"You brought up Edwards, and Jackson and presented the link to infidelity. Are you withdrawing your statement?"
No. Do you find it involving me in a fallacy or contradiction?
I find it rather confusing and irrelevant. How about YOU explain why you brought them up.
"Gay couples aren't trying to get married so they can practice infidelity."
No, they are marrying to gain acceptance/equality, which is completely understandable.
Marriage comes with rights and privilages. I think they want to get married for those, and your disapproval and my approval doesn't even enter the equation.
"This does not make sense to me. People aren't opting for a gay lifestyle as a means for birth control. Believe otherwise? Prove it."
If it doesn't make sense to you, let's drop it.
Again, you're bringing this stuff up, not me. If you don't plan to make sense of it, save both of our times.
"Also, why would gay couples want to get married so they can have more partners?"
They don't want to just get married; they want their marriage accepted.
So what if they do? Why can't you let them legally marry and then continue to not approve?
"So then you understand that homosexuals marrying does nothing that you object to."
I'll respond to that if you ask it as a question rather than a belief assigned to me.
You said there was nothing perverse about the marriage, just the homosexuality. The homosexuality exists regardless of the marriage. So the thing you're arguing against is a separate entity from the thing you object to. you just seem to project that marriage means that homosexuals will be accepted.
(Jack:) "To repeat, my belief is that homosexuality is a sexual perversion. If that belief is false, in what fallacy or contradiction does it involve me?"
"I'm sure that you believe this. You believe homosexuality is sexual perversion because it's homosexuality. I don't need to convince you to not believe this."
I'm not asking you to confirm my belief as my belief nor my sincerity in believing it; I'm asking you if you find any fallacies --aside from the begging-the-question one that I address below-- or contradictions in that belief as explained.
To start, that takes a "yes" or "no" answer.
Are there fallacies aside from the fallacies? No.
Regarding your reformulation of in what a begging-the-question fallacy consists, you're going around in circles. There's nothing new in what you say, just a change in wording and presentation. It still depends on your apparent insistence that I'm putting forth my belief that homosexuality is a sexual perversion as an incontrovertible truth, which I deny.
If it's not truth then why are you trying to use it in a factual debate? If it's just your opinion, it's noted. Move on.
"P1 - Homosexuality is sexual perversion."
A proposition that I say may be true or false
You say that because you feel you must. You don't actually believe that it could be false. You're not being honest.
You're free to prove me wrong. What burden of evidence would I need to show you to prove this is false? If you admit it could be false, you have to be able to define that. I'm very interested in knowing what criteria will define homosexuals as perverse but some how keep heterosexuals from being defined in perverse terms.
"P2 - Homosexuals marrying is giving approval of homosexual behavior."
If such marriages are institutionalized, yes.
This belief is in direct contradiction with your stated values regarding the freedom of speech. You admitted that you did not need to make unpopular or hate speech illegal to show disapproval or unacceptable. If such language and ideas are able to be legal institutions, then what are you so threatened by with same sex marriage.
Allowing racist speech to be legal in no way is state sponsored acceptance of racism. An individual does not have to personally accept or approve of hate speech just because it is legal.
Abbra ka dabbra -
Allowing same sex marriage to be legal in no way is state sponsored acceptance of homosexuality. An individual does not have to personally accept or approve of gay marriage just because it is legal.
"A - Because we cannot allow the approval of sexual perversion, we must prohibit homosexuals from marrying."
No. The vote was that we must prevent the institutionalization of such marriages.
Is that what you believe?
The vote was that bigotry must be institutionalized to assert superiority.
Both your and my what-the-vote-was-about are correct depending on who you talk to.
Talk about what the vote did, not what it was about. What it did was define marriage in CA to a single man and single woman. As I understand, there is still some disagreement on if it voids same sex marriages prior to the vote.
"Your question begging happens when you apply your unestablished premises 'P1'..."
Then I won't apply my "unestablished premise to Assertion 'A'". I won't do it because P1 may be false.
It took you a very long time to get to this point.
Where does that leave your accusation of my being involved in a begging-the-question fallacy? It's starting to sound like you don't know what a begging-the-question fallacy is.
50% there. If you wish to table your P2 to it's own debate to keep it, let's go there next. Otherwise, state your claim again so we are reset and I know where you stand.
As I have it right now...
We cannot let same sex marriages be legal because it would institutionalize same sex marriages.
Perhaps you can state it better than I?