-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
Hey, let's get married!
- Thread starter Gayowulf
- Start date
- Status
This probably is going to offer nothing at all to those who think I'm wrong, but for those who don't and can't understand why others can honestly believe homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality please look at it this way maybe it'll make sense.
Children are taught from an early age that Red Blue and Yellow are the three primary colours, and as a result it's very difficult to convince them otherwise. You could mix their blue and red paint and show it produces a dark yellow like mixing black and yellow... but they'll want to believe what they were taught.
To try and convince someone who honestly believes that homosexuality is a true sexuality that it is not is a similar endeavour. It's exceedingly difficult. Because they were taught wrongly, when you tell small children that the primary (subtractive) colours are cyan, magenta and yellow it doesn't make sense to them. If they were never taught wrongly to begin with, then it's easy to show them that cyan, magenta and yellow are the primary colours, and it makes perfect sense to them. But just as blue and yellow are completely opposite colours, so too are heterosexuality and homosexuality.
So you see, just because something is so convincing and makes so much sense to you, does not mean it's actually true. Believing is seeing, if you believe that cyan magenta and yellow are the primary colours then it makes sense, if you don't then you can make the wrong idea (that the primary colours are red blue and yellow) make sense.
These are parallel truths, you should be able to see cyan and magenta in blue, magenta and yellow in red, cyan and yellow in green as well as see red and blue in magenta, red and green in yellow and blue and green in cyan. Because both sets are primary, but opposites. One starts in darkness and ends in light, the other starts in light and ends in darkness.
Children are taught from an early age that Red Blue and Yellow are the three primary colours, and as a result it's very difficult to convince them otherwise. You could mix their blue and red paint and show it produces a dark yellow like mixing black and yellow... but they'll want to believe what they were taught.
To try and convince someone who honestly believes that homosexuality is a true sexuality that it is not is a similar endeavour. It's exceedingly difficult. Because they were taught wrongly, when you tell small children that the primary (subtractive) colours are cyan, magenta and yellow it doesn't make sense to them. If they were never taught wrongly to begin with, then it's easy to show them that cyan, magenta and yellow are the primary colours, and it makes perfect sense to them. But just as blue and yellow are completely opposite colours, so too are heterosexuality and homosexuality.
So you see, just because something is so convincing and makes so much sense to you, does not mean it's actually true. Believing is seeing, if you believe that cyan magenta and yellow are the primary colours then it makes sense, if you don't then you can make the wrong idea (that the primary colours are red blue and yellow) make sense.
These are parallel truths, you should be able to see cyan and magenta in blue, magenta and yellow in red, cyan and yellow in green as well as see red and blue in magenta, red and green in yellow and blue and green in cyan. Because both sets are primary, but opposites. One starts in darkness and ends in light, the other starts in light and ends in darkness.
Last edited:
So you're saying that people are wrong for loving someone of the same sex? I have 1 question for you: WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO SAY THAT?
Gay people getting married affects you in NO way. I'd also like to point out the fact that you've derailed the entire topic to being about raising children, when the topic at hand is homosexuals being allowed to marry. Just because homosexuals get married, does no way say that they are automatically going to raise children. This is called prejudice. Stereotypes are NOT facts, just because when most people get married they end up raising children, does not mean that it is always the case, I know of several couples who have been married and not have children.
The thing is, none of these homosexual couples are protesting for the right to have raise children, they are fighting for what is a god-given right (for those who believe in god) or a right as a human, to be able to join with someone you love in a union based on LOVE.
Take a look at this dictionary reference (yes, a dictionary reference):
http://merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage&x=0&y=0
Main Entry: mar·riage
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
I think I recall someone stating that marriage means between man and woman? Might not, been a while since I read the thread. Anyway, this seems to be a good definition.
However, we cannot act like we are surprised, there are always going to be stubborn people who are against anything that differs from their PERSONAL CHOICE OF LIFESTYLE.
Happened with the black equality, happened with women equality, happening with homosexual equality. The reason the world is so horrible is because of all this division.
I see 2 reasons for this:
1) Different Religions (beliefs) <-This is starting to break down as people accept other religions (for the most part)
2) Not are people are treated equally
It is #2 that is affecting us right now. Whose right is it to say that someone who chooses a different lifestyle is a lesser being?
Many people have said that they have been conversing with a homosexual (without knowing) and never knew until the person told them. There are many jokes about how 'dangerous' homosexuals are because they blend in and you never see them coming. This is very true, they blend in because they are HUMAN. They are no less of a human than you or I. Giving them this simple right to marriage is something that they should already have. They shouldn't need to be fighting for something they should already have as a human right.
This has to be about one of the only issues that I support with the Liberals, and I give them a pat on the back for putting this through.
Regards,
Gay people getting married affects you in NO way. I'd also like to point out the fact that you've derailed the entire topic to being about raising children, when the topic at hand is homosexuals being allowed to marry. Just because homosexuals get married, does no way say that they are automatically going to raise children. This is called prejudice. Stereotypes are NOT facts, just because when most people get married they end up raising children, does not mean that it is always the case, I know of several couples who have been married and not have children.
The thing is, none of these homosexual couples are protesting for the right to have raise children, they are fighting for what is a god-given right (for those who believe in god) or a right as a human, to be able to join with someone you love in a union based on LOVE.
Take a look at this dictionary reference (yes, a dictionary reference):
http://merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage&x=0&y=0
Main Entry: mar·riage
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
I think I recall someone stating that marriage means between man and woman? Might not, been a while since I read the thread. Anyway, this seems to be a good definition.
However, we cannot act like we are surprised, there are always going to be stubborn people who are against anything that differs from their PERSONAL CHOICE OF LIFESTYLE.
Happened with the black equality, happened with women equality, happening with homosexual equality. The reason the world is so horrible is because of all this division.
I see 2 reasons for this:
1) Different Religions (beliefs) <-This is starting to break down as people accept other religions (for the most part)
2) Not are people are treated equally
It is #2 that is affecting us right now. Whose right is it to say that someone who chooses a different lifestyle is a lesser being?
Many people have said that they have been conversing with a homosexual (without knowing) and never knew until the person told them. There are many jokes about how 'dangerous' homosexuals are because they blend in and you never see them coming. This is very true, they blend in because they are HUMAN. They are no less of a human than you or I. Giving them this simple right to marriage is something that they should already have. They shouldn't need to be fighting for something they should already have as a human right.
This has to be about one of the only issues that I support with the Liberals, and I give them a pat on the back for putting this through.
Regards,
I don't believe in online dictionaries. And at any rate here's the Law:
Marriage Act 1961
And the definition is contained within:
Your "dictionary" definition, is from an online dictionary. They don't have a reputation for being accurate. My definition is from the law, and the law here is defined in order to protect the meaning of Marriage.
This isn't about "rights". All Australian citizens share the same rights. Every person is entitled to marry if they choose. The fact that a man cannot marry his tractor does not mean he has less rights than other men. You are trying to equate this with racism and sexism... but it's nothing like the two. Racism denied rights to persons based on their skin colour, not based on their choices. The same with sexism.
There are men who would like to marry their sisters, do you feel this should be legalized? Before you shout "no, because of the increased possibility of recessive genes meaning their children are far more likely to be deformed" let me ask you:
1. Why would you consider the issues involved with children now when you ignored them for homosexual couples...
And
2. Are you aware that two 45 year olds have roughly the same chance of producing deformed offspring as the incestuous brother-sister couple?
If you're willing to deny brothers and sisters the "right" to marry and allow 45+ year olds to marry, then that choice must be based solely on your morals, since (as I explained) they are equal in terms of producing deformed offspring. It would also be hypocritical of you since you said:
If this isn't the case you have no right to say that I can't use my morals to be morally against homosexuality. Otherwise please tell everyone here how you believe brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry each other. It's your call. I hope I've answered that one question "WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO SAY THAT?" to your satisfaction.
PS: When I've bought this up on previous forums (religious forums), in previous arguments people on your side have tended to choose the option "brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry, who are we to judge?" over the alternative (which as I've explained is solely a MORAL judgement).
PPS: Failing that they've also tended to choose option 3 "how dare you compare homosexuality to incest" - my reply to you if you choose this option is "how dare you compare homosexuality to heterosexuality".
Marriage Act 1961
And the definition is contained within:
I also draw your attention to section 88EA:
Code:
Certain unions are not marriages
A union solemnised in a foreign country between:
(a) a man and another man; or
(b) a woman and another woman;
must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.This isn't about "rights". All Australian citizens share the same rights. Every person is entitled to marry if they choose. The fact that a man cannot marry his tractor does not mean he has less rights than other men. You are trying to equate this with racism and sexism... but it's nothing like the two. Racism denied rights to persons based on their skin colour, not based on their choices. The same with sexism.
There are men who would like to marry their sisters, do you feel this should be legalized? Before you shout "no, because of the increased possibility of recessive genes meaning their children are far more likely to be deformed" let me ask you:
1. Why would you consider the issues involved with children now when you ignored them for homosexual couples...
And
2. Are you aware that two 45 year olds have roughly the same chance of producing deformed offspring as the incestuous brother-sister couple?
If you're willing to deny brothers and sisters the "right" to marry and allow 45+ year olds to marry, then that choice must be based solely on your morals, since (as I explained) they are equal in terms of producing deformed offspring. It would also be hypocritical of you since you said:
Which infers you should feel the same way about "discriminating" against incestuous couples.
If this isn't the case you have no right to say that I can't use my morals to be morally against homosexuality. Otherwise please tell everyone here how you believe brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry each other. It's your call. I hope I've answered that one question "WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO SAY THAT?" to your satisfaction.
I disagree, every homosexual I've talked with has believed that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children. When we had our public rallies in favour of children's rights over adult's rights against Stanhopes (at the time) proposed changes to allow homosexual couples to adopt, there were homosexuals there "in protest" claiming such crap as "two dads are better than one".
PS: When I've bought this up on previous forums (religious forums), in previous arguments people on your side have tended to choose the option "brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry, who are we to judge?" over the alternative (which as I've explained is solely a MORAL judgement).
PPS: Failing that they've also tended to choose option 3 "how dare you compare homosexuality to incest" - my reply to you if you choose this option is "how dare you compare homosexuality to heterosexuality".
Last edited:
Well, that is merriam-webster, a pretty trusted dictionary in print that has a version online. I have an oxford somewhere around, but I don't know where it is since we moved..otherwise I'd look it up.
Moving on, you're assuming that I would have the same stance against incestuous couples. Yet I never even once mentioned them, so I don't see why you're attacking me on that. If incestuous couples were wanting to get married, then I'd see their rights and probably side with them or stay neutral, as there are certain issues with that, completely different from homosexuals.
Now, you're bringing back the damn child issue. Did you not read where I said this is NOT about raising children? They are fighting to get married, not to have children. I have different views about homosexuals raising children than I do about their right to marriage.
Perhaps I stated it badly in my post above, yes, homosexuals are protesting for it, but that is not what this bill is about. This is about marriage, not raising children, so it's COMPLETELY off-topic.
What I want to know, is why you keep bringing related, but off-topic points in to argue this? Have you ran out of actual valid points to bring up and just relying on your pig-headed stubbornness on this issue to keep going?
Give it up, the only reason people don't want homosexuals to marry is because of their own personal views. Views which are not always correct.
Regards,
Moving on, you're assuming that I would have the same stance against incestuous couples. Yet I never even once mentioned them, so I don't see why you're attacking me on that. If incestuous couples were wanting to get married, then I'd see their rights and probably side with them or stay neutral, as there are certain issues with that, completely different from homosexuals.
Now, you're bringing back the damn child issue. Did you not read where I said this is NOT about raising children? They are fighting to get married, not to have children. I have different views about homosexuals raising children than I do about their right to marriage.
Perhaps I stated it badly in my post above, yes, homosexuals are protesting for it, but that is not what this bill is about. This is about marriage, not raising children, so it's COMPLETELY off-topic.
What I want to know, is why you keep bringing related, but off-topic points in to argue this? Have you ran out of actual valid points to bring up and just relying on your pig-headed stubbornness on this issue to keep going?
Give it up, the only reason people don't want homosexuals to marry is because of their own personal views. Views which are not always correct.
Regards,
Marriage is about family and family is about children. Therefore it is completely on-topic.
Then perhaps you'd like to clarify your position on incestuous couples, sitting on the fence is not good enough... are you: 1. in favour of brother-sister and similar incestuous relationships... or 2. Morally opposed?
I bring this up because the vast majority of the population is 2. morally opposed, and because it's very similar to homosexuality. There are plenty of brother-sister couples who want to be allowed to marry each other. If you choose option 1 you are proving me right in my argument. Look for yourself:
In your own words you first attacked me for assuming that you "would have the same stance against incestuous couples" ... and then conclude that it's true.
And finally homosexuals are not "fighting to get married" as you put it. For to do so they would fight within the definition of Marriage. They want marriage re-defined to allow for their immoral and damaging relationships. The divorce act in Australia is a rape of the Marriage act. There are 13 (I believe) clauses for divorce, and then they added the "no-fault" divorce for when the legitimate clause couldn't be proven. "Irreconcilable differences" has never been one of the recognized clauses, and according to the divorce act divorce is still only permitted to dissolve marriage where at lease one of those 13 clauses exist. To make matters even worse they reduced the separation period for the no-fault divorce from 5 years to just 12 months.
You only have to look at the damage that those "changes" to the legal definition of Marriage has caused. I have had people on your side in this day and age tell me that it is absurd to define Marriage as life-long. America which has the loosest divorce laws in the world, has the unparalleled highest divorce rate.
I shouldn't have to explain all this, because I've already proven before that changing the definition of Marriage to allow for homosexual couples does affect heterosexuals. The divorce laws have affected it. This has been proven, it affects marriage because now those entering into it don't see it as an irreversible life-long commitment... but rather as a union they can always back-out of.
And it doesn't matter if you don't accept Marriage as a sacred religious union created by God, no matter what you believe divorce came from Moses - there is no other known origin. With God's intention of annulling "impure" marriages only - that is where the bride was found not to be a virgin. Otherwise known as pre-marital unfaithfulness - it was not intended for any other reason, including adultery. It too was abused and used more loosely than this.
In closing let me remind you, that all divorces are caused by sin - by what is immoral. All homosexual relationships too are caused by what is sinful, what we know is wrong, and what is immoral.
It's like an apple tree without apples. It's still an apple tree, something is missing, but it isn't an orange tree just because it doesn't have apples.jmiller said:
Not all married couples CAN have children. But it doesn't change the fact that Marriage is still about family.
Why do you insist on bringing in points that have nothing to do with the debate?
How does getting married automatically mean you raise children? Please explain this to me. Not everyone wants kids, whatever reason they may hold it for.
"If this isn't the case you have no right to say that I can't use my morals to be morally against homosexuality."
For the incestuous couples point, this is why I said that my opinion would not be against it necessarily. I'm not proving any of your points by saying that my stance would be similar to what I hold on homosexuals. I'm merely disproving your above point, which, btw, you can be morally against homosexuality all you want, but homosexual marriage does not involve you whatsoever, and it does not affect you either.
I need not state my stance on incestuous couples, because that is completely another debate. Let me just say that it is a different issue, not in any way the same as homosexuals as you seem to think.
Anyway, you say that allowing homosexual marriage *will* in fact affect you because of divorce rates or something?
Yes, divorce rates have become steadily higher over the years, and yes, I hate it. My parents divorced 4 years ago and it has scarred me for life, but I live with it, because it happens. If I was using your mindstate, I would totally be against marriage altogether (which, actually, for a while I was, thinking that it can only lead to disaster) but even though I was, I didn't take it out on other people. I didn't protest that people shouldn't be allowed to marry because I have some stupid belief.
Divorce rates are rising, and you say this has a correlation to gay marriage? How so I ask? Divorce rates have been rising for a long time...and gay marriage isn't even legal in much of the world yet. This has NOTHING to do with homosexuality, this has to do with the current state of society; cheating, assaholicness; and sex. Lots to do with sex. This is not the fault of homosexuals, this is the fault of whoever is getting the divorce. Something in the marriage went wrong, and as such, they get divorced, I'm sure before divorce laws they lived together, and HATED each other. This is where some things like murdering your spouse comes in...not sure of the statistics on that, but who cares. Another reason being that most people aren't finding true love, and only think they love the person and then marry w/e. Mostly due to the ease of it, and then as they get older and eventually cannot stand the person, they want to get divorced.
So the divorce laws being allowed has little to do with divorce rates besides actually allowing there to be a divorce rate, rather than say, an unhappy marriage rate, or a murdered spouse rate.
I'd also like to point out that a lot of your arguments are based on religious beliefs that you hold, or your group of people hold. Well, not everyone believes in them, and the world is modernizing, we are creating a society in which everyone is equal. This society revolves around people, not 'god'.
In fact, Society never has revolved around 'god', because man wrote the bible, the w/e and the w/e of w/e religion. Society has always revolved around people, it's just back in those days, it revolved around the greedy misguiding people (in my mind) we call the church.
Take a look at another thread in here by NetMaster:
http://freewebspace.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72206
This talks about a religion which is really a scam, as stated such here:
Look at the church, BILLIONS of dollars are in it's treasury. Seems as if it worked no? But not only millions my friend, POWER. The church had power for a long time, and they used it as they wished, sinning against their own religion and justifying it as 'holy' acts. Killing intelligent people who held different beliefs than the church, labeling them as heretics. You tell me this is right? To kill someone because they believe not in Christianity? If you do, please, go kill about 3/4ths of the worlds population and then come tell me it's a good idea.
Note: Sorry for this brief off-topicness, which I'm sure Meksilon will bring in to point and attempt to call me a hypocrite for, but I am linking it to argue the validity of his arguments being based solely on his own personal beliefs that not everyone else holds.
Regards,
How does getting married automatically mean you raise children? Please explain this to me. Not everyone wants kids, whatever reason they may hold it for.
"If this isn't the case you have no right to say that I can't use my morals to be morally against homosexuality."
For the incestuous couples point, this is why I said that my opinion would not be against it necessarily. I'm not proving any of your points by saying that my stance would be similar to what I hold on homosexuals. I'm merely disproving your above point, which, btw, you can be morally against homosexuality all you want, but homosexual marriage does not involve you whatsoever, and it does not affect you either.
I need not state my stance on incestuous couples, because that is completely another debate. Let me just say that it is a different issue, not in any way the same as homosexuals as you seem to think.
Anyway, you say that allowing homosexual marriage *will* in fact affect you because of divorce rates or something?
Yes, divorce rates have become steadily higher over the years, and yes, I hate it. My parents divorced 4 years ago and it has scarred me for life, but I live with it, because it happens. If I was using your mindstate, I would totally be against marriage altogether (which, actually, for a while I was, thinking that it can only lead to disaster) but even though I was, I didn't take it out on other people. I didn't protest that people shouldn't be allowed to marry because I have some stupid belief.
Divorce rates are rising, and you say this has a correlation to gay marriage? How so I ask? Divorce rates have been rising for a long time...and gay marriage isn't even legal in much of the world yet. This has NOTHING to do with homosexuality, this has to do with the current state of society; cheating, assaholicness; and sex. Lots to do with sex. This is not the fault of homosexuals, this is the fault of whoever is getting the divorce. Something in the marriage went wrong, and as such, they get divorced, I'm sure before divorce laws they lived together, and HATED each other. This is where some things like murdering your spouse comes in...not sure of the statistics on that, but who cares. Another reason being that most people aren't finding true love, and only think they love the person and then marry w/e. Mostly due to the ease of it, and then as they get older and eventually cannot stand the person, they want to get divorced.
So the divorce laws being allowed has little to do with divorce rates besides actually allowing there to be a divorce rate, rather than say, an unhappy marriage rate, or a murdered spouse rate.
I'd also like to point out that a lot of your arguments are based on religious beliefs that you hold, or your group of people hold. Well, not everyone believes in them, and the world is modernizing, we are creating a society in which everyone is equal. This society revolves around people, not 'god'.
In fact, Society never has revolved around 'god', because man wrote the bible, the w/e and the w/e of w/e religion. Society has always revolved around people, it's just back in those days, it revolved around the greedy misguiding people (in my mind) we call the church.
Take a look at another thread in here by NetMaster:
http://freewebspace.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72206
This talks about a religion which is really a scam, as stated such here:
Look at the church, BILLIONS of dollars are in it's treasury. Seems as if it worked no? But not only millions my friend, POWER. The church had power for a long time, and they used it as they wished, sinning against their own religion and justifying it as 'holy' acts. Killing intelligent people who held different beliefs than the church, labeling them as heretics. You tell me this is right? To kill someone because they believe not in Christianity? If you do, please, go kill about 3/4ths of the worlds population and then come tell me it's a good idea.
Note: Sorry for this brief off-topicness, which I'm sure Meksilon will bring in to point and attempt to call me a hypocrite for, but I am linking it to argue the validity of his arguments being based solely on his own personal beliefs that not everyone else holds.
Regards,
Strawman arguments:
Can't? Remember I believe Marriage is a sacred institution fundamental to our society. I believe, for instance, that if you make same-sex marriage legal you cause society to become even more withdraw, people will be even lonelier and communities will disappear as people choose not to interact with each other. There a these fundamental issues you don't accept, that you don't acknowledge my beliefs are based on, that your "understanding" of my mindset is nothing but another strawman argument.
"not sure of the statistics on that, but who cares."
I care. You've pulled an argument out of the air, not based on evidence, or morals, but on mere conjecture. Are you so sure that you're right on this? Because I ask you to explain to me why it is that all over the world arranged marriages are statistically more fulfilling, and very rarely result in divorce.
I'll save time and just tell you. In an arranged Marriage the two partners have right from the get-go the mindset that they'll have to work to ensure their marriage is stable and fulfilling. They don't expect the marriage to do it for them, they have discipline. Because of this they're more likely to resolve their disputes rather than to let them break the marriage. This does not make them unhappily married, it makes them happily married. Disputes arise, but they're dealt with in the interests of strengthening the marriage, not in self-serving interests which would result in breaking it.
Self-healing marriages are the direct-result of a lower divorce rate. Yes, in that order.
All you've done in posted a whole series of strawman arguments. You've completely dodged the points I've raised in my arguments.
That's a strawman. If you can't reply to my question you're showing that you're giving up on the argument. Just to claim it's a different issue and not explain why isn't good enough my friend, it's a hollow argument.Death Reaper said:
Strawman. Nope, I'm saying it will effect the definition of marriage, in the same way that divorce effected it. Ie - now many don't define it as life-long, soon it won't be defined as being about FAMILY, if homosexual unions are included.Death Reaper said:
Strawman. Please explain my mindset.Death Reaper said:
Can't? Remember I believe Marriage is a sacred institution fundamental to our society. I believe, for instance, that if you make same-sex marriage legal you cause society to become even more withdraw, people will be even lonelier and communities will disappear as people choose not to interact with each other. There a these fundamental issues you don't accept, that you don't acknowledge my beliefs are based on, that your "understanding" of my mindset is nothing but another strawman argument.
That's a STRAWMAN.Death Reaper said:
"not sure of the statistics on that, but who cares."
I care. You've pulled an argument out of the air, not based on evidence, or morals, but on mere conjecture. Are you so sure that you're right on this? Because I ask you to explain to me why it is that all over the world arranged marriages are statistically more fulfilling, and very rarely result in divorce.
I'll save time and just tell you. In an arranged Marriage the two partners have right from the get-go the mindset that they'll have to work to ensure their marriage is stable and fulfilling. They don't expect the marriage to do it for them, they have discipline. Because of this they're more likely to resolve their disputes rather than to let them break the marriage. This does not make them unhappily married, it makes them happily married. Disputes arise, but they're dealt with in the interests of strengthening the marriage, not in self-serving interests which would result in breaking it.
Self-healing marriages are the direct-result of a lower divorce rate. Yes, in that order.
Rubbish, I've just disproven that rather shallow strawman argument.Death Reaper said:
Not true, it's based on the best interests of society.Death Reaper said:
Strawman. Have you heard of Cromwell? He wasn't a saint, but his example shows that of the governments they tried in England the one that lasted was a Christian government.Death Reaper said:
Strawman. Scientology is a cult, not a religion. You know that, I know that. True Christianity is a philosophy, not a "religion". Also, the validity of one religion in no way affects the validity of other religions.Death Reaper said:
All you've done in posted a whole series of strawman arguments. You've completely dodged the points I've raised in my arguments.
Your overuse and misuse of "strawman" is beginning to get quite tedious. Now, I'm sure you know the dictionary definition of a "strawman" as well as I do. But you've applied it incorrectly to so many situations. For example, Death Reaper asked, "you say that allowing homosexual marriage *will* in fact affect you because of divorce rates or something?" That is not a strawman argument. That isn't even an argument at all! He's asking you a question in order to elicit a response. He doesn't take it any further so as to attack that position. So it is not a "strawman". Neither is stating that "incestuous couples are a different matter". Perhaps you may disagree, but DarkReaper only references your argument once. That would be the phrase "as you seem to think"; in context, he is stating that you believe that gay and incestuous couples belong in the same debate, while he doesn't. That's not a strawman. I think he characterized your argument rather well, unless you agree that the two are different and should not be considered together.
Please be more careful before throwing out logical fallacies at every turn. The "strawman" is one of the most common fallacies, but not every statement that your opponent makes is necessarily a strawman.
I would also like to question your reference to Cromwell. Cromwell overthrew a Catholic king (Charles I) to become dictator. His Puritan regime fell in a decade. What came back was a monarchy that increasingly moved toward secularism. How exactly does that show that "the [government] that lasted was a Christian government"? Not only did his own reign fall, but he overthrew a Christian government to setup a Christian government, and the long-term effect of his failed experiment was the secularization, not the "theocratizaion", of Britain.
Please be more careful before throwing out logical fallacies at every turn. The "strawman" is one of the most common fallacies, but not every statement that your opponent makes is necessarily a strawman.
I would also like to question your reference to Cromwell. Cromwell overthrew a Catholic king (Charles I) to become dictator. His Puritan regime fell in a decade. What came back was a monarchy that increasingly moved toward secularism. How exactly does that show that "the [government] that lasted was a Christian government"? Not only did his own reign fall, but he overthrew a Christian government to setup a Christian government, and the long-term effect of his failed experiment was the secularization, not the "theocratizaion", of Britain.
I'll be back with a more indepth response to that Mekilson, but I'd just like to throw out there that in real debates (IE: Debating tournaments) statistics do not matter, and the general consensus is that "90% of statistics are made up". It is much better to reference an individual than it is to address a statistic. Statistics are generally unreliable. Not everyone is used in statistics, as you do not know how they chose to survey, and if they even did survey everyone, I guarentee at least a third of those people refused. This is why statistics are unreliable.
Anyway, I'll debate it more later, too late right now and I will be better able to formulate arguments tommorow.
~EDIT: I think Meksilon should be given a custom title
I think the mods would know what I'm inferring here ~
Regards,
Anyway, I'll debate it more later, too late right now and I will be better able to formulate arguments tommorow.
~EDIT: I think Meksilon should be given a custom title
I think the mods would know what I'm inferring here ~Regards,
Last edited:
Statistics are not fool proof. They can often vary and they're dependant on - how you select your sample population, indeed. However, they can be a very good resource, and a reliable source.Death Reaper said:
I've used several sources. Census data - 100% of the population by law has to answer it. Government-founded research spaning a decade... HIV/AIDS registry (where just 2% of infections are marked as "unknown" - not the 1/3rd you claimed). Also, Australia has a different mind-set to many other countries, because legally you are required to vote. Due to this Australians are far less likely to refuse to fill in surveys.
Around 95% of the adult population votes in elections. In America it's close to 50%, and steadily decreasing.
For someone who loves their stats so much, you should do some research.
In regards to the American election:
"According to the Census, 46.7% of 18-24 year olds voted in 2004 as compared to 36% in 2000, an 11 percentage point increase. In contrast, 63.8% of the general population voted in 2004 as compared to 60% in 2000, a 4 percentage point increase."
Source: http://www.newvotersproject.org/youth_turnout_increase
In regards to the American election:
"According to the Census, 46.7% of 18-24 year olds voted in 2004 as compared to 36% in 2000, an 11 percentage point increase. In contrast, 63.8% of the general population voted in 2004 as compared to 60% in 2000, a 4 percentage point increase."
Source: http://www.newvotersproject.org/youth_turnout_increase
- Status
