Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 10:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2013 10:09:00 AM (view original):
"you think it's reasonable to suggest that they could easily just be unhappy if they want to be married so badly and marry someone they have no attraction to"

Didn't you suggest EXACTLY the same thing when I asked about sterile siblings marrying?

I guess I'd tell you it's impossible that you're attracted to just one person out of 7 billion.  And what a coincidence, it's your sibling....no.

Why did you propose to your future wife?    Was she the only woman you found attractive?   Or was she the one you wanted to spend your life with?

Attraction is just a part of the equation. 

Why is incest illegal, Mike?  Is it just so that you don't make retarded children?

Well, there is that concern.   But that's why I keep saying "sterile". 

There's also the "That's icky" stigma.   Which you could attach to gay sex if you felt that way.

By allowing it, it also encourages it, which isn't what we're looking for.  I know I wouldn't want my children spending their entire childhood together thinking it's ok if they get together and get married when they're older. There are millions of other people they will meet in their lives that they will have an attraction to, can marry, and spend the rest of their lives with.  

Gay men and women are attracted to the same sex.  Allowing gay marriage wouldn't "encourage" gay relationships.  There isn't an alternative like there is re: incest.

Is the only way you can make your points is to come up with asinine, obscure scenarios?  I feel like it hurts your argument.

Who (or what) you are sexually attracted to is not a choice.  Acting (or not acting) upon your attractions is a choice.

Exactly - and it's NOT the attraction but the choice that defines your sexual preference (or orientation if you want to use that word).

The only reason people want to view it as the attraction making the determination is because it justifies the choice to live a homosexual lifestyle, which is something that doesn't need justification in the first place as it is not illegal.

So what you're saying is that not just that gay people can't marry, but that you think it's reasonable to suggest that they could easily just be unhappy if they want to be married so badly and marry someone they have no attraction to.

I'm not sure what the point is here. I'm not suggesting anyone get married in order to be unhappy, which is absurd on the face of it. I'm merely saying everyone has the same right to marry right now, so suggesting there is some "inequality" isn't true.

 It's a choice, yes.  Just like I have to choice to hit myself in the head with a hammer or not do that.  It's obvious what choice I'll make.  So in that sense, it's only a choice in the most literal sense.

Sure, you could choose to hit yourself in the head with a hammer, but that's not a smart choice, so you probably won't. Some choices aren't smart ones for various reasons. That doesn't mean they aren't choices - it just means a wise person probably wouldn't make them.

Yet this has nothing to do with choosing a romantic or sexual partner. There are choices which aren't smart in these cases, too, but you can choose anyone you'd like provided they agree to choose you as well.

You are not a master debater when your arguments are vague, yet somehow also wordy, and usually lacking much evidence of anything when pressed.

Except that this is never the case.

My arguments are logical and deliberate, and I systematically address and debunk the challenges to them.

The logic has already beaten you and you just won't admit it, so claim there isn't enough evidence or whatever else you want to make yourself feel better about it. When you're that stubborn you'll find any excuse not to admit defeat.

Gay men and women are attracted to the same sex.  Allowing gay marriage wouldn't "encourage" gay relationships.  There isn't an alternative like there is re: incest.

How is there not an alternative?

The same way anyone could choose to be with someone not related to them, they could also choose to be with someone not of the same gender.

Here is another example of me using logic to back someone's argument into a corner, but I'm sure it won't be conceded by burnsy or anyone else.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 11:16:00 AM (view original):
By allowing it, it also encourages it, which isn't what we're looking for.  I know I wouldn't want my children spending their entire childhood together thinking it's ok if they get together and get married when they're older. There are millions of other people they will meet in their lives that they will have an attraction to, can marry, and spend the rest of their lives with.  

Gay men and women are attracted to the same sex.  Allowing gay marriage wouldn't "encourage" gay relationships.  There isn't an alternative like there is re: incest.

Is the only way you can make your points is to come up with asinine, obscure scenarios?  I feel like it hurts your argument.

Holy ****.

"By allowing it, it also encourages it, which isn't what we're looking for.  I know I wouldn't want my children spending their entire childhood thinking it's ok if they get together with members of the same sex and get married when they're older. There are millions of people of the opposite sex they will meet in their lives that they will have an attraction to, can marry, and spend the rest of their lives with."

Do you NOT think someone who is against SSM could use this argument?    ESPECIALLY if they believe acting on gay urges is an obvious choice?


Seriously, I know how you feel about homosexuality, SSM and pretty much anything related.   But can't you fathom someone else not thinking the same thing?

Do you think homosexuality is more prominent these days than it was 50 years ago?   Why?

Do you NOT think someone who is against SSM could use this argument?    ESPECIALLY if they believe acting on gay urges is an obvious choice?

I've already done that in the post before yours, MikeT23. Let's see how burnsy addresses it because he's logically backed into a corner but I'm sure he won't concede.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2013 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 11:16:00 AM (view original):
By allowing it, it also encourages it, which isn't what we're looking for.  I know I wouldn't want my children spending their entire childhood together thinking it's ok if they get together and get married when they're older. There are millions of other people they will meet in their lives that they will have an attraction to, can marry, and spend the rest of their lives with.  

Gay men and women are attracted to the same sex.  Allowing gay marriage wouldn't "encourage" gay relationships.  There isn't an alternative like there is re: incest.

Is the only way you can make your points is to come up with asinine, obscure scenarios?  I feel like it hurts your argument.

Holy ****.

"By allowing it, it also encourages it, which isn't what we're looking for.  I know I wouldn't want my children spending their entire childhood thinking it's ok if they get together with members of the same sex and get married when they're older. There are millions of people of the opposite sex they will meet in their lives that they will have an attraction to, can marry, and spend the rest of their lives with."

Do you NOT think someone who is against SSM could use this argument?    ESPECIALLY if they believe acting on gay urges is an obvious choice?


Seriously, I know how you feel about homosexuality, SSM and pretty much anything related.   But can't you fathom someone else not thinking the same thing?

Do you think homosexuality is more prominent these days than it was 50 years ago?   Why?

If they use this argument, they're ignorant.  You forgot to quote the other part of the argument.  It's not a choice.  If it WERE a choice, I would at least understand the arguments against gay marriage.  

Is it more prevalent now?  Depends what you mean.  Society as a whole isn't more or less attracted to people of the same sex.  But I'm sure someone who is attracted to the same sex is in a better place now than they were 50 years ago because we're a more understanding society when it comes to such things.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2013 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 11:16:00 AM (view original):
By allowing it, it also encourages it, which isn't what we're looking for.  I know I wouldn't want my children spending their entire childhood together thinking it's ok if they get together and get married when they're older. There are millions of other people they will meet in their lives that they will have an attraction to, can marry, and spend the rest of their lives with.  

Gay men and women are attracted to the same sex.  Allowing gay marriage wouldn't "encourage" gay relationships.  There isn't an alternative like there is re: incest.

Is the only way you can make your points is to come up with asinine, obscure scenarios?  I feel like it hurts your argument.

Holy ****.

"By allowing it, it also encourages it, which isn't what we're looking for.  I know I wouldn't want my children spending their entire childhood thinking it's ok if they get together with members of the same sex and get married when they're older. There are millions of people of the opposite sex they will meet in their lives that they will have an attraction to, can marry, and spend the rest of their lives with."

Do you NOT think someone who is against SSM could use this argument?    ESPECIALLY if they believe acting on gay urges is an obvious choice?


Seriously, I know how you feel about homosexuality, SSM and pretty much anything related.   But can't you fathom someone else not thinking the same thing?

Do you think homosexuality is more prominent these days than it was 50 years ago?   Why?

If they use this argument, they're ignorant.  You forgot to quote the other part of the argument.  It's not a choice.  If it WERE a choice, I would at least understand the arguments against gay marriage.  

Is it more prevalent now?  Depends what you mean.  Society as a whole isn't more or less attracted to people of the same sex.  But I'm sure someone who is attracted to the same sex is in a better place now than they were 50 years ago because we're a more understanding society when it comes to such things.

So, IOW, you can't fathom someone having an opposing view on homosexuality.     Very open-minded of you.

Biz, what's the "right choice", in your opinion?

A) Being attracted to people of the same sex, and having a homosexual relationship.
B) Being attracted to people of the same sex, having no relationship, or a heterosexual one.

Mike, I don't think I said that.  But am I not open-minded if I have trouble with someone having a opposing view on equal rights for men and women?

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Mike, I don't think I said that.  But am I not open-minded if I have trouble with someone having a opposing view on equal rights for men and women?

No, you're not open-minded because you can't imagine someone having an opposing view on all things homosexual.

"I would at least understand the arguments against gay marriage. "

Let me re-phrase.  I DO understand the argument.  Re-word this to "I would be more understanding of arguments against gay marriage.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2013 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2013 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Mike, I don't think I said that.  But am I not open-minded if I have trouble with someone having a opposing view on equal rights for men and women?

No, you're not open-minded because you can't imagine someone having an opposing view on all things homosexual.

Fair.  I understand now.  See above.