Obama's call for gay rights makes history

[jimmydiggs]

Wow.

Bahahaha, are you serious! You're completely making things up, ignoring everything I say. You're inventing your own form of logic and "math" in order to prove... I'm not even sure what. That any opinion I have doesn't matter because my opinions aren't objective (which, by the way, nobody's are)? You put up several posts restating the same mixed up, weird logic over and over in slightly different ways. I don't think you even know what you're talking about.

Let me just say this and hopefully we can be done with this really weird debate. I, personally, value the fact that I can get married. I enjoy this. I think it's a great thing. I don't like the fact that two consenting adults are denied the right to marry, that they can't enjoy the same thing I can in this great country. Their marriage is not harming me. Their marriage in no way effects me. Because their marriage is their business and doesn't affect me, I see no reason why there should be laws denying them of this. Therefore, I am going to try and change those laws so that those two people can enjoy the great thing called marriage.

I believe all people are equal and should be granted equal opportunities.

This is a matter of opinion. My opinion is the laws should reflect equality.

Well, I hope you at least have fun with your war against reality.

[video=youtube;YzfDIewPFb0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzfDIewPFb0[/video]

 

[Batman007]

I'm not going to watch a propaganda video, and I'm not at war. Stop watching fox news.

I think this debate is coming to a close because I really don't know what else to say. You guys aren't accepting my reason for wanting the laws to change, for some reason. I don't have an objective reality to compare it to because such a thing doesn't exist, so that's an answer you're never going to get.

You may very well think that makes my argument irrelevant. I think you guys are making up excuses to ignore me and my reasoning, because nobody's responding to why I want gays to be allowed to marry, which I have said several times. Instead you're throwing in this nonsense about some kind of nonexistent objective reality.

By the way, murderers and rapists and thieves do have equal opportunities as everyone else. As soon as I kill someone I'm going to prison, the same as a murderer. That's equality.

 

[Red_Tory]

Ok, let's go over this again.

Yes, we know why you think gay people should be able to marry. The reason you want gays to marry is because you have a subjective preference for equality. Unfortunately your subjective preferences are not the basis for law-making, therefore your case for gay marriage is defeated.


You say you think laws should reflect equality. Why? Because you like equality and dislike inequality.


Batman007's personal preferences are not the basis of jurisprudence. You have yet to put forth an argument for why the law should reflect equality other than "I like equality" or "I like to be able to marry." These are not logical, reason-based arguments.

Secondly, by claiming that nobody's opinions are objectively true or false, you're denying the Law of Non-Contradiction, which is one of the three fundamental elements of all rational thinking and discourse. When dealing with an objective topic such as natural law legal theory, subjectivism is a patently illogical position. You even contradict yourself by stating that nobody's opinion is objective, as if that itself is an objective opinion, which of course just goes to show how subjectivism refutes itself.

If you seek to put forward a proposal for how the laws ought to be, it must be rooted in something other than your own preference for equality such as an actual argument that employs a logical method and uses reasonable premises.

 

[zone]

 

[zone]

As soon as I kill someone I'm going to prison, the same as a murderer. That's equality.

is abortion murder?
are pro-choicers complicit?

 

[Red_Tory]

You guys aren't accepting my reason for wanting the laws to change, for some reason.

To make it even clearer:

The onus is upon you to provide a logical argument for why the law should change. Repeating "I, Batman007, like equality, therefore the law should change" over and over again is not a valid argument.

If you think the law should reflect equality, you need to provide a supporting argument that is based in reality, not based on your own subjective preferences.

Since you deny that such a reality exists, a rational argument in favour of gay marriage is impossible, and as you yourself acknowledge your opinion is not true. If your opinion is not true, then in accordance with the very fundamental principles of logic, its negation is true.

 

[KCKID]

just go ahead and lay it out!

My interpretation of that retort coupled with a rolling-of-eyes sarcastic smiley: Go ahead and do your worst; however, my mind is closed. You're wasting your time with me. Therefore, I'll shrug off anything you have to say. I prefer interpretations of the Bible that give me cause to flaunt my own piety while allowing me to show 'righteous' disdain for those I don't like. Correct?

take all the time you need, show us how God didn't really mean homosexuality is sodomy, or condemned, or particularly abominable to Him, or that unless repented of it won't be punished, or all the other mystery claims you've been making.

You have a very limited knowledge of the Bible, zone. Nothing wrong with that per se. But, what you and too many other Christians do is to use the Bible to support your own prejudices. Repeat: You use the Bible to support your own prejudices. And that IS wrong. Those that shout the loudest over the homosexuality issue are those that generally have a personal agenda. The Bible has nothing to do with their hostility. If they GENUINELY wanted to speak for God they would attack EVERY 'sin' with as much zeal as they do with the perceived 'sin' of homosexuality. I have NEVER seen a thread on a Christian forum where divorce and remarriage is the topic and where participants are frothing at the mouths decrying this rampant 'sin' of scriptural adultery within the Christian Church itself. What does this tell us? It tells us that one's aversion to homosexuality has little to no biblical grounding but is purely personal. It's disgraceful that one's personal hateful agenda is somehow seen to be God-approved!

just do it!
prove your claims!

Okay, but let us have a starting point. Firstly, open your mind. Secondly, you have already planted your stake here. So, let's do this in a methodical fashion. Where do you get the notion that God/Jesus disapproves of homosexuality? Present the texts (there are only a half-dozen of them in the entire Bible) and we can discuss them. As said before, I'm not too interested in the OT Levitical references since they are not applicable to we Gentiles and are a waste of time both defining and debating due to their ambiguity. Sodom and Gomorrah, however, is an old favorite of the anti-gay brigade. I'll start the ball rolling if you like by claiming that the destruction of S&G WAS NOT due to rampant homosexuality as is believed by SO many Christians. Do you believe that S&G were destroyed by God due to rampant homosexuality and do you use this story to support your anti-gay slant?

 

[jimmydiggs]

Stop watching fox news.

Oh please give me a little more credit than that. I don't have the time for watching TV (and really don't have the time for this post)

I think this debate is coming to a close because I really don't know what else to say. You guys aren't accepting my reason for wanting the laws to change, for some reason.

You said it was just an opinion. Don't be getting your pants in a bunch when I don't treat it as codified reason.

That's equality.

Just as gays can marry a member of the opposite sex. That's equality.

 

[shrimp]

Good Lord! you guys are like kids throwing rocks at each other!

 

[Batman007]

Yes, I do think that my personal preference is a valid enough reason for me to vote. No, I do not have any way to objectively say that my opinion is correct because I don't believe opinions can be objectively right or wrong. I don't know why opinions aren't a good basis for law-making, since every single time you vote you're casting your opinion, not a fact.

 

[Batman007]

Just as gays can marry a member of the opposite sex. That's equality.

Yep, indeed!

 

[jimmydiggs]

Yep, indeed!

Well then.

It is here resolved, that allowing homosexuals to "marry" isn't necessary as they already have quality by marrying members of the opposite sex.

 

[Red_Tory]

Yes, I do think that my personal preference is a valid enough reason for me to vote. No, I do not have any way to objectively say that my opinion is correct because I don't believe opinions can be objectively right or wrong. I don't know why opinions aren't a good basis for law-making, since every single time you vote you're casting your opinion, not a fact.

Yes - but the presupposition of a functioning democracy is that opinions are arrived at using rational means. As many political philosophers have already pointed out, a democracy based on emotive responses and subjective, irrational opinions will collapse into demagoguery and eventually tyranny. I take it that you've never heard of the "tyranny of the majority"...




"Yeah, let's just switch off our brains and use our irrational, subjective feelings to decide how to vote."

Something along those lines... Is that what you're saying?

 

[Red_Tory]

Yep - we're still all equal, since heterosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, and so do homosexuals. Neither of us have the right to marry people of the same sex, so we're actually equal.


By the way, when you say opinions cannot be objectively true - is that your opinion?

 

[Batman007]

Except homosexuals don't want to marry members of the opposite sex.

And no, because their inability to marry isn't subjective.

Meh, I'm bored with this.

 

[Batman007]

And yeah it's my opinion that opinions aren't objective. Obviously.

 

[Red_Tory]

Except homosexuals don't want to marry members of the opposite sex.

And no, because their inability to marry isn't subjective.

Meh, I'm bored with this.

If you're bored, that's fine.

The fact still stands that you haven't put forward a single rational argument to support your assertions that the law should reflect equality or that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. In fact, you've gone so far as to explicitly state that this position cannot even be rationally supported (if they could, they would have a chance to be objectively correct)!

Anyone with critical thinking skills who values logic, reason, and evidence would have no choice but to reject the position you are advocating. On the other hand, I provided a logical proof for the opposing position.

 

[Red_Tory]

And yeah it's my opinion that opinions aren't objective. Obviously.

Do you not see the glaring irrational sentiment in this statement?

 

[Batman007]

If you're bored, that's fine.

The fact still stands that you haven't put forward a single rational argument to support your assertions that the law should reflect equality or that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. In fact, you've gone so far as to explicitly state that this position cannot even be rationally supported (if they could, they would have a chance to be objectively correct)!

Anyone with critical thinking skills who values logic, reason, and evidence would have no choice but to reject the position you are advocating.

Except gay marriage is a matter of personal opinion. What sort of evidence is someone supposed to put forward?

 

[Batman007]

Do you not see the glaring irrational sentiment in this statement?

Nope. If all opinions are subjective then I subjectively think that there are no objective opinions. Maybe I'm wrong, that's why my opinion is subjective.