Ambar wrote:Viclor Voddyn wrote:Only argument that can stand up to non-gay rights, is God says its BAD.
yeah out of context and all ..
who has had a person to person talk with God lately?
Bush...
Ambar wrote:Viclor Voddyn wrote:Only argument that can stand up to non-gay rights, is God says its BAD.
yeah out of context and all ..
who has had a person to person talk with God lately?
moritheil wrote:It was my understanding that the entire purpose of this was to use the term 'marriage' for heterosexual couples and coin some other term for other couples - but to ultimately grant some sort of official standing to both.
I haven't paid close attention to politics in a long time. Is this incorrect?
teflor the ranger wrote:1) The Government Has No Right to Force the Acceptance of Gay Marriage upon a Majority that Resents It
This is horribly true through and through. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, no matter how much the liberal left wishes to inflate itself. While it's true the government forced desegregation, etc, etc. They had good reason (which is why it began in the military). Give them a good enough reason and your government will force the majority to accept something it does not want.
There is no real tangible benefit to allowing gay marriages in this country as of this moment. And no, being a gay marriage terrorist will just make the moral majority hate you even more.
Viclor Voddyn wrote:teflor the ranger wrote:1) The Government Has No Right to Force the Acceptance of Gay Marriage upon a Majority that Resents It
This is horribly true through and through. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, no matter how much the liberal left wishes to inflate itself. While it's true the government forced desegregation, etc, etc. They had good reason (which is why it began in the military). Give them a good enough reason and your government will force the majority to accept something it does not want.
There is no real tangible benefit to allowing gay marriages in this country as of this moment. And no, being a gay marriage terrorist will just make the moral majority hate you even more.
This is true.
shalath wrote:FIRSTLY - from a secular point of view:
SECOND - from a religious point of view:
I was brought up in a mixture of Polish and English Catholic traditions. The Catholic church says that homosexual relations are a SIN and if you do not REPENT, you will BURN IN HELL for ever for your actions.
Mind you, the catholic church also says that masturbation is a sin. As is sex before marriage (a catholic marriage of course, legal marriages are irrelevant in the eyes of the church, so all those sinners fucking after their registry office weddings will BURN IN HELL for ever too).
As a matter of fact, 'recreational sex' is also theoretically a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church even when you are married. That is, any sexual act which does not take place specifically for the purpose of procreation is a sin, even between a married couple, in the strictest catholic tradition.
-thalash
Sarvis wrote:Can you explain the difference between segregation of blacks and this current subjugation of the gays?
Then take a go at how peaceful and non-confrontational the fight for the civil rights of black people were when they got rid of that segregation.
Lastly, explain how desegregation was really beneficial to the country beyond lessening the civil unrest being experienced at the time.
Go back to Lincoln, he freed the slaves because he understad as a human that slavery is wrong. He fought to do so, and it was actually tremendously _harmful_ to agriculture in the South.
teflor the ranger wrote:Seriously, it's like you would rather hear your own voices than convince anybody. Here's a bit of insight as to why some arguements don't work.
teflor the ranger wrote:1) Seperation of Church and State
The main reason why this won't work is because it is a State of the People, and the State has no right to Seperate People from Church. Furthermore, most religions abhor gay unions. The State must be a Moral State, and therefore need to follow the guidelines of the Morality that the People provide. Some of this is bound to end up from the Church. Like not killing, or stealing, or coveting your neighbors wife (all also illegal, btw. or would you rather allow murders to kill you because the State must be seperate from Church).
teflor the ranger wrote:2) You Are Just As Immoral
Ok, offensive for the first part, which will put people on the defensive. This is like self-deleting. The louder you shout after this the louder they will shout back. Furthermore, any religious person will remind you that we are all sinners to begin with. They will still be strongly against their government allowing gay marraige.
teflor the ranger wrote:1) The Government Has No Right to Force the Acceptance of Gay Marriage upon a Majority that Resents It
This is horribly true through and through. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, no matter how much the liberal left wishes to inflate itself. While it's true the government forced desegregation, etc, etc. They had good reason (which is why it began in the military). Give them a good enough reason and your government will force the majority to accept something it does not want.
teflor the ranger wrote:There is no real tangible benefit to allowing gay marriages in this country as of this moment. And no, being a gay marriage terrorist will just make the moral majority hate you even more.
teflor the ranger wrote:2) As Soon As The Church Starts Accepting Gay Marriage the State Will as Well
This is just a cold, hard fact. It has nothing to do with the influence of the church upon the state, but a reaffirmation of the effect of the people upon the state as well as the right to religion. As soon as mainstream churches (you know, ones with more than 2000 members nationwide) accept gay marriage, you will see a re-exploration of the subject of gay marriage.
teflor the ranger wrote:Before you Flame:
I do not actually have a stance on whether or not gay marriage should or should not be outlawed.
Dlur wrote:shalath wrote:FIRSTLY - from a secular point of view:
SECOND - from a religious point of view:
I was brought up in a mixture of Polish and English Catholic traditions. The Catholic church says that homosexual relations are a SIN and if you do not REPENT, you will BURN IN HELL for ever for your actions.
Mind you, the catholic church also says that masturbation is a sin. As is sex before marriage (a catholic marriage of course, legal marriages are irrelevant in the eyes of the church, so all those sinners fucking after their registry office weddings will BURN IN HELL for ever too).
As a matter of fact, 'recreational sex' is also theoretically a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church even when you are married. That is, any sexual act which does not take place specifically for the purpose of procreation is a sin, even between a married couple, in the strictest catholic tradition.
-thalash
[...]
Kifle wrote:First, there is no seperation of church and state...no where in the constitution. Also, you are confusing morality with religious dogma and doctrines. Morality is a completely different entity than the church. Churches are only seen as institutions of morality...their own morality. As far as your last argument there...murder is one person being responsible for taking another's right to live. Homosexual marriages, on the other hand, hurt nobody. This is why most, if not all, countries will adopt this "no murder" commandment as law. I'd like to see somebody try to justify slaver by saying, "What, you want to abolish slavery? Well, we might as well just start killing people as we chose then because it's in the same ballpark!"
Kifle wrote:The majority of the country was for burning witches, enslaving mexicans, indians, and africans. The majority was for the repression of women. The majority of the country where for the enslavement of chinese. Astoundingly, the majority where wrong... Just because the majority wills it does not mean it is right, and, since this is true, no government should ever segregate or discriminate a group of people based on majority. Segregation and discrimination are inherently bad and do nothing good for the country except let people live in the past.
Kifle wrote:There was no tangible benefit from african's being freed either. Hell, we lost a lot of free labor. There was no tangible benefit from letting blacks drink out of the white's drinking fountains either -- none at all...yet it was still proven wrong and it was still changed. These are very poor logic arguments and this is why bigotry is idiotic.
Kifle wrote:The government should never wait to follow the suit of the Church. They did this in the middle ages, and I would have hoped we had learned from their mistakes by now. No matter how many people wish to stay in the dark ages, the government should not base it's laws around victimless morals created by any church or religion.
Kifle wrote:Don't take this as a flame at all, but these arguments are extremely weak. Most of their basis is set on fallicies of logic. They are also based on the idea of keeping unconstitutional laws for the simple fact that the church and majority deems it so -- even though they wrong and have been proven wrong by the past on countless occasions.
Kifle wrote:The chances of changing anybody's mind on most moral issues is about .001% chance anyway, so arguing any point at all can be concidered a waste of time...just how life is.
teflor the ranger wrote:Now for some seperate aruging points:
1) The Government Has No Right to Force the Acceptance of Gay Marriage upon a Majority that Resents It
This is horribly true through and through. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, no matter how much the liberal left wishes to inflate itself. While it's true the government forced desegregation, etc, etc. They had good reason (which is why it began in the military). Give them a good enough reason and your government will force the majority to accept something it does not want.
There is no real tangible benefit to allowing gay marriages in this country as of this moment. And no, being a gay marriage terrorist will just make the moral majority hate you even more.
shalath wrote:FIRSTLY - from a secular point of view:
Here in the UK, unmarried couples have the same rights as married couples. You simply have to be living together, in a permanent relationship. This applies to any couple living together, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
Marriage is an historically important legal institution, but is not "necessary". In fact, the statistics here are interesting (much as I despise statistics). One in three marriages in the UK end in divorce. I'm not sure how that compares to the US, but it's a frightening statistic. Conversely, 40% of long term relationships here in the UK are unmarried couples. This is a trend that is growing.
-thalash
teflor the ranger wrote:The seperation of church and state is not written in the constitution, but it is a tenant upon which this nation is founded. It would be foolish to not consider the foundation as part of the structure. Furthermore, the Church has had a history with setting popular Morality, also which cannot be ignored.
teflor the ranger wrote:Just because something is Right does not give the government the Right to Force its people to do so. For instance, it would be Right for our Government to Halt the Genocide in Sudan, but in order to do so, our country would have to mount a military mission larger than what we have in Iraq. Furthermore, this is also why the government does not have the Right to do as it pleases without at least the tenative consent of a moral majority of it's people.
teflor the ranger wrote:Do not confuse the Numerical Majority with the Moral Majority, as a moral majority merely states that the action would be considered moral by it's people, whether or not they support the necessary actions.
teflor the ranger wrote:The then "War Department" also published a report of the tangible benefits of the desegregation of the Armed Forces
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto ... genumber=1
(if that link has trouble, just search for "Utilization of Negro Manpower in Postwar Army Policy")
Desegregation actually occured primarily through the judicial branch of government, or the action of Supreme Court Justices in the cases,
Plessy vs. Ferguson
Brown vs. Board of Ed
You can read the opinions of the Judges at
http://www.law.cornell.edu (direct case linking sucks)
Furthermore, one tangible benefit was that public faclilites didn't have to order double sets of everything.
teflor the ranger wrote:Kifle wrote:The government should never wait to follow the suit of the Church. They did this in the middle ages, and I would have hoped we had learned from their mistakes by now. No matter how many people wish to stay in the dark ages, the government should not base it's laws around victimless morals created by any church or religion.
Yet you've suppied no alternative. I don't believe government should wait to follow suit, but if the Church should change, Govenrment should change with it. You can't exactly stay ahead fo the Church as there is no real way to know what direction the Church is headed.
teflor the ranger wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that gurantees the right of Marriage, and thus, these laws are not unconstitutional. In fact, in the Federal Government, all we really have is the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.
Kifle wrote:It is not written in the constitution...that is exactly right. Therefor, by your standards given here:
"There is nothing in the constitution that gurantees the right of Marriage, and thus, these laws are not unconstitutional."
There should be no seperation of church and state? By your standards we are to accept implications of the constitution only when it favors the church?
Kifle wrote:Your example here has a few fatal flaws. In your example the government would have to spend enormous amount of cash, possibley make some enemies in the world, lose the lives of our countrymen, etc... Those reasons are why we do not stop the genocide right now. However, none of those reprocussions would come to be if you legalized gay marriage. Nothing bad would happen because it doesn't effect anybody. At the end of that statement you talk about moral majority. Again, moral majority has been shown to be wrong. To continue to stagnate the country's moral evolution because of archaic institutions is ignorant and irresponsible. This would make the argument weak.
Kifle wrote:Uh, a majority it is a quantitative measurement...dealing with numbers. A moral majority is a numerical majority. Even still, again, this would say that slavery is good, abortion is good (ancient greek/roman/mesopatamian/etc... morals), and burning women at the stake is good. What's wrong is wrong regardless of a majority.
Kifle wrote:Delmair gave a great example of the tangible benefits homosexuals would recieve...and in Bush's logic, since they would get more money, our economy would raise because they would spend it on consumer goods. That's an enormous tangible benefit. As far as the benefits of not having slavery? I'm sure corperations would greatly desire slave labor if it was acceptable. And, again in bush's logic, or more precisely, Regan's logic, the corperations would be making so much money it would trickle down upon us like a golden shower from God. The benefits from abolishing slavery do not outweigh the cost...the benefits from legalizing gay marriages would.
Kifle wrote:You want an alternative...ignore the church! There have been much better philosophers in this world that have not come from a church. If indeed the constitution does imply a seperation of church and state, and if we in fact should accept this implication as law, the government should never make a law based solely on religious doctrine. That is the alternative. The government should change independantly of the church...not with it. So as far as knowing which way the church is headed -- it shouldn't matter.
Kifle wrote:Again, there was nothing in the costitution that should make slavery illegal either, yet it is. If we are going to use implications on what our fore fathers intended, we might as well look at "all men are created equal", "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness", etcetera. In fact, the constitution gives us freedom of religion. With this follows that the government should not create a law where it is only concidered wrong based on religious doctrine. Gay marriages do not infringe upon any right given to us by our constitution, any freedom given by the UN's declaration, or natural rights; therefor, a ban on gay marriages is to be concidered unconstitutional because of the fact that it is ONLY found to be immoral based on church doctrine.
teflor the ranger wrote:Umm.. it's kinda dangerous. The FDA won't approve cyanide as a food item either.
teflor the ranger wrote:Kifle wrote:It is not written in the constitution...that is exactly right. Therefor, by your standards given here:
"There is nothing in the constitution that gurantees the right of Marriage, and thus, these laws are not unconstitutional."
There should be no seperation of church and state? By your standards we are to accept implications of the constitution only when it favors the church?
Now, marriage is not something necessarily determined by the Church. There is no double standard here. The seperation of Church and State demands that the State maintain it's own definition of Marriage. Currently, we have a loose definition in the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. It only deals with how the federal government approaches the individual states marriages, and nothing beyond that.
teflor the ranger wrote:Kifle wrote:Your example here has a few fatal flaws. In your example the government would have to spend enormous amount of cash, possibley make some enemies in the world, lose the lives of our countrymen, etc... Those reasons are why we do not stop the genocide right now. However, none of those reprocussions would come to be if you legalized gay marriage. Nothing bad would happen because it doesn't effect anybody. At the end of that statement you talk about moral majority. Again, moral majority has been shown to be wrong. To continue to stagnate the country's moral evolution because of archaic institutions is ignorant and irresponsible. This would make the argument weak.
A weak argument irrefutable none the less. Your major points here: legalizing gay marriage would have no ill-effects, the Moral majority have been shown to be wrong, and that conservative thinking is stagnating the country's moral evolution, are all fairly weak themselves.
teflor the ranger wrote:Legalizing gay marriage legitimizes sexuality as a right. The question in our moral evolution would then shift to other issues of sexuality, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, so forth and so on.
teflor the ranger wrote:The moral majority I'm afraid has never believed that slavery is good, and burning woman at the stake is good while in this country with our ideals laid out in the Declaration of Independance and our Constitution. Our moral majority is significantly different than the moral majorities of history's past, and it would be ignorant and irresponsible to believe otherwise.
teflor the ranger wrote:Furthermore, defining marriage would not stagnate our country's moral evolution. It merely gives legislators and judicators a starting point upon which to make changes. Currently, without a full national state definition of what marriage is, we cannot change it.
teflor the ranger wrote:Kifle wrote:Uh, a majority it is a quantitative measurement...dealing with numbers. A moral majority is a numerical majority. Even still, again, this would say that slavery is good, abortion is good (ancient greek/roman/mesopatamian/etc... morals), and burning women at the stake is good. What's wrong is wrong regardless of a majority.
I'm afraid no one polls on whether or not people 'feel' that things are right. No one polls on 'whether or not bringing democracy to the middle east feels like the right thing to do' because no one would quite be able to answer the question without dragging all the other issues into it.
teflor the ranger wrote:If you look back upon history tho, you'll find that the majority of Americans were against involvement in World War II, but I could hardly see how anyone today would say that we did the 'wrong thing'. Unfortunatly, the Moral Majority can't be a quantitative measurement until after events have passed and decisions have been made (a lack of outstanding issues).
teflor the ranger wrote:Kifle wrote:Delmair gave a great example of the tangible benefits homosexuals would recieve...and in Bush's logic, since they would get more money, our economy would raise because they would spend it on consumer goods. That's an enormous tangible benefit. As far as the benefits of not having slavery? I'm sure corperations would greatly desire slave labor if it was acceptable. And, again in bush's logic, or more precisely, Regan's logic, the corperations would be making so much money it would trickle down upon us like a golden shower from God. The benefits from abolishing slavery do not outweigh the cost...the benefits from legalizing gay marriages would.
Get more money? You mean government pensions paid out to the surviving significant others? There actually isn't much money moving around by specifically legalizing gay marriage. To be honest, it's not much of an arguing point for either side of the fence.
teflor the ranger wrote:Kifle wrote:You want an alternative...ignore the church! There have been much better philosophers in this world that have not come from a church. If indeed the constitution does imply a seperation of church and state, and if we in fact should accept this implication as law, the government should never make a law based solely on religious doctrine. That is the alternative. The government should change independantly of the church...not with it. So as far as knowing which way the church is headed -- it shouldn't matter.
Ignoring the church would be ignorant and irresponsible. The organization that are the churches in this country are a major driving force behind the country's people. Think about it, across the nation, millions of people get up early on a SUNDAY to get dressed and go and listen to what it has to say. To ignore that kind of power is not only foolhardy, but demonstrates a principle misunderstanding of how this country lives as a nation.
teflor the ranger wrote:Kifle wrote:Again, there was nothing in the costitution that should make slavery illegal either, yet it is. If we are going to use implications on what our fore fathers intended, we might as well look at "all men are created equal", "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness", etcetera. In fact, the constitution gives us freedom of religion. With this follows that the government should not create a law where it is only concidered wrong based on religious doctrine. Gay marriages do not infringe upon any right given to us by our constitution, any freedom given by the UN's declaration, or natural rights; therefor, a ban on gay marriages is to be concidered unconstitutional because of the fact that it is ONLY found to be immoral based on church doctrine.
The fact that something is not specifically mentioned in the constitution is an extremely weak argument. There are many other documents that constitute the laws of our republic, for instance: the emancipation proclaimation, executive orders, the opinions of the supreme court, etc.
teflor the ranger wrote:While it's true that our rights to the freedom of religion must be protected, certainly you can see the value in disallowing a religion that allows murder or at least the part of that religion that allows murder. While this may be a weak comparison to the banning of Gay marriage, nonetheless the point must be made that any Freedom is not all powerful or all encompassing, but must be temptered by other Freedoms (like the right to not be murdered).
teflor the ranger wrote:Furthermore, gay marriages are not considered immoral only on church doctrines, but by the people who go to those churches. You can never forget that there are "people" in this country and that you cannot impose what you believe is "correct" upon them, as that doctrine is just as flawed as the doctrine they impose upon you. Welcome to democracy.
Kifle wrote:You completely missed why I wrote. I was stating that you had stated that there is a seperation of church and state...but it is not in the constitution. You said that even though it isn't there it holds validity because it is implied. You later stated that the freedom to marry whoever you want is not in the constitution and therefor carries no validity...it was a contradiction.
Kifle wrote:I wouldn't say that. In some cases it could be considered as such, but when put into this context it is very strong because it destroys the argument of moral majority being the end-all-be-all go to for decisions based on right and wrong.
Kifle wrote:The argument about the ill effects being non-existant isn't weak because it does what it was intended to do...refute the fact that law is here to protect the citizens and not restrain their freedoms when not necessary. This is all the ban does is restrict our freedoms. It doesn't protect anybody from anything...
Kifle wrote:As far as the stagnation goes...look how most of america views the forced circumcision of women in other countries. We find it barbaric and brutal among other things. I know I wouldn't like it if I were a girl, would you? Do you think that is there to protect anybody besides insecure men? The same in america. The law is there for no other purpose than to placate bigots and homophobes. The onlyl difference...we consider those who force the circumcision of women to be barbaric while we are not? This is stagnation and hypocracy. We'd be a better country if we did not have these hate laws in place.
Kifle wrote:How so? Pedophiles molest children who are either non-consenting or considered too young to make such decisions. Necrophiliacs are sexual predetors that have sex with dead people...you can't get the consent of dead people so it is classified as rape. In both of those cases you are denying the rights of other people to do what you want...homosexual marriages do not do this. They do not deny anybody of any rights at all. What you did there was a hasty generalization of sexuality. Logic fallacy.
Kifle wrote:Did you take a poll 200 years ago to find out what the majority thought on slavery? No? Then don't presume that you know the statistics. The fact is, nobody took a poll back then so there is no way to know.
Kifle wrote:Which would only implicate that moral majority is either a misnomer or it is an entirely bunk idea. If you can't prove a majority, how can you say there is one?
Kifle wrote:Which would imply that we should toss out moral majority being a definitive "go-to" when dealing with morals? Exactly my point. Hindsight is 20/20 for most folks. What's wrong is that they are too arogant to understand that they can be wrong and that the things they are wrong about should be changed.
Kifle wrote:So, if the church wanted to start slaying jews at random, the government would have to go for it because of this? Granted, it's a little extreme, but that's reductio ad absurdum for you. Seriously, come on.
Kifle wrote:This is an argument of convenience. It is usable for you when you want to say there IS a seperation of church and state, but when I want to say there is a freedom of who you wish to marry, it is just not going to work. You can justify yours by quoting Thomas Jefferon's letter where that quote is taken from, but I can then quote him and quite a few others who say things that I quoted earlier (i.e., "all men are created equal"). Either way, we'll eventually have to come to the conclusion to either assume both to be true or both to be untrue.
Kifle wrote:Welcome to democracy? Since when? This is a capitalist republic. Anyway, the fact is you are right. I can't impose my beliefs on them and have them accept them if they do not wish to, but that is what they are doing to homosexuals through the medium of the government. Allowing gay marriages will infring, again, upon nobody's rights or beliefs. We are not asking for christians and other bigots to accept that gay sex is just as moral as hetero sex. We are asking them to tolorate it because we have to tolorate them. The difference is is that they are forcing homosexuals to stay unwed because of their beliefs.
teflor the ranger wrote:How to Not Convince People
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
teflor the ranger wrote:Kifle wrote:The chances of changing anybody's mind on most moral issues is about .001% chance anyway, so arguing any point at all can be concidered a waste of time...just how life is.
Well, actually, there is something that can be said to those who oppose gay marriage for moral reasons (and are Christian).
(and of course, we must use religion to agrue effectively with them)
"Love thy enemies, do good onto those who hate you, bless those that would curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you."
Luke 6:27
1) To hate, curse, and mistreat homosexuals is against the tennants of the bible, for the Lord is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."
"Do not Judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Luke 6:37
1) If I have to explain this one, I forgive you.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."
John 15:13
1) Love != man + woman.
Finally:
"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."
Leviticus 19:18
teflor the ranger wrote:How to Not Convince People
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
Kifle wrote:After reading your last post, and then re reading this stuff, I understand that you are incapable of understanding things from any other perspective than your own. On top of this, you can't argue. Don't take this as a flame, because you proved it yourself by saying what I have in the quote above this message, and then saying what I have you quoted as saying here...
You say that ineffective arguing of this topic would be to quote the "good book" then you go ahead and say that an effective way to argue it would be to quote the "good book". So, the only conclusions that one could logically come to is either A) You are not above contradicting your own standards of debate, and, therefor, you can't debate well or 2) You are unaware of your contradictions and are unable to accept any other opinion but your own and will fight your side until death. These two conclusions lead me to my decision that by arguing with you on this, or any other topic for that matter, would only lead to my own frustration and would be an entire waste of my time.
teflor the ranger wrote:teflor the ranger wrote:How to Not Convince People
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and StateKifle wrote:After reading your last post, and then re reading this stuff, I understand that you are incapable of understanding things from any other perspective than your own. On top of this, you can't argue. Don't take this as a flame, because you proved it yourself by saying what I have in the quote above this message, and then saying what I have you quoted as saying here...
You say that ineffective arguing of this topic would be to quote the "good book" then you go ahead and say that an effective way to argue it would be to quote the "good book". So, the only conclusions that one could logically come to is either A) You are not above contradicting your own standards of debate, and, therefor, you can't debate well or 2) You are unaware of your contradictions and are unable to accept any other opinion but your own and will fight your side until death. These two conclusions lead me to my decision that by arguing with you on this, or any other topic for that matter, would only lead to my own frustration and would be an entire waste of my time.
*this post edited to remove flames
How to Not Convince People
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
Making this easier to understand:
No Examples from Bible = Not Convincing
Hence, I'm actually saying:
Examples from Bible = Effective.
What YOU think I said:
Examples from Bible = Ineffective. (wrong)
What I actually did indeed say:
Examples from Bible = Effective.
Teflor wrote:How to Not Convince People
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
Kifle wrote:You say that ineffective arguing of this topic would be to quote the "good book"
teflor the ranger wrote:How to Not Convince People
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
Seriously, it's like you would rather hear your own voices than convince anybody. Here's a bit of insight as to why some arguements don't work.
1) Seperation of Church and State
The main reason why this won't work is because it is a State of the People, and the State has no right to Seperate People from Church. Furthermore, most religions abhor gay unions. The State must be a Moral State, and therefore need to follow the guidelines of the Morality that the People provide. Some of this is bound to end up from the Church. Like not killing, or stealing, or coveting your neighbors wife (all also illegal, btw. or would you rather allow murders to kill you because the State must be seperate from Church).
2) You Are Just As Immoral
Ok, offensive for the first part, which will put people on the defensive. This is like self-deleting. The louder you shout after this the louder they will shout back. Furthermore, any religious person will remind you that we are all sinners to begin with. They will still be strongly against their government allowing gay marraige.
Now for some seperate aruging points:
1) The Government Has No Right to Force the Acceptance of Gay Marriage upon a Majority that Resents It
This is horribly true through and through. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, no matter how much the liberal left wishes to inflate itself. While it's true the government forced desegregation, etc, etc. They had good reason (which is why it began in the military). Give them a good enough reason and your government will force the majority to accept something it does not want.
There is no real tangible benefit to allowing gay marriages in this country as of this moment. And no, being a gay marriage terrorist will just make the moral majority hate you even more.
2) As Soon As The Church Starts Accepting Gay Marriage the State Will as Well
This is just a cold, hard fact. It has nothing to do with the influence of the church upon the state, but a reaffirmation of the effect of the people upon the state as well as the right to religion. As soon as mainstream churches (you know, ones with more than 2000 members nationwide) accept gay marriage, you will see a re-exploration of the subject of gay marriage.
Before you Flame:
I do not actually have a stance on whether or not gay marriage should or should not be outlawed.
teflor wrote:1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
teflor wrote:No Examples from Bible = Not Convincing
Hence, I'm actually saying:
Examples from Bible = Effective.
teflor the ranger wrote:How to Not Convince People
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
Seriously, it's like you would rather hear your own voices than convince anybody. Here's a bit of insight as to why some arguements don't work.
Kifle wrote:Sorry Birile. I'm just trying to show how illogical people who advocate the ban on gay marriages are. Those who stand on that side are only bigots who feel the need to impose their belief system on other people for self-serving reasons and nothing else. All it does is make this country look bad and stagnate moral growth and tolerance. We may as well go back to blacks using different bathrooms and women not being able to vote if we keep this archaic set of morals.
teflor the ranger wrote:How to Not Convince People
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State
Kifle, again 100% wrong. These are titled lists discussing different reasons. This has been the most Ignorant and Irresponsible piece of hackeneyed critcisim based on your own complete, fundamental misunderstanding that I will have to give you a lesson in understanding.
First list is
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
Gay Marriage is Immoral
Second list is
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
The Church Says So
and for the hell of it:Seriously, it's like you would rather hear your own voices than convince anybody. Here's a bit of insight as to why some arguements don't work.
I'm going to try ONE LAST TIME to see if you can GET this.
I had said that in order to NOT convince someone, you should NOT use examples from the bible.
This is exactly why i DID use examples from the Bible in order to try to CONVINCE people that gay marriage should be tolerated.
Please, please, please tell me you understand this most basic, simple, fundamental logic.
You are so blind you're making it hard for me to see.
Kifle wrote:I guess I'm going to bow to your superior intellect, understanding of logic, and debating skills.
Kifle wrote:I mean, it's not like I'm 3 classes away from my core requirements for my math degree
Kifle wrote:and 3 classes away from my core requirements in philosophy degree.
Kifle wrote:You obviously grasp these ideas much better than me even though this is exactly what I've been going to college for for 6 years now, but I don't know what I'm talking about. In < 2 years I will have bachelor's degrees in both subjects, and I'm sure you'd still tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about or that I can't crasp logic.
Kifle wrote:Guess I should just ignore my 3.8 gpa and drop out of college because it is just hopeless... Thank you for showing me the light.
Sesexe wrote:Telfor, take a break. He's in defense mode and won't listen to a thing you have to say. He's not even reading what you are typing. If you were talking to him in real life, it would be the same exact thing. He'd hear what his defense mode wants to hear.
Sesexe wrote:Now Kifle my dear, as one !straight person to another, listen to me with a clear head as I explain it to you. Because hon, you gotta understand what he's saying is different then what you are reading, which is causing the end result to be the opposite of what you really want.
Sesexe wrote:Kifle wrote:I guess I'm going to bow to your superior intellect, understanding of logic, and debating skills.
It's not logic, it's grammar. English grammar. He was implying that these were ways to achieve the goal. The goal was to not convince someone of the subject matter, and he listed legitimate reasons on how to do this.
Sesexe wrote:Math is not grammar. Math is not the study of communication or languages.
Sesexe wrote:Kifle wrote:and 3 classes away from my core requirements in philosophy degree.
Philosophy is not grammar. Philosophy is not the study of communication or languages.
Sesexe wrote:Kifle wrote:You obviously grasp these ideas much better than me even though this is exactly what I've been going to college for for 6 years now, but I don't know what I'm talking about. In < 2 years I will have bachelor's degrees in both subjects, and I'm sure you'd still tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about or that I can't crasp logic.
This is defense mode rambling. Completely un-related. Your degrees are not based in language communication. You're not majoring in English. If you were, then perhaps this rant would be slightly more warranted. But it's not. He's talking about basic grammar, and you're failing miserably at understanding the simple statements he made, because you have your guard so far up, you're blind.
Sesexe wrote:Kifle wrote:Guess I should just ignore my 3.8 gpa and drop out of college because it is just hopeless... Thank you for showing me the light.
He's not trying to show you the light, nor was he implying any religious implications. That is your missunderstanding. He's not against the idea. He's not against YOU. In fact, the whole point behind his initial post about how not to convince someone, was so that people who ARE trying to convince people that gay people should have the right to be married, would go about it more successfully. He was offering sincere advice on how to help.
Sesexe wrote:Instead, being in defense mode, you missunderstood the core of what he said, and decided he was attacking you. And since that point you've responded with a continued closed mind that is hell bent on attacking him. By doing so, I can only assume that Telfor is probably leaning more heavily toward the direction in this matter you didn't want him to go in the FIRST PLACE because of your behavior toward him.
Sesexe wrote:Do you understand now?
Kifle wrote:I guess I'm going to bow to your superior intellect, understanding of logic, and debating skills. I mean, it's not like I'm 3 classes away from my core requirements for my math degree and 3 classes away from my core requirements in philosophy degree. You obviously grasp these ideas much better than me even though this is exactly what I've been going to college for for 6 years now, but I don't know what I'm talking about. In < 2 years I will have bachelor's degrees in both subjects, and I'm sure you'd still tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about or that I can't crasp logic. Guess I should just ignore my 3.8 gpa and drop out of college because it is just hopeless... Thank you for showing me the light.
Kifle wrote:This clearly implies that the argument of "seperation of church and state" is to not be used when trying to convince somebody of why gay marriages should be legal...he even relied heavily upon the existance of the seperation of church and state within his own arguments...That's another contradiction.
Kifle wrote:I misunderstood nothing. If anything, he miswrote if his intentions where to say that quoting the good book was a way TO convince somebody instead of adding it in a list of ways to NOT convince somebody.
teflor the ranger wrote:I'm going to try ONE LAST TIME to see if you can GET this.
I had said that in order to NOT convince someone, you should NOT use examples from the bible.
This is exactly why i DID use examples from the Bible in order to try to CONVINCE people that gay marriage should be tolerated.
Please, please, please tell me you understand this most basic, simple, fundamental logic.
You are so blind you're making it hard for me to see.
Return to “General Discussion Archive”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests