For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Affect You?

winston53660 · 02-14-09, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

No they don't. If you have an IQ of 60 you don't have an equal opportunity to one who has one of 150..

LOL, obviously you are not considering American politicians.

razz · 02-14-09, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

No they don't. If you have an IQ of 60 you don't have an equal opportunity to one who has one of 150.

How did Bush win?

Wessexman · 02-14-09, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razz

What are you talking about?

Of course they both have the equal opportunity to achieve high office, just one has a better opportunity to do so because of his intellect...how in the world does that mean the opportunity to archive it isnt equal?

The men ARE equal, their strengths are NOT

You contradict yourself directly

You say they have equal opportunity and then say one has a better opportunity.

I already explained that what is meant by the term equal opportunity is legal impedement in many cases. The point is there are many legal impedements to many things. A constructive argument that is not a vague appeal to a generalised equality is needed.

independent_thinker2002 · 02-14-09, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

No they don't. If you have an IQ of 60 you don't have an equal opportunity to one who has one of 150. What you mean is there is no legal impedement. There is for gays to marry, as there is for thieves to steal DVDs, you are trying to prove why the former should not be but talking about equality in the vague, generalised way you do does not help much.

There is no law about minimum IQ here. Sure, it's very unlikely they would get elected, but they have the right to run if they can garner support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

Group is a vague term.

I mean a group that they have no choice in belonging to. Unless they have impediments like retardation or something likewise, there is no logical reason to bar them from equal opportunity.

CaptainCourtesy · 02-14-09, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walleye

Alcoholism and drug addiction are spiritual diseases in the opinion of many people. I am one of those who hold that view.

In my view they are psychological disorders, though spiruality can help with treating them. Regardless, you still have not shown the causational relationship between being gay and having less spirituality.

Quote:

Gotta run. I have a gig tonight.

Enjoy. I have to go home from work. Been here way to long talking with you folks.

Wessexman · 02-14-09, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razz

How did Bush win?

Bush implies things about American politician's IQs, whereas Obama implies them about the people's.....

Wessexman · 02-14-09, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

There is no law about minimum IQ here. Sure, it's very unlikely they would get elected, but they have the right to run if they can garner support.

I know there is no law. The point is you are basing your argument on vague and generalised equality this is nonsense and dangerous.

Quote:

I mean a group that they have no choice in belonging to. Unless they have impediments like retardation or something likewise, there is no logical reason to bar them from equal opportunity.

Institutions should be completely remade upon the whims of the individual reason particularly such vague and generalised ones as you are offering. Your saying I object to this ancient belief structure about marriage and my own individual reason, which certainly cannot comprehend all the complexities and interconnectness of society, sees no reason for it to be continued so lets quickly and rashly overturn it.

razz · 02-14-09, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

You contradict yourself directly

You say they have equal opportunity and then say one has a better opportunity.

Let me dumb it down for you with an example

To be in the NBA you must be very good at basketball, every human being as the opportunity to be very good at basketball and the NBA does not discriminate in terms of talent.

If you are tall, hire a professional coach, and have genetics that have given you the ability to jump higher then your chance of getting into the NBA is increased.

The NBA does not discriminate against the two, thus someone who is short and doesnt jump high will not be discriminated against as long as their overall basketball skills are good enough...but just because someone has a slight advantage in terms of a particular skill set does not mean the opportunity to achieve the elite status is impeded.

get it now?

Wessexman · 02-14-09, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razz

Let me dumb it down for you with an example

To be in the NBA you must be very good at basketball, every human being as the opportunity to be very good at basketball and the NBA does not discriminate in terms of talent.

If you are tall, hire a professional coach, and have genetics that have given you the ability to jump higher then your chance of getting into the NBA is increased.

The NBA does not discriminate against the two, thus someone who is short and doesnt jump high will not be discriminated against as long as their overall basketball skills are good enough...but just because someone has a slight advantage in terms of a particular skill set does not mean the opportunity to achieve the elite status is impeded.

get it now?

I already got it and explained it. You're a bit slow aren't you.

If you like to steal computers the law discriminates against you, if you like to marry men it does as well. A constructive argument that isn't just a vague appeal to generalised equality is needed to show why the latter is wrong.

CaptainCourtesy · 02-14-09, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

But I don't care about being called on it. I admitted to it. I simply disagreed with you, who incidently are my opponent in a heated discussion, that my partisanship is bad for my arguments.

And I disagree with you on this. Using partisanship as substantiation in order to dismiss a position, shows bias and presents no evidence. It is weak.

Quote:

They are well known for it. But evidence abounds on this site. Look at half of Hateuy's posts if you don't believe me.

And conservatives are well known for overgeneralizations. I can point out 3 or 4 posters who's entire body of posts show that.

See? So what? That does not mean conservatives or liberals in general do it. I can point out plenty of liberals and conservatives on this site who don't. You are overgeneralizing to dismiss an argument from a partisan standpoint. It is weak. You are entitled to do it, but that doesn't change what it is.

Quote:

Here is an interesting article on it.

Hot Air Blog Archive Krauthammer: Racism “last refuge of the liberal scoundrel”

And I can find articles that show standard weak conservative arguments. So?

Quote:

I have no doubt it is not all liberals and probably not you but a certain section of liberal have become known for it, with or without justification.

Good. THIS is the point I am making. There are certain liberals and conservatives that hold onto partisan talking points, that have no or weak evidence, and refuse to be open-minded about issues. It is these people that cannot argue positions without dismissing an ideology, because without it, they have nothing.

And, what you said above is not overgeneralizing, but a position I share with pertaining to both sides of the aisle. Thank you.

Quote:

Yes that is a opinion born out by this thread where it is implied, yes I certainly do no shy away from reading between the lines, that not having gay marriage is a grevious sin that needs remedying as soon as possible. But actually I did already give evidence for this, I talked of the EUroplot parliament.

Then you and I have a different opinion of the word "force" in this situation, perhaps based on where we live.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to winston53660 For This Useful Post:
razz, Wessexman