Top 17 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

Post Reply New Topic

what goal

offending a lot of people

Well, it only assumes 2 options because there only are 2 options. Not only that, but the purpose of a designer does not necessarily matter to the user. A newspaper maker may make a newspaper for reading, but that does not mean that a newspaper hat is evil.


Well, except you can't prove that they are objectively wrong. Yes, they have consequences in the physical world, but that does not mean we should pass laws against football and against laziness. Frankly, the issue is whether or not you'd make legal arguments against everything perceived by anyone to have immediate negative consequences. If so, then we can even outlaw homeschooling, not exercising enough, playing with food, and all sorts of nonsense.

I asked you a question. You didn't answer. You are the one using an unknown purpose to determine the validity or lack of validity of certain laws.


Why? What makes my argument invalid? Don't dismiss without reason.


I am not switching definitions, you aren't concerned unless you have a stimulus and all stimuli must affect your person.


Effectively, it is. No, it really doesn't. You can't determine an is from an ought. Frankly, you assume teleonomy to be important to make it important, the rest of us do not. Why is your assumption of the importance of teleonomy valid?


Only if we assume higher moral values, or knowledge of higher moral values, which I do not.


It is completely relevant, as you aren't addressing the frameworks of your fellow debaters. Teleonomically you must address the position of your fellow debaters, given that you aren't doing this or aren't doing this effectively with your abilities, you must, according to your own system, be committing evil and as evil deserves punishment, I argue that you must deserve punishment.

On some level he is, he is basically throwing us all off by addressing the question from a different framework than the one we are using and then ignoring that fact. He is literally coming at this from a completely different, and I would argue erroneous, point of view. Instead of the bible, he is assuming natural law to a bunch of people who hardly believe in that, and the effects are simple and obvious, we reject his conclusions just like we reject the use of scripture to determine things and we think he is full of crap, he's just thrown us off his scent.

he's like a bandit trying to use chili power to throw us (the bloodhounds) off his trail

Let's all just get along and embrace our inner gayness.

Yes. Now bend over!

It was ridicule on your part.

I jut have to ask, why should people fight their inner natures?

If certain brains seem predisposed towards attraction to the same gender, such to the point where we see deep psychological pressure from following the purposes of their sexual organs, then why can't that be a conflict of design? Nobody would claim that each person is designed perfectly.

EDIT: Gah. Pay no attention. I'm being an idiot.

Last edited by DejaQ on 07 Apr 2008, 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

(confused)

Uh, you guys go on with what you were doing, don't let me get in the way.

trashing iamnotaparakeet
as deserved

natural law? there's homosexuality in nature. quite frequently, at that. it's not a human-only thing.


eh, the parrot is best off living in iran where the leaders share his ignorant view of the world.

Well, you are right, he is biasing the interpretation of natural law to reach a conclusion that he has already come to through others means. Natural law could equally be used to justice brutal egotism (law of the jungle or Social Darwinism anyone?), or herd-ish collectivism, or any other, just place your emphasis on the right place.

yeah, it's a pretty base level of thought and hardly a justification but i think the overall bottom line is still "how does this effect society? does it do any harm? does it do any good?" and that's a pretty basic starting point.

but i think that's the basic skeptic starting point on issues of legality.

Ah, poor Benjamin. I wonder what would happen say if Ben's offspring turned out gay?
Would he drown his progeny or disown them?