(July 27, 2015 at 3:20 am)robvalue Wrote: I've read through the whole of this thread (and the others on this subject) and I've not been convinced of one tiny valid objection. Even the reasons we had posted from one of the high court judges in opposition read like a logical fallacy wish list.

These are all ways of tiptoeing around the fact that they hate gays and want them to be treated worse. At some points the tiptoeing stops, the facade is dropped and the agenda is revealed. Once this is apparent, it's clear their objections are nothing to do with gay marriage. It's to do with them wanting gays to be treated worse because they are worse, in their eyes.

Hmm but this is not even logical or reasonable, because from such ideology, repository of hatred is easily born. Because I do not agree with something I am full suddenly full of hatred that I wish them all to be mistreated severely? However, I do not agree with many things that unknown and known people do.

I do not agree with a friend of mine having an affair and leaving her 6 kids to be looked at by some stranger so she can go and have “fun”. (I would say that I do hate this action yet, do not wish evil to befall on her). I do not agree that my sister is working at a job that is paying her practically nothing. I dislike it when my brother is very lazy, or that my mother can be very stubborn.

However, to say that I hate them all as human being and want nothing more their mistreatment to be as filth as on can be.
This far from my true feelings!  . . .  Well, maybe my bro at times when he is being an ass , but 99.999% of the time, no.

I do not think that when my parents disagree with my thoughts or actions that the stopped loving me and wish to disown me.

To oppose is not to agree with something, nothing more. Not because of hate, god, money, that it is sunny out side, or because my dog has licked himself 3 times today. (However, I am not so blind to know that their are those who truly do hate and wish others death). Nevertheless, to say that all who disagree are all the same is both a stereotypical generalizing of bigotry on your part.

Can I not say that you are also full of hatred against those who oppose you? That all you want to do is demand that they accept your ideology completely. We who oppose need to “evolve” our mindset and be more “accepting,” if refusal continues; “they” should simply be annihilate from this world. (I have read many on this thread who have advocated such act to carried out on all who opposes.)

I ask you what those who are in the homosexual community that are also against the idea of same sex marriage, are they bigots that wish to see their own kind, which includes themselves, be treated less the human or are they just so full of hate?

That is a good question; am I only a bigot when I don't agree with you? Do I have to always agree with you to not be a bigot? . . . Can I ever say no? . . .If so, then how is that not what you accuse the religious of doing, "you can't force your own beliefs (ideas or views) on other people?

Currently many have argued limiting marriage to the opposite sex is discriminatory prohibiting “everyone” to marry. However, the most universal element present in di-hybrid species of both animal and humans are the two sexes of male and female, (with very few defective exceptions). Even in human society, with its vastness of sub-differences that exist among people, the two sexes are always present in every, race, ethnicity, social, economic, continent, primitive, and non-primitive, and so on. Since Roman times marriages had been form with elements of segregation to keep social class, race, religion and pure bloods from intermingling with one another “dirtying societies race, social, or religious structures.”

With time, the realization that such segregation is not only unjust but also unneeded marriage would purge its self of all forms of segregation. In an attempt to help keep this universalism or inclusivity the safeguard of requiring the opposite sexes for marriage remained due to the universality and inclusive nature.

Under the concept of “marriage equality,” the universal diversity of marriage (which was inherent in the presence of all genders being required for the act) is being eliminated for a segregationist criteria so that some social groups may request to opted out of the universal inclusion of people of all genders for an exclusionary centric marriage were each marries [i]“only your own[/i]”.

“Marriage equality”, either intentionally or unintentional excludes one of the sexes form the union of same sex. Lesbian marriages only incorporate two women; Gay marriages only incorporate two men. Each union denies the presents of the opposite sex to be in either union, unlike opposed sex marriage which requires it. The segregation in “marriage equality” is based solely on one’s sexual preferences; preferences that are not set in stone but can change at the behest of what the individual feels like from one day to the next. If we look at what is the defining characteristic of these unions? Rather than being gender-integrated as true marriage is, they are segregated by gender.

The homosexual community in short is asking for marriage to be a discriminatory institution once more by having the “right” to refuse the opposite gender from the union. Same sex unions do not give respect to the opposite sex and or acknowledge the diversity of the sexes and what they bring to not only the union but to a relationship and in the razing of children. By arguing the necessary inclusion of the opposite sex in to the marriage union is violation of their desire to exclude the opposite sex.

Those who are in the “marriage equality” camp go one to render the opposite sex person a mere object (not unlike slavery did with African Americans) in their egocentric quest for emotional satisfaction by means of playing parent to children. In this way Gay men proceed to denigrate women by viewing her importance to their relationship according to her reproductive anatomy to be bought and sold for use at their behest. Requesting that any personal bond of mother and child that occurs naturally be denied (and even going so far as to sue for that denial in several cases where the mother decided to keep the baby and return the money). After the birth she is to have no insight, say, or rights to the child in its development. She is to be denied the dignity of womanhood, motherhood, and parentage so that it may be “given” to another who paid for it. Her sole role is to produce the baby, (i.e. Baby factory). For Lesbians, the male is even more objectified because it is only his sperm that is needed and nothing more. Once more denying him the dignity of manhood, fatherhood, and parentage to satisfy the emotional desire of one who paid for it. To convey dignity to that which does not act dignified we take the dignity of women and men by treating them as incubation and insemination tools akin to an Easy Bake Oven and a Turkey Baster.

Let us not forget the objectification of the children. No longer are children embraced as the resultant manifestation of the expression of love whenever they may arrive. Instead they are objects to satisfy the emotional desires of “parents” who bought and paid for them. Consideration is not given to the importance of the sexes in the development of a child or even to the child’s rights by nature to experience and benefit from the contributions made by parents of both sexes. Just as with the adults any dignity which was belonging to the child shall be taken in order to convey dignity to the undignified. They child is no longer a being in its own right, rather it is an item to be purchased (adopted) or created (IVF or surrogacy) at the leisure and whim of the parents; not for the child, but to grant the homosexual the dignity of parentage with a flesh doll rather than a fake doll we give to children to play parent with; as an object to satisfy our desire rather than a being to which we are obliged to respect and dignity.

The word Equally in this new form of marriage needs to be changed to marriage segregation. Legal recognition of same sex marriage is recognition of the right of a group (sex) to exclude another (sex) because they desire to do so; and to then further discriminate by dehumanizing men/women and their contribution to the marital relationship as husband/wife, the rearing of children as father/mother to the dignified task of inseminator and incubator (what we all wanted to be when we grow up). While also dehumanizing children to instruments of emotional satisfaction.

Furthermore the Supreme Court ruling endeavoring to eliminate second class status from same sex couples serves to create second-class citizens out of single, co-habitating or non-married person who are denied equal dignity and security as well as economic and legal power afforded to the married class.

How is this the road to equality and dignity when all it does is scream segregation and dehumanization?

Nothing hmm? Nobody got anything to say to my post? Wow.

So am I to assume my statement is correct and sound?

I think it's more that we've all decided you're beyond hope and we're pretty tired of laboriously slogging through your bullshit.

If I understand your last one correctly you're actually trying to convince us that the new marriage equality measure is an example of marriage discrimination rather than a step against it. To me, that's a level of ignorance and idiocy that's not worth addressing.

(July 26, 2015 at 2:11 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Ok, Anima...look...

We could go back and forth like this forever, but the bottom line is this:

[quote='Redbeard The Pink' pid='1005785' dateline='1437934282']
Your whole argument stems from the fact that we don't really know what will happen now that gay marriage is legal in the U.S. This is an argument from ignorance. In this case, it takes the forms of the Slippery Slope fallacy and the Special Pleading fallacy.

To the contrary! My original and simplified argument to biology is logically sound and not a fallacy. While it seems some were getting caught up in the scenario it was distilled as followed:

1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)

This argument serves to objectively determine the value of the orientation (and subsequent act). It is not predicated on a fallacy nor is it fallacious in reaching its conclusion. Test of the argument was even made in regards to another subject which was not homo orientation, but was in regards to murder as:

4. Orientation (killer) -> Act (killing) -> Particular Act Result (killing death of a person) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to the killing death of people).

Thus the formulation of evaluation as defined in #1 and #4 may serve as sufficient means for determining the objective valuation of a given orientation and subsequent action.

Now if there is an argument to ignorance it would be the one taken on behalf of the homos stating they are not hurting anyone. As may be objectively determine by the argument above (and any number of anecdotal arguments by people who have been hurt or harmed by homos) their orientation and the subsequent acts are not beneficial and indeed harmful to biology and society. So the argument they are not hurting anyone is based on an ignorance fallacy, by which it is claimed sufficient proof of them hurting others or society do not exist, therefore they are not hurting anyone. This is a text book argument to ignorance. In which you hope after making the change sufficient evidence does not become available of them hurting anyone. Fingers crossed!!!

(July 26, 2015 at 2:11 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: "Oh, well now that this is legal, some other, obviously reprehensible form of marriage (or worse) will definitely become legal." = Slippery Slope

"Oh, but Jurisdictional Precedence was designed to actually be a slippery slope, so this doesn't count as a Slippery Slope fallacy." = Special Pleading.


Oh, and by the way, the Netherlands was the first country in the world where same-sex couples could apply for limited rights, and that was in 1979. Denmark became the first country in the world to actually legalize same-sex unions in 1989. Both of those happened before 1990. Many European countries have had legally recognized same-sex unions for over 20 years now, and we have yet to see any of the kind of backlash your'e describing. Why do you think that is?

Now I did not say limited rights. I said marriage recognition; which you note occurred in 1989. Which does proceed my 1990 threshold (which may easily be moved forward to counter the argument you were making of just because it happened in the limited fashion in the present is not to say it will be extended in the future. To which my response was to illustrate an example where it was limited in the then present that was then extended in the then future, which is our current past). But since the point of the task was to illustrate precedential jurisprudence is based on previous rulings to determine if sufficient justification or support exists for extending the ruling further your data point of limited rights (1979) to legalization of same sex unions (1989) to recognition by many European countries for over 20 years now (some time in the 1990s) to US recognition of same sex union (2015) to... serves as an example of exactly what I am talking about.

As already explained, an argument is a slippery slope when it states the subsequent shall follow from the precedent for no other reason than the precedent occurring. Once again, I have not done this. I have explained how the subsequent shall follow from the precedent due to the victorious argument of the precedent. I fail to see how you may state the argument for same sex couples is valid for them, but is not valid for polygamous, incestuous, or child marriages. Sounds like special pleading where you endeavor to say the argument is only applicable to the groups you wish to include (which is to say the groups you "do not have a problem with") and not applicable to the groups you wish to exclude. Otherwise we must say the argument is to be applied to all evenly (you know equality) in which case there is no logical reason why we may permit the former and deny the latter. Now I imagine you (as me) will argue that is the way the courts and precedential jurisprudence works... AND YOU WOULD BE RIGHT; JUST AS I AM!! That is the way it works! Pointing that out is not special pleading, but rather a statement of fact regarding the process of jurisprudence.

(July 26, 2015 at 2:11 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: No matter how many words you stuff into a post, that's all you've got. Nothing you've said particularly amounts to anything else, except desperately trying to convince everyone that the whole reason gay marriage is legal now is that a bunch of evil judges managed to force it on us using what you purport to be logical fallacy. Really, though, fear-mongering is at the heart of what you're doing, and the reasonable-minded can easily see there is no reason to be scared.

The argument to the law was in reference to how the law works. I did not say I liked it anymore than you do. As it is the Justices who voted in favor did not interpret the cases in the manner they themselves have always interpreted those cases (so are they hypocrites? I am sure you will say this case was different. So special pleading again?) Furthermore the justices did not follow the standard set by the Supreme Court in Washington V Glucksberg in determining a substantive right. They have utilized this standard in every substantive right case since before Glucksberg and was simply enumerated in Glucksberg.

In summation, the arguments against are either in accordance with legal precedence (which you want to call slippery slope though it is not) and are logically sufficient. The arguments for are based on fallacies of equality (everyone should be treated equally), novelty (people are evolving), pity (you are not evolving), special pleading (well this is different), and ignorance (there is not sufficient proof they are hurting anyone).

(July 30, 2015 at 11:52 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: I think it's more that we've all decided you're beyond hope and we're pretty tired of laboriously slogging through your bullshit.

If I understand your last one correctly you're actually trying to convince us that the new marriage equality measure is an example of marriage discrimination rather than a step against it. To me, that's a level of ignorance and idiocy that's not worth addressing.

Really? Ace gives a very good example of why it is a request to discrimination. Marriage did require all genders before and their request effectively allows them to conduct marriage by willful or desired exclusion of an entire gender.

Unless we are special pleading I believe it has been said numerous times that the willful or desired exclusion/ostracism of a group is discriminatory.

Or are we arguing this is different? Because...

(July 30, 2015 at 11:52 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: I think it's more that we've all decided you're beyond hope and we're pretty tired of laboriously slogging through your bullshit.

If I understand your last one correctly you're actually trying to convince us that the new marriage equality measure is an example of marriage discrimination rather than a step against it. To me, that's a level of ignorance and idiocy that's not worth addressing.

Ha I know the feeling. You would think that someone would have something in their head to have a decent debate but no. Peoples bullshit is a lot to have to read through, I will give you that. But like I say I do not discriminate against anyone, even their own ideas. And try to see were they are coming form.

(July 30, 2015 at 12:26 pm)Ace Wrote: [quote='Redbeard The Pink' pid='1009549' dateline='1438271520']
I think it's more that we've all decided you're beyond hope and we're pretty tired of laboriously slogging through your bullshit.

To me, that's a level of ignorance and idiocy that's not worth addressing.

Well you do know what they say? Name calling is just a singe of lacking in education. One who is educated discuses then name calls.

I can argue prove it such an uneducated statement.

Ace, you barely know how to type the English language. You're really bringing up education right now?

---

We could go back and forth like this forever, Animal. Your argument is a slippery slope. I have thoroughly explained why. You're making it because you're a pissed off bigot. Your side lost, both in court and in this thread. Get over it and move on. I know I will.