Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

It's the fourth time but we wouldn't want you to be accurate now would we? I saw no reason to answer a question that was answered before you asked it.

http://able2know.org/topic/152731-10#post-4274294


If you see a fallacy in my statement or a contradiction then point it out. Without either of those my statement stands under the rules and your question is meaningless.

But it seems you are avoiding my question here...

http://able2know.org/topic/152731-10#post-4276331

Dear parados,

In reply to your post of 7/10/10:



(Jack:) What is hidden?"



(Jack:) "I do admit that homosexual sex can be categorized as wrongful, but, to avoid confusion, my way of exressing 'wrongful' is to say that it is a sexual perversion.

If you've identified what you consider a question being begged and we're to address the truth or falsity of that question, what is hidden?

That's the last time I'm going ask you that question.

Regards,

Jack

Are you saying that is your argument?
Are you also saying you are not trying to hide that argument by using different language?

But let me ask this question again..

And let me ask the question since it appears you won't accept any argument without being specifically asked.

Do you agree that this statement of yours is an equivocation because you used 2 different meanings of marry/marriage in the sentence?

Dear Friends,

I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion. Others can continue it if they wish but my exchange with parados has deteriorated to little more than distasteful bickering.

Let each reader of this exchange make up his own mind as to the validity of what has been presented on each side of the issue.

Regards to all.

Over and out.

Jack

Goodbye. You might want to hang onto your rules so you can read them in your spare time.

As Joe said, he's been looking for a way to exit the debate for a long time, but from what I could tell the ego couldn't stand the notion that Joe called his cards. It seems the ego finally gave and with one final grasp for air he tried to play a sympathy card.

Next.

A
R
T

He was left with agreeing that his opening statement was an equivocation or looking like a fool after he admitted he used 2 definitions.

He wasn't far behind being forced to admit his definition of sexual perversity was designed to include homosexuality and was nothing more than begging the question.

You say you want to talk about the issue rationally but you immediately claim as fact things that are not true. You claim marriage is "an outgrowth of biology, anatomy, physiology, the obvious means by which Homo sapiens as a species is perpetuated." In other words, you believe marriage is about sex.

However, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions (see Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political By Kathleen A. Lahey, Kevin Alderson) and heterosexual marriage has evolved over time (see also The Evolution of Marriage By Charles Jean Marie Letourneau).

Marriage is not about sex. Marriage is a union between 2 people who promise to love and care for one another above all others and it is legitimized by the state which, if a license is issued, will confer a legal status that comes with specific rights and benefits.

Gay people are legally able to have sex with other consenting adults. We are not asking for a right we already have.

When you go to a wedding, you are not there to witness 2 people who will be having sex from this day forward until death do they part. In fact, sex is not mentioned in traditional wedding vows at all. When you celebrate your grandparent's 50th wedding anniversary, you are not celebrating their 50 years of sexual activity. You are celebrating the anniversary of their union and the fact that they were able to sustain their commitment for so long.

Finally, your supposed request for dialog ends with a reference to bestiality -- thereby equating the desire of gay men and lesbians to create legal protections for their partner and children with people having sex with animals -- which is a form of abuse as animals are incapable of consenting to the sexual act nor are they able to enter into a contract -- which is essentially what marriage is.

It is insulting to gay men and lesbians to compare our struggle for equal marriage rights with bestiality.

If you truly want to talk reasonably and rationally about equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, I suggest you re frame your thesis.

Jackowens was something of a one-trick pony -- he wanted to win a debate about gay marriage and he thought this was the place to do it. He was wrong, and so he left. But we'd be glad to have you stick around, rainbowlaw.

rainbowlaw, Welcome to a2k. I can see you are able to explain this topic in a way that most people should be able to understand and appreciate.

I'm one of the oldest member of a2k, and very seldom see intelligent comments of your level. You just haven't seen me around, because of my wireless modem problems. I think it's been fixed, so you can rest assure you'll be seeing me around on many forums.

Visit my travelogues.