Page 138 of 190 FirstFirst ... 3888128134135136137138139140141142148188 ... LastLast
Results 3,426 to 3,450 of 4740

Thread: Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

  1. #3426
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post

    3. Oh please. Gay marriage is not comparable to the civil rights movement or the abolition of slavery. How on earth can anyone make that comparison sincerely?
    1) You do realize that there is a gay rights civil movement, right? It's beginning is often attributed to the Stonewall riots. Marriage may be at the forefront, but it's part of a larger movement.

    2)It may not be comparable to slavery, but certainly to the civil rights struggle.

    Violence against minorities to put them in their place, or just because? Check
    Making minorities second class citizens? Check
    Using religious doctrine to keep them there? Check
    The sereotyping and making caricatures of minorities by the media? Check
    Discrimination by establishments against serving said minorities? Check

    Sure, there are many differences that keep it from being an exact equivalent (such as that gays can pass as straight while blacks can't pass as white, although we could argue that each minorities behavior was regulated into acceptable and unacceptable based on what made the oppressiong group comfortable and uncomfortable, and draw another parallel there...), but saying that they're not comprable is really ignorant.

  2. #3427
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blazekickblaziken View Post
    2)It may not be comparable to slavery, but certainly to the civil rights struggle.
    The movement itself is comparable, but you kind of say that when you say the civil rights struggle is relatable. Not a nitpick, just a clarification.

    Sure, there are many differences that keep it from being an exact equivalent (such as that gays can pass as straight while blacks can't pass as white, although we could argue that each minorities behavior was regulated into acceptable and unacceptable based on what made the oppressiong group comfortable and uncomfortable, and draw another parallel there...), but saying that they're not comprable is really ignorant.
    Grasps the gist of every argument made recently and turns them on their head.

  3. #3428
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Cool Cool River
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    Maybe not exactly equivalent, but certainly comparable.
    Not really.

    Since there is not a reasonable explanation for keeping homosexuals from marrying one another, the only explanations are contempt, severe logical failure, or some combination of the two.
    In your opinion.

    They are exactly equivalent! The arguments against gay marriage today are almost identical to the arguments against same-sex marriage were in the past. This is a civil rights issue, allowing people the same rights and abilities as their peers, so how isn't it equivalent to freeing black people or allowing them to vote?
    No they're not. It really depresses and borderline disgusts me when people compare the status of twenty first century homosexuals in the West with that of black and "coloured" people from decades past.

    Gay people in the west have the right to vote, to engage in relationships with those they wish to, use the same public facilities as others, and generally live a relatively free and open life. They do not face lynchings and the like. The comparison is so utterly stupid.

    Neither of you have been able to provide a reason you're against gay marriage, yet you are against it. This proves Eterna's original statement that sitting and thinking about why you're against the proposition has proven too much of a challenge, and I have to say I agree with his conclusion.
    Er, I'm pro gay marriage. I just don't think that makes me any kind of better person or someone who's supporting anything significant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    It's not just gay marriage like I said, it's LGBT rights that is being threatened. I may be Catholic but even I can admit that the church can be wrong on many things. They were wrong on slavery and segregation before you know.

    EDIT: Also news in my home state, NJ Judge rules that same-sex couples can marry in New Jersey.

    http://www.serebiiforums.com/forumdi...3-Debate-Forum
    So gay rights are under threat, yet they've just had a supreme court ruling massively in their favour and now there's yet another state that's allowing them to marry? Oh god, my heart bleeds.

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy View Post
    Saying that you don't hate gay people but you're still against gay marriage is equivalent to saying that you don't have a problem with interracial couples but you just don't want them to be allowed to get married.
    Not really.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blazekickblaziken View Post
    1) You do realize that there is a gay rights civil movement, right? It's beginning is often attributed to the Stonewall riots. Marriage may be at the forefront, but it's part of a larger movement.
    I'm not comparing

    2)It may not be comparable to slavery, but certainly to the civil rights struggle.
    No it isn't.

    Violence against minorities to put them in their place, or just because? Check
    Making minorities second class citizens? Check
    Using religious doctrine to keep them there? Check
    The sereotyping and making caricatures of minorities by the media? Check
    Discrimination by establishments against serving said minorities? Check
    1. Forgot about all that widespread literal gay bashing that ends up with individuals being hanged from trees by baying mobs.

    2. They're not second class citizens.

    3. Perfectly legitimate reason for people to believe that some social privileges (i.e not rights) should be limited with regards to gay people.

    4. Find me a group that isn't.

    5. Yet don't ask.... was repealed over two years ago.

    Sure, there are many differences that keep it from being an exact equivalent (such as that gays can pass as straight while blacks can't pass as white, although we could argue that each minorities behavior was regulated into acceptable and unacceptable based on what made the oppressiong group comfortable and uncomfortable, and draw another parallel there...), but saying that they're not comprable is really ignorant.
    1. The major difference being they're not comparable.

    2. There it is. The perfect encapsulation of the arrogance of the "gay rights" movement. You don't agree entirely with me so you must be ignorant! I'd have more respect for many of your ilk if you weren't so bigoted.
    Last edited by Snorunt conservationist; 29th September 2013 at 12:01 PM.

  4. #3429
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post

    1. Forgot about all that widespread literal gay bashing that ends up with individuals being hanged from trees by baying mobs.


    2. They're not second class citizens.

    3. Perfectly legitimate reason for people to believe that some social privileges (i.e not rights) should be limited with regards to gay people.

    4. Find me a group that isn't.

    5. Yet don't ask.... was repealed over two years ago.



    1. The major difference being they're not comparable.

    2. There it is. The perfect encapsulation of the arrogance of the "gay rights" movement. You don't agree entirely with me so you must be ignorant! I'd have more respect for many of your ilk if you weren't so bigoted.

    1) Ever hear of Matthew Sheppard? Who was beaten, tortured, tied to a fence post and left to die? Here in Puerto Rico (which is part of the US) we had a kid who was killed and dismemebered about 3 years ago. Why, because they were both gay.

    2) Gays are second class citizens, they're rights and interests aren't protected by the government in the same way straight people's rights are. Even if they were, this is a discussion about the movement, which spans over a period of time. This means that you can't just invalidate my argument by sayin "well, now they're not discriminated against."

    3) You keep mentioning these "legitimate" reasons, and fail to provide examples.

    4)No minority group isn't sterotyped and caricatured by the media. That 's ONE OF the reasons why all civil right struggles are comparable.

    5) Once again, like I said in number 2, We're comparing civil right movements. Just because something isn't a problem now, doesn't mean it never was and never happened, or that effects of that initial discrimination are now gone forever.

    1a) Don't quote part of my argument while ignoring the rest. Specifically, I mean bolding the fact that gays can pass as straight while ignoring the fact that gay people's behavior is regulated in a similar way as black people's behavior.

    2a) I wasn't being arrogant, but now I will be. It's called reading comprehension. I don't call you ignorant because you disagree, rather because I drew up atleast five points of parallels between the movements to show case how they're similar (not identical, because they're not, but similar, because they are) and you just decide they don't count because gays are "equal" now. I wasn't even calling you ignorant, I was saying a specific statement was ignorant.

    Also, I'm sorry me and many of my "ilk" can draw simple comparisons. It's a nasty habit to get into.
    Last edited by Blazekickblaziken; 29th September 2013 at 12:49 PM.

  5. #3430
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post
    3. Perfectly legitimate reason for people to believe that some social privileges (i.e not rights) should be limited with regards to gay people.
    Okay, I'll bite. What exactly is the difference between "rights" and "social privileges"?

    That's what I hate the most about Republicans. You use so many legal loopholes and technicalities, never realizing that you're treating people's lives as statistics while doing so. People are NOT numbers!

    Just because you COULD doesn't mean you SHOULD.

    Let me tell you a little story.

    James Fred Blake was a simple bus driver in Alabama. One day in 1943, a black woman boarded the bus and paid the fare. She then moved to her seat but Blake told her to follow city rules and enter the bus again from the back door. She exited the bus, but before she could re-board at the rear door, Blake drove off, leaving her to walk home in the rain. Understandably, she didn’t like it.

    Twelve years later, on December 1, 1955, fate proved a rascal. Blake and the same woman - her name, by the way, was Rosa Parks, in case it hasn't sunk in yet - encountered each other again when he ordered her and three other blacks to move from the middle to the back of his Cleveland Avenue bus in order to make room for a white passenger. Whether he remembered her or not, we may never know; I kinda doubt it. But she clearly remembered him. She defied his orders, and as you know, this famous incident prompting the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

    "I wasn't trying to do anything to that Parks woman except do my job. She was in violation of the city codes, so what was I supposed to do? That damn bus was full and she wouldn't move back. I had my orders."

    Well, Mr. Blake, congratulations, you did what you thought was right. And history was likely changed because of it. For the better, yes, but likely not the way you or the folks you supported would have liked it.

  6. #3431
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Cool Cool River
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blazekickblaziken View Post
    1) Ever hear of Matthew Sheppard? Who was beaten, tortured, tied to a fence post and left to die? Here in Puerto Rico (which is part of the US) we had a kid who was killed and dismemebered about 3 years ago. Why, because they were both gay
    Very sad incidents, not comparable to baying mobs lynching blacks. Simply isn't. The scale, the wider purpose of such a tactic etc, they're just not comparable.

    2) Gays are second class citizens, they're rights and interests aren't protected by the government in the same way straight people's rights are. Even if they were, this is a discussion about the movement, which spans over a period of time. This means that you can't just invalidate my argument by sayin "well, now they're not discriminated against."
    They're not second class citizens.

    You attempting to turn it into a discussion over the movement since the dawn of time doesn't mean that it is. My criticisms lie almost solely within the present day.

    3) You keep mentioning these "legitimate" reasons, and fail to provide examples.
    Because you provided the example.

    4)No minority group isn't sterotyped and caricatured by the media. That 's ONE OF the reasons why all civil right struggles are comparable.
    No group full stop isn't. I think that's a good thing. I'm glad we have freedom of expression in the west.

    1a) Don't quote part of my argument while ignoring the rest. Specifically, I mean bolding the fact that gays can pass as straight while ignoring the fact that gay people's behavior is regulated in a similar way as black people's behavior
    It's not though really is it. The comparison between blacks and other ethnic groups back in the day and gays nowadays is not one that any person should make with any degree of sincerity. TBH the bolding of that bit was just lazy on my part. I just meant to bold the bit about them being comparable when they're clearly not.

    I wasn't being arrogant, but now I will be.
    Hmm, you were.

    It's called reading comprehension. I don't call you ignorant because you disagree,
    Well, you pretty much did.

    rather because I drew up atleast five points of parallels between the movements to show case how they're similar (not identical, because they're not, but similar, because they are) and you just decide they don't count because gays are "equal" now. I wasn't even calling you ignorant, I was saying a specific statement was ignorant.
    You called me ignorant (and subsequently anyone who feels roughly the same as me) ignorant because I don't agree with you entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Okay, I'll bite. What exactly is the difference between "rights" and "social privileges"?

    That's what I hate the most about Republicans. You use so many legal loopholes and technicalities, never realizing that you're treating people's lives as statistics while doing so. People are NOT numbers!

    Just because you COULD doesn't mean you SHOULD.

    Let me tell you a little story.

    James Fred Blake was a simple bus driver in Alabama. One day in 1943, a black woman boarded the bus and paid the fare. She then moved to her seat but Blake told her to follow city rules and enter the bus again from the back door. She exited the bus, but before she could re-board at the rear door, Blake drove off, leaving her to walk home in the rain. Understandably, she didn’t like it.

    Twelve years later, on December 1, 1955, fate proved a rascal. Blake and the same woman - her name, by the way, was Rosa Parks, in case it hasn't sunk in yet - encountered each other again when he ordered her and three other blacks to move from the middle to the back of his Cleveland Avenue bus in order to make room for a white passenger. Whether he remembered her or not, we may never know; I kinda doubt it. But she clearly remembered him. She defied his orders, and as you know, this famous incident prompting the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

    "I wasn't trying to do anything to that Parks woman except do my job. She was in violation of the city codes, so what was I supposed to do? That damn bus was full and she wouldn't move back. I had my orders."

    Well, Mr. Blake, congratulations, you did what you thought was right. And history was likely changed because of it. For the better, yes, but likely not the way you or the folks you supported would have liked it.
    One's a right, one's a privilege.
    Last edited by Snorunt conservationist; 29th September 2013 at 2:08 PM.

  7. #3432
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    345

    Default

    So basically your argument boils down to: you're wrong because you're wrong. You mostly just refute arguments and maybe give half-assed examples to back up your claims here and there. That's not a terribly convincing way to argue.

    Regarding black lynchmobs, true, the scale of these incidents are very different, but the purpose for both things are the same. Group 1 is trying to put group 2 in their place via violence and intimidation. Look, a parallel!

    You keep saying gays aren't second class citizens, but haven't stated why they aren't. I'm calling you out on that. Also, if we're comparing the gay rights movement today to the entirety of the black rights movement, of course they're not gonna be parallel. The gay rights movement started in 1969. That's over 40 years worth of the movement. So if you're going to compare two movements, you have to compare them in their entirety. Simple logic.

    You also keep avoiding mentioning any of these "legitimate" reasons. I'm calling you out on that too.

    I'm not sure why you think that stereotypes and caricatures in the media are a good thing. Sure it's freedom of expression, but I think that fall firmly into necesarry evil. Also I'm not sure you realize that freedom of expression isn't absolute. For example, if a person were to get in black face and start to talk about how he loved fried chicken and watermelon in a predominantly black neighborhood, he could very well get charged with inciting a riot, and his "freedom of expression" defense could very well fall flat on it's face.

    Once again, I did not call you ignorant. I called your argument ignorant. If you can't tell the difference between refuting your argument and refuting you, well, that's another discussion completely.

    Also, since you can't seem to give Maedar a proper definition of right vs. Priviledge, I'll do it for you.

    Privilege: a particular benefit, advantage, or immunity enjoyed by a person or class of people not enjoyed by others.

    Right: a legal entitlement to obtain something or act a certain way.

  8. #3433
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Cool Cool River
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blazekickblaziken View Post
    So basically your argument boils down to: you're wrong because you're wrong. You mostly just refute arguments and maybe give half-assed examples to back up your claims here and there. That's not a terribly convincing way to argue.
    I'll say what I say to everyone who whines about me refuting arguments etc. I'll bring some proper arguments if you bring some worthwhile points.

    Regarding black lynchmobs, true, the scale of these incidents are very different, but the purpose for both things are the same. Group 1 is trying to put group 2 in their place via violence and intimidation. Look, a parallel!
    Yet they're not parallel because you openly admitted they are very different.

    To compare the murder of a gay man, conducted by two individuals who were arrested and prosecuted within a very short period following the event, with the lynching of individuals by baying mobs, some of which included local law enforcement, where those involved were rarely if ever brought to justice is just wrong.

    You keep saying gays aren't second class citizens, but haven't stated why they aren't. I'm calling you out on that. Also, if we're comparing the gay rights movement today to the entirety of the black rights movement, of course they're not gonna be parallel. The gay rights movement started in 1969. That's over 40 years worth of the movement. So if you're going to compare two movements, you have to compare them in their entirety. Simple logic.
    Not really simple logic.

    You also keep avoiding mentioning any of these "legitimate" reasons. I'm calling you out on that too.
    Yet you mentioned the legitimate reasons. I don't need to because you mentioned them.

    I'm not sure why you think that stereotypes and caricatures in the media are a good thing. Sure it's freedom of expression, but I think that fall firmly into necesarry evil. Also I'm not sure you realize that freedom of expression isn't absolute. For example, if a person were to get in black face and start to talk about how he loved fried chicken and watermelon in a predominantly black neighborhood, he could very well get charged with inciting a riot, and his "freedom of expression" defense could very well fall flat on it's face.
    The fact you describe freedom of expression as a necessary evil is truly worrying, and further suggests that bigotry and arrogance are two of the major motivations behind your opinions.

    If the scenario you described incited a riot, the only person to blame would be the rioters.

    Once again, I did not call you ignorant. I called your argument ignorant. If you can't tell the difference between refuting your argument and refuting you, well, that's another discussion completely.
    Whereas I did accuse you of calling me ignorant; I said that your point of view was indicative of the arrogance and bigotry that pervades much of the modern "gay rights" movement.

    Your hatred of freedom of expression also suggests your overriding belief in the ignorance of others. Oh, they don't think the same as me, I really wish they didn't have that right.

  9. #3434
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Thank you Blaziken.

    In other words, "social privileges" have no place in America. No one has any right to say that one group should have them and another shouldn't. That's one of the reasons this country was founded.

    Period.

  10. #3435
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Cool Cool River
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Thank you Blaziken.

    In other words, "social privileges" have no place in America. No one has any right to say that one group should have them and another shouldn't. That's one of the reasons this country was founded.

    Period.
    Should 12 year olds be allowed to marry? Surely we have no right to say that this is a right that should only be enjoyed by adults?

    The voting age should be lowered to six months. Surely we have no right to say that voting is something only to be used by adults?

    What's your opinion on gun control? Because, if, as you say, no one has the right to say that people can't have things, surely everyone should be allowed as many guns as they want?

    I think prisoners should just be released from prisons. Or at least be allowed to set their sentences. What right do we have to say that those judged by a jury of their peers have any need to accept that they should go to prison?

    So on and so forth.

  11. #3436
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post
    The fact you describe freedom of expression as a necessary evil is truly worrying, and further suggests that bigotry and arrogance are two of the major motivations behind your opinions.

    ....


    Your hatred of freedom of expression also suggests your overriding belief in the ignorance of others. Oh, they don't think the same as me, I really wish they didn't have that right.
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

    Blaziken never said that he considers freedom of expression as a necessary evil. He said he views offensive stereotypes as a necessary evil. Don't put words into somebody else's mouth
    Pokemon isn't real, I'm sorry

  12. #3437
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Thought I show everyone the clip of the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd telling the pastor why he supports same-sex marriage.

    http://www.upworthy.com/a-pastor-ask...-for-his-reply

  13. #3438
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    345

    Default

    @ snorunt

    I'm just getting tired of your horrible logic so I'll try to hit only a few points.

    1) way to misrpresent my argument as hatred of freedom of speech. Like WizardTrubish pointed out, that is NOT what I said. Further more, if you think the man in black face was responsible or not for the riot is completely irrelevant. Legally, freedom of speech is not a valid defense. This isn't speculation or opinion, it's fact. There are more than a few exceptions to freedom of speech. Look them up.

    2) how is "When you compare two civil rights movements, you compare them in their entirety. " not simple logic?

    3) While Maedar might be wrong in his assertion that privileges have no place in American society, your arguments are less than compelling. For one, marriage and voting are at 18 because people are assumed to be capable enough to consent (for marriage) and mature enough to make an informed decision (to vote). Also one could argue that a 6 year old has the right to vote, they just aren't old enough to act upon that right. Likewise for voting. Also it's generally thought that rights are absolute, but the reality of the situation is that they aren't. You just need a damn good reason to take that right away.

    @Maedar

    Privileges do have their place in society, if and when they can be obtained by any person exerting a reasonable amount of effort. For example, independence of movement could be considered a right. But driving specifically could be considered a privilege. Enough DUIs and you get your driving privilege taken away. But tohave your right to independence of movement taken away, well you would have to do something bad enough to have you thrown in jail or get you sentenced to house arrest.

  14. #3439
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    He knew what I meant, he was using a "logic bomb" to try to force me to debunk my own words..

    If it's a matter of legal age, fine. If a privilege is taken away because you abused it by doing something illegal, fine.

    If its a matter of race, sexual preference, or financial status, it's definitely not fine.

    Voting, for example, is a right. NOT a privilege. That is why voter ID laws are an abomination.

  15. #3440
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post
    Not really.
    If I didn't know better, I would say you're rebuttals are getting better all the time.

    In your opinion.
    Prove me wrong. There is no reason that a homosexual shouldn't marry that doesn't apply to heterosexuals as well. It's a truth claim, so it isn't opinion, in any case.


    Gay people in the west have the right to vote, to engage in relationships with those they wish to, use the same public facilities as others, and generally live a relatively free and open life. They do not face lynchings and the like. The comparison is so utterly stupid.
    It's a freedom-related matter. Just because the rights in question were different and the atmosphere was far more sever, the crux of the matter remains that both parties have to struggle to attain rights and denounce persecution in the public square. This makes the matters equal in terms of the social movements that define them both, which is what my original comparison aimed to portray in the first place.

    Er, I'm pro gay marriage. I just don't think that makes me any kind of better person or someone who's supporting anything significant.
    It shouldn't be a big deal that you tolerate your fellow man, but apparently the flock of religious persecutors and bigots that don't see this issue with any hint of sanity would disagree. You're supporting an end to discrimination and mistreatment for a group that never deserved it in the first place, and I can't see how that isn't significant.

    3. Perfectly legitimate reason for people to believe that some social privileges (i.e not rights) should be limited with regards to gay people.
    Funny, that sounds very similar to what the anti-mixed race crowd said only a few decades ago. Black people and white people don't have the "right" to intermarry. How disgusting, amiright?
    Last edited by The Federation; 30th September 2013 at 3:22 PM.

  16. #3441
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    You've got a point, Fed.

    The "gay marriage apocalypse" that fundamentalists are warning us of (as in, a bolt of divine retribution that will punish us for this "blasphemy" the way Sodom and Gomorrah were) does sound awfully like the same predictions that were made by other fundamentalists when the Court struck down laws against interracial marriage.

    Those people haven't said much in... decades. Wonder why?

  17. #3442
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Enterprise
    Posts
    2,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If my doctrine was to love everyone, but I believed that same-sex marriage was wrong and shouldn't be allowed, would you agree that I followed through with loving my neighbors? Maybe that's too close to home or could actually be true... so how about a different scenario? What if I "loved" everyone, but wanted to reestablish slavery as a national institution? Would I love my peers who disagreed?

    Simple rights, human rights, are essential to treating your peers equally, and doubly as important is you profess a love for your fellow man. You can't love your fellow man if you don't want to give him equivalent rights.

    Neither of you have been able to provide a reason you're against gay marriage, yet you are against it. This proves Eterna's original statement that sitting and thinking about why you're against the proposition has proven too much of a challenge, and I have to say I agree with his conclusion.
    Let me put it this way:
    I am against homosexual ACTS, not impulses, there is a difference.
    An impulse is the desire, an act is what the desire leads to.

    I am against homosexual ACTS. Now tell me, how can I be against homosexual acts and yet support homosexual marriage?

    Yet, My belief is to love everyone, so, I wouldn't do anything to help or hinder the process of homosexual marriage.

    And as to treating my peers equally, yes in most circumstances, I would treat a gay person the same as a straight person. But Even though I treat them the same I still do not condone of their acts, so I would not do anything to help them with acts that I would't agree with. I would compare this to the other debate of abortion, even though I may not agree with the other side is doing, I would not treat them differently for making that decision, except when the topic of abortion came up, and that is when I would disagree with them.
    #AlphaSapphire
    I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

  18. #3443
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Cool Cool River
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WizardTrubbish View Post
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

    Blaziken never said that he considers freedom of expression as a necessary evil. He said he views offensive stereotypes as a necessary evil. Don't put words into somebody else's mouth
    They're not a necessary evil either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blazekickblaziken View Post
    @ snorunt

    I'm just getting tired of your horrible logic so I'll try to hit only a few points.

    1) way to misrpresent my argument as hatred of freedom of speech. Like WizardTrubish pointed out, that is NOT what I said. Further more, if you think the man in black face was responsible or not for the riot is completely irrelevant. Legally, freedom of speech is not a valid defense. This isn't speculation or opinion, it's fact. There are more than a few exceptions to freedom of speech. Look them up.
    The only problem being of course is that in your scenario free speech would not be considered a valid defence because the person in question would probably be being charged for threatening behaviour.

    If that person was being charged for simply using the words in question, that would be ridiculous and I'd hope few people would support that.

    2) how is "When you compare two civil rights movements, you compare them in their entirety. " not simple logic?
    Well, not really, because my beef lies with the gay rights lobby in its modern context. I don't accept comparisons between the position of modern gays in the west and the status of coloureds decades past. Because it's a ridiculous comparison.

    3) While Maedar might be wrong in his assertion that privileges have no place in American society, your arguments are less than compelling. For one, marriage and voting are at 18 because people are assumed to be capable enough to consent (for marriage) and mature enough to make an informed decision (to vote). Also one could argue that a 6 year old has the right to vote, they just aren't old enough to act upon that right. Likewise for voting. Also it's generally thought that rights are absolute, but the reality of the situation is that they aren't. You just need a damn good reason to take that right away.
    I was purposefully using ridiculous examples to highlight the absurdity of his statement.

    The issue of voting rights being a "human right" is a complex one. However, I wasn't trying to make a complex point, simply to point out the notion that there is no such thing as a social privilege is ridiculous[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    He knew what I meant, he was using a "logic bomb" to try to force me to debunk my own words..

    If it's a matter of legal age, fine. If a privilege is taken away because you abused it by doing something illegal, fine.

    If its a matter of race, sexual preference, or financial status, it's definitely not fine.

    Voting, for example, is a right. NOT a privilege. That is why voter ID laws are an abomination.
    So you were wrong. Good to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If I didn't know better, I would say you're rebuttals are getting better all the time.
    Like your grammar? As I say, bring a decent argument and I'll debate. I dismiss irrelevant ones.

    Prove me wrong. There is no reason that a homosexual shouldn't marry that doesn't apply to heterosexuals as well. It's a truth claim, so it isn't opinion, in any case.
    No, it's your opinion. I agree with it (reluctantly, given your sanctimoniousness), but it's still an opinion.

    It's a freedom-related matter. Just because the rights in question were different and the atmosphere was far more sever, the crux of the matter remains that both parties have to struggle to attain rights and denounce persecution in the public square. This makes the matters equal in terms of the social movements that define them both, which is what my original comparison aimed to portray in the first place.
    Doesn't make it a good comparison.

    It shouldn't be a big deal that you tolerate your fellow man, but apparently the flock of religious persecutors and bigots that don't see this issue with any hint of sanity would disagree. You're supporting an end to discrimination and mistreatment for a group that never deserved it in the first place, and I can't see how that isn't significant.
    Because it's not. The important and truly significant strides for homosexuals were made decades ago. We are little more than footnotes now, if that. I understand it's "cool" and all that, but I just don't believe in kidding myself that me and the millions of keyboard warriors in the world are doing anything worthwhile re. gay marriage.

    If you head off to Africa/Middle East and start trying to actively change the plight of gays out there, then hell yeah, you're doing something significant.

    Funny, that sounds very similar to what the anti-mixed race crowd said only a few decades ago. Black people and white people don't have the "right" to intermarry. How disgusting, amiright?
    Not really. Again, your inability to understand both mine and others' arguments makes it hard to make a worthwhile argument.
    Last edited by Snorunt conservationist; 30th September 2013 at 8:19 PM.

  19. #3444
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Nü Yawk S!tty, NY
    Posts
    386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    Let me put it this way:
    I am against homosexual ACTS, not impulses, there is a difference.
    An impulse is the desire, an act is what the desire leads to.

    I am against homosexual ACTS. Now tell me, how can I be against homosexual acts and yet support homosexual marriage?

    Yet, My belief is to love everyone, so, I wouldn't do anything to help or hinder the process of homosexual marriage.

    And as to treating my peers equally, yes in most circumstances, I would treat a gay person the same as a straight person. But Even though I treat them the same I still do not condone of their acts, so I would not do anything to help them with acts that I would't agree with. I would compare this to the other debate of abortion, even though I may not agree with the other side is doing, I would not treat them differently for making that decision, except when the topic of abortion came up, and that is when I would disagree with them.
    So if I understand correctly, you are against the acting out of something "homosexual" regardless of the "impulse (i.e. a force or something that moves one to act)." If my understanding is correct, whatever moves someone to commit a homosexual act is irrelevant. The only thing in which you past your judgement is in the act itself.

    Therefore a girl acting out against her parents wishes of her not dating a boy and instead dates a girl to spite them is considered the same as a girl falling in love with another female classmate and then eventually dating said girl.

    So in essence a girl rebelling against her parents by engaging in a homosexual relationship is the same as one girl falling in love with another girl and then engaging in a homosexual relationship.



    This is the same to you?
    "What ever happened
    to the Golden rule
    where trainers
    couldn't follow you
    into the grass
    and challenge you
    to a battle?"

    "Team Rocket's rockin, Talkin' trouble, walkin' trouble"

    "Double trouble, big trouble's gonna follow you"
    3DS FC: 3368-2042-4128

  20. #3445
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Enterprise
    Posts
    2,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Godric View Post
    So if I understand correctly, you are against the acting out of something "homosexual" regardless of the "impulse (i.e. a force or something that moves one to act)." If my understanding is correct, whatever moves someone to commit a homosexual act is irrelevant. The only thing in which you past your judgement is in the act itself.

    Therefore a girl acting out against her parents wishes of her not dating a boy and instead dates a girl to spite them is considered the same as a girl falling in love with another female classmate and then eventually dating said girl.

    So in essence a girl rebelling against her parents by engaging in a homosexual relationship is the same as one girl falling in love with another girl and then engaging in a homosexual relationship.



    This is the same to you?
    When it comes to the homosexual acts, to put it bluntly, yes. But the girl who acted out out of spite.....I would would consider her scenario worse, because, not only did she engage in homosexual acts, but she did it to hurt someone else.


    Lastly, I understand the impulse, as I have had it myself. But since when does something become right because you had the impulse to do it?
    #AlphaSapphire
    I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

  21. #3446
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    Lastly, I understand the impulse, as I have had it myself. But since when does something become right because you had the impulse to do it?
    When has acting on those homosexual urges become wrong? What about a man and a man or a woman and a woman having sexual intercourse can possibly be construed as an immoral act? On its face, no other factors considered, it is one of the most morally sound actions you can take. Shopping at Wal-Mart is far more detrimental, and it's an everyday thing!

    You know what it's called when you have a lasting sexual impulse towards the same gender? Homosexuality. If you think homosexual urges are wrong, why couldn't I extend my analogy to ask if loving your neighbor is possible in someone who believes the urge to be together or intermingle with one who doesn't share your race?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist
    Like your grammar? As I say, bring a decent argument and I'll debate. I dismiss irrelevant ones.
    You literally argued "not really" to dismiss my original observation. Hypocrisy? Oblivious to irony? Probably.

    No, it's your opinion. I agree with it (reluctantly, given your sanctimoniousness), but it's still an opinion.
    Whatever, the line between fact and opinion is so thin it may as well not even be there. Something can be solidly a fact, like the theory of gravity, and no one would question it, but the second someone says the theory of evolution is fact they're told it's an opinion. "Facthood" is a subjective assignment to any proposition.

    Doesn't make it a good comparison.
    It's probably not worth your time to argue, but why is it not a good comparison? You realize this is the debate forum, where by rule you are supposed to supply evidence or a valid line of logic to defend your statements? So far all I've gotten from you has been insults, nitpicks, and one-liners. If you're here to debate, do so.

    Because it's not. The important and truly significant strides for homosexuals were made decades ago. We are little more than footnotes now, if that. I understand it's "cool" and all that, but I just don't believe in kidding myself that me and the millions of keyboard warriors in the world are doing anything worthwhile re. gay marriage.
    It's a social issue that matters at the polls, public places, and within families. Sitting at a computer and talking about it might not help it, but the position itself needs to be advocated because gays are discriminated against and not allowed similar rights in almost all states. Gay marriage, while it might not be an important issue to you, is certainly an important issue to those who can't marry.

    If you head off to Africa/Middle East and start trying to actively change the plight of gays out there, then hell yeah, you're doing something significant.
    Actually, you're not. Not even if the millions and millions of "keyboard warriors" as you call them made a collective effort to reduce discrimination and killings of gays in the Middle East would these acts stop or slow, because it is ingrained in the culture and religion and is backed by the government. We at least have a chance to end hatred and discrimination against gays here in the U.S., something which ought to be seized as the morally obvious action.

    Not really. Again, your inability to understand both mine and others' arguments makes it hard to make a worthwhile argument.
    You must be immune to irony, because you have yet to make a single viable argument against my contentions, instead replying with "*your" and "Nuh-uh". How about you address the issues presented, or don't bother responding until you have a logically-backed argument of some sort or another. I don't want to sit through an opinionated rant where evidence and argument is thrown to the wayside because "The guy I'm talking to is clueless/not worth my time".

    Give me some substance so I can tear it apart, yeah? If my arguments are stupid or wrong and I don't have a clue what others are arguing (which only you have said, by the way), then it should be simple to shred my position.
    Last edited by The Federation; 30th September 2013 at 11:23 PM.

  22. #3447
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    "Keyboard warriors"?

    Oh, you mean like, say, Anonymous?

    The "hacktivist" group Aaron Barr of HB Gary Federal insulted, bragging about how he was going to take them down using social engineering? Causing them to reply by destroying his website, stealing his emails, deleting his company's backup data, trashing his twitter account and remotely wiping his iPad, forcing him to resign in humiliation?

    THAT type of "keyboard warrior"?

    They support gay rights. The WBC is a group they have been known to oppose.

    Seems that gays have the most dreaded and powerful group of "keyboard warriors" on their side.

  23. #3448
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Enterprise
    Posts
    2,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    When has acting on those homosexual urges become wrong?
    I was stating my own personal stance.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    What about a man and a man or a woman and a woman having sexual intercourse can possibly be construed as an immoral act?
    *sigh*
    Ok, here's the deal.
    I have explained this several times on this site, and no one ever listens anyways, If you really want the full speech, I'll give it.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    On its face, no other factors considered, it is one of the most morally sound actions you can take. Shopping at Wal-Mart is far more detrimental, and it's an everyday thing!
    Not saying going to Wal-Mart ISN'T detrimental, but I also find it interesting that you use phrases like: "On its face" "No other factors considered"


    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    You know what it's called when you have a lasting sexual impulse towards the same gender? Homosexuality.
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexuality
    erotic activity with another of the same sex
    Quote Originally Posted by The Federation View Post
    If you think homosexual urges are wrong, why couldn't I extend my analogy to ask if loving your neighbor is possible in someone who believes the urge to be together or intermingle with one who doesn't share your race?
    Dude, READ MY POSTS!
    I never said I think homosexual urges are wrong, in fact, I thoroughly explained that earlier.
    #AlphaSapphire
    I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

  24. #3449
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Marriage has changed multiple times over the course of our existence, and if you're a Christian it even changed during the course of the biblical timeline.

    Changing it one more time, to a small and harmless group of people I might add, wouldn't hurt anyone.

  25. #3450
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ansem the wise View Post
    I was stating my own personal stance.
    *sigh*
    Ok, here's the deal.
    I have explained this several times on this site, and no one ever listens anyways, If you really want the full speech, I'll give it.
    Ok, link me to it. I don't have to have an updated version unless your stance has changed, do I? I have never heard your reasoning on the matter.

    Not saying going to Wal-Mart ISN'T detrimental, but I also find it interesting that you use phrases like: "On its face" "No other factors considered"
    I was trying my best to designate homosexual sex rather than homosexual interaction of a lesser nature. The point was that there was less damage in shopping than the act of sex.

    "1. The state or quality of being homosexual"
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual
    Let's not play semantics. Lust or attraction to the same gender is homosexuality, and I even went so far as to add an extra qualifier in "lasting".

    Dude, READ MY POSTS!
    I never said I think homosexual urges are wrong, in fact, I thoroughly explained that earlier.
    My bad, I read the last sentence of your last post incorrectly. I thought it said something at a glance that it didn't. Sorry.

Page 138 of 190 FirstFirst ... 3888128134135136137138139140141142148188 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •