Justice Kennedy needs a reminder about his own fear of harm from gay marriage

[Granite]

No, you are.

...and back to fifth grade we go.

Older couples and infertile couples can marry without causing harm; gays cannot. For logical reasons.

Utterly incorrect, stupid, asinine, inane, ignorant, and bigoted. That subject's one we shouldn't discuss again.

 

[Sitamun]

Could be said about the other side as well.

Perhaps, I'm not in the mood for research right now, but then again I'm not the one trotting garbage out and claiming it proves my point either. I also personally feel, that we shouldn't need a reason to make something legal, only to make something illegal.

 

[GFR7]

Perhaps, I'm not in the mood for research right now, but then again I'm not the one trotting garbage out and claiming it proves my point either. I also personally feel, that we shouldn't need a reason to make something legal, only to make something illegal.

Do not call well-written and logical philosophical treatise garbage, please. Thanks.

 

[GFR7]

...and back to fifth grade we go.



Utterly incorrect, stupid, asinine, inane, ignorant, and bigoted. That subject's one we shouldn't discuss again.

Your saying this doesn't make it so.

And no, you are clearly not up to discussing this subject logically.

I would avoid it if I were you.
Cheers. G

 

[Sitamun]

Do not call well-written and logical philosophical treatise garbage, please. Thanks.

Hit a nerve? I will call a thing for what it is and it is absolute utter rubbish. The assumptions and logical fallacies in the second link are laughable.

 

[TracerBullet]

I am not refusing to debate. But we've gone over and over - on numerous threads - the worn-out adoption/infertility arguments. I responded, I linked scholarly pieces, and it's never enough for you.

There IS a solid ant-gay marriage argument, which still allows for heterosexual infertile couples to marry; you just don't like it.

a solid argument isn't based on a double standard

 

[GFR7]

Hit a nerve? I will call a thing for what it is and it is absolute utter rubbish. The assumptions and logical fallacies in the second link are laughable.

I don't agree at all. I find most of the pro-arguments self-serving tripe.

 

[GFR7]

a solid argument isn't based on a double standard

I know. There's no double standard here.

 

[TracerBullet]

I'm not leaving, and you can't make me.

Here is the best site supporting traditional marriage:

http://discussingmarriage.org/

Here is the best article showing why infertile straight couples are not the same as gay couples:

The Objection from Infertility

I have gone over and over the 10 main points of that thesis, and no one seems to have the ability to grasp the coherent logic in it.

because it isn't logical it's a collection of logical fallacies put together try to justify hate and discrimination

 

[GFR7]

because it isn't logical it's a collection of logical fallacies put together try to justify hate and discrimination

That's a response based on emotion and pre-conceived ideas.

 

[GFR7]

To all posters:

If you respect rigorous philosophical argument, I am certain you can see that the revisionist view is fraught with more incoherent logic and conflicting ideas than is the traditional view.

I invite you to address those issues philosophically.

Until then, adieu :wave2:
Yours ever;
Geefer

Here is a paragraph taken from the Objection article to get you started:

The revisionist view has far worse challenges with internal inconsistency.

Further, the Objection from Infertility holds that if the unifying good of marriage is procreation, to be consistent, we must exclude infertile couples. Otherwise, we would be drawing arbitrary lines, including and excluding couples for no good reason.

However, the revisionist view suffers this exact same problem, but many times worse.

As we explain in the Argument from Crucial Distinction, the conjugal view of marriage provides a non-arbitrary reason for defining marriage as two people, who are man and woman.

The revisionist view not only does not provide a non-arbitrary reason for restricting marriage to man and woman, it provides no non-arbitrary reason for restricting marriage to two people, or even to lovers.

If intellectual consistency requires that those who hold to the conjugal view exclude infertile couples from marriage (it does not), intellectual consistency requires that those who hold to the revisionist view abandon virtually all restrictions to marriage, opening marriage up to roommates, best friends, business partners, siblings, groups, etc. Any relationship that is mutually fulfilling, in which the partners share the burdens of domestic life, should be candidates for marriage.

 

[Granite]

Your saying this doesn't make it so.

And no, you are clearly not up to discussing this subject logically.

I would avoid it if I were you.
Cheers. G

Sure I am. But there's nothing logical at all about bigotry.

 

[TracerBullet]

That's a response based on emotion and pre-conceived ideas.

I certainly could go through your "well-written and logical philosophical treatise" point by point....again...and point out each and every double standard ...again...and note every unsupported claim..again...and respond to all the misrepresented claims the author makes...again.

Not once in the dozen or more times I've done this have you been honest enough to actually respond other than making some flippant remark. I find it impossible to believe that you will do anything different this time.

You whined about how depressing it was that "Because no one reads the OP articles and debates them" well we do read them and we do debate them you just never respond with anything of substance if you respond at all.


Edit to add:
Case in point: You haven't bothered to respond to points made about your OP

 

[Town Heretic]

Much obliged. :e4e:

De nada.

It makes it easier to enter such ridiculous unions, knowing one has an easy exit.

I don't doubt it. And allowing the sale of handguns to individuals makes it more likely that someone will get shot. Yet I don't think the sensible answer is to restrict the right to purchase them. Do you?

Go on...... :think:

In what particular.

If this were merely an empirical and legal world, perhaps I'd go along with all. As things stand, however, I cannot.

The law is either rational or it's just another way to tyranny. I prefer the freedom of my own conscience and an exercise of right limited only by my interference with your own.

 

[GFR7]

Sure I am. But there's nothing logical at all about bigotry.

I know I am not bigoted. I do not hate gay people; I do not want them to suffer; I do not believe their not marrying (and the very idea of the duty of marriage thrust on gay people is a hoot, cooked up by ideologues who care nothing for gays) is a burden to them.

 

[TracerBullet]

I know I am not bigoted. I do not hate gay people;

Your every post on the subject says the exact opposite

 

[GFR7]

I certainly could go through your "well-written and logical philosophical treatise" point by point....again...and point out each and every double standard ...again...and note every unsupported claim..again...and respond to all the misrepresented claims the author makes...again.

Not once in the dozen or more times I've done this have you been honest enough to actually respond other than making some flippant remark. I find it impossible to believe that you will do anything different this time.

You whined about how depressing it was that "Because no one reads the OP articles and debates them" well we do read them and we do debate them you just never respond with anything of substance if you respond at all.


Edit to add:
Case in point: You haven't bothered to respond to points made about your OP

Actually, YOU have been the exception (you and Town Heretic).

It has been very painful for me to have you on my threads, because I do like and respect you, and feel badly that you suspect my motives.

I did not answer you on aCW's thread as I cannot go near there anymore.

Will address the others in due time (on this thread).
Kind regards;
G

 

[TracerBullet]

Actually, YOU have been the exception (you and Town Heretic).

It has been very painful for me to have you on my threads, because I do like and respect you, and feel badly that you suspect my motives.

I did not answer you on aCW's thread as I cannot go near there anymore.

Will address the others in due time (on this thread).
Kind regards;
G

who said anything about aCW?

 

[GFR7]

I doubt you read as it's all fluff and nondsense.

Indeed I do read, and I find it not so.

For instance:

What data is this? How is (or how could) a causative connection to marriage equality established?

This kind of data was used also in the Scandinavian countries with marriage equality, and causation was inferred.

Just who are these "scholars"? And what qualifies someone to be a 'marriage scholar'?

They are professors of philosophy and PhDs and just as qualified as Dan Savage or Andrew Sullivan.

What key secular norms?

Male/female pairing and biological families.

Unsupported assertion

Most voters voted for traditional marriage, in most states.

False

No, true. This is why we are all still here.

I thought marriage was about raising children, not it seems marriage is about sex. so which is it?

Both

 

[GFR7]

Your every post on the subject says the exact opposite

Not true. I was born with a bleeding heart and a tendency to love too much. And it is my respect for you which makes it very painful to address you.