It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[TemplarKormac]

They were straight.

Of course they were, hence why I mentioned "influence." I never said all of them were gay.

 

[Skylar]

So your standards only apply to me. But not yourself.

Actually, the same standards you're applying to me, you're violating yourself. First, you accused me of pinning all gays to the behavior of some, yet in your language, you consistently use the word "Christians" in its plural.

And your reference to 'gays' was singular? Again, any standard you apply to me....applys to you.

You're not getting around this.

Second, you accuse me of initiating in arguments of insinuation, when here you are doing the same thing regarding Christians.

How so? I've given specific examples and made specific arguments, offering the words of Christians themselves as evidence. I've claimed that Christians want CAIR to have its non-profit status revoked. And I've quoted Carson himself arguing this, from his own website.

That's not insinuation. That's evidence.

You've merely made another vague accusation that you can't back up. Like your claim that my accusation that you're blaming the victims was 'circular reasoning'. You just abandoned that.

And in this case, your accusations against those trying to build the Ground Zero Mosque:

No, they didn't. But just why would you build a mosque so close to Ground Zero? Was the purpose harmless? Or was it to say "hey, look what we did, over there!"?

That's straight up argument by insinuation. As you've presented jack shit to back any of it. You don't even have the balls to make your accusation. You offer it in the form of a series of leading question.

Like some truther. Its beneath you.

Make your case to back up your insinations. Or conceded you don't have the evidence to make your argument.

You don't make a point by making the same mistakes you accuse your opponent of making to make your point.

Circular logic.

You don't seem to follow what circular logic is. Its using your conclusion as your evidence.

type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. This fallacy is often quite humorous.

Your profound misunderstanding of what circular reasoning is....might explain why accused me of it when I claimed you were blaming the victim. And then abandoned the claim, refuse to address it, refuse to even quote me addressing it.

Try again. This time using the term's actual meaning. Rather than inventing your own as an awkward attempt at deflection.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how my accusation that you were blaming the victim was 'circular logic'. That's not going away either.

Off to dinner. I'll be back later to see if you did better this time around.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and you demanded I make points of my own....and then ignored every single one of them. Here they are again.

First, you're blaming the victims...if they're Muslim. You've accused me of a 'circular argument'. I've demanded you back that up with a rational argument. The accusation alone isn't going to cut it. Make your case.

Second, you're arguing by insinuation.

No, they didn't. But just why would you build a mosque so close to Ground Zero? Was the purpose harmless? Or was it to say "hey, look what we did, over there!"?

You don't actually present an argument or take a position. You merely insinuate an argument you know you can't factually support. That's beneath you. And a waste of my time.

Make your argument with evidence....or leave the truther leading question nonsense to the truthers.

Third, more than just the Ground Zero mosque was subject to Christian protests. You'll need to address that.

Fourth, Carson is calling for CAIR to be removed from non-profit status. Says who? Says Carson:

IRS: Take Away Muslim Group’s Tax-Exempt Status

You can try to remove Christians from the equation, but reality doesn't change to match. You'll need to address that.

If you're going to ignore the very arguments you asked for, do tell me in advance. It will save me time in preparing them.

 

[Syriusly]

So you deny that Christians are trying to get CAIR's tax exempt status revoked....because of something they said? Because I can show you it happening.

Yes I am, because the law demands it, not us Christians. See the failure of your logic here? We Christians didn't make that specific law. You can't do something that indicates political biases as a 501 (c)(3) tax exempt organization.

The government has already made clear the consequences.

How about Christians working to prevent Muslims from building mosques?

If you're referring to the Ground Zero mosque I agree. That would be a ginormous insult to all those who died on 9/11. Is it a demand for something more than equality? No, its a demand for reverence.

Islam has the onus of being a religion on whose name terrorists have committed acts of barbarity and murder. Until Islam dispels that and actively condemns those acts of terrorism, it will draw that kind of hostility. Ironically, we're discussing this subject on the very day that sailors lost their lives on the USS Cole, all due to radical Islamic terrorism 15 years ago.

The error you and Syrius are making here is that some Christians speak for all Christians. I for one am for religious freedom, not only for my faith, but for all others. I don't condone that behavior. But there it is..

Wow- what hypocrisy.

Seriously- you are okay with Christians objecting to the building of a mosque- a 'church'- because some Muslims are terrorists.

And then you say you are one for religious freedom.

What about the freedom of those Muslims to build their 'church' in the United States?

It wasn't the survivors of the attacks of 9/11 who were attacking the concept of a mosque in New York- it was driven by Christians who opposed the building of a mosque.

And this is not the only mosque that Christians have demanded not be built in America.

But let me point out- homosexuals- who have every reason to feel threatened by Christians and Christianity- are not trying to prevent the building of any churches.

 

[Syriusly]

One group can be discriminated against given a compelling state interest. Obergefell doesn't change that. Nor does it remove the compelling state interest from other groupings which might want to gain access to marriage laws. The closest to that would be in the inability for same sex relations to have children, but even there, infertile immediate family members have been prevented from marrying, so it seems there is more to that than just procreation.

Ogeberfell changes everything, that's why it is called a "landmark" case. You and your pro-gay-marriage entourage seem to think this case exists in some kind of special judicial bubble and can't apply to any other future court case or ruling... it's really bizarre. We are asking you how you'll prevent these other special interests from "gaining their rights to marriage" the same way, and you are throwing us the very same reasons and arguments the SCOTUS (AND YOU) just buried.

When that is pointed out, you say... Well it's not the law anywhere yet... but that's not a refutation of the argument. The ink isn't even dry on Ogeberfell yet... give it time... this will happen, guaranteed. Polygamists are on deck. Next in the batting order will be siblings. After that, it will be zoophiles and everything else. You can't stop this now because you don't like the ride... it's the bad thing about getting your ass caught on a slippery slope.

I mean... really, to me... it's just mildly entertaining to watch you people run around all stiff-assed talking about why we can't allow other people to love the ones they're with... because we all know that it poses a danger and risk and we have fears over what it might cause and what it may lead to... cue the choir singers... hallelujah ...hallelujah... now open you self-righteous mouth real wide and get ready for perverts to cram their immorality down your throat against your will. SCOTUS has ruled their civil rights trump your moral opinions. Congratulations!

What cowardly hypocrisy.

You are pissed off that gays can marry- and then accuse everyone who is pleased about marriage equality for gay couples of trying to cram our morality down your throats- when you would prefer actually cramming your morality- legislating your morality against everyone you don't approve of.

What an asshole.

 

[Boss]

Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with consent that I have read. Can you show anywhere it was argued that homosexuals cannot consent?

You don't need Obergefell to alter consent laws, they are easier to redefine than marriage ever dreamed of being.

Can you give me a non-moralistic reason to not allow a 13-year old girl the legal right to sexual consent? She apparently has the legal right to privacy and can consent to an abortion without parental consent. Is your "compelling interest" nothing more than your personal moral judgment?

And again.. two siblings who want to marry... they both consent... what is your problem there? Another moral hangup?

 

[Boss]

You say the court 'literally' ruled that "concerns" about what it "might lead to" are irrelevant in light of civil rights of the individual. I think you may be misusing the word literally here, or is there a part of the ruling in which that is stated?

Read the dissenting opinion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The whole idea of debating or being a great debater is admitting when you're wrong, and being a gracious loser. I am not so obstinate that I will continue objecting in the face of a superior argument. I was wrong. Admittedly so. It is wrong to deny someone to build a place of worship because of what faith they are and what connotations are associated with it. I directly contradicted myself on that point. Broadbrushing is an insincere argument. I am not an expert on argumentative fallacies. Mea culpa.

Oh by the way... I will ask anyone who feels tempted to gloat over this admission of defeat:

Can you admit to defeat as easily as I can? I'm not afraid to lose. I learn by debating. I'm not afraid of taking people on.

Skylar, you win.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

Okay, given what I've learned, I'll approach this from another angle, with the simple question of "why?" What's wrong with being tolerant?

Everyone is demanding tolerance, but are unwilling to be themselves. Naturally it is easier to be intolerant, because it takes effort to be tolerant. You can't have the reward without the effort.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied.

How not? I don't have to bend over backwards for my gay friends. A mutual respect is all we need.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

Are you trying to scare us?

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this?

You can be tolerant without being "PC."

It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore

After reading this statement a second time, I find this to be a very disturbing line of reasoning. Since when is it okay to exclude a group of people from our culture because they're gay?

 

[Montrovant]

You don't need Obergefell to alter consent laws, they are easier to redefine than marriage ever dreamed of being.

That isn't really relevant to the effects of the Obergefell decision, is it? That would still be true if the court had ruled same sex marriage bans are constitutional. It would still have been just as possible for consent laws to be lowered allowing for the pedophile marriages you've said are coming.

Can you give me a non-moralistic reason to not allow a 13-year old girl the legal right to sexual consent? She apparently has the legal right to privacy and can consent to an abortion without parental consent. Is your "compelling interest" nothing more than your personal moral judgment?

If you consider a judgement on when a person has the maturity to make a decision about having sex a moral one, then no, I do not have a non-moralistic reason. I am unsure of the best way to deal with abortions for someone so young and it is not a discussion I care to have here. Abortion would likely end up as a huge derailment. The compelling interest in consent is not a personal judgement, rather a societal one. The varying ages of consent laws reflect differences of opinion about maturity and age in different parts of the country. As I've said, I would prefer that consent laws be consistent nationally.

And again.. two siblings who want to marry... they both consent... what is your problem there? Another moral hangup?

I have given reasons to deny immediate family marriages at least five separate times now. I've also stated repeatedly that arguing against adult siblings marrying is a murkier proposition than arguing against grandparents or parents marrying children. If you want to view it as a moral hangup, that's fine. All law can be broken down to moral judgements.

 

[Faun]

Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with consent that I have read. Can you show anywhere it was argued that homosexuals cannot consent?

You don't need Obergefell to alter consent laws, they are easier to redefine than marriage ever dreamed of being.

Can you give me a non-moralistic reason to not allow a 13-year old girl the legal right to sexual consent? She apparently has the legal right to privacy and can consent to an abortion without parental consent. Is your "compelling interest" nothing more than your personal moral judgment?

And again.. two siblings who want to marry... they both consent... what is your problem there? Another moral hangup?

Why are you so eager for siblings to marry?

 

[EverCurious]

RE pedo: Not allowing 13 year olds to marry isn't a "moral" issue, it's a consent issue, it's a matter of if the child in question is mentally able to consent or not. If anything the age of consent will continue it's long-standing trend of going /up/ in America, as well as the rest of the world. The /original/ age of "consent" for marriage was 7, over the years it's been raised to 16-18 in most countries; I believe it's 14 in Minn or Wis, can't remember which state.

Even if we had a set "age" for the entire country, there is still made a judgment of the individual's mental capabilities in the case, so for example in some states a 20 year old in a relationship with a 15 year old could avoid criminal punishment if the 15 year old (and his/her parents) could show that the 15 year old was mature enough to make that decision for herself/himself. There isn't actually a hard and fast rule for age of consent across the country, nor is the matter settled on any specific "age" across the globe.

Similarly my son who is 16, even if the age of consent is 16, I could /easily/ legally object to him having a relationship with an older girl just on the basis that he's ADHD which almost always leads to a lag in maturity. (It'd actually be a bit of a lie on my part cause my kids pretty damn mature for his age, but that's beside the point.) As a parent I have the power to 'interfere' on my sons behalf, even if he disagrees with me, until he's 18 (the age of maturity.)

So basically, in order for pedo legalization to go through, you have to claim not only that millions of people (to meet a threshold of social pressure) want to have relationships with kids, but also that millions upon millions of parents would not object to said pedo relationship on their child's behalf, and Hell the state could bring the case themselves on the basis of potential child abuse through CPS and/or the school, a doctor, etc., and then a Judge would /also/ have to agree that it was a legally consented to relationship. It's just not going to happen...

Frankly, the US has a better chance of randomly sinking into the sea than pedo getting legalized does...

 

[Boss]

After reading this statement a second time, I find this to be a very disturbing line of reasoning. Since when is it okay to exclude a group of people from our culture because they're gay?

Well, I think it becomes "okay" when they turn in to authoritarian and totalitarian fascists and stop being people we can reason with and reach agreement through mutual cooperation and compromise. When they've lost all respect for decency and democracy and seek to inflict their immoral ideology onto the rest of us against our will.

You can read whatever you like into my OP, I can't stop your perceptions. If you have someone who has a drinking problem you don't continue to placate them, accommodate their every need, ply them with more alcohol in hopes of satisfying them. That approach is never going to turn out well for you or the alcoholic.

 

[Boss]

RE pedo: Not allowing 13 year olds to marry isn't a "moral" issue, it's a consent issue, it's a matter of if the child in question is mentally able to consent or not.

Nonsense. It is a moral determination you've arbitrarily made that has absolutely nothing to do with any individual's personal mental ability. As I pointed out, a 13-year-old is apparently "mentally able" enough to give their consent for an abortion without their parent's permission. So it depends on what we're talking about, doesn't it? And it's funny how this "mental ability" changes suddenly for all individuals when the calendar reaches a certain date corresponding coincidentally with one's date of birth.

 

[Boss]

The /original/ age of "consent" for marriage was 7, over the years it's been raised to 16-18 in most countries; I believe it's 14 in Minn or Wis, can't remember which state.

So as you demonstrate, this thing you refer to as "consent" is not set in stone. It can be changed (and has been) to meet with whatever "moral" parameters society wishes to set. Not only that, but unlike the institution of traditional marriage, it is relatively easy to change and is already different from state to state.

As I pointed out earlier, a "naturalist" (person who believes in laws of nature) might argue that a human being reaches sexual maturity at puberty, therefore, any subsequent restriction of their right to consent sexually beyond puberty constitutes a denial of their right to consent. The ONLY justification is a moral one.

 

[Pop23]

Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with consent that I have read. Can you show anywhere it was argued that homosexuals cannot consent?

You don't need Obergefell to alter consent laws, they are easier to redefine than marriage ever dreamed of being.

Can you give me a non-moralistic reason to not allow a 13-year old girl the legal right to sexual consent? She apparently has the legal right to privacy and can consent to an abortion without parental consent. Is your "compelling interest" nothing more than your personal moral judgment?

And again.. two siblings who want to marry... they both consent... what is your problem there? Another moral hangup?

Why are you so eager for siblings to marry?

Why aren't you?

It makes at least as much sense as same sex marriage, don't you think?

 

[Boss]

So basically, in order for pedo legalization to go through, you have to claim not only that millions of people (to meet a threshold of social pressure) want to have relationships with kids, but also that millions upon millions of parents would not object to said pedo relationship on their child's behalf, and Hell the state could bring the case themselves on the basis of potential child abuse through CPS and/or the school, a doctor, etc., and then a Judge would /also/ have to agree that it was a legally consented to relationship. It's just not going to happen...

Frankly, the US has a better chance of randomly sinking into the sea than pedo getting legalized does...

You are making some broad assumptions without much legal footing. First of all, let's clarify that "pedophilia" is the sexual attraction to young children, usually up to age 9~10. Most rational people recognize the "wrongness" of this on a moral level BUT... in Muslim culture, it is actually acceptable practice to have sex with small children and even to marry them in some cases. Everyone doesn't march to the same moral drum.

Next, age of consent laws vary. A 13-year-old girl doesn't need her parent's permission to give her consent for an abortion. So does she have the mental capacity to take another human life but not to determine who she loves or wants to have sexual intercourse with? And... in the many cases where underage persons can legally give consent with parental permission... is there some special quality that parental permission bestows upon their mental capability to consent?

 

[Montrovant]

After reading this statement a second time, I find this to be a very disturbing line of reasoning. Since when is it okay to exclude a group of people from our culture because they're gay?

Well, I think it becomes "okay" when they turn in to authoritarian and totalitarian fascists and stop being people we can reason with and reach agreement through mutual cooperation and compromise. When they've lost all respect for decency and democracy and seek to inflict their immoral ideology onto the rest of us against our will.

You can read whatever you like into my OP, I can't stop your perceptions. If you have someone who has a drinking problem you don't continue to placate them, accommodate their every need, ply them with more alcohol in hopes of satisfying them. That approach is never going to turn out well for you or the alcoholic.

Didn't you say that it was actually heterosexuals behind the gay rights movement?

 

[Montrovant]

So basically, in order for pedo legalization to go through, you have to claim not only that millions of people (to meet a threshold of social pressure) want to have relationships with kids, but also that millions upon millions of parents would not object to said pedo relationship on their child's behalf, and Hell the state could bring the case themselves on the basis of potential child abuse through CPS and/or the school, a doctor, etc., and then a Judge would /also/ have to agree that it was a legally consented to relationship. It's just not going to happen...

Frankly, the US has a better chance of randomly sinking into the sea than pedo getting legalized does...

You are making some broad assumptions without much legal footing. First of all, let's clarify that "pedophilia" is the sexual attraction to young children, usually up to age 9~10. Most rational people recognize the "wrongness" of this on a moral level BUT... in Muslim culture, it is actually acceptable practice to have sex with small children and even to marry them in some cases. Everyone doesn't march to the same moral drum.

Next, age of consent laws vary. A 13-year-old girl doesn't need her parent's permission to give her consent for an abortion. So does she have the mental capacity to take another human life but not to determine who she loves or wants to have sexual intercourse with? And... in the many cases where underage persons can legally give consent with parental permission... is there some special quality that parental permission bestows upon their mental capability to consent?

Since age based laws are generalizations, parental permission is likely a way to allow for exceptions. Practically speaking the courts cannot determine the maturity level of every individual for every age-based law or regulation. Parental consent allows for mature youths to get an exception to the normal age of consent. That would be my guess as to the intent.

 

[Boss]

Didn't you say that it was actually heterosexuals behind the gay rights movement?

Yes, I am including them by association.