"The word marriage has always referred to heterosexual relationships!"
"Why do I know that historical homosexual relationships didn't count! They used a different word from marriage!"
That's wrong too. It's actually worse, because it might produce a baby the mother is likely to choose to kill or rear as a single mother.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardHowever, pointing out a fallacy is a proper argument.
It doesn't mean that you're right (See Fallacy Fallacy) but it does mean that, if you've prevented a valid point, and there has been no response that was not a fallacy, your earlier point stands.
OH sweet Rott, abortion derail coming up!
Blah blah blah Positive Utility from Sex blah blah Not A Person blah blah Don't Count blah blah your position is unsupported blah blah we've gone through it all before etc etc.
Oh wait-Rott, by your reasoning, isn't a straight couple having anal sex better than a straight couple having vaginal sex? So, given that, why would a gay couple having anal sex be any worse?
It would suggest that it's a problem of promiscuity, not with anything specific to homosexuality.
edited 14th Feb '11 1:20:59 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Umm, so... If unprotected straight sex is worse in your opinion, why do you demonize gay sex more? Why is that one of the best reasons you have to not allow equality?
"Without a fairy, you're not even a real man!" ~ Mido from Ocarina of TimeAll right, let's try to bring this thread back on to topic for the last time.
Whether or not it is a choice, is there any good reason for the state to treat homosexual couples different from heterosexual couples re:
- Right to visitation on death
- Rights in the inheritance of a partner who died without leaving a will and last testament
- Right to adopt
- Right to the same tax incentives heterosexual couples would enjoy
Wait, hold on. Unprotected straight sex is glorious if the participants' relationship is set up to benefit any children conceived. By creating children, we partake of divinity.
What I'm against is promiscuity.
I'm against equality for many reasons. That progressives want to encourage anal sex is a minor point.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardYou happened to completely ignore the anal sex issue Rott. Mind going back to why that's a bad thing if neither partner has an STD?
Well, if you're against promiscuity, you should want gay people married so that they're less promiscuous.
Screw it. The topic really isn't about whether or not Gay Marriage should be allowed, but about whether homosexuality is a choice. Can we get back to that topic?
edited 14th Feb '11 1:36:08 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
^ *addressing argument in spoiler* I'm very curious to see how Rott will respond to that.
What we really have here is a Double Standard.
You know how many times that kind of thinking has won over in the U.S.? None. It's because of a certain constitution we have.
Also, being gay isn't all about sex. Just like how I don't define your straightness with your sex life. We're on this planet for a short while searching for someone out there to love us. Certainly, some people search for sex only, but that's not something unique at all to LGBT people.
edited 14th Feb '11 1:40:50 PM by snailbait
"Without a fairy, you're not even a real man!" ~ Mido from Ocarina of TimeWhat I'm against is promiscuity.
First of all, creating new humans isn't divine. And promiscuity is not just any sex that isn't for procreation.
Come on, man. A horny 15-year old can figure this out.
So I guess we should just enslave all them dumb niggers again, huh?
Reductio Ad Absurdum, but it fits.
Silent Stranger, I can see why Rott makes you filled with rage.
"Who wants to hear about good stuff when the bottom of the abyss of human failure that you know doesn't exist is so much greater?"-WraithPRIVATE MESSAGE PLZ!
But yeah, don't wanna post it here and go the way of BonSequitur.
edited 14th Feb '11 2:49:18 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

People have to make a costs/benefits analysis for whether or not they want to respond to your blatant Chewbacca Defense or not, or to whether or not the positive utility of not wearing a condom is worth the risks of ST Ds.
Seriously? That's the line of argument you're going with? Can't you at least pretend that we're staying on topic, instead of just trying to demonize people who have anal sex?
edited 14th Feb '11 1:07:29 PM by TheyCallMeTomu