Fighting Back - Page 21 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Swoop187 · #**301** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bg85

oh boy i think there are a lot of posters here that might disagree with this one.

Then they aren't true traditional Christians or true republicans.

reality · #**302** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

You ever hear of the slippery slope?

You want equality for gays not everyone.

Don't take the cookies out if you cant share with everyone.

dude whatre you drunk or something?

heteros can join property and obtain spousal rights. gays cannot though they can have a relationship.

to simplify it further look at it in bullets.

Straights: relationships, knocking boots, joining of property and obtainment of spousal rights through the LEGAL, CIVIL CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE.

Gays: relationships, knocking boots.

see the part thats missing?

who is being denied their rights if gays get married? don't say pedophiles, because minors can't enter into legal contracts, or consent to sex.
Don't say polygamists because marriage only joins the property of one person to another and only grants spousal rights one person to another.

so who's left out genius?

Tanngrisnir3 · #**303** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Then they aren't true traditional Christians or true republicans.

Logic fallacy: moving the goalposts. Fail points!

reality · #**304** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Then they aren't true traditional Christians or true republicans.

Who are you to say what a true Christian is?

do you live in a commune where all property is shared? because thats what christianity started out as. did you give up all of your possessions to go minister to the poor and the sick and the needy? simple commandment direct from the big guy himself. can't do that then youre not a "true" christian.

you need to come down of youre high horse dude. we're all sinners. every last one of us. no man is better than any other. a wise man once said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". you damn sure aint without sin. Neither am i. Only Christ ever was. You really wanna say youre equal to Christ? cause thats blasphemy. heresy even. and "true" christians don't blaspheme.

also the republican party didn't used to be filled with nut job social conservatives like bush and sarah palin. it used to be filled with nice conservatives like Thomas Jefferson.

Swoop187 · #**305** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by reality

dude whatre you drunk or something?

heteros can join property and obtain spousal rights. gays cannot though they can have a relationship.

to simplify it further look at it in bullets.

Straights: relationships, knocking boots, joining of property and obtainment of spousal rights through the LEGAL, CIVIL CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE.

Gays: relationships, knocking boots.

see the part thats missing?

who is being denied their rights if gays get married? don't say pedophiles, because minors can't enter into legal contracts, or consent to sex.
Don't say polygamists because marriage only joins the property of one person to another and only grants spousal rights one person to another.

so who's left out genius?

The hell minors cant, you can get married at 14 in some states with parental permission.

Besides thats not the only example, what about the mentally fucked that would if given the opportunity would marry their pet?

Oh and you just cant exclude examples of the slippery slope because you don't agree with them.

Now you can either accept everyone or no one outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Its the only 'fair' way to do it.

Tanngrisnir3 · #**306** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

The hell minors cant, you can get married at 14 in some states with parental permission.

Besides thats not the only example, what about the mentally fucked that would if given the opportunity would marry their pet?

Oh and you just cant exclude examples of the slippery slope because you don't agree with them.

Wow! Another logical fallacy.

The slippery slope is a fallacy; not something one agrees with. Unless one wants to be wrong, of course.

Quote:

Now you can either accept everyone or no one outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Its the only 'fair' way to do it.

And another! The false dichotomy!

It's getting hot in here!

Swoop187 · #**307** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Logic fallacy: moving the goalposts. Fail points!

Are you telling me their are plenty of pro-life, anti-gay marriage, traditional housewife supporting progressive liberals in this forum?

Sorry, I think I win.

Swoop187 · #**308** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Wow! Another logical fallacy.

The slippery slope is a fallacy; not something one agrees with. Unless one wants to be wrong, of course.

And another! The false dichotomy!

It's getting hot in here!

No its a total fact that liberals love to boot out of the argument because it proves they're wrong.

You cant just dismiss every point that makes what your saying moot.

You just want to believe its a fallacy so you can continue to argue and spew your falsified beliefs.

Tanngrisnir3 · #**309** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Are you telling me their are plenty of pro-life, anti-gay marriage, traditional housewife supporting progressive liberals in this forum?

Sorry, I think I win.

Of course you think you win, but that's because you've committed the logical fallacy of simply redefining terms when it suits your 'argument'.

Tanngrisnir3 · #**310** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

No its a total fact that liberals love to boot out of the argument because it proves they're wrong.

Where is that happening?

Quote:

You cant just dismiss every point that makes what your saying moot.

You just want to believe its a fallacy so you can continue to argue and spew your falsified beliefs.

I don't want to believe they're fallacies; the are, in fact, fallacies recognized by formal logic. And I haven't mentioned my beliefs; I've simply pointed out where your 'arguments' fall on their illogical faces.

Sorry that makes you so uncomfortable. Perhaps if you'd stop availing yourself to fallacies and illogic, that feeling would go away.

Swoop187 · #**311** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Of course you think you win, but that's because you've committed the logical fallacy of simply redefining terms when it suits your 'argument'.

No, I realize their are rules and guidelines when defining ones self to be a progressive liberal or a traditional Christian.

Of course anyone can call them selves anything they want but that doesn't make what they believe to be true.

Using the logic of whats going on in this forum I could call Obama a neo-con and I would be right.

Swoop187 · #**312** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Where is that happening?

I don't want to believe they're fallacies; the are, in fact, fallacies recognized by formal logic. And I haven't mentioned my beliefs; I've simply pointed out where your 'arguments' fall on their illogical faces.

Sorry that makes you so uncomfortable. Perhaps if you'd stop availing yourself to fallacies and illogic, that feeling would go away.

You just dismissed the slippery slope..

You just cant dismiss something because you cant argue against it. That's not how it works.

Are you really going to tell me that people would not use gay marriage as precedent to marry their cars, pets, trees, selves etc if gay marriage was legalized?

Their are plenty of weird fetishes and you cant deny that so who are you to say what people would do and wouldn't?

Logic states that some people would do it just because they can and I'm not even talking about the nuts that actually have feelings for weird things.

Mrs. M · #**313** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

You asked earlier where I stand on "major issues":

I am pro-choice, only in that I do not believe the government should be able to dictate what a woman can and cannot do. Furthermore, I'm sickened by the hypocrisy of so-called "pro-lifers" who make exceptions for abortion. On a personal level, I find abortion an abhorent practice.

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

I'm in favor of gay marriage. No rational argument has ever been presented to me to prove that it "threatens" anything.

I am a strong advocate for our military.

I am very anti-illegal immigration. I would support a policy of armed troops at the border with orders to shoot to kill.

I believe in smaller government.

I believe in more power being given to State and local governments.

I believe we cannot tax ourselves back into prosperity.

I believe that government administered health care is, at best, unworkable and, at worst, far too socialist.

I believe people should be able to keep most of what they earn.

With the exception of two issues, I'd be willing to bet that you and I hold very, very similar views. The silly contention that gays are trying to destroy Christianity, however, just doesn't happen to be one of them...

The only difference between you and me is the abortion issue. (and God). I'm pro-life with the realization that making abortions illegal will cause more deaths of women trying to abort at home so I favor education as a means to prevent abortions.
I've had other Christians come down hard on me for supporting gay marriages but I don't care. I don't think it's up to the government to regulate what would be considered a moral issue in that it hurts no one. I think it's totally unfair that homosexuals aren't given the same opportunities to benefit from a marriage to the one they love. I do believe the laws will change in my lifetime though and while it's going to piss off many, I think the equality will be a positive thing.

Tanngrisnir3 · #**314** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

You just dismissed the slippery slope..

You just cant dismiss something because you cant argue against it. That's not how it works.

I don't have to argue against it. You clearly don't understand what the slippery slope is. It's not something one 'agrees with' or 'argues', it itself is a formal fallacy.

Here: Fallacy: Slippery Slope

drgoodtrips · #**315** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

You just dismissed the slippery slope..

You just cant dismiss something because you cant argue against it. That's not how it works.

Are you really going to tell me that people would not use gay marriage as precedent to marry their cars, pets, trees, selves etc if gay marriage was legalized?

Their are plenty of weird fetishes and you cant deny that so who are you to say what people would do and wouldn't?

Logic states that some people would do it just because they can and I'm not even talking about the nuts that actually have feelings for weird things.

People might try to do that, but there isn't a valid precedent for marrying animals or inanimate objects, given that marriage is a business contract between two human adults.

Consider that your "slippery slope" argument could easily have been (and was) used in attempts to continue bans on interracial marriage:

If we start allowing blacks to marry whites, what's next, people marrying their dishwashers?!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode