Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[Ming]

So Ben... after reading through all of this once again... you have no real arguments.

Your whole claim can be summed up as "it's against my religion"... and you have no other legitimate arguments. Just checking.

Oh... and remember, on your own words, you are going to burn in hell.

[MrFun]

you are going to burn in hell.

Discuss the topic, not the poster!

[MikeH]

Ming's just trying to save his soul.

[Lorizael]

No, I'm not a theologian. I'm a historian.

But you said this was an Apolyton blind spot, and that's why you were arguing about it. But you admit that you don't have the expertise to do so?

You don't really care about 'compromising' principles. Silly argument to make here.

Actually, I do. It's an extremely important issue to me. But you have no idea what my principles are, so I'm not sure how you can comment on this.

The two are congruent with one another. Gay marriage is a subset of marriage. If I oppose all state support for marriage, then opposing gay marriage follows. Stating, I oppose state support for gay marriage is entirely correct.

The reason your argument is inconsistent is because you have argued that you oppose gay marriage because the government shouldn't support marriage and because the government has a vested interest in supporting straight marriage only as opposed to gay marriage.

But your second argument - that the government has an interest in straight marriage - is directly contradicted by your first argument, which is actually that the government should not support marriage at all.

You cannot logically separate the subset of gay marriage from the superset of marriage when arguing that the government shouldn't support marriage at all. You do it by simple omission, but that's dishonest.

[MikeH]

Shouldn't the main point of this thread not be an argument against Ben's outdated beliefs but a celebration that as the thread title suggests those beliefs are dying out?

[Lorizael]

That's clearly not as much fun as banging our collective heads against the wall that is Ben.

[rah]

That's not what chastity means. Chastity! = celibacy. Chastity means refraining from sexual congress outside of the legitimate bonds of marriage.

Hmm using dictionary.com Definition 1 is similar but not exactly what you stated and could be interpretted many different ways. Def 3 is EXACTLY what I stated.

chaste  /tʃeɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [cheyst] Show IPA
–adjective, chast⋅er, chast⋅est. 1. refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion; virtuous.
2. virgin.
3. not engaging in sexual relations; celibate.


And I still use cannon because growing up in a catholic school, whenever you spelled it that way, the nuns would get really pissed.


While frustrating it is obvious when you score because he just changes his arguement totally ignoring that he did.

[Ming]

It's not frustrating at all... it's actually kind of funny. It's even funnier when he says something totally stupid and wrong, and claims victory.

The true sign that he is whipped so bad is when he simply stops posting in the thread and waits for the next thread on the same topic so that he can pull out his old and already destroyed arguments all over again.

All he's down to in this thread is "it's against my religion"... because all of his other lame attempts at an argument have been shot down multiple times.

[Q Classic]

http://must.imarrygay.com/

[Q Classic]

You cannot logically separate the subset of gay marriage from the superset of marriage when arguing that the government shouldn't support marriage at all. You do it by simple omission, but that's dishonest.

I suppose that a more logical way of pointing out that Ben is a lying, dishonorable douche, but okay.

[Ben Kenobi]

But you said this was an Apolyton blind spot, and that's why you were arguing about it. But you admit that you don't have the expertise to do so?

Where did I claim I was qualified to fill the hole? I simply identified part of Apolyton's bias.

Actually, I do. It's an extremely important issue to me. But you have no idea what my principles are, so I'm not sure how you can comment on this.

Then you might want to back off commenting on mine when you don't have a clue even though I've told you where I stand, and you persist on labelling me based on your understanding. Sucks when the shoe's on the other foot, eh?

The reason your argument is inconsistent is because you have argued that you oppose gay marriage because the government shouldn't support marriage and because the government has a vested interest in supporting straight marriage only as opposed to gay marriage.

I've made two different arguments.

1. The government is entitled to define marriage, that it is not unconstitutional for them to defend marriage as one man and one woman.

2. My personal preference is that the government should not interfere whatsoever. These positions are both logical and consistant, as is the argument by gay marriage proponents, that gay marriage can be legalised without also being unconstitutional.

My criticism of gay marriage proponents is not because their position is illogical, but because it doesn't work.

But your second argument - that the government has an interest in straight marriage - is directly contradicted by your first argument, which is actually that the government should not support marriage at all.

Again, you are missing one, very, very important word. Unconstitutional. Go read my argument again and see why I am including this one word.

You cannot logically separate the subset of gay marriage from the superset of marriage when arguing that the government shouldn't support marriage at all.

Here's my assessment. 1, you want me to spend as much time criticising marriage as possible, and you have an argument with the way in which I criticise gay marriage. Honestly, I don't have to criticise marriage, not many people here support marriage as is. You have a cacophony of voices on that side already.

However, I am pretty much the only one criticising gay marriage. So, I feel it necessary to focus my attention there. Perhaps on another site with more libertarian leanings, my time would be more balanced.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm using dictionary.com Definition 1 is similar but not exactly what you stated and could be interpretted many different ways.

This is what the catechism is for, they define the word in accordance with Catholic tradition, not 'dictionary dot com'.

The Catholic church uses chastity to refrain from engaging in sexual congress outside of marriage. Celibacy refers to the voluntary commitment made by priests and lay religious to refrain from sex altogether. That the secular world conflates the two is contrary to Catholic teaching.

[Lorizael]

I suppose that a more logical way of pointing out that Ben is a lying, dishonorable douche, but okay.

I do not want to encourage the pile on attacks that Ben receives here so frequently. While I have engaged in a fair amount of discussion with him, I don't want to see posts that attempt to drive him from the site.

Engage him in discussion, get into heated arguments, but don't be reduced to name-calling and insults. Repeatedly calling him a douche or telling him that he's going to hell is not okay.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not frustrating at all... it's actually kind of funny. It's even funnier when he says something totally stupid and wrong, and claims victory.

Have I claimed victory over this thread?

I was mocking your claim in the other thread, as I'd not declared victory at all. I don't understand why you are criticising me for something which you do all the time, and that I do not do, ever.

[rah]

I had formal Catholic catechism for 8 year and took extra classes as part of being an alter boy. How many years have you formally studied it?