The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Actually, you failed on the first one and you keep ignoring it, so I moved on to the 2nd point.

It's not because you ignored it that I failed.

And you continue to predictably ignore my answer to that question, and then my question to that. I consider the definition of marriage a "logical" reason to deny marriage to same sex couples if said definition implies a man and a woman. Meanwhile, you continuously skirt the issue and when approached, your argument is either "why not" or "everyone else is doing it!"

If you come up with this to anyone, they will straight up laugh you away. So according to you, when someone wants to change something, one can just say: "No, the current definition says it is as it is now, so it can't be changed".

That's it, we don't need to debate about anything that exists anymore because it already has a definition and a definition can't ever be changed. Even if the change is better for a lot of people and not affecting everyone else.

And you keep ignoring the fact that you haven't provided any argument FOR same sex marriages for me to REFUTE or DENY, as in DENY the legitimacy of same sex marriages. If you don't have an argument, don't post.

Don't be dense, you probably want me to come up with numbers as to how same sex marriages can provide more income for the government. I could do this, or you can just stop ignoring the fact that same sex marriage contributes to the happiness of a lot of people and doesn't logically affect anyone else.

So are you going to give an argument besides "the definition says it's between a man and a woman so it can't be changed"?

I totally agree. Perhaps you mind providing an argument instead of ignoring my plea for you to provide one? Or perhaps you want to concede that you don't have one which is why you keep pushing the burden of "denial" on me because the best you can come up with is "why not" or appealing to the majority?

As I recall, I was first to ask you for an argument which you didn't provide and then you pushed me to do so because you obviously can't.

And yet you can't provide proof of anything resembling emotional rationalizations coming from me, while I've done an adequate proof for you. And further proof is just repeating what I said back to me, like a parrot, which is what you've just done.

You can't prove any of my emotional rationalizations. You can try to point out where but it is off-topic and saying that someone is getting emotional is a lousy tactic to dismiss something that was said.

Besides, mocking religion hasn't got anything to do with emotion, because from a clear objective point, religion is a joke.

YouTube video

What the hell is this? 😆

Conservatives. facepalm

edit- "You seem obsessed with this young gay man". Oh lawd 😂

Oh Anderson...

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
It's not because you ignored it that I failed.

If you come up with this to anyone, they will straight up laugh you away. So according to you, when someone wants to change something, one can just say: "No, the current definition says it is as it is now, so it can't be changed".

That's it, we don't need to debate about anything that exists anymore because it already has a definition and a definition can't ever be changed. Even if the change is better for a lot of people and not affecting everyone else.

Don't be dense, you probably want me to come up with numbers as to how same sex marriages can provide more income for the government. I could do this, or you can just stop ignoring the fact that same sex marriage contributes to the happiness of a lot of people and doesn't logically affect anyone else.

So are you going to give an argument besides "the definition says it's between a man and a woman so it can't be changed"?

As I recall, I was first to ask you for an argument which you didn't provide and then you pushed me to do so because you obviously can't.

You can't prove any of my emotional rationalizations. You can try to point out where but it is off-topic and saying that someone is getting emotional is a lousy tactic to dismiss something that was said.

Besides, mocking religion hasn't got anything to do with emotion, because from a clear objective point, religion is a joke. [/B]

Yup, clear objective point. And that's NOT an emotional rant. Please slash, go collect yourself, you're too easy.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'm not intimately educated regarding the exact benefits of both, but that's irrelevant considering homosexuals want "marriage" because they want to be defined as a legally married couple, not for "extra benefits."

And they have every right to demand such because it would hurt no one and provide equal rights across the board.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
If that were the case, nobody would be arguing about homosexual couples.

It obviously isn't the case. Just something I think should happen.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Aside from the fact that you water down the concept of marriage, which has for most of the past 5,000 years, been defined as a legal partnership between a man and a woman, it looks as if divorce rates among same sex couples are higher than divorce rates among heterosexual couples. What you're doing is trivializing the concept of "marriage".

Really? It has always been done a certain way, ergo it must continue to be done that way? This is your argument?

Can you give me the source for "divorce rates among same sex couples are higher than divorce rates among heterosexual couples."? I'd like to read it myself.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I mock you because your self awareness skills fall among mentally handicapped children. You continue to mock religion as a rationalization for social policy, you continue to introduce your opinion as fact on the aspects and history of religion, yet you're worried about being mocked. Time to grow up veneficus. There's a difference between you and I. I don't get emotional over people that disagree with me, while you seem to throw a tantrum every once in a while when someone doesn't agree with you. That didn't work well for Lightsnake and it's not working for you.

Not really sure what to say here.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Neither is an appeal to alleged "overall wellbeing". Now you're skirting on the "who are you to..." nonsense, which would end the argument because if we were to allow that into the discussion, you could apply it to virtually any case. I'm fine with appealing to the majority and to history. If the majority supported same sex marriages, I wouldn't be upset over it. At least not for longer than a minute.

“If the majority supported X, I wouldn't be upset over it. At least not for longer than a minute.”

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Religion doesn't appear to be a primary source for legal opposition, as I've shown with the political demographics that control this country. You're introducing an irrelevant fact here. I know religion is a huge source of opposition among the common folk, but I would hardly describe it as the primary source. And if it were the primary source, I would oppose a "religious" reason for opposition.

You also don't see Obama and his kind pushing strongly for gay marriage because they know it would never fly in our country. Half of the adult population believes in YEC (based on a 2008 Gallup Poll). People who believe in YEC tend to be, at the very least, Evangelical in whatever species of Christianity they belong to. You think the Democrats are going to ignore 44% of the adult population?

Also, according to another poll:

"Gallup Polls conducted in 129 countries between 2006 and 2008 reveal that in many countries where high percentages of people report that religion is important in their daily lives, people are also highly likely to report that the place where they live is not a good place for gays and lesbians to live."

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You keep bringing up the Jewish aspect of my decision, yet I've never once indicated that it had anything to do with my objections. I don't know why you keep doing this.

Well were else would you get the idea to oppose same-sex marriage? Because it's “always been done that way?” Or because “The government defines it as that way?” Neither are good reasons.

Your Judaism is obviously a large part of who you are and what you believe. I can't really see an atheist having a good reason for opposing same-sex marriage. In fact, I can't really see any good reason outside of religion.

Gallup Poll Sources: http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx, http://www.gallup.com/poll/116491/Religiosity-Perceived-Intolerance-Gays-Lesbians.aspx

Originally posted by Lucius
And they have every right to demand such because it would hurt no one and provide equal rights across the board.

It obviously isn't the case. Just something I think should happen.

Really? It has always been done a certain way, ergo it must continue to be done that way? This is your argument?

Can you give me the source for "divorce rates among same sex couples are higher than divorce rates among heterosexual couples."? I'd like to read it myself.

This is one of them, I'll dig up the second.

Not really sure what to say here.

“If the majority supported X, I wouldn't be upset over it. At least not for longer than a minute.”

You also don't see Obama and his kind pushing strongly for gay marriage because they know it would never fly in our country. Half of the adult population believes in YEC (based on a 2008 Gallup Poll). People who believe in YEC tend to be, at the very least, Evangelical in whatever species of Christianity they belong to. You think the Democrats are going to ignore 44% of the adult population?

Also, according to another poll:

"Gallup Polls conducted in 129 countries between 2006 and 2008 reveal that in many countries where high percentages of people report that religion is important in their daily lives, people are also highly likely to report that the place where they live is not a good place for gays and lesbians to live."

Well were else would you get the idea to oppose same-sex marriage? Because it's “always been done that way?” Or because “The government defines it as that way?” Neither are good reasons.

Your Judaism is obviously a large part of who you are and what you believe. I can't really see an atheist having a good reason for opposing same-sex marriage. In fact, I can't really see any good reason outside of religion.

Gallup Poll Sources: http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx, http://www.gallup.com/poll/116491/Religiosity-Perceived-Intolerance-Gays-Lesbians.aspx [/B]

Strictly believing in and understanding the residual fallacy, I place absolutely no emphasis on polls.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Right, wonderful strawman, emotional appeal, and just generally made up bullshit. Just for you, here you go.

I believe I just posted that "strawman" picture but you're continuing to strawman your way onto ignore, Darth Exodus style.

1. I don't want you to come up with anything because you won't be able to.
2. No you can't.
3. Or you can just stop throwing in unsupported assertions and passing them off as fact.

Seeing as how that was never my argument, and how you've never formed an argument, in good old Gideon style, I accept your concession.

Great deflection!

Oh my god...

Stop dodging the point. You just wasted so much internet space because you didn't even once say anything about the subject. Instead of throwing around meaningless personal accusation you could try to give an argument. Thing is, I've seen you do this a lot, when you can't decently reply you just ignore everything.

You may call it a deflection, but you still haven't given one argument. Now, without saying anything that isn't an insult, "NO U" or plain bullshit, can you please provide an argument against gay marriage. If not, you're the worst debator ever.

Seeing as how you've gone off on a tangent every single time proof was required for your post to be considered an "argument", how you've appealed to some majority, and how you've continuously used the strawman fallacy, there's no better proof of an emotional rationalization. 🙂

See, this is exactly what I mean. With a lot of words, you didn't say or proof anything again. Quote one of my emotional rationalizations.

Yup, clear objective point. And that's NOT an emotional rant.

Exactly. At least we agree about that.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Oh my god...

Stop dodging the point. You just wasted so much internet space because you didn't even once say anything about the subject. Instead of throwing around meaningless personal accusation you could try to give an argument. Thing is, I've seen you do this a lot, when you can't decently reply you just ignore everything and go with the personal attacks

You may call it a deflection, but you still haven't given one argument. Now, without saying anything that isn't an insult, "NO U" or plain bullshit, can you please provide an argument against gay marriage. If not, you're the worst debator ever.

Great deflection!

You failed because you don't have an argument so you need a distraction.

And you continue to predictably ignore my answer to that question, and then my question to that

And you keep ignoring the fact that you haven't provided any argument FOR same sex marriages for me to REFUTE or DENY, as in DENY the legitimacy of same sex marriages. If you don't have an argument, don't post.

IF all of those seem familiar to you, it's because you're basically repeating me after I've stated them to you. Obviously you're not cut out to debate logically and objectively, so I will continue with Veneficus because he seems to be doing a far better job. Oh, I also took the liberty to highlight your own personal attacks to point out your hypocrisy, whereas my personal attacks aren't "personal" at all, because they deal with your argument, or lackthereof. I could post more but it would be too easy.

See, this is exactly what I mean. With a lot of words, you didn't say or proof anything again. Quote one of my emotional rationalizations.

Exactly. At least we agree about that.

Now, you're going to go on ignore until you start acting like an adult and adding something valid to the discussion, other than parroting my posts.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I figured veneficus would go ask for help.

I wonder why he should "ask for help"? Starting a discussion with you means instant win for anybody on the opposing side, provide that, after five years here, you still terribly suck at the art of debate.

Ill tell you what, ill oblige your request if you can show me my emotional rationalization.

I can't believe that it didn't occur to you, that your current view on the issue is based on nothing but religions feelings (=emotion) and your personal dislike of same sex marriages (=emotion) and a little appeal to some (unproven) majority (= logical fallacy). In short, you say: "Same sex marriage is wrong, because I don't like it and many other people don't like it, too." Does that count as an "argument" in the realm of uneducated peons?

Veneficus has attempted to explain his opinion using utilitarism. The concept of same sex marriages doesn't hurt anybody, yet some people benefit from it. This alone might be seen as rational basis for a "pro same sex marriage" view. If some people benefit from an action, that has absolutely no negative consequences, one should act. It won't getting any easier than that, so how else shall I "rationalize" if you can't even understand the most basic concepts?

Usually, marriage grants a couple a nice set of privileges, that can't be archived in any other way. In Germany (I can't speak for the USA), marriage does usually result in paying lower taxes and other boni of that kind. So marriage does have advantages. Why shouldn't a state grant them to it's homosexual citizens. That's pretty much against the usual code of "equal rights". And I don't think that violating civil rights should and turning intolerance to national agenda suits a country well, that attempts to defend democracy all across the planet, sometimes with invasions. Because, from a rationalists view, commiting double-standards doesn't look too great.

But, notice, I'm just refering to the legal consequences of marriage here. Personally, I don't care if homosexuals should be allowed to marry in churches or if such a relation can be blessed by God. The Bible seems to make both things impossible and it's upon the religious communities to decide, if they want to allow this thing in "their" houses or not. But that's a question of faith and has, therefor, nothing to do with rationality (I'm sorry).

But then, as I see it, one would have to ask why God did introduce homosexuality into nature (it's present in the realm of animals and not a typical human issue) if he wants to condemn it afterwards? That certainly doesn't make sense. Another of these faith based things.

And by the way: It's quite laughable that you kept "discussing" this issue over multiple pages and now just admitted that you didn't come up with a single rational argument so far, just to demand from me to point out your errorous ways, before you'll even try. Hypocrisy much? But I'm sure you'll find another way to sneak around the original issue (because you have no rational basis for a debate) and come up with the usual Dr McBullshiton blah blah we're all accustomed to...

yawn

Well, I have tried a long time to get one argument out of you. But you greatly disappoint me by providing not even one.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It's funny that you mention the "NO U" nonsense, because not a few hours earlier, here were my exact posts.

IF all of those seem familiar to you, it's because you're basically repeating me after I've stated them to you.

I didn't say any of those things, except for you ignoring my question and asking to provide an argument. But I was the first with both of these. Thus concluding that you've repeated everything I said.

Obviously you're not cut out to debate logically and objectively,

Well, you've said this to about everyone that disagreed with you on this forum and most of them are better than you, so it doesn't mean anything really.

Oh, I also took the liberty to highlight your own personal attacks to point out your hypocrisy, whereas my personal attacks aren't "personal" at all, because they deal with your argument, or lackthereof. I could post more but it would be too easy.

The first one you highlighted was an objective statement as I've seen you throw around personal attacks at a lot of members here. The second part I highlighted was also an objective statement because one who doesn't give arguments is a lousy debator. If you consider objective statements to be personal attacks, then so be it.

Totally, I'm not shocked you didn't either "get" the sarcasm or elected to pretend that I was serious.

I'm not shocked you used highschool girl sarcasm.

Now, you're going to go on ignore until you start acting like an adult and adding something valid to the discussion, other than parroting my posts.

First, liar.

Second, you're allowed to run away. Didn't think from the start that you'd actually come up with a logical reason against same sex marriage.

Originally posted by Borbarad
I wonder why he should "ask for help"? Starting a discussion with you means instant win for anybody on the opposing side, provide that, after five years here, you still terribly suck at the art of debate.

I can't believe that it didn't occur to you, that your current view on the issue is based on nothing but religions feelings (=emotion) and your personal dislike of same sex marriages (=emotion) and a little appeal to some (unproven) majority (= logical fallacy). In short, you say: "Same sex marriage is wrong, because I don't like it and many other people don't like it, too." Does that count as an "argument" in the realm of uneducated peons?[/quote]
Well ladies and gentlemen, it looks like our fearless German hasn't been reading... At all. Seeing as how I've repeatedly claimed my feelings have nothing to do with religion, you'll do well not to continue making shit up just because you can't come up with anything intelligent. And the only appeal to majority has been "well other countries are doing it so we should too!" I'm not surprised you didn't pick up on that one seeing as how you're not exactly a beacon of objectivism.

Veneficus has attempted to explain his opinion using utilitarism. The concept of same sex marriages doesn't hurt anybody, yet some people benefit from it. This alone might be seen as rational basis for a "pro same sex marriage" view. If some people benefit from an action, that has absolutely no negative consequences, one should act. It won't getting any easier than that, so how else shall I "rationalize" if you can't even understand the most basic concepts?

Usually, marriage grants a couple a nice set of privileges, that can't be archived in any other way. In Germany (I can't speak for the USA), marriage does usually result in paying lower taxes and other boni of that kind. So marriage does have advantages. Why shouldn't a state grant them to it's homosexual citizens. That's pretty much against the usual code of "equal rights". And I don't think that violating civil rights should and turning intolerance to national agenda suits a country well, that attempts to defend democracy all across the planet, sometimes with invasions. Because, from a rationalists view, commiting double-standards doesn't look too great.

But, notice, I'm just refering to the legal consequences of marriage here. Personally, I don't care if homosexuals should be allowed to marry in churches or if such a relation can be blessed by God. The Bible seems to make both things impossible and it's upon the religious communities to decide, if they want to allow this thing in "their" houses or not. But that's a question of faith and has, therefor, nothing to do with rationality (I'm sorry).

But then, as I see it, one would have to ask why God did introduce homosexuality into nature (it's present in the realm of animals and not a typical human issue) if he wants to condemn it afterwards? That certainly doesn't make sense. Another of these faith based things.

And by the way: It's quite laughable that you kept "discussing" this issue over multiple pages and now just admitted that you didn't come up with a single rational argument so far, just to demand from me to point out your errorous ways, before you'll even try. Hypocrisy much? But I'm sure you'll find another way to sneak around the original issue (because you have no rational basis for a debate) and come up with the usual Dr McBullshiton blah blah we're all accustomed to... [/B]

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Well, I have tried a long time to get one argument out of you. But you greatly disappoint me by providing not even one.

I didn't say any of those things, except for you ignoring my question and asking to provide an argument. But I was the first with both of these. Thus concluding that you've repeated everything I said.

Well, you've said this to about everyone that disagreed with you on this forum and most of them are better than you, so it doesn't mean anything really.

The first one you highlighted was an objective statement as I've seen you throw around personal attacks at a lot of members here. The second part I highlighted was also an objective statement because one who doesn't give arguments is a lousy debator. If you consider objective statements to be personal attacks, then so be it.

First, liar.

Second, you're allowed to run away. Didn't think from the start that you'd actually come up with a logical reason against same sex marriage. [/B]

You're not on ignore... Yet.. I'm hoping you'll straighten up. In the meantime, I enjoy it when you make me look good. Here, let me requote what you just wrote with one change and it will have 100% validity, just like you think yours does.

Second, you're allowed to run away. Didn't think from the start that you'd actually come up with a logical reason for same sex marriage.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Sure you were. Here's a bit of advice. Don't lie when someone can go to the first page of this argument. IT doesn't look good for you.

This was the first thing I said on the topic.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
DS, are you going to give a rational argument to deny same sex marriages, or not?

Hence, I was first. You know I'm not lying, but you're right about one thing. Someone can go re read everything and know that I haven't lied while you have and still are avoiding the initial question.

Please quantify "everyone", please quantify their intellectual capacities, and then facepalm yourself for trying to appeal to a nonexistent majority.

Advent, RN, Gideon, Vene, Lightsnake, DE, Nai, TJ,... You've blamed them all for being either illogical or being a bad debator one time or another. While they are all better debators than you. There is not one person in here that will vouch for you. I dare you to find someone.

No, I won't scan every piece of text on this forum to quantify it.

You're not on ignore... Yet.. I'm hoping you'll straighten up. In the meantime, I enjoy it when you make me look good. Here, let me requote what you just wrote with one change and it will have 100% validity, just like you think yours does.

Yet I still was first to ask you. Why should I even bother to make an argument when I know you never will.

Nai is right, you are just going to sneak around the original issue. It's sad, I expected you'd at least have something. Apparently you don't.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Advent, RN, Gideon, Vene, Lightsnake, DE, Nai, TJ,... You've blamed them all for being either illogical or being a bad debator one time or another. While they are all better debators than you. There is not one person in here that will vouch for you. I dare you to find someone.

No, I won't scan every piece of text on this forum to quantify it.

Nai is right, you are just going to sneak around the original issue. It's sad, I expected you'd at least have something. Apparently you don't. [/B]

Why should anyone else adress me when I'm talking to you...

Alright, let's try something. I'm going to ask ONE question, I'd like for you to only answer this one question, no bullshit and I won't respond to anything else. If you do not answer this question then I know you will never answer it:

What are your arguments against same sex marriage?

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Why should anyone else adress me when I'm talking to you...

Alright, let's try something. I'm going to ask ONE question, I'd like for you to only answer this one question, no bullshit and I won't respond to anything else. If you do not answer this question then I know you will never answer it:

What are your arguments against same sex marriage?

Only because you've reached the point beyond sadness will I repeat what I've said a million times. My argument is in the underlying definition of marriage, which I strongly believe is between a man and woman. I also believe in reproduction and the idea that man's sexual organs and a female's sexual organs go together for a reason. Try to put both ring fingers together. That doesn't work. Now that might not be the most compelling argument, it works, and if the definition of marriage should happen to change in the next few years, I'll get over it and move on like a normal human being. Now, do you have ANY arguments for same sex marriages? We've already heard your appeal to the majority, and "why not"? I await eagerly.. Or not.

Okay, I forgot to put the word objective before arguments.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Only because you've reached the point beyond sadness will I [b]repeat what I've said a million times. My argument is in the underlying definition of marriage, which I strongly believe is between a man and woman.[/B]

So you believe that marriage should be between man and woman.

Okay, very subjective. In that way I believe marriage should be between two people. There's my first argument.

I also believe in reproduction and the idea that man's sexual organs and a female's sexual organs go together for a reason. Try to put both ring fingers together. That doesn't work.

Again something you believe. Very subjective.

I know that people who prefer their own gender are born that way and that you don't have to put a penis in a vagina to get married.

Now that might not be the most compelling argument, it works,

How in any way does it work? Being able to reproduce should not be an absolute necessity to get married.

and if the definition of marriage should happen to change in the next few years, I'll get over it and move on like a normal human being.

I know, you've mentioned this before. But it's people like you who put their own believes above other people their happiness that prevent same sex marriage from being legal everywhere.

If I get the choice presented to me to either vote against gay marriage and thus putting my own selfish believes first or vote for gay marriage to allow a lot of other people to be happy, I'd probably not choose the selfish side.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
If I get the choice presented to me to either vote against gay marriage and thus putting my own selfish believes first or vote for gay marriage to allow a lot of other people to be happy, I'd probably not choose the selfish side.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
There's nothing selfish about it. Let's bring another hypothetical into the equation, one I've mentioned to Nai. If all rights of a domestic partnership were equal to those of marriage, would the proponents of same sex marriage still fiercely support it? In this situation, you can't principles of utilitarianism to suit your argument because you're not denying anyone certain rights. You might be denying them the emotional aspect of a marriage but then you can argue that you're doing the same thing to heterosexual couples by watering down the concept of marriage.

If all rights of a domestic partnership were equal to those of marriage, then the only difference would be the name. In this case I don't think anyone in a domestic partnership would be upset to not have the name of marriage. If they were upset about this, then I would not support it.

Marriage is a personal matter, between one and their partner. Why would heterosexual couples care about the concept of marriage? Most people don't get married with the definition of marriage in their minds. They do it because they want to strengthen their bond as a couple and to acquire the additional rights that come with marriage.

The emotional aspect of a homosexual couple that wants to get married far outweighs the emotional aspect of a heterosexual couple being bothered by the watering down of the concept of marriage. It's not like a heterosexual couple will say "Oh, now that gay people can get married, I don't feel as good in my marriage anymore".

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
If all rights of a domestic partnership were equal to those of marriage, then the only difference would be the name. In this case I don't think anyone in a domestic partnership would be upset to not have the name of marriage. If they were upset about this, then I would not support it.

Marriage is a personal matter, between one and their partner. Why would heterosexual couples care about the concept of marriage? Most people don't get married with the definition of marriage in their minds. They do it because they want to strengthen their bond as a couple and to acquire the additional rights that come with marriage.

The emotional aspect of a homosexual couple that wants to get married far outweighs the emotional aspect of a heterosexual couple being bothered by the watering down of the concept of marriage. It's not like a heterosexual couple will say "Oh, now that gay people can get married, I don't feel as good in my marriage anymore". [/B]