• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

CaptainCourtesy said:
Every slippery slope argument you presented was summerily refuted either by me or someone else. Easily and without much effort I might add.



You have no understanding or grasp of this issue whatsoever. Your entire argument lacks logic and since it is very difficult to discuss any issue with someone who doesn't seem to understand basic logical tenets in discussion, discussing this issue with you has been challenging. No substance can be presented, since you can't present information without it being logically wrong. For instance, as CT said, what you posted above is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy and is therefore not pertinent. You don't seem to understand these basic concepts even though they have been pointed out.



So, along with your standard slippery slope logical fallacy... something that your entire position is based upon, we can add an appeal to emotion to your repertoire. Good job.
Click to expand...

No you hold the banner for emotional arguments. Your record is easily accessed.
And it is not an argument to continually attack another who disagrees with you every time claim it as a fallacy. Duh.
Like I said I have a real pretty pair of socks with your name on it. :)
 
LuckyLarry said:
Your's and other's attempt to distance your argument for same sex couples to marry from incest, polygamy, and beastiality by calling it a slippery slope and therefore semantically devaluing the correlation is hypocritical and unsuccessful.

These other smaller (and therefore less popular/powerful) groups have been using your arguments for years.... . Their lack of numbers has kept them from being successful with these arguments. But if the current path of acceptance of deviant behaviors that this nation is headed in continues it is not hyperbolic or slippery to expect a similar path to Same Sibling Marriage as taken by Same Sex Marriage.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say dude. Hate away
 
vesper said:
No you hold the banner for emotional arguments. Your record is easily accessed.
And it is not an argument to continually attack another who disagrees with you as a fallacy. Duh.
Like I said I have a real pretty pair of socks with your name on it. :)
Click to expand...

And of course you have nothing of substance with which to counter anything I said. Just the emotion that you showed in your last line. That is known as self-pwnage.
 
LuckyLarry said:
Correct. And any man has the option to marry any other woman and any woman has the option to marry any other man. Fair and equal application.
Click to expand...

I see, so you'd rather a gay guy marry your daughter, interesting. How would it be for you i wonder, if opposite sex marriage is banned and you can only "fairly and equally" marry the same sex.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
OK, ok, we all... and notice I used the word WE, need to settle down and stick to debating, not baiting and making attacks. Let's all try to tone things down... all four of us especially.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Sorry, the debate has already been framed and you are running from it because you committed many flaws, so I am helping you to do so. Tell me how the entire discussion on condom use started, what your position was and what my position was.
Click to expand...

You cited a study of 20 men and condom use.

Who did the study? When was the study done? Where was the study done?

Or was there no 20 man condom study? You said there was. Can you or can you not provide proof of this particular 20 man condom study. Not some link to a consolidated report of condom use but the actual 20 man condom study you claimed existed to have based your post on. Show all of us the 20 man condom study.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
You cited a study of 20 men and condom use.

Who did the study? When was the study done? Where was the study done?

Or was there no 20 man condom study? You said there was. Can you or can you not provide proof of this particular 20 man condom study. Not some link to a consolidated report of condom use but the actual 20 man condom study you claimed existed to have based your post on. Show all of us the 20 man condom study.
Click to expand...

We've been over this. Context is important. Tell me how the entire discussion on condom use started, what your position was and what my position was.
 
vesper said:
The laws to abolish it were in direct result of its detriment on society.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was based on assumptions. They had no way to study what effects homosexuality had on society at that point in time.

To be blunt, there is a reason you are relying on an appeal to tradition fallacy. You don't know how homosexuality would be a detriment to society, so you are assuming that the ancient people had good reasons. It is clear that is the case because in all the posts you have made, you have yet to articulate exactly what argument you think the ancient people made regarding homosexuality being a detriment.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
We've been over this. Context is important. Tell me how the entire discussion on condom use started, what your position was and what my position was.
Click to expand...

Context has nothing to do with it. The 20 man condom study exists or it does not exist.

You said it did.

Who did it? When was it done? Where was it done?
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Context has nothing to do with it. The 20 man condom study exists or it does not exist.

You said it did.

Who did it? When was it done? Where was it done?
Click to expand...

Context of how you framed your comment does. Tell me how the entire discussion on condom use started, what your position was and what my position was.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Context of how you framed your comment does. Tell me how the entire discussion on condom use started, what your position was and what my position was.
Click to expand...

You claimed a 20 man condom study existed and you made a post based on such.

Who did the 20 man condom study? When was the 20 man condom study done? Where was the 20 man condom study done?

Not 500 man study, not 1,000 man study, not a consolidated report of condom use. The 20 man condom study you said existed.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
You claimed a 20 man condom study existed and you made a post based on such.

Who did the 20 man condom study? When was the 20 man condom study done? Where was the 20 man condom study done?

Not 500 man study, not 1,000 man study, not a consolidated report of condom use. The 20 man condom study you said existed.
Click to expand...

You discussed the study in a specific context and made a specific response. To understand your error in that response, one must see the discussion trail. Tell me how the entire discussion on condom use started, what your position was and what my position was.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Context of how you framed your comment does. Tell me how the entire discussion on condom use started, what your position was and what my position was.
Click to expand...

I first asked you for the 20 man condom study at 11:39.

You've played cat and mouse ever since.

It's 00:52, no 20 man condom study from you.

The only conclusion I can come to is, it does not exist. If it did, you would have cited it by now.
 
chromium said:
I see, so you'd rather a gay guy marry your daughter, interesting. How would it be for you i wonder, if opposite sex marriage is banned and you can only "fairly and equally" marry the same sex.
Click to expand...

Your comment reaches for strange conclusions and doesn't follow logic. Give me a scenario grounded in reality and we can discuss it. ;)
 
CriticalThought said:
Actually, it was based on assumptions. They had no way to study what effects homosexuality had on society at that point in time.

To be blunt, there is a reason you are relying on an appeal to tradition fallacy. You don't know how homosexuality would be a detriment to society, so you are assuming that the ancient people had good reasons. It is clear that is the case because in all the posts you have made, you have yet to articulate exactly what argument you think the ancient people made regarding homosexuality being a detriment.
Click to expand...

There you go again like a good homosexual claiming everything is a fallacy. geesh.

What you fail to acknowledge , history proves why homosexual behavior was detrimental to the ancient societies. It proves why there was a great effort to suppress it. Learn your history and then we can discuss things further.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
You discussed the study in a specific context and made a specific response. To understand your error in that response, one must see the discussion trail. Tell me how the entire discussion on condom use started, what your position was and what my position was.
Click to expand...

No you claimed a study existed that you cannot provide proof exists. You've had ample time.

No need wasting your breath on proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it with me (or anyone else). You do not follow what you accuse others of.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Moderator's Warning:
OK, ok, we all... and notice I used the word WE, need to settle down and stick to debating, not baiting and making attacks. Let's all try to tone things down... all four of us especially.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in debating with someone like that. Baiting and attacks is all he's good for.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
I first asked you for the 20 man condom study at 11:39.

You've played cat and mouse ever since.

It's 00:52, no 20 man condom study from you.

The only conclusion I can come to is, it does not exist. If it did, you would have cited it by now.
Click to expand...

Good. You and I are looking at the same post.

This is not the context in which you brought up the study at 11:39. Here is my comment:

And my link supports precisely what I said.
Click to expand...

And here is the pertinent part of your response:

What you said?
Click to expand...

Now, what was I referring to? Two things. The link (which was the link to the metastudy) and "what I said" which was my position on condoms in schools which started this entire thing. Context. Now, that's why I have been repeatedly posting my challenge for you to describe where the discussion started and what our positions were, since this is the context of which I was referring in my comments. Can you do that?
 
chromium said:
I'm not interested in debating with someone like that. Baiting and attacks is all he's good for.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Please do not comment on moderation, publicly.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
No you claimed a study existed that you cannot provide proof exists. You've had ample time.

No need wasting your breath on proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it with me (or anyone else). You do not follow what you accuse others of.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point of the entire issue. Context. I explained it in post #945.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You are missing the point of the entire issue. Context. I explained it in post #945.
Click to expand...

Nope.

The 20 man condom study you claimed existed, never did. Context has nothing to do with you making something up.

You either told something factual or you did not. We have now proven it was not fact, you made a study up out of thin air to support a claim.

Integrity and honesty, try it sometime. Everybody that has been reading all this can see exactly what you are doing. You just keep making it worse on yourself. But that's your problem, not mine.
 
vesper said:
There you go again like a good homosexual claiming everything is a fallacy. geesh.

What you fail to acknowledge , history proves why homosexual behavior was detrimental to the ancient societies. It proves why there was a great effort to suppress it. Learn your history and then we can discuss things further.
Click to expand...

Prove me wrong. All you have to do is articulate the reason you think ancient people believed homosexuality was a detriment to society. You claim the reasons they had are still valid today so let us hear exactly what their reasons were.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Juanita said:
Where have you been? There are already many, many gay marriages and they "are" recognized by society..and they are happy and doing fine...
Click to expand...
Thankfully for society, not that "many"... enough to call into question the idea of marriage, so shame on all of you folks who believe that way and willing to risk something that is not yours ... its the rest of us who are not "fine" with it. Sorry, its not normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom