Poll: Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriage

[William Joyce]

I agree. It ceases to be about "association" here, however much I rely on that when it's to my advantage. That's like saying, "Hey, if you don't want to associate with child molesters, then don't. Otherwise, live and let live."

Problem. Child molestors should be hung until dead. It ain't about me and my preference for them. It's what they do that's a bad thing. It's about the kind of society we're going to live in.

And we are not going to live in a society in which marriage is accorded to toaster-fuckers.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I don't understand the "anti-gay-marriage" rhetoric and I have yet to find a clear, convincing, and irrefutable point supporting the conclusion that gays should not be allowed to marry each other. There are two main categories of argument opposing gay marriage. I will display them and refute them in general.


Any more arguments against gay marriage?

Ummmm.....yes.

Could you humor me and explain it to me like I am a 3rd grader?

Could you pick either 1 Bible based argument and prove your point or 1 argument based on natural law?

I am trying to understand your justification FOR homosexuality and the marriage of homosexuals based on those things.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by jimnyc
It's not erroneous. Marriage is sacred to many and we don't want our marriages put on the same level as those that think it's ok to have another mans penis jammed in their ass.

jimnyc said "It's not erroneous".

The premise: "If a gay individual is married to another gay individual,then you must associate with him" is erroneous. You do not have to associate with a gay individual regardless of his marital status. Therefore your argument that people should oppose gay marriage because people don't want to be associated with gays is erroneous.

jimnyc said "...we don't want our marriages put on the same level as those that think it's ok to have another mans penis jammed in their ass".

You, jimnyc, are moving to a different argument now. The new argument is a clear example of two classic fallacies: "the appeal to the masses" and "the appeal to emotion". You appeal to the masses with the word "we" and you appeal to emotion with the word "want".

(1) "The appeal to the masses" - Someone tries to justify something based on the amount of popular support he has behind it. Yet masses have been wrong. Consider the "Jewish Holocaust". Popular feelings that oppose a policy do not necessarily make the policy wrong.

(2) "The appeal to emotion" - People try to influence other peoples' emotions rather than reason in order to get them to accept a policy. If people could inspire strong hatred, in other people, for the claim that 1+1 = 2 and get them to love the idea that 1+1 = 3, the claim that 1+1 = 3 would still be mathematically false.

 

[acludem]

Very nice, Matt. And Jimmy, men who perform these acts can get married, just not to each other.

I really lose patience with the argument that gay relationships are based solely on sex. I have never been married, but I would assume a marriage should be based upon love and trust, not just whether the sex is good. Why when we assume heterosexual marriages are based upon love and trust, do we assume that the only thing that binds gay couples is sex?

acludem

 

[mattskramer]

Joyce said "Hey, if you don't want to associate with child molesters, then don't."

There is a difference between sodomy between consenting adults and child molestation. The central distinction is in "informed consent". I doubt that children consent to be molested. Even if they consent, minimum age limits are established before which people are not allowed to engage in behavior because children are not considered to be old enough to fully understand and accept the emotional and physical consequences of their actions in regard to certain behavior at least until such ages are reached.

Joyce said "And we are not going to live in a society in which marriage is accorded to toaster-fuckers."

Name-calling and fortune telling are other classic fallacies in debates.

(1) Whether it be against the debater or against individuals related to the issue, name-calling is not only rude (much of the time) but often irrelevant. Truth stands on its own. Though they can be spoken by, and about, unpopular people, character attacks and name-calling have nothing to do with the validity of the arguments being presented.

(2) Fortunetelling is a fallacy of fantasy. No one can predict the future with 100 percent certainty. There may be a day in which homosexual marriage becomes legal across America. It might be legal in some small places in America today.

------------------

New guy - I am not arguing for homosexuality and homosexual marriage based on the "Bible" and/or on "Natural Law". I demonstrated the erroneous and fallacious logic of using the "Bible" and/or "Natural Law" as arguments against homosexual marriage.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer

New guy - I am not arguing for homosexuality and homosexual marriage based on the "Bible" and/or on "Natural Law". I demonstrated the erroneous and fallacious logic of using the "Bible" and/or "Natural Law" as arguments against homosexual marriage.

No, you used your infinite wisdom in claiming that only you know how to properly debate as only you know the rules of debate.

Prove, for instance, the Bible to be fallible logic. Heck, just make a stance and show why the Bible does not apply.

 

[Reilly]

New Guy,
Do you actually believe that the bible is infallible? I am not trying to start a debate, but I was always told that there are inconsistencies in the bible (and I have one and can check on a couple of passages if you need me to clarify), and I have always wondered how someone who believes in the bible as the absolute truth reconciles them (assuming they do in fact exist). I have always been curious. Would you mind if I asked you about them?

 

[acludem]

Matt, I was a debater in high school and know all of these rules very well. Unfortunately, some on this board would rather call people names than actually engage in intelligent discussion.

I support allowing gay couples to be married. If we really want to protect the so-called sanctity of marriage, then why don't we outlaw divorce? I'd say the skyrocketing divorce rate is the primary threat to the "sanctity of marriage".

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by Reilly
New Guy,
Do you actually believe that the bible is infallible? I am not trying to start a debate, but I was always told that there are inconsistencies in the bible (and I have one and can check on a couple of passages if you need me to clarify), and I have always wondered how someone who believes in the bible as the absolute truth reconciles them (assuming they do in fact exist). I have always been curious. Would you mind if I asked you about them?

If I may be so bold, I would like to take a crack at this one.

I do believe the Bible to be the inspired, infallible word of God, which has been around since before the creation, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1.

However, those who translated the word of God were not infallable. There are differences between the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and English languages to make a perfect translation impossible. There have also been political spins in certain parts of the Bible (King James added 'witch' wherever he could get away with it, as he was paranoid of them), however, the meaning of most passages in most translations have NOT changed and new Bibles are being printed with footnotes that give longer, more accurate translations of certain passages, such as when the word "you" is plural, or when the actualy meaning behind a word is disputed or needs more clarity.

Most things that people see as inconsitencies are merely changes in holy law that occured when the entire world was sanctified through Christ. The Bible is actually the only book written by that many peopl with no inconsistencies. In fact, hundreds of its prophecies came true during the time of Christ, and hundreds more are coming true as we speak, seeing as how we live in the end times. The Bible predicted the return of the nation of Israel, the increasing frequency of natural disasters and wars, and even the fall of Iraq (which was then called 'Babylon').

 

[acludem]

So which version of the bible is the correct one? Could it be that the references to homosexual acts were added later, just like the references to witches?

acludem

 

[Reilly]

Hobbit (or New Guy)
Perhaps your answer is that you attribute differences to mistakes in translation, but if I may offer a couple of examples just to see how you would respond to them, I would like that. Keep in mind that I am not disagreeing with your beliefs. I am just trying to understand what your beliefs are?

1. In John 19:14, John states that Jesus was executed "on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, at 12:00 noon." Yet in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells his disciples to prepare the passover meal, they eat the meal, and then he is arrested that night (early morning) and executed the next day, on Passover.

2. Matthew states that Joseph and Mary originally lived in Bethlehem while Luke said that they lived in Nazareth.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
So which version of the bible is the correct one? Could it be that the references to homosexual acts were added later, just like the references to witches?

acludem

Many people like to start this issue based on the fact that new Christians or Christians that have not yet done Bible comparisons to the Nth degree may not be aware of how different versions come into being.

While Christians tend to know there ARE differences, the origins of those differences are often overlooked.

If we want to get into this discussion, it would be suited for another thread. In summary, the Bible IS the word of god. There IS NO discrepencies. There ARE different versions which have been subverted through King James, as mentioned, the catholic church, Wescott and Hort, and others.

I am perfectly willing to illustrate all of this and in addition show how the original Greek and Hebrew texts DO line up PERFECTLY with only one version whose literary and poetic language can match these two like no other version before or after.

 

[Reilly]

ACLU-
While I probably agree with your position on gay rights, I have looked into the issue of homosexuality in the bible. While biblical historians do think certain parts of the bible were incorporated (or varied) through translations or politics over the last two thousand year, I have never seen them refer to any of the statements on homosexuality.

 

[Reilly]

New Guy,
While you reiteration that the bible is constitent and unfallible doesn't help me that much, I agree that this is probably a question for another time. Thanks anyway.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
Hobbit (or New Guy)
Perhaps your answer is that you attribute differences to mistakes in translation, but if I may offer a couple of examples just to see how you would respond to them, I would like that. Keep in mind that I am not disagreeing with your beliefs. I am just trying to understand what your beliefs are?

1. In John 19:14, John states that Jesus was executed "on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, at 12:00 noon." Yet in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells his disciples to prepare the passover meal, they eat the meal, and then he is arrested that night (early morning) and executed the next day, on Passover.

Where are you getting this? Which version are you using? Which passages are you referring to other than John 19:14?

2. Matthew states that Joseph and Mary originally lived in Bethlehem while Luke said that they lived in Nazareth.

Can you show the passages?

We need to take everything in context for proper discussion.
I think I have answers for #1, but need clarification first.
I KNOW I have answers for #2, but need to know which version it comes from and such as well.

 

[Reilly]

New Guy,
Give me a second and I will get those for you. I have to look them up.

 

[NewGuy]

ok.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
ACLU-
While I probably agree with your position on gay rights, I have looked into the issue of homosexuality in the bible. While biblical historians do think certain parts of the bible were incorporated (or varied) through translations or politics over the last two thousand year, I have never seen them refer to any of the statements on homosexuality.

If I understand this, you are saying there are no references to homosexuality in the Bible. There ARE references and depending on which version you use, they are referred to differently. The reason for this is the previous topic of versions. The end result is the condemnation of it. -Unless you have one completely deviating from ANY original documentation of origin.

 

[Reilly]

Matthew 14:12-19 - the Passover meal; 15:1 - Jesus before Pilate in the morning (and later in the book he is crucified)

It is taking me too long to find the cites for the second example, and it is not that important. Any analysis of any of any apparent inconsistency is all I seek.

 

[Reilly]

New Guy,
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I only meant that I have never heard it stated that any references to homosexuality in the bible were placed there (or altered) subsequent to the initial writing.