39
   

Is homosexuality a bad thing?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 04:17 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
And where do you stand on interracial marriage? It wasn't so very long ago that it was viewed with the same disdain you have for gay marriage, for the same reasons.
Ignorant BS as usual from you....interracial marriage was not objected to because the definition of marriage did not support it, as was true with so called homosexual marriage. And allowing interracial marriage did not require a change in the definition of marriage before it could take place.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 04:27 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

First of all, I don´t have nothing against the rightful existence of gay people, my problem resumes with their attitude towards non-gay, the majority by the way, (you seam to forget the obvious) assaulting their millenarian traditions and cultural processes.

Gay marriage was recently approved in Portugal....and my position on this issue was against not because of the very much needed juridical protection that I think they (the gay) also are entitled, but because of the lack of distinction between institutions that we are also equally entitled to protect as a dignifying part of the mainstream culture.
Simple and without demagoguery !

So don´t bring me to the anti gay lobby crap complaining talk because I am in neither´s side.
(this is a general remark although in direct reply to Reasoning Logic at some specific issues)



Thank you for your reply, but I did ask a few questions of you! If you would be kind enough to answer the questions I think that we could then start talking about reason and logic!
Please answer the hypothetical questions regardless if you think that you are so to speak! your quote: [So don´t bring me to the anti gay lobby crap complaining talk because I am in neither´s side,]

URL: http://able2know.org/reply/post-4368498
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 04:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
And where do you stand on interracial marriage? It wasn't so very long ago that it was viewed with the same disdain you have for gay marriage, for the same reasons.
Ignorant BS as usual from you....interracial marriage was not objected to because the definition of marriage did not support it, as was true with so called homosexual marriage. And allowing interracial marriage did not require a change in the definition of marriage before it could take place.
Rolling Eyes Who's opining from ignorance? What sacred definition of marriage are you trying to superimpose over all others here? Legal? Christian? And for what reason do you think it’s sacred?

You are aware that many traditional institutions were later found to be unconstitutional, aren't you?
You are aware that Argumentum ad antiquitatem is logically fallacious, aren't you? (Slavery, hello.)

Concisely and precisely pin down your objection and I'll be happy to highlight the error in your thinking (wasn't that long ago; I saw two sides to this argument too... only to discover one easily trumps the other in these United States.)
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 04:46 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Seams just reasonable that opinion diversity goes both ways and also imply´s my right to disagree with their life style and not just the other way around...yet they seam to think that opinion diversity is exclusively at their lobby disposal... pathetic !
Really? Is the local gay community in your area trying to tell heterosexuals who they can and can't marry? Are they trying to deny equal protection to heterosexuals under the state laws that regulate marriage? What State is this? I've heard of no such parity, anywhere.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:03 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
And where do you stand on interracial marriage? It wasn't so very long ago that it was viewed with the same disdain you have for gay marriage, for the same reasons.
Ignorant BS as usual from you....interracial marriage was not objected to because the definition of marriage did not support it, as was true with so called homosexual marriage. And allowing interracial marriage did not require a change in the definition of marriage before it could take place.
Rolling Eyes Who's opining from ignorance? What sacred definition of marriage are you trying to superimpose over all others here? Legal? Christian? And for what reason do you think it’s sacred?

You are aware that many of traditional institutions were later found to be unconstitutional, aren't you?
You are aware that Argumentum ad antiquitatem is logically fallacious, aren't you? (Slavery, hello.)

Concisely and precisely pin down your objection and I'll be happy to highlight the error in your thinking (wasn't that long ago; I saw two sides to this argument too... only to discover one easily trumps the other in these United States.)



1 - Argumentum ad antiquitatem does not apply in the case of slavery on account of treating differently what is in essence equal, which is a prevailing argument...thus, given the example you provide is not a question of gender but a question of species equal rights, the comparison you try to pull is forced and should be avoided...

1.1 - On the opposite spectrum Marriage is traditionally about gender thus cannot treat equally what is fundamentally different and the argument apply´s.

1.2 - One of these day´s regarding your type of argument build mothers and son´s would be also entitled to marry...why not ?

2 - No one so far as said a word on the sacredness of marriage, but you seam obstinate to bring it up that way...I wonder what is your agenda in this ?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:

1.2 - One of these day´s regarding your type of argument build mothers and son´s would be also entitled to marry...why not ?


This is a Slippery Slope fallacy. And very poor grammar to boot.

Cycloptichorn
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:12 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Seams just reasonable that opinion diversity goes both ways and also imply´s my right to disagree with their life style and not just the other way around...yet they seam to think that opinion diversity is exclusively at their lobby disposal... pathetic !
Really? Is the local gay community in your area trying to tell heterosexuals who they can and can't marry? Are they trying to deny equal protection to heterosexuals under the state laws that regulate marriage? What State is this? I've heard of no such parity, anywhere.


This is complete nonsense...so you think that assaulting institutional foundations and tradition as the basis of Identity in a Society is not a problem at all...

Why can´t gay people be imaginative enough to create their owns institutions instead of stealing and imposing to the majority their own perspective of life as a minority ? Just think if all the others minority´s were also up to question every other law principle and rule in our world...that would be a laugh, a circus...

EQUALITY to WHAT is EQUAL !
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:13 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
1.2 - One of these day´s regarding your type of argument build mothers and son´s would be also entitled to marry...why not?


why not indeed, who cares, marry a monkey or a toaster, it matters not to me
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:16 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:

This is complete nonsense...so you think that assaulting institutional foundations and tradition as the basis of Identity in a Society is not a problem at all...


Maybe it's the basis of YOUR identity. Besides. What do you care what they do or don't do? How does it affect you at all?

Quote:
Why can´t gay people be imaginative enough to create their owns institutions instead of stealing and imposing to the majority their own perspective of life as a minority ? Just think if all the others minority´s were also up to question every other law principle and rule in our world...that would be a laugh, a circus...


Oh, yeah, imagine what would happen if minorities - instead of coming up with their own laws and rights and institutions - demanded that they enjoyed the same rights as everyone else?

What would happen?

http://www.delawareohrealestate.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2008-04-dr-martin-luther-king-jr.jpg

Someone would have a dream, and people would fight and die to enjoy the same rights as you.

And that's exactly what we see happening today. Gay rights are advancing because they and their allies are stronger than the bigots, the same way other minorities triumphed over the bigots. And they will win as well; and you'd be better served getting used to it, because this current attitude you are displaying, well. It certainly isn't something to be proud of.

Cycloptichorn
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Do you provide an argument at all, or is it just the Grammar authority "pal" ?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Do you provide an argument at all, or is it just the Grammar authority "pal" ?


I'll jump in once you provide something worth responding to. I've spent a long time slapping bigots down on this subject here at A2K and can't be bothered to haul it all out for such a poorly thought out argument on your part.

But, by all means, if you think you've got the stones to uphold your end, keep it up.

Cycloptchorn
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:23 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Why can´t gay people be imaginative enough to create their owns institutions


this is an interesting position, one i sort of agree with, but probably not for the reason you're thinking

why would anyone group want to participate in something as broken as traditional marriage, a new and better alternative might be a good idea, if they came up with something really cool, heterosexuals might want to give it a try
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:25 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Why can´t gay people be imaginative enough to create their owns institutions


this is an interesting position, one i sort of agree with, but probably not for the reason you're thinking

why would anyone group want to participate in something as broken as traditional marriage, a new and better alternative might be a good idea, if they came up with something really cool, heterosexuals might want to give it a try


It's a matter of legal rights.

Besides, I don't believe there's any evidence that traditional marriages are 'broken,' so to speak.

Ah, you're always funny tho dj

Cycloptichorn
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:29 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Once and for all do you even understand in the first place what you are saying or arguing for ? Because one can wonder...

What is mainly different, has to be treated differently !!! which does n´t mean inferiorly, get it ?...
...or just why do you think there are rules and law´s in this world, eh ?
One of the biggest mistakes of our time is precisely to make this spaghetti mess were everything fits the same plate...and is not just about gay rights...its everywhere !

In less then 200 years Occident is going by by and down the drain on account of this Rousseaunian naive reasoning of equalising everything without a proper foundation in place !
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I'll jump in once you provide something worth responding to. I've spent a long time slapping bigots down on this subject here at A2K and can't be bothered to haul it all out for such a poorly thought out argument on your part.


Anyone who disagrees is a bigot I love that form of thinking!!!!

In any case I am all for gays in the military and others gay rights however I fail to see how the society have an interest in promoting long term gay relationships or the transferring of wealth to gay couples from single gay and straight men and women in order to achieve that promotion.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:34 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Once and for all do you even understand in the first place what you are saying or arguing for ? Because one can wonder...


Yes, I do. I'm not sure if my telling you that actually will stop you wondering, though.

Quote:
What is mainly different as to be treated differently !!! which does n´t mean inferiorly, get it ?...


The first sentence you wrote here is horrible and I don't know what it means. The second is just as bad. But I'll try and interpret it anyway, and respond by saying that 99% of the time, treating people 'differently' means treating them worse. And in the case of gay marriage, that's exactly what it means: denying them rights.

Quote:
...or just why do you think there are rules and law´s in this world, eh ?
One of the biggest mistakes of our time is precisely to make this spaghetti mess were everything fits the same plate...and is not just about gay rights...its everywhere !


This is a meaningless paragraph. People are fighting for equal treatment under the law. Your opinion regarding things 'fitting the same plate' is immaterial to this. The fact is that you want to deny them the right to pursue the same sorts of happiness that others do. Why do you wish this? What do you have against them?

Quote:
In less then 200 years Occident is going by by and down the drain on account of this Rousseaunian naive reasoning of equalising everything without a proper foundation in place !


This is a foolish prediction on your part, based not on data, but emotion. There is no logic or fact to back this assertion up, and therefore there's really nothing for me to say about it.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:36 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I'll jump in once you provide something worth responding to. I've spent a long time slapping bigots down on this subject here at A2K and can't be bothered to haul it all out for such a poorly thought out argument on your part.


Anyone who disagrees is a bigot I love that form of thinking!!!!


Why not? How are you not bigoted towards someone, if you want to deny them rights based upon an unchangable factor of their life?

The truth is that you are a bigot, Bill. Seriously. You are a bigot. You are bigoted towards gay folks. Why not just admit it out loud?

Quote:
In any case I am all for gays in the military and others gay rights however I fail to see how the society have an interest in promoting long term gay relationships or the transferring of wealth to gay couples from single gay and straight men and women in order to achieve that promotion.


There's no such thing as 'society.' There is no interest on its part. There are only individuals and the State. It is the job of the State to treat all individuals equally, and this isn't currently happening. This is why you see Supreme Courts overturning anti-gay marriage laws: the idea of discriminating against these people is fundamentally incompatible with equality and justice.

Cycloptichorn


[/quote]
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
No its not, and If you properly read my argument you would care to notice that legally I defend the same kind of protection heterosexual marriage has...

2 - You are the one so far who was not able to provide nothing but a mediocre caricature of an argument based on equal rights...it does n´t fit !
Encore la folie mon cher ami... n´importe quoi ! Laughing
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:41 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
And where do you stand on interracial marriage? It wasn't so very long ago that it was viewed with the same disdain you have for gay marriage, for the same reasons.
Ignorant BS as usual from you....interracial marriage was not objected to because the definition of marriage did not support it, as was true with so called homosexual marriage. And allowing interracial marriage did not require a change in the definition of marriage before it could take place.
Rolling Eyes Who's opining from ignorance? What sacred definition of marriage are you trying to superimpose over all others here? Legal? Christian? And for what reason do you think it’s sacred?

You are aware that many of traditional institutions were later found to be unconstitutional, aren't you?
You are aware that Argumentum ad antiquitatem is logically fallacious, aren't you? (Slavery, hello.)

Concisely and precisely pin down your objection and I'll be happy to highlight the error in your thinking (wasn't that long ago; I saw two sides to this argument too... only to discover one easily trumps the other in these United States.)



1 - Argumentum ad antiquitatem does not apply in the case of slavery on account of treating differently what is in essence equal, which is a prevailing argument...thus, given the example you provide is not a question of gender but a question of species equal rights, the comparison you try to pull is forced and should be avoided...
Laughing How so? Are you suggesting gay people are of a different species?
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
1.1 - On the opposite spectrum Marriage is traditionally about gender thus cannot treat equally what is fundamentally different and the argument apply´s.
Laughing "traditionally" is the basis of Argumentum ad antiquitatem. It matters not at all where on your imaginary spectrum marriage falls; fallacious reasoning is fallacious reasoning, and the 14th amendment is not at all affected by it.
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
1.2 - One of these day´s regarding your type of argument build mothers and son´s would be also entitled to marry...why not ?
Well there is another issue for the high court to entertain at it's leisure (assuming anyone has ever been denied relief while seeking such a thing and petitioned for it-- which I doubt), but it is wholly unrelated to this one.
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
2 - No one so far as said a word on the sacredness of marriage, but you seam obstinate to bring it up that way...I wonder what is your agenda in this ?
My agenda should be clear: I'd like to hear one non-bigoted reason for denying equal protection to homosexuals that isn’t nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 05:42 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No its not, and If you properly read my argument you would care to notice that legally I defend the same kind of protection heterosexual marriage has...


Then what has your nose bent so out of shape by calling it marriage? If you legally want to make it the equivalent, why not call it the same thing?

I'm asking you to specifically answer this question, because it's key to revealing your motivations.

Quote:
2 - You are the one so far who was not able to provide nothing but a mediocre caricature of an argument based on equal rights...it does n´t fit !
Encore la folie mon cher ami... n´importe quoi ! Laughing


This is a meaningless assertion on your part, and it doesn't advance the argument at all. Tell us how it's compatible to have equality of rights and discrimination at the same time - legally and morally.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 05:00:25