Yes it is. I've yet to see a single decent reason against it, it's all fallacies, outright lies, and ignorance. (Guess what marriage has been around LONG before your precious Abrahamic religion, you don't have a monopoly on it.)
[QUOTE="Head_of_games"]I'm fine with gay couples getting the same rights as strait ones, I just don't want it called marriage. If it was, it would lead to a host of problems. Churches would be sued, people would be arrested for "hate speech", and the door would be opened for all sorts of things involving the re-interpretation of marriage(Marrige with more than two people, marriage between kids, between an adult and a kid, or even a human and an animal). Lockedge
DO you realize that many states have laws that prevent lawsuits(etc.) being brought upon someone solely over religious practice? I believe they have this restriction in California, which was outright baffling when prop 8 passed from people fearing their pastors would get sued for not marrying gay couples. People wouldn't be arrested for hate speech so long as they didn't throw out anti-homosexuality slurs(which are unnecessary anyways. 1. "Many" states. Not all. 2. Yeah, I doubt that. Heck, it's even possible that pastors couldn't read certain parts of the bible out loud because they call for the stoning of homosexuals. As for the part I deleted, that debate would get so long and complicated I'm not even going to start it.
It was a merely a fun fact or a trivia piece of information.
Teenaged
yes, it's a piece of trivia to include a quote from one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century, and coincidentally it happens to be the exact same viewpoint that I share.
It was a merely a fun fact or a trivia piece of information.
Hewkii
yes, it's a piece of trivia to include a quote from one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century, and coincidentally it happens to be the exact same viewpoint that I share.Yes its a piece of trivia.
That is determined by the instance when someone decides to share that piece of info. Here it was not appeal to authority as it was obvious that MGN wasnt trying to convince anyone.
It was a merely a fun fact or a trivia piece of information.
yes, it's a piece of trivia to include a quote from one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century, and coincidentally it happens to be the exact same viewpoint that I share. No it wasn't a coincidence, the guy agrees with me, and he had a fairly witty saying on the matter; that's all. Quoting someone famous doesn't automatically mean that you think their authority is absolute in a discussion.
Well, given the US is intended to be a secular nation I'm not quite sure why religion should have such a big part in it. I guess the whole "majority rules" bit about US decisionmaking can make religion come into any arguement...
In any case, I find nothing morally wrong with a homosexual realtionship between two consenting adults blossoming into a lifelong romantic bond. In fact, I find it heartwarming.
[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Head_of_games"]I'm fine with gay couples getting the same rights as strait ones, I just don't want it called marriage. If it was, it would lead to a host of problems. Churches would be sued, people would be arrested for "hate speech", and the door would be opened for all sorts of things involving the re-interpretation of marriage(Marrige with more than two people, marriage between kids, between an adult and a kid, or even a human and an animal). Head_of_games
DO you realize that many states have laws that prevent lawsuits(etc.) being brought upon someone solely over religious practice? I believe they have this restriction in California, which was outright baffling when prop 8 passed from people fearing their pastors would get sued for not marrying gay couples. People wouldn't be arrested for hate speech so long as they didn't throw out anti-homosexuality slurs(which are unnecessary anyways. 1. "Many" states. Not all. 2. Yeah, I doubt that. Heck, it's even possible that pastors couldn't read certain parts of the bible out loud because they call for the stoning of homosexuals. As for the part I deleted, that debate would get so long and complicated I'm not even going to start it. I do admit more states need to pass laws to defend religious practice. So yeah, I do understand the unwillingness to make one fell swoop to make gay marriage legal across the country. It should be done bit by bit. Hate speech...again, if religious practice is legally defensible, then that pastor wouldn't have to worry about reading such scripture as it is not hate speech, it is religious material. Simple as that. I think the most important thing about getting same-sex couples their rights would be to instill a marketing law akin to what they have in Germany, where you can't lie in advertisements. That way, campaigns like the prop 8 one last fall wouldn't have been aired due to their significantly false claims that had great impact on the voting process. I'm fine with people voting like regular Americans, but I'm not fine with the American people being lied to in order to skew their vote in one direction. Californians were in no danger to having their kids pushed into some curriculum, as all parents/guardians in California have an opt out process where they can preview the curriculum and have their children opt out of certain lessons. California also has that law that protects religious practice, as I already stated, yet those two reasons were the primary reasons why people voted for prop 8. Without those lies, the outcome woul have been different, and I think that is substantial. I mean, you can bring up as many ads as you want, but the group with more money and more fear-mongering claims will end up winning the marketing race in this modern era.
That is determined by the instance when someone decides to share that piece of info. Here it was not appeal to authority as it was obvious that MGN wasnt trying to convince anyone.
Teenaged
yes, saying
What I am saying is that it aint perfect, but its the best we got.
is not trying to convince anyone of anything, especially that we shouldn't criticize democracy.
That is determined by the instance when someone decides to share that piece of info. Here it was not appeal to authority as it was obvious that MGN wasnt trying to convince anyone.
Hewkii
yes, saying
What I am saying is that it aint perfect, but its the best we got.
is not trying to convince anyone of anything, especially that we shouldn't criticize democracy.I wasnt even criticisng democracy so you got that wrong there as well.
Therefore he wasnt trying to convince me about anything. He just added a side-note.
Anyone who has time or energy to be upset about how someone else ( who does not affect them at all ) chooses to live should probably stop and look at their own life.
Anyway it definitely didn't look like appeal to authority. I sometimes make such references but I never do it for that purpose.
Teenaged
tell me, what purpose do you use quotes from famous people who happen to share your viewpoints for other than convincing people that 'hmm, maybe this guy's on to something'.
26 pages later and this is still going on? :lol: It's funny because I don't even have to read anything in here to know that not a single decent argument was brought up against gay marriage.
Anyway it definitely didn't look like appeal to authority. I sometimes make such references but I never do it for that purpose.
Hewkii
tell me, what purpose do you use quotes from famous people who happen to share your viewpoints for other than convincing people that 'hmm, maybe this guy's on to something'.Meh you could accuse him of wanting to impress you or just to act like a smartass for giving trivia information but not appeal to authority.
Sometimes people just want to share something interesting they know. For instance when I am fascinated with some sort of info I will share it with others. In this case the fact that Chruchill said that is fascinating and bizarre. I would deffinetely mention it to my friends if we had a relevant discussion.
[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"] I meant more the moral side of it..... Don't see why that's an issue. The relationship dosn't magically change just because they signed a marriage certificate, they can live with each other and sleep with each other ect whether they're married or not.
It is ok. If the marriage is based on love and respect. Id rather have same sex marriage with love and respect teaching good values than a different sex marriage with violence and having bad values.
They are arbitrarily trying to cIassify their objections as objectively negative in order for those objections to have a standing.
Teenaged
Generalizations. :(
There are plenty of people, including some in this thread that claim to be morally against it. Many don't call the belief in homosexual marriage invalid or illogical like you call some moral beliefs. There's a difference.
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Meh you could accuse him of wanting to impress you ... but not appeal to authority.Hewkii
that is an appeal to authority.No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. When you try to attribute credibility on a point of view or an argument by saying that the X famous person thought of the same thing.
Trying to impress someone with your knowledge of trivia isnt appeal to authority.
They are arbitrarily trying to cIassify their objections as objectively negative in order for those objections to have a standing.
LikeHaterade
Generalizations. :(
There are plenty of people, including some in this thread that claim to be morally against it. Many don't call the belief in homosexual marriage invalid or illogical like you call some moral beliefs. There's a difference.
Like in the discussions we had via PMs I specifically said that people have the right to be morally against it. They should not though hope to impose those morals to others.
On a personal level there is no validity or invalidity to be found in morals. At least I dont care at the moment to do so. But in legal issues, yes morals have to be checked on whether or not they hold any water in order for their effect to be justified and not unfair.
26 pages later and this is still going on? :lol: It's funny because I don't even have to read anything in here to know that not a single decent argument was brought up against gay marriage.
Dark_Knight6
The only argument you really need against gay marriage is that you think it's morally wrong.
26 pages later and this is still going on? :lol: It's funny because I don't even have to read anything in here to know that not a single decent argument was brought up against gay marriage.
fidosim
The only argument you really need against gay marriage is that you think it's morally wrong.Not an argument.
26 pages later and this is still going on? :lol: It's funny because I don't even have to read anything in here to know that not a single decent argument was brought up against gay marriage.
Teenaged
The only argument you really need against gay marriage is that you think it's morally wrong.Not an argument.
26 pages later and this is still going on? :lol: It's funny because I don't even have to read anything in here to know that not a single decent argument was brought up against gay marriage.
fidosim
The only argument you really need against gay marriage is that you think it's morally wrong.
Which is great and all but the morals of others shouldn't decide which minority groups receive rights.
26 pages later and this is still going on? :lol: It's funny because I don't even have to read anything in here to know that not a single decent argument was brought up against gay marriage.
The only argument you really need against gay marriage is that you think it's morally wrong.Not an argument. Sure it is. If I were a devout Christian, and I saw holy matrimony as something that takes place between a man and a woman, I would see gay marriage as a slight against my religion.
26 pages later and this is still going on? :lol: It's funny because I don't even have to read anything in here to know that not a single decent argument was brought up against gay marriage.
Dark_Knight6
The only argument you really need against gay marriage is that you think it's morally wrong.
Which is great and all but the morals of others shouldn't decide which minority groups receive rights.
[QUOTE="fidosim"] The only argument you really need against gay marriage is that you think it's morally wrong.fidosim
Not an argument. Sure it is. If I were a devout Christian, and I saw holy matrimony as something that takes place between a man and a woman, I would see gay marriage as a slight against my religion.I stand corrected. In its articulated form it is an argument; an invalid one.
26 pages later and this is still going on? :lol: It's funny because I don't even have to read anything in here to know that not a single decent argument was brought up against gay marriage.
Teenaged
The only argument you really need against gay marriage is that you think it's morally wrong.Not an argument. Yeah that is an argument. It may not be one you agree with.....
Pretty one-note argument. Hard to argue that gay marriage is wrong in the way that murder, rape, or crapping on someone's carpet is morally wrong.
Depends on whether or not a society should be focused on the properties of individuals or as a whole, but I know what you mean. Seems kinda low on the list of moral priorities.
26 pages later and this is still going on? :lol: It's funny because I don't even have to read anything in here to know that not a single decent argument was brought up against gay marriage.
The only argument you really need against gay marriage is that you think it's morally wrong.
Which is great and all but the morals of others shouldn't decide which minority groups receive rights.
I'm speaking only about personal opinions, not about what the law should say. You could legalize gay marriage at the federal level (which I would approve of), but what if pastors/priests by-and-large didn't want to marry homosexual couples? But the couple wanted to really get married, not simply be bound to eachother by law in a courthouse or something. Would you force those pastors to marry homosexuals?
Log in to comment