Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, in that case, why are you worried about the gay marriage? By your argument, won't the polygamists get their way whether gays do or not?
I don't quite understand why polygamy is such a bad thing anyway. I can't handle a relationship with one person, much less multiple partners. But I don't see why it's any of my buisness if a man wants to marry three women, as long as everyone in the marriage is fine with it.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think the argument can be advanced that it is very bad for raising children.And I know that has been advanced against gay marriage as well, but I do feel it might have a bit more reasoning behind it with polygamy.
Well, in my experience, a major reason for polygamy is so you can have large numbers of children; which in and of itself is a practie that needs to be abandoned. But I'd love to hear your reasoning.
Originally posted by Bardock42
W-what is it that I do not get?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Arguments are equivocal if they share the same logical value, i.e. if one is syntactically derivable from the other through contraposition or double-negation; and if both are semantically sound in the same functional model.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sabrea is right about the term marriage as legally recognised in the USA.
No, she is not, e.g. in Massachusetts, marriage is "a legal union between two individuals."
Originally posted by UshgarakNo I think you are just seeing what you want to see.
In most areas that interpretation would only be further opinion, though.Rating films, books or, say, comedians is all a matter of opinion. You are in remarkable denial if you lose sight of that. And with human constructs such as marriage,. the same applies. There's no huge underlying truth that anyone can refer to to judge it by, so it's all opinion.
She has said it would affect it because it would change the definition. You are all asking the wrong question- you should be asking the one I asked pages back, which is simply- why does it matter if it is changed?
People seem to have a remarkable ability to lose sight of the point of things around here. I see it in thread after thread; points get lost amidst a welter of personal attacks and aggressive fights simply for the sake of it.
Originally posted by Sabrea
But on that same note, if you look up the definition of marriage in a dictionary, it clearly states that it is "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Therefore, by definition same-sex couples do not qualify to get married. But they do qualify for civil unions, which gives them all the same rights as a married couple without the marriage title or wedding ceremony.
Not according to Merriam Webster (oh my, looks like I paid attention to what she said and you just interpreted it to mean "not legal in the US"😉
Originally posted by Sabrea
Instead of attacking heterosexual couples, they should realize this and accept the civil unions they are given.
Which don't have the same rights as marriage (it's not just an issue with her of talking about semantics)
Originally posted by Sabrea
By trying to change the laws, they are also indirectly trying to redefine what marriage is and always has been.
Hasn't always been that way (polygamy, homosexuality legal, dictionary definitions, etc.)
Her opinion is WRONG.
Originally posted by Sabrea
But on the other hand, most gays I know are absolutely fine with just civil unions and couldn't really care any less if they're permitted the right to marriage or not.
Gee...what was that one called...it's a logical fallacy....oh right, Biased Sample
Originally posted by Sabrea
So don't think I'm just bashing gay rights, technically all movements to give rights have been out of place and shouldn't have happened in the first place.
W-what the hell?
Originally posted by Sabrea
As a matter of fact, absolutely. I'm pretty sure I said this in my last post - but women's rights were one of the worst things that happened in America.
She's a psycho weirdo that doesn't give arguments for anything ever. How can you not see that?
Originally posted by Sabrea
Most homosexual couples don't want to fight for marriage, they want to fight for rights.
Absolutely unbased.
Originally posted by Sabrea
Thank you for supporting gay rights and not knowing what GSA is!!! The Gay-Straight Alliance is one of THE biggest gay rights groups in the united states. It doesn't pertain to *just* high school groups. Our group actually went on constant trips to gay rights functions that consisted of *adults* not *teenagers*. The only teenagers there were our group, and maybe one or two other high school area groups.Personally, I feel the meaning behind the term marriage would be lost. That's my opinion. A good majority of Americans would side me, unfortunately for different reasons (mostly gay-bashing reasons).
This woman is a walking logical fallacy. First is Ad Hominem second Appeal to Popularity.
Dude, you are interpreting the hell out of what she says, I'm just going what is actually in her posts. She didn't give one logically sound argument in all her talks.
As for opinions, we both know they can be wrong. I never said there aren't cases where an opinion is subjective.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Why you are asking me the rest of those questions, I have absolutely no idea.
Probably because it is a debate on the topic and I would figure your opinion is important if you want to participate...but, that's just a blind guess, I might just have asked for no reason at all.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
bardock was effectively trying to say the divison was not.
Just that he never did, did he?
Originally posted by Sabrea
Instead of attacking heterosexual couples, they should realize this and accept the civil unions they are given.
See, this is EXACTLY the attitude I've been addressing. Who the hell are you to grant us anything? This is why people "ATTACK" heterosexuals. Because heterosexuals think they're doing us a ****ing favor. What grants you the merrit to assume such an attitude?
The only problem, is that to get the rights, they have to be given, which illustrates the sad and miserable failure of the United State government and it's political system; along with the failure of people like yourself who have been duped into believeing you're personally involved in granting another human being the same rights you have when you're born. How does it feel to be so pious and gracious to your fellow man?
Don't disguise your arrogance by claiming that you're above homophobia because you have gay friends. It's a cop-out.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
In most areas that interpretation would only be further opinion, though.Rating films, books or, say, comedians is all a matter of opinion. You are in remarkable denial if you lose sight of that. And with human constructs such as marriage,. the same applies. There's no huge underlying truth that anyone can refer to to judge it by, so it's all opinion.
She has said it would affect it because it would change the definition. You are all asking the wrong question- you should be asking the one I asked pages back, which is simply- why does it matter if it is changed?
People seem to have a remarkable ability to lose sight of the point of things around here. I see it in thread after thread; points get lost amidst a welter of personal attacks and aggressive fights simply for the sake of it.
My question still stands then, how would changing the definition make marriage "lose it's meaning", she has yet to substantiate her opinion, which is all I am asking her to do.
So Sabrea, the reasons/thoughts as to why you have this opinion on the matter?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Got anything else besides your word to prove that?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in the case of Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health that marriage is now construed "to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in the case of Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health that marriage is now construed "to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
No, I mean of your meaning of "equivocal". I can't find one shred of evidence on it.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You will not find it in Merriam Webster. 🙄Try researching logical equivalence in a Philosophy text.
Merriam Webster
Dictionary.com
Wikipedia.com
Wikipedia.de
MSN encarta
leo German English Dictionary
Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English
dtv Atlas of Philosophy
the first ten pages of Google when you search "equivocal" and "logic equivocal"
I think you just misused the word. You never said equivalence, a word I know, which has nothing to do with equivocality. What an incredibly idiotic argument over something so trivial.
Originally posted by Bardock42
What an incredibly idiotic argument over something so trivial.
Especially considering your continuance of the argument after I explained the meaning of the statement as you requested. Therefore, it would appear that what you truly want is not a clarification, but to quibble over semantics. 🙄
Originally posted by Adam_PoESo you admit you used equivocal wrong? That's alright then, I might have been too anal about it.
Especially considering your continuance of the argument after I explained the meaning of the statement as you requested. Therefore, it would appear that what you truly want is not a clarification, but to quibble over semantics. 🙄