‘truth’. So, we’ll see when it comes around. I still have a problem with modernistic science because I am not enough of a narcissist to think just because I live in this generation that I am smarter than past generations and all future generations.
Heh. Do you have any idea how much scientific progress has been made in the past 40 years? Just think about where technology was in the 1960s, compared to where it is today.
If nothing else, you should at least be willing to accept the unanimous conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization as being more reliable than your own very, very, very limited observations informed by an admittedly biased (Christian) perspective. Not that you will, but you should :)[/quote]
It’s not unanimous, nice try. And there is a difference between technology and science. And sometimes progress isn’t always the best thing for progress.
Even if you take religion out of the equation, an argument against homosexuality can be found in nature itself. Humans and animals cannot produce offspring. There is a high risk of birth abnormalities with offspring of close relatives. And two humans of the same sex cannot reproduce. That’s just ONE reason why all of the above should not be allowed to marry.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Troll28 wrote stuff:
Keep your eye on the prize troll!
I think that that is a very nice, affordable bridge.
No, really, a classy bridge for a gentleman country troll.
Horion you’re upset because little Dusty took your spot over as chief ass clown of T-Nation trying to debate with the adults. He has become more entertaining than you with his little boy PC talk, oh well…that’s the way it goes. If it’s any consolation most of us still think of you as our favorite austrian douche bag.
[/quote]
But then, you might be an ambitious troll.
I do not know how trolls are remunerated, unless they own their own bridge that is, but if you are compensated for the sheer amount of idiocy you post, you are aiming for something bigger.
Go for it Mick, you are the little troll that could!
