Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 519 (471234)
06-15-2008 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by bluescat48
06-14-2008 8:37 AM


Remediation in English
What the @#$# does paedophilia have to do with homosexual marriage. A large number of paedophiles aren't even homosexual. Paedos come in all shapes sises colors, religious affiliations and sexual prefs. You're ideology is factless.
How can you honestly read what I have written and come to the conclusion that you have? Seriously... This is a serious question. How can you read what I wrote and make comments like that?
What does paedophilia have to do with homosexual marriage? Absolutely nothing. Good thing I wasn't attempting to equivocate.
A large number of paedophiles are not homosexual: Correct. Good thing I wasn't saying they were.
Paedo's come in all shapes, sizes, backgrounds, yada, yada: Roger that. Can't disagree with you there. Good thing I never said otherwise.
I want everyone to listen, and listen good, because this is beyond ridiculous. My angle on homosexual marriage is coming to you from a moral perspective. If all things are relative, then to exclude something LIKE paedophiliac marriages, but demand inclusion of homosexual marriages, makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, all it does is affirm sheer hypocrisy and the illogical.
You say that it is wrong to only allow heterosexuals to marry. Okay, that's fine. Lets go with that. Lets examine it in a healthy way. But don't you think that maybe, just maybe, you are taking back with the left hand what you gave with the right? If only allowing heterosexuals to marry is bigoted, then why isn't it bigoted to bar a brother and a sister to marry if they want?
Then some superficial qualifier is given, and they use a useless tautology, like, "but it is illegal." Well, so is homosexual marriage. You aren't giving me any actual reason why it should be accepted or why anything under the sun shouldn't be accepted. Does that not make sense, honestly? That's a perfectly legitimate and rational question.
Many people say that your sexual preferences are formed in the womb, and that expecting homosexuals to deny their most basic instincts is cruel. That's cool. That's a great question, and an honest one. Lets examine that! However, if I say that wouldn't it be really easy for paedophiles to say that they born that way, pretty much an improvable scapegoat? Who's to say that they aren't, and we're just being cruel by barring them.
How in the hell is asking that question equivocating!?!? How does that question somehow turn in to me saying that homosexuals are pedophiles? It doesn't, so stop misconstruing it! I'm beginning to believe it is intentional.
Lastly, if all things are relative, and if I'm considered bigoted against homosexuals, you are bigoted against me. Think about that deeply for a minute, then remove your foot from your mouth.
Are we all clear on Nemmy's stance now? Am I going to be suspended again for daring to utter a word that could be construed as offensive, all the while I'm called a "bigot" or an "asshole," and nothing happens to them?
Can we now all have a nice and productive conversation?
(Just to let you know bluescat, this reply was not solely to you. I am speaking mostly in generalities here. So please don't think that I am accusing you of things that you haven't done. Thanks for listening).
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by bluescat48, posted 06-14-2008 8:37 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Alasdair, posted 06-15-2008 8:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 56 by bluescat48, posted 06-15-2008 9:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 59 by lyx2no, posted 06-15-2008 11:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 62 by Rrhain, posted 06-16-2008 4:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5749 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 47 of 519 (471270)
06-15-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 4:41 PM


Re: Remediation in English
Nemesis Juggernaut, the answer to this is so astounding simple that I think you must have tried to ignore it.
Homosexuality is between two consenting adults.
Pedophilia is forcing sexual activities upon a non consenting child.
They are not equivalent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 4:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 8:20 PM Alasdair has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 519 (471273)
06-15-2008 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Alasdair
06-15-2008 8:12 PM


Re: Remediation in English
Nemesis Juggernaut, the answer to this is so astounding simple that I think you must have tried to ignore it.
Homosexuality is between two consenting adults.
Pedophilia is forcing sexual activities upon a non consenting child.
They are not equivalent.
*sigh*
You didn't read anything I wrote, did you?
I won't even dignify this with an answer. Just take special notice to the subtitle. That's all that needs to be said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Alasdair, posted 06-15-2008 8:12 PM Alasdair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Alasdair, posted 06-15-2008 8:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 50 by Taz, posted 06-15-2008 8:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5749 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 49 of 519 (471275)
06-15-2008 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 8:20 PM


Re: Remediation in English
I mean they aren't morally equivalent.
It's not hypocritical to say homosexuality is okay and pedophilia is not.
Homosexuality hurts nobody, it is between two consenting adults.
Pedophilia scars a child who does not consent.
This is why pedophilia is wrong and homosexuality isn't. They are not morallly equivalent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 8:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 8:44 PM Alasdair has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 50 of 519 (471276)
06-15-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 8:20 PM


Re: Remediation in English
Nem, I don't think it is a coincidence that everytime you debate about this everyone always sees you equivocating homosexuality with pedophila, incest, rape, etc. Now, remember that I haven't even said anything yet. I'll let other people decide.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 8:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 8:46 PM Taz has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 519 (471279)
06-15-2008 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Alasdair
06-15-2008 8:23 PM


Re: Remediation in English
they aren't morally equivalent.
What grand and cosmic arbiter arbitrates this?
It's not hypocritical to say homosexuality is okay and pedophilia is not.
It is if you have a relativist outlook.
Homosexuality hurts nobody, it is between two consenting adults.
Incest, prostitution, etc, can be between two consenting adults. Why do you suppose they aren't legal, especially if they don't "hurt" anyone else? ("Hurt" in this instance being very vague and undefined).

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Alasdair, posted 06-15-2008 8:23 PM Alasdair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Alasdair, posted 06-15-2008 8:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 519 (471281)
06-15-2008 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taz
06-15-2008 8:25 PM


Re: Remediation in English
Nem, I don't think it is a coincidence that everytime you debate about this everyone always sees you equivocating homosexuality with pedophila, incest, rape, etc.
I don't think its a coincidence either. I think its intentional, to try and derail my premise.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taz, posted 06-15-2008 8:25 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taz, posted 06-15-2008 9:58 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5749 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 53 of 519 (471285)
06-15-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 8:44 PM


Re: Remediation in English
Prostitution should be illegal because it can lead to the exploitation of women - this is harmful.
Incest should not be illegal, because it hurts nobody.
See, this is pretty easy. Then again, I define "immoral" as "harmful to others". Two guys making out doesn't harm anybody. Scarring a child is pretty harmful and pretty damn evil. They aren't morally equivalent, and your reasoning is as fallacious as it comes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 8:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 9:03 PM Alasdair has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 519 (471288)
06-15-2008 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Alasdair
06-15-2008 8:54 PM


Re: Remediation in English
Prostitution should be illegal because it can lead to the exploitation of women - this is harmful.
If women choose it for themselves, then aren't they allowed to make decisions without your morals interfering with them?
Incest should not be illegal, because it hurts nobody.
That's debatable, but alright.
I define "immoral" as "harmful to others". Two guys making out doesn't harm anybody. Scarring a child is pretty harmful and pretty damn evil. They aren't morally equivalent, and your reasoning is as fallacious as it comes.
First of all, I didn't say they were morally equivalent. I went out of my way to dispel the notion. When I said it is a moral argument, I am asking how the people who claim discrimination can justify their position without jeopardizing it in the process.
In any case, the argument concerning homosexual marriage is one of asking whether or not it hurts society. For instance, a bloodsport does not hurt you, if you aren't in the ring. But it may hurt society as it callouses people to needless carnage. It may glorify violence, which may not be directly harmful to you, but may be indirectly.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Alasdair, posted 06-15-2008 8:54 PM Alasdair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Alasdair, posted 06-15-2008 9:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 58 by bluescat48, posted 06-15-2008 10:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5749 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 55 of 519 (471289)
06-15-2008 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 9:03 PM


Re: Remediation in English
Problem with things such as gladiatorial events and prostitution is that people can be manipulated into them and harming themselves, so I would think of those as immoral and harmful to society.
The point is though, that it is not in the least hypocritical to accept homosexuality and think that pedophilia is wrong - one is very obviously harmful, one is not. I don't really think it can be any clearer than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 9:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 56 of 519 (471294)
06-15-2008 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 4:41 PM


Re: Remediation in English
The only point I am making is that bigotry is wrong. Personnally I don't care whether homosexuals can marry or not. My point is the way it is given, civil unions, when not listed as marriage, deny the union certain rights given to those legally married.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 4:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 57 of 519 (471296)
06-15-2008 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 8:46 PM


Re: Remediation in English
Nem writes:
I don't think its a coincidence either. I think its intentional, to try and derail my premise.
Um, no.
How do you gross someone out when he is eating something? You start describing to him what poop looks like and what it smells like. If that doesn't work, you start describing vomit. If that doesn't do it, you can start giving some examples.
Eventually, someone might want to point out to you that the sandwich is nothing like poop or vomit and so your equivocation is not just. But hang on, you say, you're not equivocating them at all.
Nem, that's what you're doing. Technically, you're not equivocating homosexuality with incest. But please, we're not dumb enough to fall for it. You can continue to play your game all you want. I really have nothing more to say. Like I said, it's not a coincidence that almost everyone sees your argument as a snide against gay people by equivocating them to rapists and pedos.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 8:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-16-2008 5:16 PM Taz has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 58 of 519 (471297)
06-15-2008 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 9:03 PM


Re: Remediation in English
In any case, the argument concerning homosexual marriage is one of asking whether or not it hurts society.
So if it hurts society, how? It what way does the marriage of John & Jim or Jane & June affect society.
Edited by bluescat48, : spelling

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 9:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 59 of 519 (471316)
06-15-2008 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 4:41 PM


It's "Equating"
If all things are relative, then to exclude something LIKE paedophiliac marriages, but demand inclusion of homosexual marriages, makes no sense whatsoever.
Okay, got it. You're not equating (equivocating?) homosexuality with pedophilia but a moral relativist might. Therefore, homosexual marriages should receive a full measure of scrutiny before being allowed. But might not a moral relativist also equate heterosexuality with pedophilia? After all, that is what they do: equate stuff. So shouldn't there also be a full measure of scrutiny given to straight marriages before we allow any more? Who knows when moral relativists are going to rise up and start throwing their weight around. And if we've allow people a bit of self-determination today then what argument would we have against the hackneyed arguments of the moral relativists tomorrow. How would we be able to resist them? What else would they want to equate?
I would allow incest. I would allow prostitution. They both have something in common with homosexual marriage. They are all none of my business. The sexual abuse of others, including children is. I have a mutual protection compact of sorts with my fellow man. I expect them to come to my aid whenever I'm being buggered against my will, and, in return, have a duty to go to theirs. Take notice of the "against my will" clause. I'm hoping the moral relativist do.
And to show I'm not just a shill for GLAD, I herein vow to fight any attempts by the Gay Lobby to mandate gay marriage amongst straight people.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 4:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 60 of 519 (471333)
06-16-2008 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Fosdick
06-14-2008 11:48 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
Rrhain, a hypothetical question for you: If SCOTUS decides that "gay marriage" is not supported by US Constitution will you then shut up?
Of course not. Plessy v. Ferguson was clearly the wrong decision. It had to be overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. Are you saying that because of the Plessy decision, there was no reason for Brown to have gone as far as it did and that even if it had, the SCOTUS should have voted the other way?
Bowers v. Hardwick was clearly the wrong decision. One of the justices in that decision, after he stepped down of course, went on the record saying that he was wrong. It had to be overturned by Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. Are you saying that because of the Bowers decision, there was no reason for Romer and Lawrence to have gone as far as it did and that even if it had, the SCOTUS should have voted the other way?
The burden of proof is on you to explain why your argument is invalid when it comes to questions of race and religion but valid when it comes to questions of sexual orientation. Your argument is literally the exact same argument used to deny interracial marriage with "black" removed and "gay" inserted. Remember, in Scalia's dissent of Lawrence v. Texas, he said the decision means that there is no justification for denying marriage to gay people.
If the neighbor's marriage is none of your concern when the participants are of different race, why does it suddenly become your conern when the participants are of the same sex? How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
Be specific.
quote:
And my other guess is that if SCOTUS decides against your position you will claim that the U.S. Constitution is unconstitutional.
Incorrect. The Constitution is clearly in support of same-sex marriage.
The SCOTUS, on the other hand, makes mistakes. Surely you aren't intimating that the SCOTUS is perfect, are you?
Now, please answer the question:
How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
Be specific.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Fosdick, posted 06-14-2008 11:48 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Fosdick, posted 06-16-2008 11:02 AM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024