Poll: Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriage

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
ok, I may understand that. If a non-christian chooses to do something 'not in gods will', whats the course of action?

Ignoring Bully's inflammatory remark, since he's obviously ignoring the fact that this is all "In the context of scripture."

To try to convert them. Only once somebody has become a Christian do they truly respect God's will, and trying to make them submit to it before that will only anger them.

BTW, Bully, if you want to argue the validity of scripture, go start a thread on it. Other than that, stop interjecting your opinion into every thread that mentions the Bible. And yes, it is opinion, because saying that it's fact implies that you can prove it, which you can't.

 

[mattskramer]

NewGuy said "...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."

Please stop "putting words in my mouth". I never said that I have infinite wisdom. I never said that I am the only one who knows the rules of debate. I never said that the Bible is fallible. I said that "Some people think that the Bible is practically complete fiction".

For the reasons I explained previously I believe that the Bible can't logically be applied as a means to forbid homosexual marriage. In summary: there are different interpretations; to be intellectually honest, all "rules" would have to be applied; some think the Bible to be fiction.

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

jimnyc said "Get it through your head that people just don't want the vile fudgepackers around! I don't need a valid argument in your eyes - you are inconsequential."

Again, you are appealing to the masses and emotion, but this time you are also providing an item assumed to vary: homosexuals (derogatory name replaced) being around. One's marital status is irrelevant to the degree to which one is "around". I will attempt to clarify my point through example: My neighbor might be single. My neighbor might be married. Yet, he is still my neighbor regardless of his marital status.

The word "inconsequential" has two basic meanings: (1) Lacking importance (2) Not following from premises or evidence; illogical.

I have never heard the word applied to human beings. If it were, I think that the term would be subjective. I am important to my wife and friends. I think that I am inconsequential to strangers. I don't know if you are consequential to anyone.

In consideration to the second definition, I am very logical. I clearly applied logic and reason to the debate concerning the issue of homosexual marriage. On the other hand, your very statement "I don't need a valid argument..." suggests, on the basis of the second definition, that you are inconsequential.

 

[jimnyc]

None of your long winded drivel changes the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want gay marriages. Those that engage in homosexual activities are sick. They don't need to get married, they need to seek medical assistance.

There have been many, many arguments as to why Americans don't want gay marriages. The arguments just aren't good enough in YOUR eyes. It'll likely be decided in the states through a vote or through a vote for a constitutional amendment - either way the queers will lose convincingly. So you'll see a convincing argument when we vote.

 

[mattskramer]

"None of your long winded drivel changes the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want gay marriages."

Assuming that the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans don't want gay marriages, it is unlikely that my "long winded drivel will" change that FACT.

"Those that engage in homosexual activities are sick. They don't need to get married, they need to seek medical assistance."

This is debatable. According to the American Psychological Association: "Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem." (See http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#mentalillness)

"There have been many, many arguments as to why Americans don't want gay marriages."

This is true.

"The arguments just aren't good enough in YOUR eyes."

This is also true. They are not good enough in my eyes. They are not good enough in the eyes, and minds of other people too. I have yet to hear or read an argument opposing homosexual marriage that stands up against logic and reason.

"It'll likely be decided in the states through a vote or through a vote for a constitutional amendment - either way the queers will lose convincingly. So you'll see a convincing argument when we vote."

I think that it will likely be decided in the states through a vote or through a vote for a constitutional amendment. I think that homosexuals will lose. It does not follow that, assuming homosexuals lose, I will see a convincing argument. I will merely see that homosexuals lost.

 

[jimnyc]

Assuming that the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans don't want gay marriages, it is unlikely that my "long winded drivel will" change that FACT.

Agreed

This is debatable. According to the American Psychological Association: "Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem." (See http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#mentalillness)

Are they concluding that those who place their penis in another mans hairy ass are normal? It may not be a 'mental illness' but it's surely a disease.

This is also true. They are not good enough in my eyes. They are not good enough in the eyes, and minds of other people too. I have yet to hear or read an argument opposing homosexual marriage that stands up against logic and reason.

Only against YOUR warped sense of logic and reason. There are millions upon millions that are quite satisfied with the logic and reasoning behind those opposed to queer marriages.

I think that it will likely be decided in the states through a vote or through a vote for a constitutional amendment. I think that homosexuals will lose. It does not follow that, assuming homosexuals lose, I will see a convincing argument. I will merely see that homosexuals lost.

That's your perogative. I don't care, as long as they lose.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer
NewGuy said "...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."

Please stop "putting words in my mouth". I never said that I have infinite wisdom. I never said that I am the only one who knows the rules of debate. I never said that the Bible is fallible. I said that "Some people think that the Bible is practically complete fiction".

For the reasons I explained previously I believe that the Bible can't logically be applied as a means to forbid homosexual marriage. In summary: there are different interpretations; to be intellectually honest, all "rules" would have to be applied; some think the Bible to be fiction.

Mr. Dukakis, the only thing you DID say is that the Bible is not infallible based on what PEOPLE can debate or think. Until you make a stand and prove anything, including the fact of having your own opinion, putting words in your mouth is EXACTLY what I will do since you claim an infallible absolute truth false when you have ZERO foundation, ZERO reason, and ZERO evidence.

Even new math shows that 0+0+0=0

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Mr. Dukakis, the only thing you DID say is that the Bible is not infallible based on what PEOPLE can debate or think. Until you make a stand and prove anything, including the fact of having your own opinion, putting words in your mouth is EXACTLY what I will do since you claim an infallible absolute truth false when you have ZERO foundation, ZERO reason, and ZERO evidence.

Even new math shows that 0+0+0=0

My name is not "Mr. Dukakis". I am not going to get into a debate on whether or not the Bible is infallible. I, personally, have not claimed the Bible to be infallible. Neither have I claimed the Bible to be fallible. Neither have I said that the Bible is fiction. (As a side note: Saying that something is fiction does not mean the same things as saying that something is fallible.) At any rate, I will not participate in such a debate. Neither will I continue to repeat myself. Those that are interested in the common arguments against homosexual marriage and my specific rebuttals are free to examine my post titled "Gay Marriage".

It is still intellectually dishonest to "put words in the mouths of others".

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer
My name is not "Mr. Dukakis". I am not going to get into a debate on whether or not the Bible is infallible. I, personally, have not claimed the Bible to be infallible. Neither have I claimed the Bible to be fallible. Neither have I said that the Bible is fiction. (As a side note: Saying that something is fiction does not mean the same things as saying that something is fallible.) At any rate, I will not participate in such a debate. Neither will I continue to repeat myself. Those that are interested in the common arguments against homosexual marriage and my specific rebuttals are free to examine my post titled "Gay Marriage".

It is still intellectually dishonest to "put words in the mouths of others".

"Let me say THIS about THAT......I am NOT a CROOK!"

"I do not recall that."
"No, I do not recall."
"I do not recall that, sir."

"It depends on what your definition of "is" is."

You have a job awaiting you in politics.

When you grow a spine and get "hot or cold", then meet us back in the human race.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by NewGuy
"It depends on what your definition of "is" is."

You have a job awaiting you in politics.

When you grow a spine and get "hot or cold", then meet us back in the human race.

"IS" is the 3rd person singular present indicative of "BE".

Thanks for the information about a job awaiting for me in politics, but I won't accept a job in politics. I am satisfied with the career that I have now. Perhaps you would qualify for the political job.

You present an excellent and entertaining example of the Ad Hominem fallacy: rejecting or undermining a position or argument by simply rejecting the person or persons making the claim.

Yet, even your ad hominem is erroneous. I have a spine. I need not be hot or cold. My external temperature is roughly 74 degrees Fahrenheit. My internal body temperature is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. I am a member of the human race.

 

[mattskramer]

Are they [the APA] concluding that those who place their penis in another mans hairy ass are normal? It may not be a 'mental illness' but it's surely a disease.

I don't know if the APA considers such behavior as normal. Even if a behavior is abnormal, it is not necessarily wrong. Yet, according to some people, homosexuality (and homosexual behavior) is not a disease. (See http://familydoctor.org/x2402.xml#Is_homosexuality_a_disease_)

"Only against YOUR warped sense of logic and reason. There are millions upon millions that are quite satisfied with the logic and reasoning behind those opposed to queer marriages."

You are naturally free to hold onto your opinion of my sense of logic and reason. I think that many people would consider my sense of logic and reason to be sound. Be that as it may, you have not been able to dispute it by sound logic and reason. Millions upon millions may be quite satisfied with the logic and reasoning behind those opposed to "queer marriages". I think that many of those people are guilty of erroneous reasoning and faulty logic. Many people in Germany condoned the killing of Jews. Many people in Salem Massachusetts thought it right to kill those that they suspected of being witches. You are, again, appealing to the masses.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer

You present an excellent and entertaining example of the Ad Hominem fallacy: rejecting or undermining a position or argument by simply rejecting the person or persons making the claim.

:

Where do you think you are?

You are on a message board in a place where you give opinions. If your idea of giving an opinion is one of choosing an opinion of not having an opinion, you are a boat anchor here. You certainly offer nothing valuable then but waste bandwith and cost another person money. By that, I would say, you ARE worth rejecting.

You are so into stroking your ego that you can't pull your head out long enough to do a favor to the human race and join with us in active society. Being a vocal passivity does nothing.

You just don't like it when someone thinks you are less valuable than what you would view yourself as.

Yet, even your ad hominem is erroneous. I have a spine. I need not be hot or cold. My external temperature is roughly 74 degrees Fahrenheit. My internal body temperature is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. I am a member of the human race.

-HHHMMMMMM..........No.:

Revelation 3:
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

[jimnyc]

I don't know if the APA considers such behavior as normal. Even if a behavior is abnormal, it is not necessarily wrong. Yet, according to some people, homosexuality (and homosexual behavior) is not a disease. (See http://familydoctor.org/x2402.xml#I...lity_a_disease_

Please, spare me! I don't need a doctor to tell me that 2 men plugging each others holes is wrong! There is no reasonable explanation other than a disease. Anyone that engages in this foul behavior obviously has mental issues. We have good psychiatrists in the USA and there is help available.

You are naturally free to hold onto your opinion of my sense of logic and reason. I think that many people would consider my sense of logic and reason to be sound. Be that as it may, you have not been able to dispute it by sound logic and reason. Millions upon millions may be quite satisfied with the logic and reasoning behind those opposed to "queer marriages". I think that many of those people are guilty of erroneous reasoning and faulty logic. Many people in Germany condoned the killing of Jews. Many people in Salem Massachusetts thought it right to kill those that they suspected of being witches. You are, again appealing to the masses.

That's your right to have your own views as is our right to have ours. Don't whine because you're in the minority. Most people are against those involved in deviant behavior.

 

[mattskramer]

"Where do you think you are?

You are on a message board in a place where you give opinions. If your idea of giving an opinion is one of choosing an opinion of not having an opinion, you are a boat anchor here. You certainly offer nothing valuable then but waste bandwith and cost another person money. By that, I would say, you ARE worth rejecting.

You are so into stroking your ego that you can't pull your head out long enough to do a favor to the human race and join with us in active society. Being a vocal passivity does nothing.

You just don't like it when someone thinks you are less valuable than what you would view yourself as."

I am on a message board. I believe that I have offered things of value, if not to you. The things of value might not be personal opinions but they are still statements. One person here complimented me on a comment that I made. Later, I stated that "I think that many of those people [millions upon millions may be quite satisfied with the logic and reasoning behind those opposed to "queer marriages"] are guilty of erroneous reasoning and faulty logic." That is an opinion. I also said that "Assuming that the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans don't want gay marriages, it is unlikely that my 'long winded drivel will' change that FACT." This is also an opinion.

Your comment that I "certainly offer nothing valuable then but waste bandwith and cost another person money". Is merely your opinion. I doubt that everyone here agrees with you. I may have the same opinion toward the stuff you post.

If you knew me even slightly more than you do now, I doubt that you could, in all honesty, say that I am so into stroking my ego that I can't pull my head out long enough to do a favor to the human race and join with you in active society.

Without meaning to brag I will inform you of a few of the activities in which I participate: I regularly help "Habitat for Humanity" in helping build homes for poor people. I also volunteer time each week at Caritas by stocking shelves and providing food to poor people. I am also involved in "Meals on Wheels" (another charity organization). I participate in fundraising activities for cancer organizations and donate much of my spare money to other charities.

I enjoy logic and reason. I rarely voice an opinion. When I do, it is almost always supported by facts and logic. I have pride in myself and I am rarely wrong. Yet, I am not perfect. I have actually said things that have been proven wrong. When I realize my error, I readily and immediately confess to it.

I would like for everyone to like me and for everyone to agree with me, (may people do including my wife, coworkers, and friends) but if such is not the case I am not traumatized. It is more important to me to like myself. I doesn't bother me if you have a negative opinion of me. I will continue to simply communicate within reason to the best of my ability and leave it up to you to have your own opinion of me.

P.S. I like your image of "The Incredible Hulk".

 

[acludem]

Hey, Matt I never did properly welcome you to the board, so welcome! I do not think you are wasting bandwith, you at least attempt to engage in respectful intelligent debate which is, unfortunately, more than I can say for some who post here.


acludem

 

[mattskramer]

"Please, spare me! I don't need a doctor to tell me that 2 men plugging each others holes is wrong! There is no reasonable explanation other than a disease. Anyone that engages in this foul behavior obviously has mental issues. We have good psychiatrists in the USA and there is help available."

Okay. I have presented you with sound and logical rebuttal against common arguments opposing homosexual marriage. I have also presented you with information and opinion by organizations within the medical community that conclude that homosexuality, in and of itself, is not a disease and not a mental illness. Yet, you continue to hold on to your own opinion. Good night.

 

[NewGuy]

Well. Isn't this special:

We have mattskramer and acludem:

 

[acludem]

Hey isn't that your ass I'm sticking the pin in there New Guy?



acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Okay. I have presented you with sound and logical rebuttal against common arguments opposing homosexual marriage. I have also presented you with information and opinion by organizations within the medical community that conclude that homosexuality, in and of itself, is not a disease and not a mental illness. Yet, you continue to hold on to your own opinion. Good night.

The sad part is that you actually believe that. I haven't seen anything even slightly convincing. Would you like me to start posting statistic after statistic of what kinds of diseases queers pass around? I'd like to see the 'medical community' conclude that STD's aren't alarmingly higher amongst the queers.

I think queers are disgusting. I think their behavior is beyond disgusting. Some doctors saying they think it isn't a mental disease isn't going to change my opinion. You can tell me shitting on someone else's forehead isn't from mental instability either, but I'll never be convinced that it isn't disgusting and I'll never want it to be an integral part of America.

 

[acludem]

So the standard for what conduct is allowed should be based solely on what jimmynyc thinks is disgusting?

Now that's disturbing.

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
So the standard for what conduct is allowed should be based solely on what jimmynyc thinks is disgusting?

Now that's disturbing.

acludem

That's what MY standards are. You have the right to have lower standards than I do, and it doesn't surprise me that you would. You're a loser.