7
   

Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 11:27 pm
@jackowens,
Quote:

Meanwhile, for the seventh(?) time:

What is hidden?

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
Quote:
This is your argument although you try to hide it with a premise that no one agrees with.

wrongful sex includes homosexuality
therefor homosexuality is wrongful sex.


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.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 11:28 pm
@jackowens,
But it seems you are avoiding my question here...

http://able2know.org/topic/152731-10#post-4276331
0 Replies
 
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 03:34 am
@parados,
Dear parados,

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

Quote:
"This is your argument although you try to hide it with a premise that no one agrees with.

wrongful sex includes homosexuality
therefor homosexuality is wrongful sex."


(Jack:) What is hidden?"

Quote:
"Either you admit that homosexual sex can't be categorized as wrongful or you don't."


(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
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:14 am
@jackowens,
Quote:

wrongful sex includes homosexuality
therefor homosexuality is wrongful sex."

Are you saying that is your argument?
Are you also saying you are not trying to hide that argument by using different language?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:31 am
@parados,
But let me ask this question again..

Quote:
Did you or did you not reach a conclusion and state that conclusion based on your thinking homosexual sex is wrong?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:38 am
@parados,
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?


Quote:
My vote would be to permit homosexuals to marry, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such marriages.
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 06:43 pm
@parados,
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
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 10:24 pm
@jackowens,
Goodbye. You might want to hang onto your rules so you can read them in your spare time.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 11:30 am
@parados,
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
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 04:57 pm
@failures art,
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.
0 Replies
 
rainbowlaw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 08:09 am
@jackowens,
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.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 09:13 am
@rainbowlaw,
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.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 10:27 am
@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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/16/2021 at 04:15:14