- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 47,477
- Reaction score
- 53,180
- Location
- Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
nice piece of reading here, Thanks you
Thank you. It is a pity I cannot say the same about your reply.
I still see nothing sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage
Ah, my post was "nice reading", but my concerns are unsound, unreasonable, biased, selfish, arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-american. :monkey
my favorite two parts are admitting that gay marriage has been around for over 1000 years and in rome but still proclaiming how rare it is. Only rare compared to the majority. and that you think that allowing gay marriage would be "forcing" a definition change LMAO it would "force" anything.
Any honest reading of history demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of cultures, in the overwhelming majority of time periods, did not officially permit or sanction gay marriage, including most of ancient Greece and most of the span of the Roman Empire. Historically it has indeed been extremely rare. I didn't say "utterly nonexistent", I said "extremely rare". I said that the historical norm has overwhelmingly been male-female marriage. Prove otherwise with appropriate sources before denigrating my statement.
As I noted, the burden of proof is on those who wish to redefine the existing institution.
Again you are clearly welcome to you opinion and i appreciate your post, its a good on IMO atleast writing wise but has a bunch of fallacy and fantasy in it. it also hasnt convinced me one bit that denying them marriage is also denying them equal rights. I also never buy into the fantasy that marriage is about children because tons of people married never have them nor is it required. That is a totally out dated assumption that has no barring in the real world today.
It is not my purpose to convince you of anything. It is your purpose to convince me, if you wish my support for your cause. So far, all you've done is denigrate my concerns as fantasy, fallacy, biased, selfish, arrogant, etc etc. Way to win friends and influence people, old chap. :roll:
as for the slope there is none except on the consenting adults part. I wouldnt care if people want to have polygamy either, its NONE OF MY BUSINESS what others do in marriage and relationships as long as its consensual.
also you cant NOT sue a church in this country based on religious beliefs so that is MEANINGLESS against gay marriage because the fact of the matter is STRAIGHT couples are already turned away by churches so the "potential" to sue already is there but not allowed by law. Allowing gay marriage wouldnt change this one bit.
So you think that the militant faction would stop with gay marriage and say "okay, we're good now, that's all." Oddly enough I haven't seen militant movements ever proclaiming that they've arrived at their goal and may now disband. Not to mention people sue over all manner of things... the Boyscout lawsuit comes to mind, an attempt to force a religious organization to accept something their convictions did not allow.
You make many assertions, but all I see are opinions and not evidence. Again, the burden of proof is on you.
lastly if we hold true to AMERICA there will never be laws that are against teaching gay is wrong that would change EVERYTHING. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc Thats just asinine.
I'm in my mid-forties. I have already seen astonishing changes in America in a mere four decades. Many things that were inconcievable four decades ago are now common. I am not reassured by your hyperbolic but unproven assertions.
is it illegal to teach women arent equal? minorities arent equal? interracial marriages are wrong now? of course not because this is america, not canada not some other country and that fantasy you are worried about isnt going to happen over gay marriage LMAO
Ah, yes, laughing at me is certainly an effective tool in convincing me that your side of the argument is valid, admirable, necessary, positive and that I should cease to oppose it at once. (/irony)
Your grasp of the art of persuasion leaves something to be desired. Did you wish to persuade people to support SSM, or simply to denigrate anyone who disagrees?
You exhibit many hyperpartisan characteristics for someone who claims the name of "centrist". :roll:
Many of peoples arguments were the same shallow, fearful, selfish and silly ones that people came up for for women and equal rights and interracial marriage. They held no barring then and they certainly hold none now.
Ah, so now I am shallow, fearful and selfish, and equated with racists and sexists.
Yes, your powers of persuasion are formidable. I have been utterly persuaded... that you completely lack the capacity to debate an issue honestly and openly without resorting to hackery, ad-hominem, hyperbole and insults.
Congratulations, you utterly failed to convince me to adopt a pro-SSM position. Well done.
I'm sure that your dignity, eloquence, well-sourced data, well-reasoned logic, and personal warmth was also impressive to any bystanders who might have been following the argument and considering which side to favor. Good show.
G.
Last edited: