[JK37]

And it's really not much use debating people who have so far fallen into the hole of post-modernism that they boil everything down to "what makes your definition the real definition?" and "doesn't effect me, why should I care?". Nothing I can say will really make a difference, because there is no truth or standard, except yours, of course.

Scorcho has fitfully combated every single element of your "debate", numerous strawmen and false dichotomies notwithstanding. But, I must address this.

First, the core principle of postmodern philosophy is subjectivism.

One is only entitled to an opinion if one can defend it. I believe this with every aspect of my being. Therefore, I am no postmodernist. Furthermore, you have offered no OBJECTIVE basis for your position.

I've consistently asked you upon what basis you place your position against homosexuals receiving marriage benefits. Such a practice is gender discrimination as has been clearly shown. I believe you base your personal position on the issue upon the truth of Scripture; so do I. And, we agree.

But, should the government - at any level - act on the same basis? God forbid! How much closer would we then be to the difficult decision of what holy text, what set of religious beliefs, what claimed deity should be used in such practices? This country was founded in part by those running from state churchhood, yet you would have us running to it! The LAST entity I want to be telling me what is moral or immoral is the government at any level. I'll let God be the judge of me, thank you. HE is as objective as they come.

Secondly, I never said the law doesn't affect me. The rights homosexuals enjoy, and more specifically the process by which the laws protecting those rights are constructed, absolutely affects me. THAT is the heart of this issue. I am not debating the moral issue of homosexual activity; i infer we already agree there.

By stating your position on what the government should do, based upon your personal opinion, you've behaved as the most postmodern of us all!

[jmdickens]

You ladies sure do argue a lot over this issue.

[jbock13]

Let's debate whether homosexuality is theologically okay.

3, 2, 1, Go!

[ATrain]

Let's debate whether homosexuality is theologically okay.

3, 2, 1, Go!

Did that 2-3 summers ago. Then again in a 283-comment thread on Facebook a month ago (not intentional, but some people had to start it...my side won based off all the messages I received from parents who had kids who were gay, they were actually referred to my page from their friends/family, and basic casual observers just followed it and said we had the better arguments).

[jbock13]

Let's debate whether homosexuality is theologically okay.

3, 2, 1, Go!

Did that 2-3 summers ago. Then again in a 283-comment thread on Facebook a month ago (not intentional, but some people had to start it...my side won based off all the messages I received from parents who had kids who were gay, they were actually referred to my page from their friends/family, and basic casual observers just followed it and said we had the better arguments).

I was only joking, I'm sure you knew that, but I guess it's going to happen in this thread eventually though.

283 comment threads on facebook are always awesome though I have a friend who is gay and he tried to argue with me that 25% of people (or more) are gay. And I was like... really that's the dumbest thing I'm ever heard. I mean, at most, the highest could be around 5%, but probably more around 3%. I just think he was more about promoting acceptance of his lifestyle than actual statistical analysis. Which I hate because he's not actually that uptight about it. He knows I don't exactly agree with it, but he's a great person to talk politics to at the workplace, which makes the day go by so much faster.

It was the same link I posted on here. I guess he took it as an attack and that people disprove of being gay, but that wasn't my point. The media influences people to think things are a big deal that really aren't... we all must learn to reason. Fortunately, although I may not always agree with everyone (and most don't agree with me), I must say a lot of us here discuss plenty of issues in a rational way. It's certain a refreshing place to discuss opposing viewpoints.

[RubberMallet]

he won guys. "winning" a discussion on facebook is like saying you won a debate in the youtube comments section. i can only imagine the bombs dropped in that conversation if he's bringing pastors BMI's into the conversations here.

i'm starting to doubt he's even gay

[ATrain]

he won guys. "winning" a discussion on facebook is like saying you won a debate in the youtube comments section. i can only imagine the bombs dropped in that conversation if he's bringing pastors BMI's into the conversations here.

i'm starting to doubt he's even gay

Frankly my dear, I don't give a d**n

[ALUmnus]

What the heck, Scorcho, how am I going to find time to read all of that let alone respond? One thing I'll say, I'm not sure you guys know what "false dichotomy" means, because I presented no such thing. I gave a few possiblities for why gays would want marriage, and then said I don't believe a few of them are legit. Is that a false dichotomy? No.

As for straw men, wow do I love that one. Makes it easy to brush things aside, doesn't it? But Atrain already won this one. He even out-argued God Himself, how can any of us hope to compete with that?

[RubberMallet]

ad hom's will be the next accusation.

[RubberMallet]

he won guys. "winning" a discussion on facebook is like saying you won a debate in the youtube comments section. i can only imagine the bombs dropped in that conversation if he's bringing pastors BMI's into the conversations here.

i'm starting to doubt he's even gay

Frankly my dear, I don't give a d**n

see? a real gay person doesn't say this.

[LUconn]

I would really like to hear Atrain's arguments or justifications or whatever for homosexuality but I'd hate to derail this one since it's specifically about marriage. Perhaps someone should start a separate thread unless he's fatigued on the discussion. It just seems so cut and dry from the bible that I've read.

[El Scorcho]

What the heck, Scorcho, how am I going to find time to read all of that let alone respond?

Sorry. It wasn't my intention to bombard you with words. I just feel like some issues are worth real responses. This has become one of those issues for me.

One thing I'll say, I'm not sure you guys know what "false dichotomy" means, because I presented no such thing. I gave a few possiblities for why gays would want marriage, and then said I don't believe a few of them are legit. Is that a false dichotomy? No.

My understanding of a false dichotomy is that it's a logical fallacy in which two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

You said:

So if it's not benefits, and it's not morality, then why the push for recognition of homosexual marriage?

To me that looked like you were presenting benefits and morality as the only possible reasons people would be fighting for homosexual marriage. You did go on to speak of a third option, however. I overlooked that since I didn't consider the third option to be at all realistic. That's my mistake.

As for straw men, wow do I love that one. Makes it easy to brush things aside, doesn't it?

A strawman argument is a valid logical fallacy. I'm going to assume you disagree with my assessment of it in this case, which is fine. But in this case, I think it was correct. I think you were misrepresenting the actual argument being made, which invalidated that particular point. That's why I tried to assert the actual argument being made so that we could discuss that instead.

ad hom's will be the next accusation.

If I saw an ad hominem being used as an actual part of the argument, I'd certainly call it. I haven't yet, though. I'd really like to avoid it.

I would really like to hear Atrain's arguments or justifications or whatever for homosexuality but I'd hate to derail this one since it's specifically about marriage. Perhaps someone should start a separate thread unless he's fatigued on the discussion. It just seems so cut and dry from the bible that I've read.

Yeah, I agree that this should be separate thread. Different issues. I have hope that this one can stay on course.

[ATrain]

Not going to argue it on this thread, but...

http://www.flamefans.com/forums/viewtop ... 12#p261612

That's where it was debated on here initially.

If anyone wants to start another thread, have at it.

[RubberMallet]

I would really like to hear Atrain's arguments or justifications or whatever for homosexuality but I'd hate to derail this one since it's specifically about marriage. Perhaps someone should start a separate thread unless he's fatigued on the discussion. It just seems so cut and dry from the bible that I've read.

the "usual" justifications are deflections on what everyone else is doing wrong, that its not harming you directly, and links to lgbt funded studies about what a wonderful injection into society they are.

it is then responded to with links from christrian funded studies about what a horrible injection into society they are.

it will take years for us to truly see the effect this fad has on society. kind of like hippies.