Page 1 of 22 [ 316 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 22  Next

DejaQ
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,978
Location: The Silver Devastation

06 Apr 2008, 11:51 am

This is something I found on Facebook.

Quote:
17. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

16. Gay culture is a new fad created by the liberal media to undermine long-standing traditions. We know this is true because gay sex did not exist in ancient Greece and Rome.

15. There are plenty of straight families looking to adopt, and every unwanted child already has a loving family. This is why foster care does not exist.

14. Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.

13. Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why atheists do not marry. Christians also never get a divorce.

12. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our society has no single parents.

11. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

10. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

9. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

8. Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights.

7. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because "separate but equal" institutions are a good way to satisfy the demands of uppity minority groups.

5. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

3. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

2. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

1. METEORS and VOLCANOES.



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

06 Apr 2008, 11:58 am

Haha! I love it.

Great find, man.


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Apr 2008, 11:58 am

Strawmen/parodies. Very interesting. Ridiculing your opponent's side causes victory, wow.



Kaleido
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,770

06 Apr 2008, 12:01 pm

Well I disagree with most of that, it certainly wouldn't undermine society since the percentage of gay people might be a mighty force if they decided to do something with it, only thing is, most gay people just want to do nice ordinary things like everyone else, like eat, sleep, work, have fun, love, bring up nice children and generally enjoy life.



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

06 Apr 2008, 12:04 pm

Kaleido wrote:
Well I disagree with most of that, it certainly wouldn't undermine society since the percentage of gay people might be a mighty force if they decided to do something with it, only thing is, most gay people just want to do nice ordinary things like everyone else, like eat, sleep, work, have fun, love, bring up nice children and generally enjoy life.


The article was a parody.

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Strawmen/parodies. Very interesting. Ridiculing your opponent's side causes victory, wow.


I've actually seen quite a few of these "reasons" used by religious conservatives, so maybe you're more reasonable than those that this article is parodying, but not everyone is.

I'm not saying that those few people stand for all Christian conservatives, but most straw-man's arguments I've seen come from the conservative side.


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,960
Location: Earth, mostly

06 Apr 2008, 12:29 pm

Okay, iamnotaparakeet, let's hear a reasoned argument as to why gay people shouldn't get married. And no, that does not permit appeal to the Torah, the Qu'ran, the Bible, the Baghavad Gita, or any other religious texts - while often informed in the past by religious convictions, ours is still at base a secular society, with secular laws (despite the best efforts of evangelical radicals to rewrite the Constitution).

The arguments mocked above are, in fact, the only arguments I have yet heard advanced. The two guys next door getting married will ruin my marriage? How, exactly? It's a change in the institution of marriage, and gub'mint shouldn't get involved? Three words: Loving v. Virginia. That was a change...


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


DejaQ
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,978
Location: The Silver Devastation

06 Apr 2008, 12:35 pm

Heheh. Posting hot-button issues is much more fun than obscure radical theories. :P

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Strawmen/parodies. Very interesting. Ridiculing your opponent's side causes victory, wow.


"The audience usually has to be with you, I'm afraid. I always regarded myself as not even preaching to the converted, I was titillating the converted. The audiences like to think that satire is doing something. But, in fact, it is mostly to leave themselves satisfied. Satisfied rather than angry, which is what they should be." ~Tom Lehrer



MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 19,810
Location: Earth

06 Apr 2008, 12:49 pm

Will change the foundation of society? What do they mean by that?
Society is always changing no matter what. It's still changing as we speak.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home? Now they're putting down children raised from single parent homes? I'm a single child myself, I guess I'm just a failure.

I guess you could say I don't agree with most of it because there's no data to back it up espeacially the church's involvement to sanctimony, they bring that one up all the time. I'm not exactly an atheist myself but you see plenty of straight atheists getting married. What about people of another belief besides Christianity? Do they have a right to be married? People who use the biblical propaganda seem to have double standards in terms of marriage. Not to mention the "facts" sound irrational and unclear in some of those topics. They're not doing a good job at explaining in depth of why each situation is wrong.


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Apr 2008, 12:58 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:
Okay, iamnotaparakeet, let's hear a reasoned argument as to why gay people shouldn't get married. And no, that does not permit appeal to the Torah, the Qu'ran, the Bible, the Baghavad Gita, or any other religious texts - while often informed in the past by religious convictions, ours is still at base a secular society, with secular laws (despite the best efforts of evangelical radicals to rewrite the Constitution).

The arguments mocked above are, in fact, the only arguments I have yet heard advanced. The two guys next door getting married will ruin my marriage? How, exactly? It's a change in the institution of marriage, and gub'mint shouldn't get involved? Three words: Loving v. Virginia. That was a change...


Even though this is a strawman it still has some good, mainly the first sentence:

Quote:
2. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.


Firstly, what is gay and what is natural?

Natural, in this specific case, refers to the bodies of both sexes: male and female. With the exception, or rather statistical aberration, of hermaphrodites there are only these two sexes. The body of the woman is designed for the man and the body of the man is designed for the woman; the vulva and vagina are designed for the penis and the shaft and crest are designed for the clitoris. These items of our bodies are built for each other whether the users are learned as to their function or not.

On a side note, the applications of anal, oral, or manual masturbations are not natural uses of these body parts. Those the practices exist, it is not what the parts were meant for. Similar, though not exactly like, cooking a steak in a toaster. I understand the female may need manual stimulation of the clitoris, but that is a more natural use than inserting a sexual organ into part of the digestive tract though not natural enough to justify the actions of lesbians. Thus, I differentiate between designed function and practiced function.

What is homosexuality then, I define it as attraction to the same sex; id est, the desire for practicing a function of two bodies apart from and without regard for what they are designed for.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Apr 2008, 1:05 pm

Now, I haven't dealt with the second half of the strawman, but do I need to? Is it not self evident that such equivocation of modern technology with a misuse of natural technology is invalid?



DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,960
Location: Earth, mostly

06 Apr 2008, 1:07 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Firstly, what is gay and what is natural?

Natural, in this specific case, refers to the bodies of both sexes: male and female. With the exception, or rather statistical aberration, of hermaphrodites there are only these two sexes. The body of the woman is designed for the man and the body of the man is designed for the woman; the vulva and vagina are designed for the penis and the shaft and crest are designed for the clitoris. These items of our bodies are built for each other whether the users are learned as to their function or not.

On a side note, the applications of anal, oral, or manual masturbations are not natural uses of these body parts. Those the practices exist, it is not what the parts were meant for. Similar, though not exactly like, cooking a steak in a toaster. I understand the female may need manual stimulation of the clitoris, but that is a more natural use than inserting a sexual organ into part of the digestive tract though not natural enough to justify the actions of lesbians. Thus, I differentiate between designed function and practiced function.

What is homosexuality then, I define it as attraction to the same sex; id est, the desire for practicing a function of two bodies apart from and without regard for what they are designed for.

And this pertains to the concept of marriage (an institution of the state, having nothing to do with anyone's notion of "natural") how, exactly?

You have not provided a reasoned argument against gay marriage; you have merely provided your own definition of homosexuality, and your own personal reason why you disapprove of it. That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Further, I submit that homosexuality can be seen in a number of species, including wolves, dolphins, bonobo chimpanzees, and geese. "Unnatural"? Or just unusual?

Or do you believe that the only purpose of marriage is to provide some sort of "cover" for sex, providing only that it leads to children? If so, then impotent men, infertile women, and anyone subject to paralysis (Stephen Hawking, eg) must clearly be prohibited from marrying, lest this infect the very roots of our society!


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

06 Apr 2008, 1:12 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Firstly, what is gay and what is natural?

Natural, in this specific case, refers to the bodies of both sexes: male and female. With the exception, or rather statistical aberration, of hermaphrodites there are only these two sexes. The body of the woman is designed for the man and the body of the man is designed for the woman; the vulva and vagina are designed for the penis and the shaft and crest are designed for the clitoris. These items of our bodies are built for each other whether the users are learned as to their function or not.

On a side note, the applications of anal, oral, or manual masturbations are not natural uses of these body parts. Those the practices exist, it is not what the parts were meant for. Similar, though not exactly like, cooking a steak in a toaster. I understand the female may need manual stimulation of the clitoris, but that is a more natural use than inserting a sexual organ into part of the digestive tract though not natural enough to justify the actions of lesbians. Thus, I differentiate between designed function and practiced function.

What is homosexuality then, I define it as attraction to the same sex; id est, the desire for practicing a function of two bodies apart from and without regard for what they are designed for.

So? Not that valid of an argument. I mean, gay marriage isn't the same as gay sex, and unless you are trying to reinvoke sodomy laws(which would likely be ineffective anyway) what is the point? People do unnatural things all of the time, but does something being unnatural mean we should illegalize it? No.



DejaQ
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,978
Location: The Silver Devastation

06 Apr 2008, 1:15 pm

MissConstrue wrote:
Will change the foundation of society? What do they mean by that?
Society is always changing no matter what. It's still changing as we speak.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home? Now they're putting down children raised from single parent homes? I'm a single child myself, I guess I'm just a failure.

I guess you could say I don't agree with most of it because there's no data to back it up espeacially the church's involvement to sanctimony, they bring that one up all the time. I'm not exactly an atheist myself but you see plenty of straight atheists getting married. What about people of another belief besides Christianity? Do they have a right to be married? People who use the biblical propaganda seem to have double standards in terms of marriage. Not to mention the "facts" sound irrational and unclear in some of those topics. They're not doing a good job at explaining in depth of why each situation is wrong.


They're being sarcastic. :P



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Apr 2008, 1:33 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:
And this pertains to the concept of marriage (an institution of the state, having nothing to do with anyone's notion of "natural") how, exactly?

You have not provided a reasoned argument against gay marriage; you have merely provided your own definition of homosexuality, and your own personal reason why you disapprove of it. That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


If you cannot see the relation of homosexuality to homosexual marriage, you must not be able to think. Furthermore, these are not merely personal opinion but applies beyond perspective.

DeaconBlues wrote:
Further, I submit that homosexuality can be seen in a number of species, including wolves, dolphins, bonobo chimpanzees, and geese. "Unnatural"? Or just unusual?


The practice of homosexuality among animals or humans has nothing to do with this.


DeaconBlues wrote:
Or do you believe that the only purpose of marriage is to provide some sort of "cover" for sex, providing only that it leads to children? If so, then impotent men, infertile women, and anyone subject to paralysis (Stephen Hawking, eg) must clearly be prohibited from marrying, lest this infect the very roots of our society!


Wow, more strawmen. :roll:



spudnik
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,176
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada

06 Apr 2008, 1:35 pm

The whole thing is just silly, they are being a bunch of sillys