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

Wessexman · 02-14-09, 11:03 PM

I can put forward an argument in favour of gay marriage which doesn't rely on such sillyness. Basically there are already many people engaging in homosexual behaviour in our society. If we encourage them cautiously to seek stronger unions then it boosts the strength of famial ties in our society, which strengthens our society in a time of corrosive atomism.

Wessexman · 02-14-09, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

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.

I didn't do this. I made an offhand comment that I believe has some validity and is quite well accepted. I didn't realise I was supposed to write an 3000 word essay backing it up.

Quote:

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

I can show you more than that. I'm Conservative, I wouldn't say I was a Conservative. If I was to describe my position in one word it would be decentralist.

Quote:

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.

All I'm saying is that is often noted that some liberals do this and there is some cause for believing this.

Quote:

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

Good for you.

Quote:

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.

So? This has little to do with me. At least they can partake in discussions without strange, pseudointellectual dissections of unimportant parts of an opponents argument.

Quote:

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

It was a pleasure. That was what I meant all along.

CaptainCourtesy · 02-14-09, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

I can put forward an argument in favour of gay marriage which doesn't rely on such sillyness. Basically there are already many people engaging in homosexual behaviour in our society. If we encourage them cautiously to seek stronger unions then it boosts the strength of famial ties in our society, which strengthens our society in a time of corrosive atomism.

I agree. Further since research shows that those in committed relationships (marriage) tend to be healthier and to stay in those relationships, and that children in two-parent committed relationships have better outcomes than children that do not, the government would have investment in supporting/sponsoring gay civil unions. Notice I did not say marriage, as I believe that marriage should be secured for religion, only.

See? You and I are pretty close, positionally, when we get beyond all the silliness.

CaptainCourtesy · 02-14-09, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

I didn't do this. I made an offhand comment that I believe has some validity and is quite well accepted. I didn't realise I was supposed to write an 3000 word essay backing it up.

Well, now you know.

Quote:

I can show you more than that. I'm Conservative, I wouldn't say I was a Conservative. If I was to describe my position in one word it would be decentralist.

This is probably where we disagree at the core. I would describe myself as a centralist, to some extent.

Quote:

All I'm saying is that is often noted that some liberals do this and there is some cause for believing this.

And all I'm saying is, so what? It does nothing for your position except weaken it.

Quote:

Good for you.

Remember that.

Quote:

So? This has little to do with me. At least they can partake in discussions without strange, pseudointellectual dissections of unimportant parts of an opponents argument.

It has everything to do with you when you do it. It makes dissecting your position and exposing it's weakness far easier. Now I know that you do not like losing at a debate as much as I, so I would think you would abstain from presenting weakness.

Quote:

It was a pleasure. That was what I meant all along.

Good. Thanks for the clarification.

CaptainCourtesy · 02-14-09, 11:16 PM

Gotta go. Good debating with y'all.

Jerry · 02-14-09, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

I can put forward an argument in favour of gay marriage which doesn't rely on such sillyness. Basically there are already many people engaging in homosexual behaviour in our society. If we encourage them cautiously to seek stronger unions then it boosts the strength of famial ties in our society, which strengthens our society in a time of corrosive atomism.

If only gay-marriage proponants made that argument....if only.

emdash · 02-14-09, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

Huh? Just make your point.
Is there a clause that deals with homosexual marriage, and if so, post it.
Failure to do so will indicate that you have no point, IMO.

I made my point very clearly. that you cannot or will not see it is neither my concern or my fault.

Wessexman · 02-14-09, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

This is probably where we disagree at the core. I would describe myself as a centralist, to some extent

Sad to hear.

Quote:

And all I'm saying is, so what? It does nothing for your position except weaken it.

Not necessarily. You obviously haven't read much Burke or Disraeli. I consider ironic and incisive attacks on one's political opponents to spice up the argument. I'm nowhere near as eloquent as the above so I probably lack the wit and incisiveness they commaned but that is a fault with my writing prowess and not the technique itself.

Quote:

It has everything to do with you when you do it. It makes dissecting your position and exposing it's weakness far easier. Now I know that you do not like losing at a debate as much as I, so I would think you would abstain from presenting weakness.

But you spent several pages ignoring my major arguments and focusing on some offhand comments. What you mean is that if you do it in a pseudo-intellectual enough way then some sympathetic bystanders may take it for a serious and damaging attack on my position.

Quote:

Good. Thanks for the clarification.

A pleasure...plus you know liberals suck.

emdash · 02-14-09, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razz

Google their names, one of the idiots wrote an anti-Obama book (wow, doctors have time for that?) and the other is a fervent opponent to abortion and is connected with the catholic church

By the way, why did you ignore my question about banning Christians from marriage, was that the nail in the coffin for you?

since when does any of those things mean you are a bigot?

anyone who doesn't like obama is a bigot?
anyone who is pro-life is a bigot?
anyone "connected with the catholic church" is a bigot?

isn't being a total jackass against the rules around here?

independent_thinker2002 · 02-14-09, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

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

To be more specific, people shouldn't be discriminated against systematically for race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wessexman

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.

Marriage is a personal relationship. No one else's marriage has any bearing on my own. There has been no evidence proffered that there would be any effect on society by allowing gays to marry.

02-14-09, 11:03 PM	#1131
Wessexman Dorset Patriot Join Date: Nov 2008 Last Seen: 10-04-09 11:07 AM Location: Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.) Posts: 6,008 Thanks: 1,164 Thanked 1,180 Times in 870 Posts Lean: Libertarian Gender:	Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Affect You I can put forward an argument in favour of gay marriage which doesn't rely on such sillyness. Basically there are already many people engaging in homosexual behaviour in our society. If we encourage them cautiously to seek stronger unions then it boosts the strength of famial ties in our society, which strengthens our society in a time of corrosive atomism.
	__________________ The Wessex society. “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I despise equality.” John Randolph of Roanoke.

02-14-09, 11:16 PM	#1135
CaptainCourtesy Resident Despot Mod Team Member Join Date: May 2006 Last Seen: Today 07:08 AM Posts: 32,229 Thanks: 9,602 Thanked 9,154 Times in 5,553 Posts Gender: Total Awards: 1	Re: For Those Opposing Gay Marriage: Answer This One Question: How Does It Affect You Gotta go. Good debating with y'all.
	__________________ "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run ====\|\|:-D

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

The Following User Says Thank You to Wessexman For This Useful Post:
CaptainCourtesy

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jerry For This Useful Post:
CaptainCourtesy, Wessexman

The Following User Says Thank You to emdash For This Useful Post:
jamesrage