Gay marriage debate

An interesting article, written by some PhD ...

Please note that I do NOT agree with all of this.

In point of fact, I come to nearly the OPPOSITE of some of his conclusions.

Nevertheless, I am presenting this because he makes some interesting points for future discussion.

Also, it saves typing time.

http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It's telling that even the writers of Wikipedia do not refer to what you're presenting by the term "marriage" in most cases, rather as "unions" or "relationships".

It's telling that you were homeschooled since you don't know that a "marriage" is a union and a relationship, homeschooler.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's telling that you were homeschooled since you don't know that a "marriage" is a union and a relationship, homeschooler.

So are business partnerships, if we're being that fast and loose with terms.

Right now, you're illustrating how powerful a tool the changing of names and definitions can be. It's rather fascinating, really.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
So are business partnerships, if we're being that fast and loose with terms.

Right now, you're illustrating how powerful a tool the changing of names and definitions can be. It's rather fascinating, really.

Who is changing the definition? A marriage is both a union and relationship by definition. See people, the horrors of homeschooling right there.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who is changing the definition? A marriage is both a union and relationship by definition. See people, the horrors of homeschooling right there.

Marriage has multiple definitions, as we both know.

You're using the fallacy of equivocation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

You know, at the very least, you should be kind enough to post the fallacy you're
using as a matter of course.

That way, debate and philosophy students can learn something from reading your messages, and you won't simply be wasting your time and mine.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Marriage has multiple definitions, as we both know.

You're using the fallacy of equivocation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

You know, at the very least, you should be kind enough to post the fallacy you're
using as a matter of course.

That way, debate and philosophy students can learn something from reading your messages, and you won't simply be wasting your time and mine.

Stop falsely accusing people of fallacies as some means to save yourself, it's rather sad and weak.

A marriage is a union and a relationship of people, which is what I'm referring too here, homeschooler. At no point did I bring up marriage in any other form, you did though with your silly "business relationships" rant, which was little more than a red herring. Homeschoolers be homeschooled.

😂

Originally posted by Digi
I'm technically against all marriage as a legal construct.

High five.

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop falsely accusing people of fallacies as some means to save yourself, it's rather sad and weak.

1. You're not being falsely accused, rather quite rightly so. It might be that you don't KNOW that you're using fallacies in the way you've been approaching me, but all that means is that they were not deliberate, and you've not been formally exposed to them. Most people haven't. It was a long time before I myself knew what many of them were, so I understand if this is the case for you.

2. I'm trying to figure out what exactly you think there is that I should be saving myself from? Name-calling perhaps? Laughing icons?
Those come to virtually anyone who posts on an Internet forum, let alone KMC.

Originally posted by Robtard

A marriage is a union and a relationship of people, which is what I'm referring too here, homeschooler. At no point did I bring up marriage in any other form, you did though with your silly "business relationships" rant, which was little more than a red herring.

If marriage, in your mind, or at least in the minds of "gay marriage" proponents, was equal to civil unions, or tribal members living with one another, you wouldn't be having this discussion with me.

For they, and you (presuming your point of view is actually representative of theirs), would already have what they say they're going for.

No, you are dealing instead with matters of law and the consequences of specific terminologies. Where marriage and the other relationships you present are NOT the same thing.

And Thomas Sowell outlined very well in that article I presented why things are not currently the way you would like them to be on the previous page.

Without using religion as the basis for any of that, by the way.

Originally posted by Spawningpool
So I got a question. Can you justify that gay marriage is wrong without using religion?

Unlike the Thomas Sowell article, which I think is fairly well-written, I cannot be at all sure that what is communicated in the following yet is even the true stance of the person in question. If it is, however, this makes for an intriguing commentary:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/11640-former-apa-president-says-homosexuals-can-change

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1. You're not being falsely accused, rather quite rightly so. It might be that you don't KNOW that you're using fallacies in the way you've been approaching me, but all that means is that they were not deliberate, and you've not been formally exposed to them. Most people haven't. It was a long time before I myself knew what many of them were, so I understand if this is the case for you.

2. I'm trying to figure out what exactly you think there is that I should be saving myself from? Name-calling perhaps? Laughing icons?
Those come to virtually anyone who posts on an Internet forum, let alone KMC.

If marriage, in your mind, or at least in the minds of "gay marriage" proponents, was equal to civil unions, or tribal members living with one another, you wouldn't be having this discussion with me.

For they, and you (presuming your point of view is actually representative of theirs), would already have what they say they're going for.

No, you are dealing instead with matters of law and the consequences of specific terminologies. Where marriage and the other relationships you present are NOT the same thing.

And Thomas Sowell outlined very well in that article I presented why things are not currently the way you would like them to be on the previous page.

Without using religion as the basis for any of that, by the way.

-You're now accusing me of your own shortcomings

-Now you're just blindly crying because your homeschooled brain can't cope

We're not really having a discussion, you posted some nonsense someone else wrote, I helped you out with links and you didn't like it

Marriage is marriage and it's not really "gay marriage", it's marriage equality. eg having the right to marry the consenting adult of your choosing, regardless of your sexuality

That Sowell article is just as ridiculous today as it was the last time you posted it. Did you think polishing the same turd would net you something else? You did, didn't you, homeschooler. The man is GOP goon; his clownish "bicycles and cars" analogy is little more than the ridiculous "gays have the same rights to marriage as I do, they can legally marry someone of the opposite sex if they want" argument

So no, you're telling homosexual [everyone, actually] people they in fact can't drive their car on the highway, because it's a gay car and the highway is heterosexual

ps why do you hate homosexuals so much?

Originally posted by Digi
I'm technically against all marriage as a legal construct. Anything that isn't needed should be expendable, and that certainly includes federal and state definitions of marriage.

You can, but it's up for interpretation as to whether or not the justification is valid.

It's also rare to see. Some who are against gay marriage use non-religious arguments to make their claim. But the root of their position is in the religion. The other arguments wouldn't exist if it weren't first established by their beliefs.

I don't really care how consenting adults choose to call their relationship and I don't think anyone else should either.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

In the United States, marriage is an individual right, not a right granted to a couple.

This means that the government cannot apply marriage laws differently to individuals on the basis of sex.

In other words, if the government allows men to marry women, it must also allow women to marry women, and vice versa.

It has zero to do with any kind of "actions."

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other --

The government does no such thing. People are free to marry and never consummate their relationship or to pursue any number of extramarital arrangements without government oversight or interference.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

The government does no such thing. People are free to marry and never consummate their relationship or to pursue any number of extramarital arrangements without government oversight or interference.

Tell this to any man who's lost an alimony suit.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Tell this to any man who's lost an alimony suit.

Alimony is a legal obligation on a person to provide financial support to his or her spouse before or after marital separation or divorce.

It has nothing to do with fidelity.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Alimony is a legal obligation on a person to provide financial support to his or her spouse before or after marital separation or divorce.

It has nothing to do with fidelity.

😕

Did you actually read the Thomas Sowell article?

Or are you just trying to see if I did?

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm also against all marriage as a legal construct.

I don't really care how consenting adults choose to call their relationship and I don't think anyone else should either.

Phuck language?

Originally posted by Robtard
You can be our flower-gurl

Sorry I forgot you ass says "Quanchi was here."

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Sorry I forgot you ass says "Quanchi was here."

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
😕

Did you actually read the Thomas Sowell article?

Or are you just trying to see if [b]I did? [/B]

Why don't you say what it is you have to say instead of asking rhetorical questions?