- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 2,219
- Reaction score
- 296
- Location
- The Beautiful Yadkin Valley
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The Bible is not my opinion.Sorry. That is YOUR opinion and nothing more.
The Bible is not my opinion.Sorry. That is YOUR opinion and nothing more.
So your morals are out-of-sync with the Bible. In other words, wrong.:roll:Wrong answer. Of course it is relative. The fact that you and I have differernt morals prove that.
Debinked again, as usual.
If all morality is composed of opinion, what is the advantage of treating one's own opinions of morality as anything but fact? Subjective or not, morality is essential to civilized society and the law must exist to enforce these subjective opinions. The only way to effectively attack another person's moral beliefs is to appeal to other, shared, moral beliefs and hope to expose an inconsistency.
I can never tell if you are being serious, because the things you write are so far out in left field it's as if you don't even understand what we're discussing and are putting forth non-sequitors just to throw us off.
So your morals are out-of-sync with the Bible. In other words, wrong.:roll:
My argument did not fail any of your criteria and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. Lets look at them one at a time:
unsound - an unsound argument draws a conclusion from false premises. Here are my premises:
Premise 1: The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone. (note that you have already agreed with this premise)
Premise 2: A marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals.
Premise 3: Not everyone is a married individual
Since you have already admitted to the truth of premise 1, demonstrate that premises 2 or 3 are false, or admit that the argument is sound.
unreasonable - an unreasonable argument is one that does not use reason. My argument is reasoned syllogistically, with premises that can be either true or false, and a conclusion that is drawn necessarily as a result of the premises being true. Demonstrate otherwise or admit that the argument is reasonable.
discriminative - My argument is predicated on the premise that the law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone. It is therefore not discriminative. Demonstrate how preventing the law from recognizing privileges that are not available to everyone is discriminative, or admit that the argument is non-discriminating.
illogical - an illogical argument is one that does not use logic. My argument is reasoned syllogistically, with premises that can be either true or false, and a conclusion that is drawn necessarily as a result of the premises being true. Demonstrate otherwise or admit that it is logical.
bias - A biased argument lends weight to an opinion based on personal benefit from a desired outcome. Both of the premises that you have yet to agree with are statements of fact, rather than opinions.
Premise 2: A marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals.
Premise 3: Not everyone is a married individual
As they are not expressed opinions, they cannot be biased. They are either factually correct, or incorrect. Demonstrate otherwise or admit that the argument is unbiased.
selfish - My argument is a series of premises, and a conclusion drawn logically from those premises. The only premise containing an opinion is the one you already agreed with. The other two are assertions of fact. They are either correct or incorrect. They cannot be selfish any more than any other statement of fact. Saying that 1+1 = 2 is not selfish, because it is simply a statement of fact. Demonstrate how stating facts and drawing conclusions from them is selfish, or admit that the argument is not selfish.
arrogant - A series of premises followed by a conclusion drawn from those premises is not a consciousness of any kind and therefore cannot be arrogant. I might be arrogant, but I am not the argument under discussion. Demonstrate otherwise, or admit that the argument is not arrogant.
hypercritical - A hypercritical argument makes a critique that exceeds standardized criteria to be met. For example if a flight student must maintain altitude within 50 feet, and is then criticized for not maintaining altitude within 10 feet, the instructor is being hypercritical. Demonstrate the standards and how they are exceeded, or admit that the argument is not hypercritical.
and/or anti-american - My argument makes no mention of America one way or the other. Demonstrate otherwise or admit that it is not anti-american.
If all morality is composed of opinion, what is the advantage of treating one's own opinions of morality as anything but fact? Subjective or not, morality is essential to civilized society and the law must exist to enforce these subjective opinions. The only way to effectively attack another person's moral beliefs is to appeal to other, shared, moral beliefs and hope to expose an inconsistency.
The Bible is not my opinion.
So your morals are out-of-sync with the Bible. In other words, wrong.:roll:
The Bible is not my opinion.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I didnt even read any of that drivel because there is no need UNLESS you changed your stance and you can just let me know
ddue give up and move on or just admit you are wrong LMAO
the argument is based on legal marriage existing, and since it does why it is wrong to stop gays from having it
YOU, want all marriage to go away, we get Mr broken record LMAO but until that happens you argument is meaningless to the debate at hand
this isnt rocket scientist, as other posters have said you are clearly trolling or just simply dont understand what is going on in this thread and how wrong you are. I hope its that you are trolling because the latter doesn't work out well for you it shows you are:sinking: fast
Normal is a simple statistical relationship: what most people do.
Morality is fixed in time regardless of your rejection of it.
The anus is not designed for sex and that type of intercourse is unhealthy.
I don't support a ban on anything, just don't tell children that something is healthy when its not.
Since you are having trouble evaluating an argument based on your own criteria, I will help simplify it for you. All you have to do is answer yes or no.
Do you agree that a marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals?
We do not legislate morality. All I ask is don't lie about it.
The Bible is not my opinion.
I'm not disagreeing with you on this: I would say ALL laws are based, to some degree on morality, but you said it yourself. These are subjective opinions. I may have completely different morals as you. That does not make either of our morals good, bad, or anything in between. However, regardless of what I believe, I must modify my behaviors to fit in with the laws of the society in which I live or accept the consequences of not doing so. Morals are not facts, but subjective opinions that can become practical and logistical procedures.
My argument is that these rights should be available to everyone, not just married people. If I want my best friend to inherit my money, or if I want to receive the same tax benefits that married couples do, or if I want to take time off work to take care of my best friend, why should I be denied those benefits just because my relationship with my best friend isn't a sexual one?
The discrimination here isn't against gays. It is against unmarried people. If we let gays become married people, it will still be discrimination against unmarried people. There won't be any less discrimination just because gays are now on the other side of the caste divide.
agreed they are HIS morals and thats it and not fact for anyone but him
Certainly so. But in this case, we're arguing over whose opinions should be upheld as the law. As the law sits, we are currently the ones lobbying for change-- using facts that support the moral opinion we are promoting, based on other moral opinions that we are, at least for the purposes of this argument, treating as facts. For instance, my support for gay marriage is based on my belief that marriage should be the preferred state for adults and that it should be encouraged; in the quote I respond to later in this post, Panache is challenging that belief. Many others, including Panache, argue from the point that the law should not discriminate on moral grounds, a point of view that obviously I do not share.
The Bible.
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
im not having trouble doing anything, if you want to debate a new topic start you own thread doing so and i will gladly answer anything you want in that thread. This thread I want to stay on track and like others have said im not playing your trolling games. LOL
Maybe you arent trolling and really believe what you said but no matter how much you want it to be the same its not, its a different topic. Start your thread and ill gladly join
Thanks:2wave:
True, but the same applies to your morals as well. Your belief that homosexuality is acceptable and that homosexual marriage is an acceptable permutation of the institution of marriage, that deserves the same recognition as the forms of marriage currently accepted in our society, is your opinion and it is not a fact for anyone who disagrees with you.
No, your morals are notning but your opinion, hence valueless as they prove nothing. And since they are out of sync with my morals, they are wrong.
See how easy that was? You have no logic.
Mine have a basis, yours do not. That was very easy.
Oh, and Southern Man... prove that the morals stated in the Bible are both definitive and authoritative... and right lol. Links and research are required. If you cannot, then you demonstrate that you position is nothing but opinion.