Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wezil
Ben - You argue an unpopular position with logic and civility.

Let us hope it is an unpopular position.

Civility ... "Showing regard for others"... I guess as long as "others" isn't refering to homosexuals wanting to marry.

Logic... (I fear for you Wezil if you think it's an apt term)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whoha
The senate is going to steal the judiciary's job now?

They're amending the Constitution.

[Whaleboy]

Umm, no. I haven't tried it (my back door is one-way) but I can definitely see a difference....

Note the sarcasm

Your sexuality is a living, ever-changing part of your personality so it's highly unlikely your tastes won't change over time. Changing from gay to straight is probably a pretty rare occurence, I'll grant you that, but given the complexity of human sexuality I can imagine stranger things happening.

Absolutely

Let the people vote on the laws on the country.

Popular fallacy.

[Whaleboy]

Aeson be fair. BK has his opinions and is highly adept at arguing them. We have differing opinions and believe ourselves to be correct, but he may not see things the same way, but I'm sure if we present him with a better argument or one that shows a fallacy of his, then he'll adopt it as I would. Thus far, we can't refute him because we're operating on different assumptions, so fair enough, its still cool that he wants to express his views.

[Kuciwalker]

BK has his opinions and is highly adept at arguing them.

No, he's highly adept at ignoring opposing arguments.

[Wezil]

Sarcasm? Yours or mine?

That was my point to I think Whaleboy. Ben and I have different views on a host of issues but I respect his posting style. While he disagrees with the ACS consensus he does so without resorting to calling people fags or homos or other derogitory names. Ben forces you to examine the actual issues.

[Whaleboy]

Hardly, I've seen him attack them. His attacks are perhaps less potent than his defenses since the latter are obviously going to be tried and tested, but thats not for want of effort. Ignoring opponents would be failing to address their points and simply repeating ones own, whereas he addresses others and arrives at the same conclusions he uses previously.

[Whaleboy]

That was my point to I think Whaleboy. Ben and I have different views on a host of issues but I respect his posting style. While he disagrees with the ACS consensus he does so without resorting to calling people fags or homos or other derogitory names. Ben forces you to examine the actual issues.

Agreed. This is confusing cos my name in RL is Ben . As a relativist I generally dislike dogmatism but I don't think it's fair to say that BK is dogmatic since he can examine others one must assume he examines his and thus his agrees with him the most, so people should just lay off and try to present a better, stronger argument and address weaknesses demonstrated.

[Wezil]

Exactly Ben.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Monk


Yeah, and I'm wondering how you can be certain the pressures in question are the causes of every and all such 'conversion'. Your sexuality is a living, ever-changing part of your personality so it's highly unlikely your tastes won't change over time. Changing from gay to straight is probably a pretty rare occurence, I'll grant you that, but given the complexity of human sexuality I can imagine stranger things happening.

Well, you believe what you want to believe.

In the meantime, I will stick with my opinion that is backed up by the American Psychological Assocation and the American Medical Assocation.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Aeson be fair. BK has his opinions and is highly adept at arguing them. We have differing opinions and believe ourselves to be correct, but he may not see things the same way, but I'm sure if we present him with a better argument or one that shows a fallacy of his, then he'll adopt it as I would. Thus far, we can't refute him because we're operating on different assumptions, so fair enough, its still cool that he wants to express his views.

BK is not adept at arguing over this issue.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

and try to present a better, stronger argument and address weaknesses demonstrated.

Which others, including myself have already done.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by MrFun




BK is not adept at arguing over this issue.

I disagree with BK's position (for the most part but not entirely) and also disagree with your statement.

[Monk]

Originally posted by MrFun


Well, you believe what you want to believe.

In the meantime, I will stick with my opinion that is backed up by the American Psychological Assocation and the American Medical Assocation.

Well, how about this, if you give me a source those organizations have expressed that nobody really ever changes sexual preferences, then I'll most likely concede that you must be right. It's not every day on Apolyton somebody proves himself this flexible, as I'm sure you know

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Aeson be fair. BK has his opinions and is highly adept at arguing them.

That is your opinion of course. My discussions with BK have lead me to the opinion he is not. I'll leave it at that since this is something he and I have already discussed at length.

We have differing opinions and believe ourselves to be correct, but he may not see things the same way, but I'm sure if we present him with a better argument or one that shows a fallacy of his, then he'll adopt it as I would.

If God rewrites the Bible, or those interpreting it finally let go of "homosexuality is an abomination".

BK tries to use other reasoning to support it, but his viewpoint on this issue is dictated by that phrase. It shows in what sources and arguments he chooses to acknowlege, and those he chooses to ignore.

Thus far, we can't refute him because we're operating on different assumptions, so fair enough, its still cool that he wants to express his views.

Exactly. Different assumptions. Law dictated by God (and mob rule) vs equality in the eyes of the law.

I feel he has been refuted on every point. His view is obviously different, but I don't hold that view and am not required to. I have the right to my own judgement. My statement was that if you hold his same view (calling his arguments logical) then I think you are mistaken as well.

If you are just saying "everything is relative" (even logic)... I agree. And there's no point to even mentioning it outside a discussion about whether everything is relative or not.