Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

[SaMejoHn]

BBS is gay

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS is gay

In order to properly evaluate this argument, let us bring back the wall:

Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow ConquerClubbers, I may have declared victory to soon for us defenders of gay marriage in this thread; however, given the tough obstacles which the opposition must overcome:

(1) Defend: majority rule that supports certain Christian beliefs is just
(2) Defend: morality is dependent only on God, thus morality is arbitrarily determined by God--and NOT by humans
(3) Defend: therefore, other forms of morality (e.g. libertarian, pro-individual liberty, pro-equality before the law, moral consequentialism, etc.) are invalid if they're contradictory to Christian God Morality.
(4) Overcome: different religions, which adhere to a similar God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and segments within those religions, have contradictory rules and policies for and against gays
(5) Overcome: conflicting religions use similar appeals to authority and circular reasoning to assert themselves as the true religion, so which religion (or segment of a religion) is the true one?
(6) Ignores: why oppose gay marriage if churches won't be forced to oversee gay marriages?
(7) Defend: cherry-picking of Bible, and arbitrary reasoning for justifying following X but not Y in the Bible
(8) Defend: why equality before the law should not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage.
(9) Defend: the application of force by the state onto minority groups so that they must abide by particular Christian beliefs.

Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow ConquerClubbers, that list is so difficult, I completely forgot what I wanted to say... Yes! We're back! So, after seeing this list of obstacles faced by the opposition, and after already seeing the opposition repeatedly fail to defend or overcome several of these obstacles, I couldn't fathom any logical means for them to overcome this list, thus our victory was declared at an appropriate time. Their last retort was one of ad hominems and straw man fallacies, which shall be reasonably rejected.


I alone could not have defended gay marriage, for this was OUR finest moment. With the help of my fellow CC'ers and from the knowledge gained from readings and from discussions with you fine people, we have overcome the opposition, which so far is correctly labelled as "bigoted--in a bad way." Furthermore, they should stop crying and get logical.

Give yourselves a round of applause, a pat on the back, and if you're not alone at the moment, outsource the patting-job to a loved one.







(@the opposition: if any of you care to logically address that list of obstacles, we eagerly await you.)

Hey, anyone who opposes gay 'marriage', go ahead and try to tear down this "wall of logic"*!

*copyright: here.

Oh, I'm sorry, sir. You lose.

Who's next??

[SaMejoHn]

BBS is super gay

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS is super gay

Hmm... let's consult the wall again:

(1) Defend: majority rule that supports certain Christian beliefs is just
(2) Defend: morality is dependent only on God, thus morality is arbitrarily determined by God--and NOT by humans
(3) Defend: therefore, other forms of morality (e.g. libertarian, pro-individual liberty, pro-equality before the law, moral consequentialism, etc.) are invalid if they're contradictory to Christian God Morality.
(4) Overcome: different religions, which adhere to a similar God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and segments within those religions, have contradictory rules and policies for and against gays
(5) Overcome: conflicting religions use similar appeals to authority and circular reasoning to assert themselves as the true religion, so which religion (or segment of a religion) is the true one?
(6) Ignores: why oppose gay marriage if churches won't be forced to oversee gay marriages?
(7) Defend: cherry-picking of Bible, and arbitrary reasoning for justifying following X but not Y in the Bible
(8) Defend: why equality before the law should not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage.
(9) Defend: the application of force by the state onto minority groups so that they must abide by particular Christian beliefs.

After a quick search for the word "super" I fail to find any relevance.

I'm sorry, sir. You'll have to troll harder!

[SaMejoHn]

BBS loves it in the ass

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS loves it in the ass

Is SaMejoHn samejohn?

[SaMejoHn]

you're gay

[xeno]

I'm getting laid tonight!

[crispybits]

BBS, as you know homosexuality is the slippery slope to things like bestiality, peadophilia and necrophilia, being a disgusting corruption of the divinely granted human capacity for love and reproduction. Therefore, you necro-ing a thread is very much akin to being super gay. I'm sorry, but the logic is inescapable. Now go forth and be FABULOUS darling!

[Shape]

The main problem is the majority of the (televised, internet-ized) opposition are complete idiots and bigots. "God Hates Fags"? Are you serious?! That's what frustrates me most. Stop being a goddamn asshole and vocalize your argument logically. Certainly no offense to those that have a rational basis for their opposing gay marriage; I tend to stay neutral on the subject, myself (aside from the goddamn assholes lol).

Even from a Christian perspective, gay marriage isn't so bad. It seems to me homosexual acts are immoral in the Bible, not homosexual people. And as I've mentioned in another thread, separation of church and state is biblical and Paul is very clear about choosing your battles wisely. The "Anti-Gay" movement is a prime example of a wrongly-chosen battle.

-Shape

[PLAYER57832]

The main problem is the majority of the (televised, internet-ized) opposition are complete idiots and bigots. "God Hates Fags"? Are you serious?! That's what frustrates me most. Stop being a goddamn asshole and vocalize your argument logically. Certainly no offense to those that have a rational basis for their opposing gay marriage; I tend to stay neutral on the subject, myself (aside from the goddamn assholes lol).

Even from a Christian perspective, gay marriage isn't so bad. It seems to me homosexual acts are immoral in the Bible, not homosexual people. And as I've mentioned in another thread, separation of church and state is biblical and Paul is very clear about choosing your battles wisely. The "Anti-Gay" movement is a prime example of a wrongly-chosen battle.

-Shape

Not sure why this thread was brought back, but since you are new, I will clarify that there has been a lot of discussion from both Christians and people of other faiths agreeing with you, either saying that homosexuality is not wrong or simply that its not the place of any church to dictate. There are also some who seriously think that allowing homosexuality will result in the degredation of society.

This last bit is something else...

[premio53]

BBS is super gay

Hmm... let's consult the wall again:

(1) Defend: majority rule that supports certain Christian beliefs is just
(2) Defend: morality is dependent only on God, thus morality is arbitrarily determined by God--and NOT by humans
(3) Defend: therefore, other forms of morality (e.g. libertarian, pro-individual liberty, pro-equality before the law, moral consequentialism, etc.) are invalid if they're contradictory to Christian God Morality.
(4) Overcome: different religions, which adhere to a similar God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and segments within those religions, have contradictory rules and policies for and against gays
(5) Overcome: conflicting religions use similar appeals to authority and circular reasoning to assert themselves as the true religion, so which religion (or segment of a religion) is the true one?
(6) Ignores: why oppose gay marriage if churches won't be forced to oversee gay marriages?
(7) Defend: cherry-picking of Bible, and arbitrary reasoning for justifying following X but not Y in the Bible
(8) Defend: why equality before the law should not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage.
(9) Defend: the application of force by the state onto minority groups so that they must abide by particular Christian beliefs.

Can you name any moral absolutes?

[thegreekdog]

BBS is super gay

Hmm... let's consult the wall again:

(1) Defend: majority rule that supports certain Christian beliefs is just
(2) Defend: morality is dependent only on God, thus morality is arbitrarily determined by God--and NOT by humans
(3) Defend: therefore, other forms of morality (e.g. libertarian, pro-individual liberty, pro-equality before the law, moral consequentialism, etc.) are invalid if they're contradictory to Christian God Morality.
(4) Overcome: different religions, which adhere to a similar God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and segments within those religions, have contradictory rules and policies for and against gays
(5) Overcome: conflicting religions use similar appeals to authority and circular reasoning to assert themselves as the true religion, so which religion (or segment of a religion) is the true one?
(6) Ignores: why oppose gay marriage if churches won't be forced to oversee gay marriages?
(7) Defend: cherry-picking of Bible, and arbitrary reasoning for justifying following X but not Y in the Bible
(8) Defend: why equality before the law should not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage.
(9) Defend: the application of force by the state onto minority groups so that they must abide by particular Christian beliefs.

Can you name any moral absolutes?

I'm sure he can.

[premio53]

BBS is super gay

Hmm... let's consult the wall again:

(1) Defend: majority rule that supports certain Christian beliefs is just
(2) Defend: morality is dependent only on God, thus morality is arbitrarily determined by God--and NOT by humans
(3) Defend: therefore, other forms of morality (e.g. libertarian, pro-individual liberty, pro-equality before the law, moral consequentialism, etc.) are invalid if they're contradictory to Christian God Morality.
(4) Overcome: different religions, which adhere to a similar God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and segments within those religions, have contradictory rules and policies for and against gays
(5) Overcome: conflicting religions use similar appeals to authority and circular reasoning to assert themselves as the true religion, so which religion (or segment of a religion) is the true one?
(6) Ignores: why oppose gay marriage if churches won't be forced to oversee gay marriages?
(7) Defend: cherry-picking of Bible, and arbitrary reasoning for justifying following X but not Y in the Bible
(8) Defend: why equality before the law should not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage.
(9) Defend: the application of force by the state onto minority groups so that they must abide by particular Christian beliefs.

Can you name any moral absolutes?

I'm sure he can.

I don't believe he can.

[PLAYER57832]

One moral absolute... CC debaters will argue.

[premio53]

One moral absolute... CC debaters will argue.

Any serious answers?

[tzor]

I still don't understand the following with the issue on gay marriage:


(1) No religion has the legitimate right to define what a marriage is in the US. No single religion enjoys that jurisdiction. So, why do people continue to think that their own particular religion somehow has the right to define what a marriage is over an entire country? (that screams of theocracy to me).

Okay, let's clear up a confusion. There's "religious marriage" and "legal marriage" (a.k.a. civil union). I'm talking about legal marriage and religious marriages, which differ across religions (which further compounds the problem of #1). A religion can define marriage and regulate marriage, but only within in its own jurisdictions (churches, but not across the entire country), hence a "religious marriage."

(2) Suppose the US legalizes gay marriage and requires people to recognize it as a legitimate marriage (in regard to contract laws, etc.). However, the US does not force religious organizations to oversee the marriage of gay couples because those organizations are free to deny their services (e.g. no gays in the Boy Scouts case). If (2) is true, then why would people oppose gay marriage?

I would be more than willing to answer these questions even though my general vague opposition to same gender marriage (because let's be honest, the notion that marriage is a sex licence is nonsense and if you allow two people to marry it doesn't mean that they must have sex; senior citizen octogenarians marry all the time so why can't two straight men marry each other) is mostly because I do not want gay men to fall victim to divorce lawyers. But since the Shakespeare option isn't currently viable, limiting their access to them is the only viable solution, at the moment.

I'll start off with the notion that the whole concept of civil marriage is a farce and ought to be thrown out as an unconstitutional infringement on someone's rights, depending on the situation. The state really should not have anything to do with marriage whatsoever and there should never be any legal benefit that can only be applied to such a condition. (Note that even a "religious" marriage has a "civil" component to it. I'm opposed to the civil component to any marriage ... but I know that's not going to happen in any reasonable future.)

(1) Most religions would insist that marriage is specifically a religious institution. Whether it is a "religious" or "societal" institution could make an interesting debate but from a civil perspective the state only became involved because of monarchies and the absurd notion of passing lines of succession only along "legitimate" offspring. Ironically it was a King who started the whole "divorce" thing into the institution but it's not until the 20th century where real fiscal issues and custody battles enter the divorce proceedings.

The current civil law on marriage reflects the current state of Protestant Christianity. We almost fought a war to fight against those who had a different view, but eventually the Mormons dropped polygamy from their official doctrine. But even then, the general religious notions has always viewed marriage as a institute for procreation (now before you raise a technical nit pick, Christianity has always looked to the examples of the old testament where women who probably had their change of life decades ago got pregnant with important people ... that's why old folks can marry).

So we get to the notion of the word "marriage." This means something to these churches and they don't like their definitions messed with.

(2) Totally incorrect. Under the law, a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. You can't discriminate one from another. You can't discriminate gay marriage anymore than you can interracial marriage.

All of the following has already been determined in a court of law.

1. If you rent you hall out to straight weddings you must rent your hall out to gay weddings.
2. If you bake cakes for straight weddings you must bake them for gay weddings.
3. If you are an adoption agency that gives children to straight married couples you must give children to gay married couples as well, even if it goes against what you believe a family should be.

The effect is that religious people who do not believe gay marriage is legitimate must effectively do nothing whatsoever regarding straight couples or be forced to do the same for gay couples. Thus most religions are getting out of the adoption business or no longer rent out their facilities to anyone.

[betiko]

so you think that octogenaries don't have sex anymore? old people still have sex, we just don't want to picture our grandparents getting jiggy with it.

[tzor]

so you think that octogenaries don't have sex anymore? old people still have sex, we just don't want to picture our grandparents getting jiggy with it.

Well we do like in a post Viagra world but you do need a healthy heart.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS is super gay

Hmm... let's consult the wall again:

(1) Defend: majority rule that supports certain Christian beliefs is just
(2) Defend: morality is dependent only on God, thus morality is arbitrarily determined by God--and NOT by humans
(3) Defend: therefore, other forms of morality (e.g. libertarian, pro-individual liberty, pro-equality before the law, moral consequentialism, etc.) are invalid if they're contradictory to Christian God Morality.
(4) Overcome: different religions, which adhere to a similar God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and segments within those religions, have contradictory rules and policies for and against gays
(5) Overcome: conflicting religions use similar appeals to authority and circular reasoning to assert themselves as the true religion, so which religion (or segment of a religion) is the true one?
(6) Ignores: why oppose gay marriage if churches won't be forced to oversee gay marriages?
(7) Defend: cherry-picking of Bible, and arbitrary reasoning for justifying following X but not Y in the Bible
(8) Defend: why equality before the law should not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage.
(9) Defend: the application of force by the state onto minority groups so that they must abide by particular Christian beliefs.

Can you name any moral absolutes?

Would you care to defend genocide?

[Shape]

The main problem is the majority of the (televised, internet-ized) opposition are complete idiots and bigots. "God Hates Fags"? Are you serious?! That's what frustrates me most. Stop being a goddamn asshole and vocalize your argument logically. Certainly no offense to those that have a rational basis for their opposing gay marriage; I tend to stay neutral on the subject, myself (aside from the goddamn assholes lol).

Even from a Christian perspective, gay marriage isn't so bad. It seems to me homosexual acts are immoral in the Bible, not homosexual people. And as I've mentioned in another thread, separation of church and state is biblical and Paul is very clear about choosing your battles wisely. The "Anti-Gay" movement is a prime example of a wrongly-chosen battle.

-Shape

Not sure why this thread was brought back, but since you are new, I will clarify that there has been a lot of discussion from both Christians and people of other faiths agreeing with you, either saying that homosexuality is not wrong or simply that its not the place of any church to dictate. There are also some who seriously think that allowing homosexuality will result in the degredation of society.

This last bit is something else...

Noob mistake, naturally Too much to catch up on to stay with the discussion's flow, ha.

-Shape

[premio53]

BBS is super gay

Hmm... let's consult the wall again:

(1) Defend: majority rule that supports certain Christian beliefs is just
(2) Defend: morality is dependent only on God, thus morality is arbitrarily determined by God--and NOT by humans
(3) Defend: therefore, other forms of morality (e.g. libertarian, pro-individual liberty, pro-equality before the law, moral consequentialism, etc.) are invalid if they're contradictory to Christian God Morality.
(4) Overcome: different religions, which adhere to a similar God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and segments within those religions, have contradictory rules and policies for and against gays
(5) Overcome: conflicting religions use similar appeals to authority and circular reasoning to assert themselves as the true religion, so which religion (or segment of a religion) is the true one?
(6) Ignores: why oppose gay marriage if churches won't be forced to oversee gay marriages?
(7) Defend: cherry-picking of Bible, and arbitrary reasoning for justifying following X but not Y in the Bible
(8) Defend: why equality before the law should not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage.
(9) Defend: the application of force by the state onto minority groups so that they must abide by particular Christian beliefs.

Can you name any moral absolutes?

Would you care to defend genocide?

So you believe genocide is morally wrong? Germany believed purging the Jews was a benefit as a whole to the German people and who was to say that the medical experiments by Dr. Mengele had no redeeming value to society? What makes your morals any better than those of the most advanced civilized society up to that point?

American Indian tribes slaughtered each other long before the White man came to America and practiced cannibalism. What makes your moral standards better than theirs? You make a big deal about morals should be left up to humans. There are many humans that believe just the opposite of what you do. Why are you judging them?

[Symmetry]

I'm with BBS on this one.

[BigBallinStalin]

Can you name any moral absolutes?

Would you care to defend genocide?

So you believe genocide is morally wrong? Germany believed purging the Jews was a benefit as a whole to the German people and who was to say that the medical experiments by Dr. Mengele had no redeeming value to society? What makes your morals any better than those of the most advanced civilized society up to that point?

Really?
(1) Your argument is that "since other people were doing it, then that makes it okay."
(2) And "allegedly the benefits offset the costs of genocide; therefore, it's okay."*
(3) Therefore, (by implication) genocide is morally good.

*

show

(A) If you don't sincerely agree with #3, then you would believe that there this at least one absolute right (the right to not be killed via genocide). All you could conclude was that some particular individuals disagree (e.g. Hitler). Who cares if Hitler approves of genocide? That doesn't make it right--unless you believe that he is a moral authority on this subject (do you? If not, then your appeal to authority--a.k.a. your "Germany"--has no merit).

So, already your argument is looking shaky, but let's proceed:

(B) "Germany" didn't believe anything because "Germany" is not a conscious, decision-making entity. If you want to get closer to the truth, you'll have to explain who exactly approved of the genocide and how it was enforced. Then, you can determine the benefits and costs (BnCs) to the particular individuals and groups. Then, after comparing those BnCs, perhaps you could make a more informed decision. You can't ignore the costs; otherwise, your argument is crap.

Note: you've restricted yourself to a utilitarian argument, which is insufficient since it can be used to justify raping children (if the benefits offset the costs, of course).

(C) So, even with a utilitarian approach, you still have to explain why violating people's negative right to life (and their property) is justifiable.

If you don't wish to speak within the language of rights, then you'll have to explain why violating certain rules--to such an extreme degree--is ultimately good for a society. You'd have to explain how creating such extreme disorder within a society (by committing genocide) is morally good.

Good luck.

[premio53]

Can you name any moral absolutes?

Would you care to defend genocide?

So you believe genocide is morally wrong? Germany believed purging the Jews was a benefit as a whole to the German people and who was to say that the medical experiments by Dr. Mengele had no redeeming value to society? What makes your morals any better than those of the most advanced civilized society up to that point?

Really?
(1) Your argument is that "since other people were doing it, then that makes it okay."
That is your argument. Since some men and women with unnatural urges practice sex with each other, that gives them the right to overthrow the definition of marriage which has stood from time immemorial.
(2) And "allegedly the benefits offset the costs of genocide; therefore, it's okay."
That is the argument for those who believe they are justified in killing babies in the womb.
(3) Therefore, (by implication) genocide is morally good.
Absolutely not but how does your belief trump those who do believe that?

(A) If you don't sincerely agree with #3, then you would believe that there this at least one absolute right (the right to not be killed via genocide). All you could conclude was that some particular individuals disagree (e.g. Hitler). Who cares if Hitler approves of genocide? That doesn't make it right--unless you believe that he is a moral authority on this subject (do you? If not, then your appeal to authority--a.k.a. your "Germany"--has no merit).

So, already your argument is looking shaky, but let's proceed:

(B) "Germany" didn't believe anything because "Germany" is not a conscious, decision-making entity. If you want to get closer to the truth, you'll have to explain who exactly approved of the genocide and how it was enforced. Then, you can determine the benefits and costs (BnCs) to the particular individuals and groups. Then, after comparing those BnCs, perhaps you could make a more informed decision. You can't ignore the costs; otherwise, your argument is crap.

Note: you've restricted yourself to a utilitarian argument, which is insufficient since it can be used to justify raping children (if the benefits offset the costs, of course).

(C) So, even with a utilitarian approach, you still have to explain why violating people's negative right to life (and their property) is justifiable.

If you don't wish to speak within the language of rights, then you'll have to explain why violating certain rules--to such an extreme degree--is ultimately good for a society. You'd have to explain how creating such extreme disorder within a society (by committing genocide) is morally good.

Good luck.

At the root of relativism is the desire to get rid of moral accountability. You say homosexuality is morally right. Why is beastiality morally wrong? Is it morally wrong to take pictures of naked children and post them on the internet without their knowledge (as long as it isn't hurting them)?