That's clever, but it acknowledges that terms and meanings are what we grant to certain words. That's addressing the word "Marriage", not the commitment and rights detailed by the act. It's still calling my marriage a civil union and yours a marriage. I'm sure that many people think they're playing basketball on their neighbourhood courts, even though they aren't getting paid 7 figure salleries and there's no ref to call the game.
That goes back to my earlier point that words often change and progress through time.
You could make the identical argument back when black people wanted rights or when women wanted the right to vote. "If women voting is made legal because of a small group of people want to make it that way, is it still voting?"
Meaning, it seems the argument is based on 'traditional' grounds. Tradition is not aurhority, because something is traditionally one way doesn't mean it lessens if it changes through time. if anything it becomes greater and more relevant.
Originally posted by Devil King
That's clever, but it acknowledges that terms and meanings are what we grant to certain words. That's addressing the word "Marriage", not the commitment and rights detailed by the act. It's still calling my marriage a civil union and yours a marriage. I'm sure that many people think they're playing basketball on their neighbourhood courts, even though they aren't getting paid 7 figure salleries and there's no ref to call the game.
It's clever because its a good point that doesn't involve Baby Jesus. Yeah, it acknowledges that certain concepts have meanings that they're dependent upon. Basketball was made with clear-cut rules. If you wanna wear pads and kick the ball at the basket, that's fine, but make it a new game and give it a new name. Let's not call it "basketball" and make-believe that it really is just to please a few people. Same thing with "marriage".
Originally posted by BackFire
You know why it's a fallacy? Then why did you commit the fallacy in your argument? It's the fallacy of slippery slope, the idea that one thing will somehow lead to something else without giving evidence or reason as to why it would lead to that (I.E. If we allow gays to marry then what's stopping people from marrying kids and toasters?) You offered no evidence as to how gay marriage would lead to such an outcome, so it's a fallacy. But you knew that. So you purposefully committed the fallacy, makes sense. (Though I note you chose to totally avoid backing up your argument...does shouting and banging get you everything in America?)A civil partnership isn't marriage. Marriage is marriage. The religious context is moot because churches would still be free to refuse to marry gay people if they so wished. Their freedom of religion wouldn't be overruled. Gay marriage would simply make the government recognize the union between a gay couple to be on equal ground as the union between two straight people. Actually has shit to do with religion.
Also, polygamy should be discussed and debated on its own merits, seeing as it's completely irrelevant to gay marriage being legalized.
You do not see the parallels in the argument then no? As I said, I was arguing in the context of religious marriage- civil partnerships and marriage are one in the eyes of the state...why the big emphasis on what word is used? A civil marriage is a civil marriage...
Originally posted by Devil King
Because you just said that two men getting married was a gateway drug to turning the world into Gomorrah. Because you just said that two adult human males who love each other every bit as much as those heterosexual couples can never get married for all the same reasons those heterosexual couples utilize. Because you just compared my marriage to the utterly absurd act of marrying the inanimate object in which you live. T-Th-Th-That's W-wh-wh-wh-why.But I suppose you realize all that. Instead, you want me to explain why it's absurd for you to marry your home, rather than telling me how it's absurd when two human beings get married, they can never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be two women? You just say it can't ever, ever, ever happen because it just can't happen? Tell me why it can for a man and a woman? And more importantly, see if you can do it without using your book of ancient Jewish superstitions.
Also, don't flatter yourself with the belief that somehow gay marriage being legalized would bring about the destruction of the moral world- as a Christian sees it. Your just not that important...
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You do not see the parallels in the argument then no? As I said, I was arguing in the context of religious marriage- civil partnerships and marriage are one in the eyes of the state...why the big emphasis on what word is used? A civil marriage is a civil marriage...
No, because there are no parallels to polygamy and gay marriage. They have nothing to do with eachother.
So you're arguing about the wedding part of marriage, as opposed to the marriage part. A common error. They aren't the same thing, you can have marriage without the wedding. And if civil partnerships and marriage are the same thing then why are there two words? They aren't the same.
And your religious context is moot because the only religions it would affect are those who would choose to marry gays. Churches wouldn't be forced, so it doesn't matter.
Originally posted by BackFire
No, because there are no parallels to polygamy and gay marriage.
No, he said "one group of people can't tell another group what they can/can't do" this logic is the slippery slope that leads to people wanting to marry etc whatever they want. I was taking issue with his argument- not his point.
Originally posted by BackFire
So you're arguing about the wedding part of marriage, as opposed to the marriage part. A common error. They aren't the same thing, you can have marriage without the wedding. And if civil partnerships and marriage are the same thing then why are there two words? They aren't the same.
Look, I'll say this one more time- I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT CIVIL MARRIAGE. In a religious context, admittedly my own, I would not, nor can I, recognise a homosexual marriage. Not just wedding- a wedding is a ceremony, a religious marriage is a bond between a man and a woman for life which they swear to before God in order to love each other and, if luck have it, produce kids and form a loving family. (Atleast, thats the ideal) That is what marriage means to me.
Originally posted by BackFire
And your religious context is moot because the only religions it would affect are those who would choose to marry gays. Churches wouldn't be forced, so it doesn't matter.
Its not moot because I was giving my personal stance on the issue- which we are invited to do.
I support civil partnerships/civil marriages/state marriages whatever you want to call them. It does not effect me and I don't believe it is a battle that religious folks can win- or even should.
I would not force my belief in Jesus on a gay couple, so I would not force my perception of marriage on them either.
(Just for the LOLz I am actually going to be working at a gay wedding reception on Saturday- they are having a masked-ball...at the last one the groom number 2 was very emotional...he burst into tears when they played Dancing Queen...)
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Aww nice...I'm not the one wanting to change the status quo, I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove me why you should be able to have a religious marriage (Which is what I am saying you cannot have, and probably don't want). You can have a civil partnership all you want, as I said.Also, don't flatter yourself with the belief that somehow gay marriage being legalized would bring about the destruction of the moral world- as a Christian sees it. Your just not that important...
I'm not the one that said "Gay marriage: what's next polygamy, pedophilia, marrying inanimate objects?"
So, you would submit to the idea that all those people who get married at a drive thru chapel in Las Vegas do not have a spiritual commitment, only a domestic partnership?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
No, he said "one group of people can't tell another group what they can/can't do" this logic is the slippery slope that leads to people wanting to marry etc whatever they want. I was taking issue with his argument- not his point.
No, what I said is that it's not up to one group to be asked if another group deserves the same right they themselves take for granted. Perhaps you couch all your views on this issue in your religion, but that is simply not why most people oppose it; even when they say it's against god. Most people have a negative opinion on the matter because they've been lead to believe that it's their job to decide which rights others can have.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
No, he said "one group of people can't tell another group what they can/can't do" this logic is the slippery slope that leads to people wanting to marry etc whatever they want. I was taking issue with his argument- not his point.Look, I'll say this one more time- I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT CIVIL MARRIAGE. In a religious context, admittedly my own, I would not, nor can I, recognise a homosexual marriage. Not just wedding- a wedding is a ceremony, a religious marriage is a bond between a man and a woman for life which they swear to before God in order to love each other and, if luck have it, produce kids and form a loving family. (Atleast, thats the ideal) That is what marriage means to me.
Its not moot because I was giving my personal stance on the issue- which we are invited to do.
I support civil partnerships/civil marriages/state marriages whatever you want to call them. It does not effect me and I don't believe it is a battle that religious folks can win- or even should.
I would not force my belief in Jesus on a gay couple, so I would not force my perception of marriage on them either.
(Just for the LOLz I am actually going to be working at a gay wedding reception on Saturday- they are having a masked-ball...at the last one the groom number 2 was very emotional...he burst into tears when they played Dancing Queen...)
I wasn't talking about civil marriage either, I'm simply talking about marriage. The proposition isn't about 'civil' marriage, it's about marriage. You're creating a differential where there is none. You can reject whatever you want through your religious beliefs, never said you couldn't, but in an earlier post of yours you were saying that it was impossible for two men to have a valid marriage because of the definition of the word, not because of your religious beliefs, that's what I was taking issue with.
It is moot because it won't matter. Moot doesn't mean you can't have your beliefs. Your religious beliefs won't be infringed on, they won't change, you can still belong to a church that doesn't do gay marriage. Won't affect you in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of what you want to call it.
You say you would not force you perception of marriage on others, but yet, as mentioned in an earlier post you said it was purely impossible on technical grounds for a gay person to have a valid wedding, so you just tried to force your perception onto others by stating the falsehood of a technical limitation of them not being able to marry properly because of your made up definition. As if the definition was anything more than your own subjective, religious based definition.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's clever because its a good point that doesn't involve Baby Jesus. Yeah, it acknowledges that certain concepts have meanings that they're dependent upon. Basketball was made with clear-cut rules. If you wanna wear pads and kick the ball at the basket, that's fine, but make it a new game and give it a new name. Let's not call it "basketball" and make-believe that it really is just to please a few people. Same thing with "marriage".
No, it's clever because it makes you think that. Baseball used to be segregated; they didn't change the name of the game when they founded the Negro League and then Jackie Robinson was eventually allowed to play with the whites. It used to be illegal for blacks and whites to have sex, much less get married. It's not illegal anymore, and they didn't come up with a different name for it when they do get married.
Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not the one that said "Gay marriage: what's next polygamy, pedophilia, marrying inanimate objects?"So, you would submit to the idea that all those people who get married at a drive thru chapel in Las Vegas do not have a spiritual commitment, only a domestic partnership?
Roman Catholic Priests do not operate drive-thru marriages that I am aware of, and I believe that it is all part of the same slippery slope.
Originally posted by Devil King
No, what I said is that it's not up to one group to be asked if another group deserves the same right they themselves take for granted. Perhaps you couch all your views on this issue in your religion, but that is simply not why most people oppose it; even when they say it's against god. Most people have a negative opinion on the matter because they've been lead to believe that it's their job to decide which rights others can have.
Originally posted by BackFire
I wasn't talking about civil marriage either, I'm simply talking about marriage. The proposition isn't about 'civil' marriage, it's about marriage. You're creating a differential where there is none. You can reject whatever you want through your religious beliefs, never said you couldn't, but in an earlier post of yours you were saying that it was impossible for two men to have a valid marriage because of the definition of the word, not because of your religious beliefs, that's what I was taking issue with.It is moot because it won't matter. Moot doesn't mean you can't have your beliefs. Your religious beliefs won't be infringed on, they won't change, you can still belong to a church that doesn't do gay marriage. Won't affect you in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of what you want to call it.
You say you would not force you perception of marriage on others, but yet, as mentioned in an earlier post you said it was purely impossible on technical grounds for a gay person to have a valid wedding, so you just tried to force your perception onto others by stating the falsehood of a technical limitation of them not being able to marry properly because of your made up definition. As if the definition was anything more than your own subjective, religious based definition.
Of course he can, can you not read? Any gay person can go get married right now in Mass. CA, or Connecticut and that marriage is perfectly valid and real in those states.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Roman Catholic Priests do not operate drive-thru marriages that I am aware of, and I believe that it is all part of the same slippery slope
You are wrong. That is not slippey slope. It seems you don't know what the fallacy means as evidenced by the fact that you claim that DK is somehow responsible for your use of the fallacy.
lol
bring back dowry!
Everyone remembers, in the "original" or "traditional" forms of marriage, you know, the "basketball" rules?, women didn't have a choice in who they married?
anyone who is in support of "traditional definitions" as a way to prevent homosexual people from being legally married should look at the ultimate end of their own logic. Society today is better because we chose, in the past, not to use traditional definitions of marriage any more. If you think gay marriage violates tradition, you must also think that women having free choice in marriage is wrong, because thats what it used to be defined as.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Roman Catholic Priests do not operate drive-thru marriages that I am aware of, and I believe that it is all part of the same slippery slope.Again, I was just giving my opinion- which you took exception too.
However, it does not change the fact, that he can't get married.
So, you're willing to go even one step further than you have been to say that only Roman catholic marriages that take place in a Roman Catholic chuch are real marriages that involve god?
Yes, I most certainly take exception to your idea that my right to get married is even remotely akin to your absurd comparissons; pedophilia, polygamy and entering into a marriage with an inamimate object.
It also does not change the fact that my sentiments on the subject are correct. As I said, perhaps you cling to these ideas because of your religion, but most people in this country cling to the idea that they have a personal say in the lives of others.
Originally posted by BackFire
Of course he can, can you not read? Any gay person can go get married right now in Mass. CA, or Connecticut and that marriage is perfectly valid and real in those states.You are wrong. That is not slippey slope. It seems you don't know what the fallacy means as evidenced by the fact that you claim that DK is somehow responsible for your use of the fallacy.
Not that type of slippery slope, honestly- the real type not the argument type. The slippery slope of "Well thats OK" which leads to "I guess this is OK too" and ultimately "This is also now"
The slippery slope that goes
Its ok to show the piano leg >>> Its ok to show a woman's leg >>> Its ok for a woman to be perfectly naked on view to anyone...
Get it?
Originally posted by Devil King
So, you're willing to go even one step further than you have been to say that only Roman catholic marriages that take place in a Roman Catholic chuch are real marriages that involve god?Yes, I most certainly take exception to your idea that my right to get married is even remotely akin to your absurd comparissons; pedophilia, polygamy and entering into a marriage with an inamimate object.
It also does not change the fact that my sentiments on the subject are correct. As I said, perhaps you cling to these ideas because of your religion, but most people in this country cling to the idea that they have a personal say in the lives of others.
DK, there was once a time when Homosexuality was absolutely forbidden, you would be executed for it...there then came a time when it was a secret pleasure...hidden in the back of society there then came a time when people said- why can't they have relationships...its LOVE! Eventually this became openly acceptable. It now is becoming openly encouraged (i'm not saying thats right or wrong...)
Once there is a time when paedophilia was absolutely forbidden, you would be executed for it...
Don't be so clueless.
Originally posted by BackFire
Of course he can, can you not read? Any gay person can go get married right now in Mass. CA, or Connecticut and that marriage is perfectly valid and real in those states.You are wrong. That is not slippey slope. It seems you don't know what the fallacy means as evidenced by the fact that you claim that DK is somehow responsible for your use of the fallacy.
Oh and also- I am taking liberties here- DK likes to flaunt around and tell people they live lies and what they do doesn't amount to anything-- I'm just enjoying to see how he feels when people tell him his life is a sham.
Whether homosexual or heterosexual they are all people.
I don't think it would be right for them to get married in any Christian church or in the religious house of any religion that condemns homosexuality though. They still deserve the same rights as anyone else, but I have a hard time understanding how any Christian can claim to be a homosexual. It's clearly stated in the bible that you shan't do things like that to other men if you're a man, and the same with women.
Anyways, if I lived in California I would vote no. Gay marriages are legal here in Norway and I wish things would change in America as well.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Not that type of slippery slope, honestly- the real type not the argument type. The slippery slope of "Well thats OK" which leads to "I guess this is OK too" and ultimately "This is also now"The slippery slope that goes
Its ok to show the piano leg >>> Its ok to show a woman's leg >>> Its ok for a woman to be perfectly naked on view to anyone...
Get it?
Did you really just waste your time trying to tell him what the definition of "slippery Slope" is in the context of your opinion. You don't really think he's been telling you what he thinks because he's under the impression you're talking about a sliding board with butter all over it, do you?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
DK, there was once a time when Homosexuality was absolutely forbidden, you would be executed for it...there then came a time when it was a secret pleasure...hidden in the back of society there then came a time when people said- why can't they have relationships...its LOVE! Eventually this became openly acceptable. It now is becoming openly encouraged (i'm not saying thats right or wrong...)Once there is a time when paedophilia was absolutely forbidden, you would be executed for it...
Don't be so clueless.
You think there is a single segment of society that enourages people to turn gay and you're calling me clueless?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Oh and also- I am taking liberties here- DK likes to flaunt around and tell people they live lies and what they do doesn't amount to anything-- I'm just enjoying to see how he feels when people tell him his life is a sham.
I've never said you live a lie. I am absolutely certain you believe that there's a man in the sky that is represented by another man that sits on a cushion on top of a throne in Rome. But, I have never said that your religion isn't a real religion because it doesn't follow the prinicples of older religions or that the religions that came out of it aren't real religions because they aren't Catholic religions. If it makes you feel better, I think marriage is a made up institution, just like your wacky hat club. But it is a right everyone has in this country, except for homosexuals. What you're doing is saying that if gays are allowed to marry, that you should be allowed to legally wed your house. I'm fine with you disliking me for telling you your space god theory is not justifiable in the real world, where real people live and real people are told they have the real right to decide what others can and can not do. I'm not sure, however, how you think you saying (whether you actually believe it or not as you are now saying) the same things I've heard a hundred other bigots say on this forum, is going to some how make me reconsider when I tell you your religion is silly. In fact, it seems clear now that you use your religion to exclude other human beings from the same rights you enjoy. At least until you become a priest and start enjoying the secret pleasure in the back of your society.
Originally posted by Devil King
Did you really just waste your time trying to tell him what the definition of "slippery Slope" is in the context of your opinion. You don't really think he's been telling you what he thinks because he's under the impression you're talking about a sliding board with butter all over it, do you?
Spending time talking with people is never a waste of time DK., I'm sorry you think that.
Originally posted by Devil King
You think there is a single segment of society that enourages people to turn gay and you're calling me clueless?
Originally posted by Devil King
I've never said you live a lie. I am absolutely certain you believe that there's a man in the sky that is represented by another man that sits on a cushion on top of a throne in Rome. But, I have never said that your religion isn't a real religion because it doesn't follow the prinicples of older religions or that the religions that came out of it aren't real religions because they aren't Catholic religions. If it makes you feel better, I think marriage is a made up institution, just like your wacky hat club.
Originally posted by Devil King
But it is a right everyone has in this country, except for homosexuals.
Originally posted by Devil King
What you're doing is saying that if gays are allowed to marry, that you should be allowed to legally wed your house.
Originally posted by Devil King
I'm fine with you disliking me for telling you your space god theory is not justifiable in the real world, where real people live and real people are told they have the real right to decide what others can and can not do.
Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not sure, however, how you think you saying (whether you actually believe it or not as you are now saying) the same things I've heard a hundred other bigots say on this forum, is going to some how make me reconsider when I tell you your religion is silly. In fact, it seems clear now that you use your religion to exclude other human beings from the same rights you enjoy. At least until you become a priest and start enjoying the secret pleasure in the back of your society.
I think your using this whole issue as a weapon now- oh look I've become a bigot...also what rights am I trying to exclude people from which I have? Seriously, what ones?