Top 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Wrong

[DATYdude]

funsmartguy

You're mistaken if you think Jon is engaging in argument or operating from factual premises. He starts and ends with his totally uninformed opinion, and in the face of his argument being torn to pieces, clings to it as though the scraps of shoddy material actually cover the holes in his logic.

There ain't no point trying to argue with someone who is convinced and not capable of changing his mind in the face of contrary facts. I give up. ALmost. One last try:

Jon, you have it backwards. Your main argument, in a NUTshell:

"Homosexual behaviour is wrong." THis is either the whole argument or the conclusion of the argument which says "Homosexuality is morally wrong, and the proof of that is that it causes AIDS."

I attempted more than once to address your argument by pointing out such things as:

- Homosexuality includes lesbianism which doesn't carry a higher risk of AIDS transmission.
- AIDS is a virus not CAUSED by unprotected anal sex but spread by it. Claiming that ass-packing caused AIDS is not correct, and blaming gays for AIDS is like blaming transit riders for the flu.
- Gay men who do not engage in anal sex or those who engage in safe sex are not spreading AIDS.
- AIDS is now being spread by beautiful, procreative sex in Africa like it's a huge bathhouse. Is being African immoral?

Jon, maybe someone better-versed in logic than me can explain why an agreed-upon set of facts may still lead to different value judgements --

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/f.htm

-- but it would seem that we can't even agree about the facts. Do you know the difference between fact and value?

Jon, I don't expect you to confront your prejudice by addressing the argument rather than just telling me how "vehement" my "invective" is. All I want is to challenge your moral judgement by pointing out that the fact which underpin your values are incorrect. If your morality doesn't make sense it's just belief, so why don't you argue that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so?

 

[Esco!]

Are we all in agreement that we agree to disagree???????? Sincerely, Esco!

 

[great bear]

I am neither pleased or displeased but I do like the odd fresh salmon caught from a jon boat.

 

[great bear]

there's no pleasing some bears.

try wearing longjon's

FSG

Is that typical clothing worn by Long Jon Silver?

 

[great bear]

by odd do you mean homosexual? I believe that homosexual fish that engage in anal intercourse to be completely unnatural. Their political movement is full of lies and self serving propaganda.

Homosexual fish tend to be suckers.

 

[great bear]

only by the silverback actually.

little known, but well loved.

FSG

The closest I ever got to a silver back was about one quarter of a mile. He was a big nasty brute. But once I had a sliver in my backside. Not sure if that counts. By the way if the police arrest "Johns" for soliciting could they also arrest a Jon? Would they charge him with being Jonny on the spot?

 

[great bear]

if he jonnied on the spot there would be a mess to clean up.

better if he did it in the jon.

wait a sec - does that mean homosexuality?

I think we have proven beyond a doubt that "Jon" is a raving flamer.

 

[great bear]

does that involve peeing?

Only if he were caught with his pants down. This thread really jondiced me.

 

[great bear]

don't you mean a flaming raver?

what's that smell?

The smell is Eye's velcro cargo pants riiiippppping one off.

 

[great bear]

lady protests too much syndrome?

He/She doth do. When Jon goes to the John does he sit or stand?

 

[xdog]

Jon has expressed his opinion and their is no reason to insult him for it. He's as open-minded as anyone else in this post. I have no problem with what people do in the privacy of their homes. In fact, after thinking about it last night, I have no problem with them marrying. Now they can have all the same unhappy marriages like straight people. What bothers me and other people is to have "what we should think" shoved down our throats. In a society that believes in free speach, you have to like what he says but you do have to respect his right to say it. The close-minded people are the ones attaking him for what he believes. Why do you have to attack and make fun of him for what he says? He's only responding to a post that someone wanted replies to. In most topics you'll find that people have strong beliefs for one reason or another. Do you think you could change his mind any easier than it would be for a gay man to become straight?
What we should be asking is why are we spending so much money on a cure for a disease that is so easily preventable?


x

 

[great bear]

Jon has expressed his opinion and their is no reason to insult him for it. He's as open-minded as anyone else in this post. I have no problem with what people do in the privacy of their homes. In fact, after thinking about it last night, I have no problem with them marrying. Now they can have all the same unhappy marriages like straight people. What bothers me and other people is to have "what we should think" shoved down our throats. In a society that believes in free speach, you have to like what he says but you do have to respect his right to say it. The close-minded people are the ones attaking him for what he believes. Why do you have to attack and make fun of him for what he says? He's only responding to a post that someone wanted replies to. In most topics you'll find that people have strong beliefs for one reason or another. Do you think you could change his mind any easier than it would be for a gay man to become straight?
What we should be asking is why are we spending so much money on a cure for a disease that is so easily preventable?


x

Its been voted on and the large majority of us believe that Jon is a closet flamer.

 

[LancsLad]

Is this a serious reply? You seem a little hostile and off topic, Mr. LancsLad. Sincerely, Jon .

Not hostile just stating fact. It was not off topic, it goes directly to your "theory" that AIDS is a major world scourge. Its effects on the civilized world are minimal therefore it is currently of no consequence and hardly warrants all the alarmist rhetoric.

 

[RTRD]

I knew...

While no one I care about is in the third world that is beside the point. There is a vast difference between the effect on the world economy of 1 million dying in post WW1 Europe and 1 million in Africa. One million dying from aids just reduces the number that will die from starvation , tribal warfare, ethnic cleansing, drought or any of the other myriad problems afflicting that continent. On balance Africa can not feed and support itself therefore the population needs to be controlled somehow, they have one of the worlds highest birth rates and there are not enough addle minded do gooder pop stars to go around when it comes to feed africa concerts. Starvation and droughts in Africa were going on for millennia before soft liberal types decided it was a trendy cause.

So I stand behind what I say. unless the AIDS disease takes hold in a big way in the developed world it is nothing compared to the examples I cited.

..it wouldn't take long.

So - what you are saying is that some human lives are worth less than others, regardless of if the means to save them exists, simply because of the geography in which that life resides?

if this is what you are saying then my response is...wait for it...Nazi.

Now - care to have that beer?

 

[RTRD]

Nope...

Mr. MLAM, Could you please explain to me what is wrong with evaluating a situation or circumstance and then making a value judgement based on what is acceptable for the majority of us in a Democracy? Could you please explain to me how it is that you feel that Homosexuals are deserving of a full set of Human Rights when their behaviour has caused and continues to cause such needless and completely preventable damage, disease and death on a scale never seen before in the history of Life on Earth? Sincerely, Jon .

... I cannot. I refuse to have a morality debate - indeed any type of debate at all - with anyone who thinks some humans are deserving of rights but others are not.

BTW - I don't think you POV would represent the "majority of us". it is one thing to feel - strongly - that "marriage" by definition is between a man and a woman. it is entirely different to think that a persons sexuality makes them less of a human, and thus not worth of basic human rights such as access to shelter, employment, etc.

 

[acutus]

Lol...

Jon, you seem to be mistaken in your understanding of an argument. Firstly, when engaging an argument, one must be open to other's point of view.

you are not.

One must structure their argument properly, using the following components.
1. A clear statement of position - yes, you have confirmed your position...
2. Introductions - you do introduce your argument typically by restating another's argument.
3. Evidence or proof - your evidence or proof is not strong, you have twisted words to suit your argument.
4. Conclusions - from your conclusions we can see your small view of the world.

Jon, please open your mind to other perspectives and understand, we are all in this together. Your refusal to recognize a homosexual as a person will lead to grief.

FSG

You are most welcome to show me how my statements, as evidence or proof, are not strong; and provide examples where you feel I have 'twisted' words to suit my argument, Mr. Funsmartguy. While you're at it, please show us where I have refused to recognize that Homosexuals are people. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[acutus]

Lol...

funsmartguy

You're mistaken if you think Jon is engaging in argument or operating from factual premises. He starts and ends with his totally uninformed opinion, and in the face of his argument being torn to pieces, clings to it as though the scraps of shoddy material actually cover the holes in his logic.

There ain't no point trying to argue with someone who is convinced and not capable of changing his mind in the face of contrary facts. I give up. ALmost. One last try:

Jon, you have it backwards. Your main argument, in a NUTshell:

"Homosexual behaviour is wrong." THis is either the whole argument or the conclusion of the argument which says "Homosexuality is morally wrong, and the proof of that is that it causes AIDS."

I attempted more than once to address your argument by pointing out such things as:

- Homosexuality includes lesbianism which doesn't carry a higher risk of AIDS transmission.
- AIDS is a virus not CAUSED by unprotected anal sex but spread by it. Claiming that ass-packing caused AIDS is not correct, and blaming gays for AIDS is like blaming transit riders for the flu.
- Gay men who do not engage in anal sex or those who engage in safe sex are not spreading AIDS.
- AIDS is now being spread by beautiful, procreative sex in Africa like it's a huge bathhouse. Is being African immoral?

Jon, maybe someone better-versed in logic than me can explain why an agreed-upon set of facts may still lead to different value judgements --

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/f.htm

-- but it would seem that we can't even agree about the facts. Do you know the difference between fact and value?

Jon, I don't expect you to confront your prejudice by addressing the argument rather than just telling me how "vehement" my "invective" is. All I want is to challenge your moral judgement by pointing out that the fact which underpin your values are incorrect. If your morality doesn't make sense it's just belief, so why don't you argue that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so?

You do seem rather hostile, Mr. DATYdude. If homosexual is 'good' and 'healthy' and normal' as the Homosexual community and their supporters insist, then why does the activity cause a deadly, incurable disease? Sincerely, Jon .

 

[acutus]

Jon has expressed his opinion and their is no reason to insult him for it. He's as open-minded as anyone else in this post. I have no problem with what people do in the privacy of their homes. In fact, after thinking about it last night, I have no problem with them marrying. Now they can have all the same unhappy marriages like straight people. What bothers me and other people is to have "what we should think" shoved down our throats. In a society that believes in free speach, you have to like what he says but you do have to respect his right to say it. The close-minded people are the ones attaking him for what he believes. Why do you have to attack and make fun of him for what he says? He's only responding to a post that someone wanted replies to. In most topics you'll find that people have strong beliefs for one reason or another. Do you think you could change his mind any easier than it would be for a gay man to become straight?
What we should be asking is why are we spending so much money on a cure for a disease that is so easily preventable?


x

Thank you for your post, Mr. Xdog. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[xdog]

I believe what Lancslad is very unpopular but unfortunately true. If people in Western countries were dying from AIDS to the extent of the deaths in Africa, our gov't's would be spending a lot more money on finding a cure. That's if the numbers in Africa are 100% accurate. How are the deaths from AIDS recorded in Africa? Could people who are dying from other causes be included so as to benifit special interest groups? If western countries spend too much, are they being colonialistic? If they spend too little, are they racist? Would money spent on AIDS be better spent on diseases such as malaria? Millions of people in third world countries die from malaria each year yet we hear nothing about it. Perhaps if more celebrities dies of malaria, then more would be spent on preventing it.


x

x

 

[acutus]

Not hostile just stating fact. It was not off topic, it goes directly to your "theory" that AIDS is a major world scourge. Its effects on the civilized world are minimal therefore it is currently of no consequence and hardly warrants all the alarmist rhetoric.

In your view the effects of AIDS are minimal, Mr. LancsLad. As far as 'alarmist rhetoric' is concerned, In my view, the Moral argument that a behaviour(in this case Homosexual behaviour)can and should be subject to critical observation if the results of that behaviour are clearly so damaging, is valid. Sincerely, Jon .