Quantcast Gay Marriage? - Page 165 - The Writer's Block
Refresh the page...
forums KidPub Home
  #1641  
Old 11-02-2012, 09:37 PM
sigfig sigfig is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack View Post
Shunned? Or was 'rule' like gay marriage? if so then my argument is invalid.





My reasoning is that if you erase on for gays, then the 'rules' become nothing, why not erase another? The difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is just a big a difference that is between homosexuals and Polygamous people. Your being a hypocrite because your using the same argument against gay marriage (that you mock), against polygamy.
It is just a big difference, I'm not denying that. But they aren't tied together! You're artificially tying them for no logical purpose.

It's like saying, well if you legalize marijuana then you just have to legalize heroin, or opium, or LSD

Or if you allow women to vote, then why not allow non-citizens to vote?

I'm NOT arguing against polygamy. I revealed earlier that I was fine with it, but the point is that I don't want to be arguing polygamy. That's not the subject.

The GENDER has nothing to do with the NUMBER. They are separate requirements with separate arguments, and you can't make an argument for one by pointing to the other.

You've honestly not given a single good reason for your opposition. You asked a question. That's it. We asked for logic and you said "why not polygamy."
__________________
Coffins: http://www.kidpub.com/story/coffins-318126128
Reply With Quote
  #1642  
Old 11-02-2012, 09:42 PM
HeatherB HeatherB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: between insane and insecure
Posts: 7,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigfig View Post
It is just a big difference, I'm not denying that. But they aren't tied together! You're artificially tying them for no logical purpose.

It's like saying, well if you legalize marijuana then you just have to legalize heroin, or opium, or LSD

Or if you allow women to vote, then why not allow non-citizens to vote?

I'm NOT arguing against polygamy. I revealed earlier that I was fine with it, but the point is that I don't want to be arguing polygamy. That's not the subject.

The GENDER has nothing to do with the NUMBER. They are separate requirements with separate arguments, and you can't make an argument for one by pointing to the other.

You've honestly not given a single good reason for your opposition. You asked a question. That's it. We asked for logic and you said "why not polygamy."
Thank you for this. You are awesome.
__________________
and of course i f o r g i v e
i've seen how you live
like a phoenix you r i s e
from the ashes
you pick up the p i e c e s
and the ghosts in the attic;
they never quite leave
Reply With Quote
  #1643  
Old 11-02-2012, 10:19 PM
Jack Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somewhere In Canada..................
Posts: 6,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigfig View Post
It is just a big difference, I'm not denying that. But they aren't tied together! You're artificially tying them for no logical purpose.

It's like saying, well if you legalize marijuana then you just have to legalize heroin, or opium, or LSD

Or if you allow women to vote, then why not allow non-citizens to vote?

I'm NOT arguing against polygamy. I revealed earlier that I was fine with it, but the point is that I don't want to be arguing polygamy. That's not the subject.

The GENDER has nothing to do with the NUMBER. They are separate requirements with separate arguments, and you can't make an argument for one by pointing to the other.

You've honestly not given a single good reason for your opposition. You asked a question. That's it. We asked for logic and you said "why not polygamy."
Your removing one of the restrictions, in that sense it is exactly the same, you say that gay marriage should be allowed because its love, right? So then that justifies removing the gender restriction. Then why shouldn't we remove the number restriction too? So that the three people who love each-other can marry?
Making them also the same in the sense that you are removing a restriction so that people who 'love' each-other can marry.
__________________
Mrs. Jensen: With him the customer was always number one. Oscar always treated people with great respect.
Oscar Leroy: [suddenly enters] Hey jackass, stop talking to this old wing-nut and pump my gas!
Brent LeRoy: Well, he's a people person.

Lacey: Karen, I'm glad you're here. Look, we need to talk about the book club.
Karen Pelly: I thought the first rule of book club was, you don't talk about book club.
Lacey: That's fight club.
Karen Pelly: How do you know about fight club?

Last edited by Jack; 11-02-2012 at 10:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1644  
Old 11-02-2012, 10:30 PM
L.S.Trendom L.S.Trendom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: en route to Mordor, punching my father, Voldemort, in the nose for not liking my Father's Day gift
Posts: 58,652
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack View Post
Your removing one of the restrictions, in that sense it is exactly the same, you say that gay marriage should be allowed because its love, right? So then that justifies removing the gender restriction. Then why shouldn't we remove the number restriction too? So that the three people who love each-other can marry?
Making them also the same in the sense that you are removing a restriction so that people who 'love' each-other can marry.
If that's your justification for not allowing gay marriage, then, like previously state, that can be used to allow gay marriage. Interracial restrictions were removed, so restrictions regarding gay marriage should be removed too.
Reply With Quote
  #1645  
Old 11-02-2012, 10:48 PM
Jack Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somewhere In Canada..................
Posts: 6,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.S.Trendom View Post
If that's your justification for not allowing gay marriage, then, like previously state, that can be used to allow gay marriage. Interracial restrictions were removed, so restrictions regarding gay marriage should be removed too.
As I said to Sagar "Shunned? Or was a 'rule' like gay marriage? if so then my argument is invalid."
__________________
Mrs. Jensen: With him the customer was always number one. Oscar always treated people with great respect.
Oscar Leroy: [suddenly enters] Hey jackass, stop talking to this old wing-nut and pump my gas!
Brent LeRoy: Well, he's a people person.

Lacey: Karen, I'm glad you're here. Look, we need to talk about the book club.
Karen Pelly: I thought the first rule of book club was, you don't talk about book club.
Lacey: That's fight club.
Karen Pelly: How do you know about fight club?
Reply With Quote
  #1646  
Old 11-02-2012, 10:50 PM
L.S.Trendom L.S.Trendom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: en route to Mordor, punching my father, Voldemort, in the nose for not liking my Father's Day gift
Posts: 58,652
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack View Post
As I said to Sagar "Shunned? Or was a 'rule' like gay marriage? if so then my argument is invalid."
It was a law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interra...acial_marriage
Reply With Quote
  #1647  
Old 11-02-2012, 11:58 PM
sigfig sigfig is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack View Post
Your removing one of the restrictions, in that sense it is exactly the same, you say that gay marriage should be allowed because its love, right? So then that justifies removing the gender restriction. Then why shouldn't we remove the number restriction too? So that the three people who love each-other can marry?
Making them also the same in the sense that you are removing a restriction so that people who 'love' each-other can marry.
Asking a question isn't making an argument. You ask why the same argument doesn't work for polygamy. I say I don't know, because I'm fine with polygamy. Someone who is against it may answer with specific reasons.

You still haven't given me a reason to be opposed to gay marriage. i'm waiting. not really. take your time. you'll need it
__________________
Coffins: http://www.kidpub.com/story/coffins-318126128
Reply With Quote
  #1648  
Old 11-03-2012, 10:19 AM
Jack Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somewhere In Canada..................
Posts: 6,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigfig View Post
Asking a question isn't making an argument. You ask why the same argument doesn't work for polygamy. I say I don't know, because I'm fine with polygamy. Someone who is against it may answer with specific reasons.

You still haven't given me a reason to be opposed to gay marriage. i'm waiting. not really. take your time. you'll need it
Your not getting it. Your removing the restriction for Gays, 2 people of the same gender who say they love each-other, and your justification it because they say they love each-other. So now using that same logic, any people or group who say that they love each-other, should now be able to get another restriction removed.
__________________
Mrs. Jensen: With him the customer was always number one. Oscar always treated people with great respect.
Oscar Leroy: [suddenly enters] Hey jackass, stop talking to this old wing-nut and pump my gas!
Brent LeRoy: Well, he's a people person.

Lacey: Karen, I'm glad you're here. Look, we need to talk about the book club.
Karen Pelly: I thought the first rule of book club was, you don't talk about book club.
Lacey: That's fight club.
Karen Pelly: How do you know about fight club?
Reply With Quote
  #1649  
Old 11-03-2012, 10:21 AM
Jack Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somewhere In Canada..................
Posts: 6,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.S.Trendom View Post
Then that invalidates my argument. I pronounce you the winner of this debate!
__________________
Mrs. Jensen: With him the customer was always number one. Oscar always treated people with great respect.
Oscar Leroy: [suddenly enters] Hey jackass, stop talking to this old wing-nut and pump my gas!
Brent LeRoy: Well, he's a people person.

Lacey: Karen, I'm glad you're here. Look, we need to talk about the book club.
Karen Pelly: I thought the first rule of book club was, you don't talk about book club.
Lacey: That's fight club.
Karen Pelly: How do you know about fight club?

Last edited by Jack; 11-03-2012 at 01:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1650  
Old 11-05-2012, 03:11 PM
Tiresomehoopla Tiresomehoopla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Chenarus
Posts: 746
Default

Sooo...This is over?
__________________
Error:Signature.exe not found
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
*bi high five*, being gay is fine, calm down y'all, dear lord, delete next tag->, don't delete me!, dont fight, elephant dung!, gay is ok, gay is okay, gay marriage ftw, go washington!, hat the sin not the siner, hating gay marrige, if only you knew me, im gay, im gay and kp scares me, it's a paradox! o_o, it's okay to be gay, not you the gay sex one, nyan cat, pumpkin pie is evil!! :'(, what sin?, why is my tag gone??, y u so mean 2 gays

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.