4/25/2013 2:08 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:29:00 AM (view original):
I'll ask again.  If gay couples want to get married, why do you care so much?
Why do you care?
4/25/2013 2:09 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:45:00 AM (view original):
OK - WHY isn't it a good idea?
WHY is it a good idea?
4/25/2013 2:10 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg2 on 3/29/2013 11:49:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg2 on 3/29/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Last time I checked, pre-teens, farm animals and oak trees can't join consensual relationships with adults.  

Tec, why does it bother you if the definition of something changes over time?  
It hasn't been a gradual change.  It was one thing for tens of thousands of years, and that was unquestioned and unchallenged.  Now, over the past 25-30 years or so, ever since the whole "political correctness" movement started, there's a demand to make it something else.

In the big picture, 25 years as opposed to tens of thousands of years makes it "impulsive".  Doing things impulsively is often not a good idea.
You mean like allowing interracial marriage?
Interracial marriage has been around for tens of thousands of years.  It's nothing new.
It is in the US.

And anyway, "that's the way it's always been" is not a good reason to avoid change.


Life lessons from a 2nd rate comedian.   What could possibly be wrong with that?
4/25/2013 2:11 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/29/2013 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 3/29/2013 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Was illegal in parts of the US before 1967.
Has the U.S. been around for tens of thousands of years?

I'm talking about human history, not U.S. history.
Is that really relevant, though? And does it matter that the definition of marriage will change? It won't change for your marriage. Or mine. Or any other heterosexuals. The only people this change will affect are homosexuals.
Define relevant.   And then have biz define it.
4/25/2013 2:12 PM
Bored, Mike?
4/25/2013 2:12 PM
OK, I got bored with that pretty quickly.    You repeaters win.   I check back on you in a couple of days or 50 pages of regurgitated posts, whichever comes first.
4/25/2013 2:13 PM
I know you will, Forum Police.
4/25/2013 2:14 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/25/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Bored, Mike?
I was going to mock you til I reached page 100 but got bored with it.  

As you were.
4/25/2013 2:33 PM
Once again, the situations are completely different. This is why I don't think you really understand what logic means.

The reasoning YOU gave is being applied equally to both situations, which makes it a logical application.

Maybe you don't want your reasoning to be applied to other situations you believe are "completely different", you should use a line of reasoning that doesn't work that way.
They're telling you who they are attracted to when it comes to men or women.  That's all.

They can do that without using a word in a way that doesn't make logical sense. "I'm attracted to..." and fill in the rest will do it quite nicely.
 If you want to insist that's not what the word means, most people would probably give you an "OK..." and move on.
Anyone who understands how logic works would say "okay" because they agree with me.

Unfortunately, many people actually WANT to believe the propaganda-based way of defining sexuality because it fits their agenda better than the logical one (which is why the propaganda campaign began in the first place - no one starts such campaigns if their agenda doesn't benefit from it). 

The logical reality is that you CAN AND DO choose who your sexual (or romantic) partners are. No one disagrees with that.

By saying attraction defines your sexuality rather than who you are with, the propaganda attempts to justify sexual choices. It does this by arguing that since you don't choose attraction you don't really choose your sexual partners, which is nonsense.

You still choose your sexual partners, which logically defines your sexuality. To see why that makes sense, consider the case of a man who is more attracted to other men than to women, yet throughout his entire life he has romantic and sexual encounters ONLY with women and never with men.

If you believe the propaganda, the man is homosexual despite there being no actual evidence to support such a statement.

If you believe logic, the man is heterosexual based upon the evidence of who he has been with romantically and/or sexually.
4/25/2013 2:36 PM
4/25/2013 2:37 PM
Not reading all that, seems repetitive.  

When someone says they're homosexual, it's a word commonly used to describe that they're attracted toward the same sex.  If you don't like it, oh well.

I don't like the way colonel is spelled.  I don't like it.  Oh, well.
4/25/2013 2:54 PM
When someone says they're homosexual, it's a word commonly used to describe that they're attracted toward the same sex.  If you don't like it, oh well.

It's not about who likes it or doesn't like it.

If you are fine with believing a lie based upon propaganda, have at it. Believe whatever you want.

As for me, I will continue to use logical reasoning to test what other people say, and when it doesn't measure up but people keep pushing it anyway because it forwards their own agendas, I'll call it out for being the BS propaganda it is.
4/25/2013 2:55 PM
Not reading all that, seems repetitive. 

You're conveniently not reading it because you have no argument for it. That's fine, but don't try to BS anyone into thinking you wont' read it because it "seems repetitive", which you couldn't know if you don't read it.
4/25/2013 3:11 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/25/2013 2:33:00 PM (view original):
Once again, the situations are completely different. This is why I don't think you really understand what logic means.

The reasoning YOU gave is being applied equally to both situations, which makes it a logical application.

Maybe you don't want your reasoning to be applied to other situations you believe are "completely different", you should use a line of reasoning that doesn't work that way.
They're telling you who they are attracted to when it comes to men or women.  That's all.

They can do that without using a word in a way that doesn't make logical sense. "I'm attracted to..." and fill in the rest will do it quite nicely.
 If you want to insist that's not what the word means, most people would probably give you an "OK..." and move on.
Anyone who understands how logic works would say "okay" because they agree with me.

Unfortunately, many people actually WANT to believe the propaganda-based way of defining sexuality because it fits their agenda better than the logical one (which is why the propaganda campaign began in the first place - no one starts such campaigns if their agenda doesn't benefit from it). 

The logical reality is that you CAN AND DO choose who your sexual (or romantic) partners are. No one disagrees with that.

By saying attraction defines your sexuality rather than who you are with, the propaganda attempts to justify sexual choices. It does this by arguing that since you don't choose attraction you don't really choose your sexual partners, which is nonsense.

You still choose your sexual partners, which logically defines your sexuality. To see why that makes sense, consider the case of a man who is more attracted to other men than to women, yet throughout his entire life he has romantic and sexual encounters ONLY with women and never with men.

If you believe the propaganda, the man is homosexual despite there being no actual evidence to support such a statement.

If you believe logic, the man is heterosexual based upon the evidence of who he has been with romantically and/or sexually.
The situations aren't the same. Apply the logic equally doesn't matter because the situations are different.
4/25/2013 3:16 PM

You still choose your sexual partners, which logically defines your sexuality. To see why that makes sense, consider the case of a man who is more attracted to other men than to women, yet throughout his entire life he has romantic and sexual encounters ONLY with women and never with men.

If you believe the propaganda, the man is homosexual despite there being no actual evidence to support such a statement.

If you believe logic, the man is heterosexual based upon the evidence of who he has been with romantically and/or sexually.
Rather than arguing semantics about whether this man is homosexual or heterosexual, can we just agree that this man is probably less happy than he could be because he's forcing himself to have "romantic and sexual encounters" with the gender to whom he is less attracted?  I know that if for some reason I was prompted to have relationships with men instead of women I would be substantially less happy.

And to extend the thought experiment, let's consider WHY this man is having romantic and sexual encounters with people of the gender to which he is less attracted.  First, society pushes him in that direction.  Maybe his family is full of closed-minded idiots like you who tell him he's only gay if he chooses to express his natural attraction toward men.  You can and have argued that you, personally, treat homosexuals the same as heterosexuals, but if you're really honest with yourself the only reason you bother to come up with this grandiose justification for an alternative definition of homosexuality is to provide some sort of groundwork to continue to reduce the rights of homosexuals relative to heterosexuals.  Somewhere inside you are clearly homophobic, and any argument to the contrary is going to ring hollow.  The other big reason to act heterosexual when your natural tendency is towards homosexuality is that right now in most of the United States it is impossible to obtain the same rights, privileges, and advantages as part of a homosexual couple that you can have as part of a heterosexual couple.  Which comes back to the original topic of the thread - by outlawing gay marriage, you force ~10% of the population to choose between having the rights and privileges of heterosexuals and being less happy than they could be in a homosexual relationship/civil union/marriage and choosing to express their biological sexual preferences and accepting a reduced amount of civil advantages.  Or, of course, take the old popular route of having a heterosexual marriage and having affairs with people of the same sex.

If we still want to adhere to the founding principle of our country that all men are endowed with the fundamental right to pursue happiness, can we really justify having our government force people to make this choice?
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.