Voters set to affirm hatred of gays

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: Stonewall
My argument was that allowing marriage should not be based on the feelings of various groups of people.

And why not the other way around? Why should it be denied based on the feelings of various groups of people?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: Stonewall

What kind of BS arguement is that? Your deceased grandfather is unable to give consent.

What about my father then?

There are alerady laws against incest. Somebody wrote up a long post about slippery slope arguements before. I'll see if I can find it for you.

I did a while ago, I don't know if you meant me, but here's the core of the argument.

Slippery slope arguments assume that the "next logical step" is identical to the currently debated step in every way except degree. This ignores the fact that in almost every case, the next step has numerous factors that aren't present in the current step that make it undesirable. In the gay marriage example, there are several aspects of incest that aren't present with gay marriage that would make someone oppose incest but not gay marriage.

The slippery slope argument is invalid because things usually aren't a slope at all. There can be inter-related issues of course, but the issues are usually not identical and there can be reasons to oppose one and not the other. I don't know what else to say about it.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: Stonewall
My argument was that allowing marriage should not be based on the feelings of various groups of people.

And why not the other way around? Why should it be denied based on the feelings of various groups of people?

Those past threads I'm referring to did circumvent feelings.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Stonewall

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: Stonewall

What kind of BS arguement is that? Your deceased grandfather is unable to give consent.

What about my father then?

There are alerady laws against incest. Somebody wrote up a long post about slippery slope arguements before. I'll see if I can find it for you.

That's not my point; I'm not claiming that homosexual marriage would lead to incestuous marriage (although it may). My argument was that allowing marriage should not be based on the feelings of various groups of people. ATers, particularly CycloWizard, have given valid arguments as to why homosexual marriage would indeed be a societal health problem.

Edit: The idea of "consent" inspired me to create this thread.

For the last time, those arguments aren't valid...no one has demonstrated that traditional marriage values are tied to the health of society, simply saying they are isn't an argument. Allowing gay marriage shouldn't be based on "feelings", I agree. It should be based on no clear, convincing, logical argument against it.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I did a while ago, I don't know if you meant me, but here's the core of the argument.

While, I'm sure you had a nice post, it didn't really strike me to the point of remembering it specifically.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: Stonewall

What kind of BS arguement is that? Your deceased grandfather is unable to give consent.

What about my father then?

There are alerady laws against incest. Somebody wrote up a long post about slippery slope arguements before. I'll see if I can find it for you.

I did a while ago, I don't know if you meant me, but here's the core of the argument.

Slippery slope arguments assume that the "next logical step" is identical to the currently debated step in every way except degree. This ignores the fact that in almost every case, the next step has numerous factors that aren't present in the current step that make it undesirable. In the gay marriage example, there are several aspects of incest that aren't present with gay marriage that would make someone oppose incest but not gay marriage.

The slippery slope argument is invalid because things usually aren't a slope at all. There can be inter-related issues of course, but the issues are usually not identical and there can be reasons to oppose one and not the other. I don't know what else to say about it.

See my post at 2:42 P.M.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stonewall

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: Stonewall

What kind of BS arguement is that? Your deceased grandfather is unable to give consent.

What about my father then?

There are alerady laws against incest. Somebody wrote up a long post about slippery slope arguements before. I'll see if I can find it for you.

That's not my point; I'm not claiming that homosexual marriage would lead to incestuous marriage (although it may). My argument was that allowing marriage should not be based on the feelings of various groups of people. ATers, particularly CycloWizard, have given valid arguments as to why homosexual marriage would indeed be a societal health problem.

Edit: The idea of "consent" inspired me to create this thread.

For the last time, those arguments aren't valid...no one has demonstrated that traditional marriage values are tied to the health of society, simply saying they are isn't an argument. Allowing gay marriage shouldn't be based on "feelings", I agree. It should be based on no clear, convincing, logical argument against it.

Those arguments were particularly valid because they went beyond what you were talking about; but this is a pretty useless discussion without using the arguments themselves.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The entire premise of this thread seems a bit odd to me. Someone posts that voters are "set to affirm hatred of gays." Erm...great. Now people can discuss hating those who hate gays, further perpetuating the cycle of hatred.

I prefer to keep this entire issue in perspective and look on the optimistic side. The fact is that we are now voting on this issue. Not long ago, such a thing would have been unheard of. Even bringing up mention of it would have meant sure political death to the person(s) or group attempting to do so.

What it indicates that society is progressing and moving forward. Societal change is a slow process but we do appear to be slowly accepting of these things and in the years to come I have little doubt, once all the fearmongering and FUD have worn out their rhetorical devices, that homosexual marriage will be accepted by the majority. Until then, don't hate those who believe differently. Be gladdend by the fact that eventually they will be the minority instead of the majority.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well in the case of Arkansas they should be more concerned about Civil Unions among siblings!

:Q

 

[joshw10]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Oh, right, I don't hate gay people, I just don't think they should have the same rights I do. Makes perfect sense to me!

That is where you, and many others, are incorrect. Homosexuals have every right that heterosexuals do. They can get married in the same way that you and I can get married. Now, they cannot "marry" someone of the same sex, but neither can you or I. This is not a civil rights issue, period.

White people can't use the Black people water fountain.

 

[joshw10]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Awesome. It's about time something was done to solve this problem. :thumbsup:

Once again showing himself to be the sickest, most immature member of this board.

 

[eigen]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The entire premise of this thread seems a bit odd to me. Someone posts that voters are "set to affirm hatred of gays." Erm...great. Now people can discuss hating those who hate gays, further perpetuating the cycle of hatred.

I prefer to keep this entire issue in perspective and look on the optimistic side. The fact is that we are now voting on this issue. Not long ago, such a thing would have been unheard of. Even bringing up mention of it would have meant sure political death to the person(s) or group attempting to do so.

What it indicates that society is progressing and moving forward. Societal change is a slow process but we do appear to be slowly accepting of these things and in the years to come I have little doubt, once all the fearmongering and FUD have worn out their rhetorical devices, that homosexual marriage will be accepted by the majority. Until then, don't hate those who believe differently. Be gladdend by the fact that eventually they will be the minority instead of the majority.

I totally agree with this point.I can see the amount of progress gays have made even in my own lifetime.But that in a sense is the scary part the religous fundamentalist in this country know that they are losing...and desperate people act desperately

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Pandaren
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...10/31/gay.marriage.ap/

The proposed amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon refer only to marriage. Those in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah would ban civil unions as well, and those extra provisions have generated extra controversy.

Recent polls showed support for the amendments at 76 percent in Oklahoma and Kentucky, 65 percent in Arkansas, 60 percent or more in Michigan, 59 percent in Montana and 57 percent in Ohio.

The message is clear: the majority of people in those states hate gays. They see them as freaks to be relegated to second-class citizens. Congratulations on perpetuating bigotry in our great nation! /sarcasm. :|

This makes a mockery of civil rights.

banning gay marriage =/ hatred of gay people.

Right, keep telling yourself that. Oh, right, I don't hate gay people, I just don't think they should have the same rights I do. Makes perfect sense to me!

just because certain liberals want to rage a cultural war against our traditional values doesn't mean the rest of us have to agree with it. I'll say it again, banning gay marriage /= hatred of gay people.

When traditional values infringe of the rights of others those values should be set aside.

just tell me how does it make me hate gay people just because i don't agree with gay marriage?

with all that said, i don't think the government should issue marriage licenses. if people want to "get married" they'll have to do it at a church. all problems solved.

Not everyone is Christian. Get that out of your thick head.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Awesome. It's about time something was done to solve this problem. :thumbsup:

Once again showing himself to be the sickest, most immature member of this board.

Yes, I did forget to give tyranus his

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Awesome. It's about time something was done to solve this problem. :thumbsup:

Once again showing himself to be the sickest, most immature member of this board.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Awesome. It's about time something was done to solve this problem. :thumbsup:

Once again showing himself to be the sickest, most immature member of this board.

That was nowhere near as bad as his bleats about welfare brats or non-American lives not mattering.

I think it was mostly intended to be a troll given Lord T's lack of a response to the questions that came after his turd. In other words, it was a troll and run.

 

[nageov3t]

things like this make me sad.

but my state has legalized civil unions, so whatever I could never see myself moving to any of the states that have banned gay marriage, even if they hadn't done so.

 

[judasmachine]

another reason to break up families, nice. let's be hateful, towards our brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts, etc.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eigen

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The entire premise of this thread seems a bit odd to me. Someone posts that voters are "set to affirm hatred of gays." Erm...great. Now people can discuss hating those who hate gays, further perpetuating the cycle of hatred.

I prefer to keep this entire issue in perspective and look on the optimistic side. The fact is that we are now voting on this issue. Not long ago, such a thing would have been unheard of. Even bringing up mention of it would have meant sure political death to the person(s) or group attempting to do so.

What it indicates that society is progressing and moving forward. Societal change is a slow process but we do appear to be slowly accepting of these things and in the years to come I have little doubt, once all the fearmongering and FUD have worn out their rhetorical devices, that homosexual marriage will be accepted by the majority. Until then, don't hate those who believe differently. Be gladdend by the fact that eventually they will be the minority instead of the majority.

I totally agree with this point.I can see the amount of progress gays have made even in my own lifetime.But that in a sense is the scary part the religous fundamentalist in this country know that they are losing...and desperate people act desperately

Fotunately, Christians, even fundies, are reigned in and hog-tied by their own religious edicts. They can hoot and holler about things but ultimately they can do nothing overt for fear of destroying some of the fundamental concepts of their 'peace and love' religion they tried so hard to foster in the last hundred years or so, before most Christian sects were revised from the hellfire and brimstone fearmongering mindset most all used to foster.

 

[chess9]

You obviously didn't get the memo that gays could easily change their lifestyle and become straight. I think Jimmy Swaggart has an 8 week correspondence course entitled: "You too can enjoy the labia major in the comfort of your own home." With the ever popular followup: "Muchus Pubus Americanus-Everyman's Entitlement!"

On a more realistic note let me see if I'm understanding this correctly. Ohio, with jobs fleeing the state like Republicans from Bush is going to make it harder for Ohio businesses to attract competent workers? Ok. No wonder I now live in Florida. At least we KNOW we are crazy. Also, isn't the Ohio law one of the most restrictive in the nation?

Sometimes people just seem so damn petty and mean....

-Robert

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Awesome. It's about time something was done to solve this problem. :thumbsup:

Once again showing himself to be the sickest, most immature member of this board.

That was nowhere near as bad as his bleats about welfare brats or non-American lives not mattering.

I think it was mostly intended to be a troll given Lord T's lack of a response to the questions that came after his turd. In other words, it was a troll and run.

No, I just simply don't feel like going through the same worthless discussions over and over again. You can do a search for my posts if you want my opinions on homos.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

No, I just simply don't feel like going through the same worthless discussions over and over again. You can do a search for my posts if you want my opinions on homos.

So why bother posting? If you're not interested in dialogue it suggests you are a bleater and maybe even a troll.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

No, I just simply don't feel like going through the same worthless discussions over and over again. You can do a search for my posts if you want my opinions on homos.

So why bother posting? If you're not interested in dialogue it suggests you are a bleater and maybe even a troll.

To show my support for legislation that this country needs.

If you look at the thread, I guess there are a lot of "post and run" trolls that you seem to not have an issue with.

 

[chess9]

"my opinions on homos."

Ah, the cacaphonous cackle of the bigoted grackle alone in his castle of pickle and mackeral.

-Robert

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

No, I just simply don't feel like going through the same worthless discussions over and over again. You can do a search for my posts if you want my opinions on homos.

So why bother posting? If you're not interested in dialogue it suggests you are a bleater and maybe even a troll.

To show my support for legislation that this country needs.

If you look at the thread, I guess there are a lot of "post and run" trolls that you seem to not have an issue with.

Okay then, can you warn everyone ahead of time next time with maybe a parenthetical about how you are not goign to respond to the topic. It will help people not waste time responding to you when you don't intend to have a dialogue.

(As for the other post and run trolls, I don't monitor all threads and all posts. And two rights don't make a wrong. So even if they trolled and ran you're still on the hook.)