Poll: Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriage

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I thought that 75 percent of the public are opposed to gay marriage. I wonder what percentage of the public in Nazi Germany condoned the killing of the Jews.

Your'e compairing the present day populace of the United States to 1930's and 40's Nazi Germany. Yeah that's logical.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I think that they will vote "from the gut" based on their particular emotion laden personal biases.

Yes, we are biased. Biased against those that engage in deviant behavior. I'm such a bigot. Sue me.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I thought that 75 percent of the public are opposed to gay marriage. I wonder what percentage of the public in Nazi Germany condoned the killing of the Jews. I also wonder what percentage of the population in Salem Massachusetts condoned the killing of alleged "witches".

If and when people vote on the issue of gay marriage, I doubt that they will have taken the time to think about the issue logically and rationally. I think that they will vote "from the gut" based on their particular emotion laden personal biases.

Your analogy is completely and utterly STUPID. No one is advocating for the murder of gays. I think about the issue rationally as I do all issues of importance. The fact is, gays do not want marriage, they want acceptance. The citizens are entitled to morality. Majority rule is the law in this country. If the majority wants to ban homosexual marriage, so be it. It is their right to do so.

You can sit there and claim the debating high ground but you just fell off the hill with the above post. You've no credibility at all.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Your'e compairing the present day populace of the United States to 1930's and 40's Nazi Germany. Yeah that's logical.

I was illustrating the fallacy called "appealing to the masses". If you suggest that someone's claim or argument is correct simply because it's what almost everyone believes, then you've committed the fallacy of appeal to the masses. The YEARS in which people supposedly held the popular positions, that I gave as examples, are irrelevant to my point. Yet, my point is still logical. In the year 2065, many people might think that it was wrong to have, in this decade, denied gays the right to marry (assuming that we deny gays the right to marry) (just as many people in Germany today think that it was wrong to have killed Jews in Nazi Germany).

 

[Reilly]

As I am sure that you are aware, Matt's point (and I sure hope that I am right here, or I will feel really stupid) with the analogy was to show that just because the majority of people of a place and time support a particular course of action, that does not mean that future generations will not view it as immoral and foolish. I am sure that the Nazi example was also used to draw the comparison of two examples of discriminatory behavior towards a group of people.

Even if you think the analogy is innappropriate, it wasn't that outlandish.

Oops. He got his post in right before mine. I guess I was right.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I was illustrating the fallacy called "appealing to the masses". If you suggest that someone's claim or argument is correct simply because it's what almost everyone believes, then you've committed the fallacy of appeal to the masses. The YEARS in which people supposedly held the popular positions, that I gave as examples, are irrelevant to my point. Yet, my point is still logical. In the year 2065, many people might think that it was wrong to have, in this decade, denied gays the right to marry (assuming that we deny gays the right to marry) (just as many people in Germany today think that it was wrong to have killed Jews in Nazi Germany).

Than fine, in 2065 let them change the damn law. TODAY, the day we're discussing, it's the right of the people of this country to determine the laws. END OF STORY. Pontificate all you want about what the future holds. Who cares?

No one needs to explain their point of view in order to vote. There are no tests to take at the polling places. People vote their conscience. My conscience says that gay people do not deserve to be given the chance to become mainstream any more than drug dealers, criminals and others whom I do not want around my child. If you wish to pursue homosexuality, I wish you no harm and I certainly don't want to kill you, but I don't want it in my country or my world for all to see.

Don't ask, don't tell seems to be the perfect solution. I won't tell you what to do if you don't force me to see what you do.

P.S. yes, the analogy is outlandish and stupid. Equating those who don't wish to see the institution of marriage degraded by homosexuality are a whole lot different than those who wish to murder and exterminate an entire race of people. That is just pure stupidity.

 

[jimnyc]

I feel like I'm reading posts from Dr. Spock himself.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by mattskramer your first question:
I wonder what percentage of the public in Nazi Germany condoned the killing of the Jews.

I was illustrating the fallacy called "appealing to the masses". If you suggest that someone's claim or argument is correct simply because it's what almost everyone believes, then you've committed the fallacy of appeal to the masses.

I still reject your premiss. The masses of Nazi Germany were under dictoral control, including propaganda and state controlled media.The idea of appealing to the masses of Nazi Germany and present day United States is grossly misrepresented.

 

[Reilly]

The fact that Nazi Germany was under fascist control is not terribly important to his point. He could just have well used the example of slavery in the south in the early 19th century.

Anyway, this debate about proper analogies is silly. I will try to refrain future comments on it. May we move on?

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I was illustrating the fallacy called "appealing to the masses". If you suggest that someone's claim or argument is correct simply because it's what almost everyone believes, then you've committed the fallacy of appeal to the masses.

Furthermore, are you of the impression that the masses of civilians in Nazi Germany condoned the murdering of millions of Jews?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Reilly
May we move on?

Fine, moving on. There is no argument against allowing the people of this country to exercise what is their right. Their right to elect leaders who will establish laws according to the citizens' demands. The entire point of voting is the the majority wins.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Reilly


Anyway, this debate about proper analogies is silly.

Only when the analogies are proper.

 

[OCA]

Mattskramer,
Lets get down to the basics here. Please explain how homosexuality is normal then find a definitive genetic link that says beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are born this way. At that point I will say forever that homosexuals should have the unencumbered right to marry.

P.S. A little friendly hint, it doesn't exist, I know i've spent hours trying to find it. It doesn't exist because its a lifestyle choice the same as smoking crack only they smoke pole. Sorry its just a fact of life, a biological fact.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by OCA
its a lifestyle choice the same as smoking crack only they smoke pole.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Moi
Your analogy is completely and utterly STUPID. No one is advocating for the murder of gays. I think about the issue rationally as I do all issues of importance. The fact is, gays do not want marriage, they want acceptance. The citizens are entitled to morality. Majority rule is the law in this country. If the majority wants to ban homosexual marriage, so be it. It is their right to do so.

You can sit there and claim the debating high ground but you just fell off the hill with the above post. You've no credibility at all.

The severity of the act (killing Jews or denying marriage rights to gays) is irrelevant. The example was merely to illustrate the fallacy of appealing to the masses. In each case, many people supported such endeavors.

Your statement "The fact is, gays do not want marriage, they want acceptance" is debatable. It includes the fallacy of mind-reading. Secondly, I think that you are also making the assumption (leap in logic) that marriage will lead to acceptance. One may be opposed to the behavior of another (and not accept the other person) whether or not the other person is married. Thirdly, the "fact" that gays want acceptance does not necessarily serve as a reason why they should, or should not, be allowed to marry.

Concerning your comment "The citizens are entitled to morality", people are entitled to live lives that they consider to be moral (with consideration to whatever laws may restrict them). Morality is subjective. I may think that playing poker is immoral. You might consider it to be amoral or even moral.

Concerning your comment "Majority rule is the law on this country" I agree to an extent. We are a Republic and not a Democracy. We may occasionally vote on local laws directly, Yet, we often vote indirectly for laws via representatives and appointed judges. Judges, and representatives once in office, might support an unpopular policy. Therefore it is not always the case that majority rule on every law or rule presently "in the books" as voted on by representatives.

Concerning your comment, in and of itself, "If the majority wants to ban homosexual marriage, so be it. It is their right to do so", it follows that if the majority wants to have government sanctioned killing of all citizens that have red hair, so be it. It is their right to do so.

Finally, concerning your comment "You can sit there and claim the debating high ground but you just fell off the hill with the above post. You've no credibility at all", I didn't fall of the hill. As exemplified above, I still have a firm grasp of logic and reason and, by such, I am credible.

 

[jimnyc]

Your posts have no more credibility than anyone elses. You sound like a broken record whining the same thing over and over. Get over yourself.

 

[OCA]

I love liberals, watch he won't like that I labeled him a liberal and claim that he's the opposite, but anyway, they always like to talk about logic and come off with this air of moral superiority when its exactly the opposite especially on this topic.

There is no way on gods green earth that one can say or prove that homosexual is as normal as 10 fingers and 10 toes, yet liberals want to talk about denial of rights concerning gays when they really mean "special" rights since they already have every right the same as you and I. Except marriage, ahhhh marriage, i'm afraid they are going to have to find a friend of the opposite sex to marry and then eat their buddies pipe on the side in order to get that one because America isn't giving in on this one.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
I still reject your premiss. The masses of Nazi Germany were under dictoral control, including propaganda and state controlled media.The idea of appealing to the masses of Nazi Germany and present day United States is grossly misrepresented.

The point you made that Nazi Germany was under dictatorial control was an unconsidered factor in my analogy. I think that you made a good point and it influenced me in concluding that it served as a poor example, if not totally unacceptable on the basis of logic. To that extent, I stand, or sit, corrected. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. There may be much better examples, excellent examples, of the fallacy "appealing to the masses". Good night.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by mattskramer
The severity of the act (killing Jews or denying marriage rights to gays) is irrelevant. The example was merely to illustrate the fallacy of appealing to the masses. In each case, many people supported such endeavors.

Your statement "The fact is, gays do not want marriage, they want acceptance" is debatable. It includes the fallacy of mind-reading. Secondly, I think that you are also making the assumption (leap in logic) that marriage will lead to acceptance. One may be opposed to the behavior of another (and not accept the other person) whether or not the other person is married. Thirdly, the "fact" that gays want acceptance does not necessarily serve as a reason why they should, or should not, be allowed to marry.

Concerning your comment "The citizens are entitled to morality", people are entitled to live lives that they consider to be moral (with consideration to whatever laws may restrict them). Morality is subjective. I may think that playing poker is immoral. You might consider it to be amoral or even moral.

Concerning your comment "Majority rule is the law on this country" I agree to an extent. We are a Republic and not a Democracy. We may occasionally vote on local laws directly, Yet, we often vote indirectly for laws via representatives and appointed judges. Judges, and representatives once in office, might support an unpopular policy. Therefore it is not always the case that majority rule on every law or rule presently "in the books" as voted on by representatives.

Concerning your comment, in and of itself, "If the majority wants to ban homosexual marriage, so be it. It is their right to do so", it follows that if the majority wants to have government sanctioned killing of all citizens that have red hair, so be it. It is their right to do so.

Finally, concerning your comment "You can sit there and claim the debating high ground but you just fell off the hill with the above post. You've no credibility at all", I didn't fall of the hill. As exemplified above, I still have a firm grasp of logic and reason and, by such, I am credible.

I don't need to mind read to see the true intent of homosexuals and this marriage issue. If they were so concerned with all people being treated equally, they'd have been up in arms about the fact that married people have paid more in taxes for years and years; they would have been up in arms at the amount of custody cases which were decided in favor of the mother regardless of the circumstances of the father; they'd have rallied against the fact that there is no right to self incrimination protection with a spouse (if it's self, there isn't a third person); if they cared so much for equality, there wouldn't be property rights that are successive to marriage that those who wish to do else would have to hire a lawyer. They have the same protections single people, step-parents siblings, friends and roommates have at their disposal. Ergo, I don't need a mind reader to see that the only thing homosexuals gain from this entire marriage argument is acceptance.

As far as your continued analogy that those who do not believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry are the equivalent of those who wish to murder people, you deserve no response. Anyone with a brain knows the truth- your analogy is bogus and your argument flawed. No logic there.

You have no greater logic than those you are debating...people are entitled to their opinions and you, sir, have expressed yours. It is no more valid or logical than anyone else's including mine.

Morality is not subjective although there are grey areas. However, the moral code of the people is certainly legitimate. If I'm not mistaken, gambling is illegal in the better part of this country.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Moi
Morality is not subjective although there are grey areas. However, the moral code of the people is certainly legitimate. If I'm not mistaken, gambling is illegal in the better part of this country.

I protest that vicious slander obviously directed at the good people of the state of Nevada, and its Queen city, Las Vegas. Shame on you.