Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Gay marriage...opinions

Announcements Posted on
Live webchat: What’s new, what’s changed? 30-09-2014
Complete this short survey for a chance to win an iPad mini! 22-09-2014
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    I've have been following the thread...so far I have only seen you give that you disagree with it on a religious level. But when talking about the civil institution that's invalid. You also haven't actually given any reasons as to why you disagree with NYU's assertions other than 'I respectfully disagree' or 'It's semantics'. But it's not semantics, so that's false. and Disagreeing isn't a reason
    Actually, I did give a reason, I've given a reason several times. I don't see the two examples as the same because I'm against homosexual practice, not homosexual orientation and I don't believe that it is an 'immutable characteristic' that's why I disagree and I thought I explained that, sorry if I was unclear.

    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    Saying you have a homosexual friend doesn't show anything about how you are classing homosexuals. You are saying that homosexuals are not allowed the same civil rights as heterosexuals. Merely because they are homosexual. You want to segregate them into their own institution. That is called second-class citizenship and implies inferiority.
    I do believe homosexuals should have the same heterosexuals- that's why I agree with civil partnerships. It wasn't just the point that I have a homosexual friend, my point was that homosexual friend actually doesn't want marriage to be redefined. I just don't see why marriage should have to be redefined, something that I believe goes against the very heart of the institution (as I believe, God-given institution) when civil partnerships already gives homosexuals all the same rights as heterosexuals. Again, I don't believe I'm treating them inferior because it's the practice I'm against, not orientation.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    I do believe homosexuals should have the same heterosexuals- that's why I agree with civil partnerships.
    You realise this is self contradicting, right? You basically said gay people should have the same as straight people, which is why I'm in favour of them being restricted to having something different.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    You realise this is self contradicting, right? You basically said gay people should have the same as straight people, which is why I'm in favour of them being restricted to having something different.
    It's not contradictory at all- I believe homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same rights, therefore I agree with civil partnerships as that's legally recognised as having the same benefits, advantages and rights as marriage.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    It's not contradictory at all- I believe homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same rights, therefore I agree with civil partnerships as that's legally recognised as having the same benefits, advantages and rights as marriage.
    But they don't give them exactly the same rights as marriage, not to mention the fact that they can't get married which automatically deems the two unequal. Whilst I agree that it's impossible to say that the two relationships exactly the same (as one consists of two people of different sexes whilst the other consists of two people of the same sex), we should try to ensure that in the eyes of the law, and the way we are treated by the government, we should be as equal as possible and that for me includes legalising same-sex marriage.
    • 14 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    Actually, I did give a reason, I've given a reason several times. I don't see the two examples as the same because I'm against homosexual practice, not homosexual orientation and I don't believe that it is an 'immutable characteristic' that's why I disagree and I thought I explained that, sorry if I was unclear.
    So you think its ok to be homosexual but that they shouldn't be allowed to act upon their desires? But because you are straight you should be allowed to act on your desires??? :confused: You are probably going to use the bible as justification for this, but as many people have stated religious reasonings have no bearing when talking about civil marriage. Whether or not you personally agree with said action doesn't mean that they don't have a right to practice it and be treated equally. You are christian, so it's fair to say that you disagree with people who practice Islam, or Buddhism, or any other religion. Should they then not be allowed to marry a because you disagree with their religious practice which is not an immutable characteristic? No because they deserve the same rights as you, to practice what they believe. They same parallel can be made to homosexuals.

    I do believe homosexuals should have the same heterosexuals- that's why I agree with civil partnerships. It wasn't just the point that I have a homosexual friend, my point was that homosexual friend actually doesn't want marriage to be redefined. I just don't see why marriage should have to be redefined, something that I believe goes against the very heart of the institution (as I believe, God-given institution) when civil partnerships already gives homosexuals all the same rights as heterosexuals. Again, I don't believe I'm treating them inferior because it's the practice I'm against, not orientation.
    That's contradictory. You just said that you wanted homosexuals to essentially be treated the same as heterosexuals and then say that's why 'I agree that we should separate them'.

    As far as your friend goes, that's wonderful that they don't want marriage to be redefined or get married. Except no where did you mention that. You mentioned loving them because of your Christianity and whatnot. Besides that how does your friend's opinion have any bearing on this. I can't speak for why they don't want it and neither can you...we were talking about your opinion.

    Marriage needs to be 'redefined' because it is unequal. Even civil partnerships right now don't give all the same rights and benefits that marriage does. Even if they did by separating homosexuals you are inherently treating them unequally. You are saying that you are not good enough for this institution (marriage) merely because you practice homosexuality and I don't like that. But they have a right to the institution even if you don't like the practice. And nobody is trying to infringe upon your God-given institution. Because its just not one when we are talking about civil marriage.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    It's not contradictory at all- I believe homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same rights, therefore I agree with civil partnerships as that's legally recognised as having the same benefits, advantages and rights as marriage.
    Wow. You are just completely ignorant of your own self-deception.

    Equal rights means equal in all respects. Separate is inherently unequal. Thereby, you do not believe in equal rights.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    I haven't just said 'well it just isn't' I compared the two examples and gave you my argument the first time you presented it and have done in all the times you've presented it afterwards. I explained then that I disagree with you because as I've said before- because I disagree with homosexual practice, not homosexual orientation, I don't believe it's an immutable characteristic. I think I explained this very clearly to you the first time you presented this example.
    That's the most ridiculous argument in the world. Seriously? That's your justification? They don't have 'to act' on their sexual orientation?

    Black people didn't have to go out in public. I mean, going out in public isn't an immutable characteristic - so them having to sit on the back of the bus didn't matter because they didn't have to act on their desires to go outside. :rolleyes:

    Secondly, I'm so glad you distinguish between the characteristic of being homosexual and the homosexual practice. Let's cause people psychological distress by saying 'homosexual practice is wrong and sinful'' I'm so glad you take pleasure out of causing other people psychological distress.

    Thirdly, how utterly ridiculous. Human sexuality is perfectly normal - whether it be heterosexuality, homosexuality or asexuality. If the sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, then on what grounds do you have the right to deny them the right to act on their perfectly normal and natural expression of sexual orientation? In fact, you have no such grounds.

    Again, your argument fails.

    (Original post by jmj)
    Actually, I do understand. Please don't make judgements about my intelligence or understanding just because I disagree with you.
    No, it's quite clear you do not.


    (Original post by jmj)
    How do you know? Have you asked lots of people what they think? How do you know whether homosexuals would all agree with you? Have you done an independent survey and asked homosexuals whether they want gay marriage or whether they're fine with civil partnerships? Otherwise what you're saying is simply an assumption based upon your opinion. I however have homosexual friends who have explicitly said this to me (and actually agree with my views) and there are homosexual politicians and celebrities who've actually said this.
    It doesn't matter what what the statistics is. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people who disagree with you - look at all of the organizations in many different countries that clearly disagree with your statement.

    (Original post by jmj)
    Again, you're making judgements about my intelligence and understanding simply because I have a different view to you- I hardly think this is fair. I don't see I'm treating people as second class citizens because this would go against my Christian principles- the bible teaches to love all, regardless of orientation or anything else. That doesn't mean, however, that Christians are to approve of something the Bible very clearly says is not right. There is a difference between me being against homosexual practice and homosexual orientation- a fundamental difference in fact. The Bible is against one and not the other.
    Wow... Just wow...

    You just admitted to treating people as second-class citizens and used the Bible as justification for doing so and then stated that you're not treating them as second-class citizens.

    Wake up and come to reality. I don't care on what grounds you're discriminating against - It's still treating them as second-class citizens. You're depriving them of right which you have based merely on their sexual orientation, or since you like to differentiate between acts and orientations, their desired acts. Sorry, but that means you're treating them as second-class citizens - welcome to reality.


    (Original post by jmj)
    Firstly, I've also studied some ethics, so please don't judge I'm ignorant about it (although of course, not as much as you have )Like I've said all along, I'm not depriving anyone of anything and like I've said all along, I don't believe comparing this issue to racism is congruous at all because I don't believe it is an immutable characteristic. Homosexual orientation is, I agree- but not homosexual practice.
    Black people didn't have to go out in public :rolleyes:

    It's utterly ridiculous to separate the act from the orientation in this case. And yes, as I've been saying all along, it's perfectly congruous. It's not my fault you blatantly cannot understand that.


    (Original post by jmj)
    I've already told you this isn't my argument- I agree with you it's ridiculous, which is why it's not my argument, you're just saying I said this. I disagree with changing the definition of marriage because I want to defend the Biblical definition of it as a Christian- but that only one of my arguments against the redefinition.
    Marriage hasn't been solely defined by the Bible.

    What about all of the other definitions of marriage which have existed throughout history? :confused:

    What makes your definition right and all the others wrong? The Bible? As we've stated, the Bible has no place in this discussion.

    (Original post by jmj)
    I certainly have never said 'because I'm a Christian, you can't get married' or anything like it. Those are my personal views for not wanting the definition of marriage to be changed.
    Essentially, you have. You're using the Bible as justification as to why homosexual people cannot get married - which is essentially saying "Because I'm Christian and believe in this book, you can't get married, even though you don't believe in this book"

    (Original post by jmj)
    Now, this thread invited me to express my opinion of gay marriage, so I expressed my opinion (as far as I know, we still live in a country of free speech so I'm entitled to express my opinion). I never for one moment suggested that non-Christians should agree with me or have the same view.
    Are you expecting your opinion to be left unchallenged? :confused:

    (Original post by jmj)
    You're the one who has suggested I am actively denying people something- I'm simply expressing my opinion, of which over 400,000 people agree with (not all of them Christians with Christian arguments).
    You clearly need to go back to ethics 101. There are plenty of ethicists which would say you're denying people rights by having opinions contrary to the allocation of rights to this group of people; which, such opinions cause you to not, in any way, attempt to gain these people the rights they ought have.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    It's not contradictory at all- I believe homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same rights, therefore I agree with civil partnerships as that's legally recognised as having the same benefits, advantages and rights as marriage.
    But it is contradictory. Civil partnerships do not afford homosexuals the same rights that marriage does for heterosexuals, but even if they did, by continuing to close off marriage to homosexuals, you are not granting equal rights. If civil partnerships gave the same rights, or even in their present state which grant nearly the same rights, then it follows that it is only because we are gay that we aren't allowed to get married. Therefore, by supporting civil partnerships, you are not supporting full equality for homosexuals, thus your statement is contradictory.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    It's not contradictory at all- I believe homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same rights, therefore I agree with civil partnerships as that's legally recognised as having the same benefits, advantages and rights as marriage.
    I think then that you and I do not share the same concept of 'same'. Analogy is not identity.

    Or, to come at this from another angle, if you believe homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same rights, then how do you justify maintaining a distinction in the form of civil partnerships vs. civil marriages?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Will never be accepted within the Asian community
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charzhino)
    Will never be accepted within the Asian community
    Wouldn't say never, but it is an incredible long journey to get there. I can see why you'd ssy that though.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    That's the most ridiculous argument in the world. Seriously? That's your justification? They don't have 'to act' on their sexual orientation?

    Black people didn't have to go out in public. I mean, going out in public isn't an immutable characteristic - so them having to sit on the back of the bus didn't matter because they didn't have to act on their desires to go outside. :rolleyes:
    That is definitely not logically congruous. In the example above, you are denying a party access to something because of an immutable characteristic (in this case, the colour of someone's skin). In the issue we are debating, I am expressing an opinion (not actively denying anything) relating to something they choose to practice.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Secondly, I'm so glad you distinguish between the characteristic of being homosexual and the homosexual practice. Let's cause people psychological distress by saying 'homosexual practice is wrong and sinful'' I'm so glad you take pleasure out of causing other people psychological distress.
    I'm not intending to cause people psychological distress, simply expressing a Biblical truth. The Bible says any sexual practice outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful- that includes homosexual practice and heterosexual practice outside of marriage. Calling homosexual orientation a sin is what would cause psychological distress, but the Bible is no more against homosexual sex than it is non-marital heterosexual sex. Therefore it is fundamental for me to make it explicitly clear what I agree with and disagree with, because the Bible is clear.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Thirdly, how utterly ridiculous. Human sexuality is perfectly normal - whether it be heterosexuality, homosexuality or asexuality. If the sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, then on what grounds do you have the right to deny them the right to act on their perfectly normal and natural expression of sexual orientation? In fact, you have no such grounds.
    I didn't say human sexuality wasn't perfectly normal- when did I say homosexual orientation wasn't normal? This is my point by maintaining a distinction- the Bible says only homosexual practice is sinful, not homosexual orientation- the Bible says nothing about homosexual orientation, just the practice of homosexual sex.

    Excuse me but with all due respect, I'm not denying them anything- I'm simply expressing what the Bible says. They have every right to ignore what the Bible says if they want to.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    No, it's quite clear you do not.
    Please stop saying I don't understand your argument, because I do. I just don't agree with it- the two don't mean the same.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    It doesn't matter what what the statistics is. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people who disagree with you - look at all of the organizations in many different countries that clearly disagree with your statement.
    I know there are plenty of people who disagree with me- actually the statistics are important in this case in order to back up your claim. You specifically said that there are more homosexuals who want gay marriage than more homosexuals who don't want gay marriage and are fine with civil partnerships- how do you know that, if you can't back up your claim? What organisations in what countries are you referring to?

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    You just admitted to treating people as second-class citizens and used the Bible as justification for doing so and then stated that you're not treating them as second-class citizens.

    Wake up and come to reality. I don't care on what grounds you're discriminating against - It's still treating them as second-class citizens. You're depriving them of right which you have based merely on their sexual orientation, or since you like to differentiate between acts and orientations, their desired acts. Sorry, but that means you're treating them as second-class citizens - welcome to reality.
    How? Which bit? I disagree with homosexual practice yes- but I fundamentally don't treat homosexuals differently because if it. Disagreeing with homosexual practice doesn't make me discriminatory. If I am discriminating, then it's pro-marriage and anti anything else, since I view non-marital heterosexual sex and homosexual sex in exactly the same way. I disagree with heterosexual non-marital sex too, but I don't treat people who practice that any less either. I have both homosexual and heterosexual friends- the homosexual friends know I'm a Christian and therefore disagree of their homosexual practice, but I certainly don't treat them any differently.What exact part of what I said made me treat homosexuals as second class citizens?

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    It's utterly ridiculous to separate the act from the orientation in this case. And yes, as I've been saying all along, it's perfectly congruous. It's not my fault you blatantly cannot understand that.
    Homosexual orientation did not exist as a concept in Bible times, the practice of homosexuality is the only thing the Bible talks about. Orientation is completely different from practice. It's not my fault you can't see I perfectly understand your argument but I simply disagree with you, for reasons I've already outlined- it's not my fault that you don't accept my reasons.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    I think then that you and I do not share the same concept of 'same'. Analogy is not identity.

    I agree with you, but I don't think civil partnerships is an 'analogy' of marriage, to use your terms.

    Or, to come at this from another angle, if you believe homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same rights, then how do you justify maintaining a distinction in the form of civil partnerships vs. civil marriages?
    What do you mean?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    But it is contradictory. Civil partnerships do not afford homosexuals the same rights that marriage does for heterosexuals,
    Actually, they are legally recognised as having exactly the same advantages and benefits of marriage- it's considered legally the same, that's why civil partnerships were first introduced.

    (Original post by Jester94)
    but even if they did, by continuing to close off marriage to homosexuals, you are not granting equal rights.
    Why, if they have all the full advantages and benefits of marriage in civil partnerships?

    (Original post by Jester94)
    If civil partnerships gave the same rights, or even in their present state which grant nearly the same rights, then it follows that it is only because we are gay that we aren't allowed to get married.
    They grant exactly the same rights- there has been a landmark case recently in a civil partnership ending and there were complications of who should get what and the results showed that legally civil partnerships and marriages are seen as the same thing.

    (Original post by Jester94)
    Therefore, by supporting civil partnerships, you are not supporting full equality for homosexuals, thus your statement is contradictory.
    I respect your argument and respectfully disagree with your conclusion because civil partnerships and marriage are recognised for having exactly the same rights.
    • 14 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    That is definitely not logically congruous. In the example above, you are denying a party access to something because of an immutable characteristic (in this case, the colour of someone's skin). In the issue we are debating, I am expressing an opinion (not actively denying anything) relating to something they choose to practice.
    But your opinion was to deny deny the party (homosexuals) access to something (civil marriage) because of an immutable characteristic (homosexuality). Do you think muslims shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or Jews? those are practices one chooses. But I don't see you denying their right to get married.


    I'm not intending to cause people psychological distress, simply expressing a Biblical truth. The Bible says any sexual practice outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful- that includes homosexual practice and heterosexual practice outside of marriage. Calling homosexual orientation a sin is what would cause psychological distress, but the Bible is no more against homosexual sex than it is non-marital heterosexual sex. Therefore it is fundamental for me to make it explicitly clear what I agree with and disagree with, because the Bible is clear.
    It doesn't matter if you are intended to cause the distress. You are. And there is still much contempt over whether or not the bible actually condemns homosexuality or even homosexual acts. From what little I've read it seems to be condemning male prostitutes. Which in no way is limited to homosexual sex.


    I didn't say human sexuality wasn't perfectly normal- when did I say homosexual orientation wasn't normal? This is my point by maintaining a distinction- the Bible says only homosexual practice is sinful, not homosexual orientation- the Bible says nothing about homosexual orientation, just the practice of homosexual sex.
    still an area of contention and not a good enough reason to deny someone their civil rights. Your religious arguments have no bearing on the discussion for civil marriage.

    Excuse me but with all due respect, I'm not denying them anything- I'm simply expressing what the Bible says. They have every right to ignore what the Bible says if they want to.
    Not according to you. You think they shouldn't be allowed to marry because the bible says so. That is deny them a right and forcing your biblical views on others.


    How? Which bit? I disagree with homosexual practice yes- but I fundamentally don't treat homosexuals differently because if it. Disagreeing with homosexual practice doesn't make me discriminatory. If I am discriminating, then it's pro-marriage and anti anything else, since I view non-marital heterosexual sex and homosexual sex in exactly the same way. I disagree with heterosexual non-marital sex too, but I don't treat people who practice that any less either. I have both homosexual and heterosexual friends- the homosexual friends know I'm a Christian and therefore disagree of their homosexual practice, but I certainly don't treat them any differently.What exact part of what I said made me treat homosexuals as second class citizens?
    Do you allow people who practice pre-marital sex to get married? Yes. Thats against your bible. You do not treat the two groups the same. You are actually only showing your own hypocrisy. By denying homosexuals the right to marry you are treating them as second class citizens.
    • 14 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    Actually, they are legally recognised as having exactly the same advantages and benefits of marriage- it's considered legally the same, that's why civil partnerships were first introduced.
    They're not the same. Otherwise both would be called marriage.


    Why, if they have all the full advantages and benefits of marriage in civil partnerships?
    Separate is inherently unequal. Have you never heard of this?

    They grant exactly the same rights- there has been a landmark case recently in a civil partnership ending and there were complications of who should get what and the results showed that legally civil partnerships and marriages are seen as the same thing.
    No they aren't. Otherwise there wouldn't be separate laws for them. You don't seem to understand what it means to be the 'same.'

    I respect your argument and respectfully disagree with your conclusion because civil partnerships and marriage are recognised for having exactly the same rights.
    Except they still don't.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    That is definitely not logically congruous. In the example above, you are denying a party access to something because of an immutable characteristic (in this case, the colour of someone's skin). In the issue we are debating, I am expressing an opinion (not actively denying anything) relating to something they choose to practice.
    It definitely is logically congruous. You seriously need to retake logic, and I'm not kidding.

    You're saying that someone chooses to practice something.

    In the case I just gave you a black person chooses to go outside and be discriminated against or some such other thing. The black person doesn't have to go outside.

    Do you see how utterly ridiculous this argument is, to say well 'the person doesn't have to do that thing, even though it's an immutable part of themselves'?

    (Original post by jmj)
    I'm not intending to cause people psychological distress, simply expressing a Biblical truth.
    It's not a truth. You cannot prove that it is a truth. Merely, it's your opinion.

    (Original post by jmj)
    The Bible says any sexual practice outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful- that includes homosexual practice and heterosexual practice outside of marriage.
    Again, that's not actually clear.

    (Original post by jmj)
    Calling homosexual orientation a sin is what would cause psychological distress, but the Bible is no more against homosexual sex than it is non-marital heterosexual sex.
    No, it would still cause psychological distress if you tell them that having sex with someone of the same-sex is 'wrong'.

    (Original post by jmj)
    Therefore it is fundamental for me to make it explicitly clear what I agree with and disagree with, because the Bible is clear.
    It's really actually not clear.

    (Original post by jmj)
    I didn't say human sexuality wasn't perfectly normal- when did I say homosexual orientation wasn't normal? This is my point by maintaining a distinction- the Bible says only homosexual practice is sinful, not homosexual orientation- the Bible says nothing about homosexual orientation, just the practice of homosexual sex.


    Excuse me but with all due respect, I'm not denying them anything- I'm simply expressing what the Bible says. They have every right to ignore what the Bible says if they want to.
    In fact, you are denying something.

    They don't have every right to ignore what the Bible says because they cannot get married. Thereby, they're being forced to comply with your religious standards.

    You're really entirely incapable of getting out of your precious religious bubble and the belief that by following the Bible you must be right, aren't you?

    Just because it's written in some book somewhere, doesn't mean it's the ethically correct thing to do. :rolleyes:


    (Original post by jmj)
    Please stop saying I don't understand your argument, because I do. I just don't agree with it- the two don't mean the same.
    Again, you're not understanding the argument and it's quite plainly obvious that you're not understanding it. There's nothing to disagree with.


    (Original post by jmj)
    I know there are plenty of people who disagree with me- actually the statistics are important in this case in order to back up your claim. You specifically said that there are more homosexuals who want gay marriage than more homosexuals who don't want gay marriage and are fine with civil partnerships- how do you know that, if you can't back up your claim? What organisations in what countries are you referring to?
    Actually, I said there are a lot which would disagree - please learn the difference in semantic meaning.

    Organizations such as NOM, etc.


    (Original post by jmj)
    How? Which bit? I disagree with homosexual practice yes- but I fundamentally don't treat homosexuals differently because if it.
    Do you allow them to get married? Do you believe they should get married? No. Alright, that's treating them differently.

    Not that hard to understand.

    (Original post by jmj)
    Disagreeing with homosexual practice doesn't make me discriminatory.
    If you're denying or supporting the denial of a right based on that, then yes it does make you discriminatory.

    (Original post by jmj)
    If I am discriminating, then it's pro-marriage and anti anything else, since I view non-marital heterosexual sex and homosexual sex in exactly the same way.
    That's great - what does that have to do with homosexuals being able to marry? Nothing.

    (Original post by jmj)
    I disagree with heterosexual non-marital sex too, but I don't treat people who practice that any less either.
    You don't deny them rights based on their actions, whereas in the case of homosexuals, you do.

    (Original post by jmj)
    I have both homosexual and heterosexual friends- the homosexual friends know I'm a Christian and therefore disagree of their homosexual practice, but I certainly don't treat them any differently.What exact part of what I said made me treat homosexuals as second class citizens?
    You actively agree that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights which you have - hi, welcome to treating people as second-class citizens.


    (Original post by jmj)
    Homosexual orientation did not exist as a concept in Bible times, the practice of homosexuality is the only thing the Bible talks about. Orientation is completely different from practice. It's not my fault you can't see I perfectly understand your argument but I simply disagree with you, for reasons I've already outlined- it's not my fault that you don't accept my reasons.
    No, your argument is ridiculous and you clearly don't understand what you're saying to attempting to argue for.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmj)
    Actually, they are legally recognised as having exactly the same advantages and benefits of marriage- it's considered legally the same, that's why civil partnerships were first introduced.
    Just because one has the same legal rights does not make them equal. Are you completely incapable of understanding this? :confused:

    (Original post by jmj)
    Why, if they have all the full advantages and benefits of marriage in civil partnerships?
    They cannot - separate is inherently unequal. What part of that can you not understand?


    (Original post by jmj)
    They grant exactly the same rights- there has been a landmark case recently in a civil partnership ending and there were complications of who should get what and the results showed that legally civil partnerships and marriages are seen as the same thing.
    They aren't seem as the same things - legally, maybe - but in terms of psychosocial associations? No. Marriage confers additional social standards which civil partnerships do not.

    (Original post by jmj)
    I respect your argument and respectfully disagree with your conclusion because civil partnerships and marriage are recognised for having exactly the same rights.
    You can't just disagree with a conclusion - if the premises are true then the conclusion HAS to be true. It's quite literally against the rules of logic to 'disagree with a conclusion' - have you never studied philosophy?

    And yet again you've failed to realize:
    (1) Separate is inherently unequal
    (2) Marriage confers additional psychosocial aspects which civil unions to not

    Thereby,
    They are not equal

    What part of this incredibly simple argument can you not understand?

    I'd also like to point out for this argument to be wrong you have to prove that either (1) or (2) is not true. I.e. either separate is equal or that marriage does not confer additional psychosocial aspects. However, both (1) and (2) are true. So... Good luck with that.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    You can't just disagree with a conclusion - if the premises are true then the conclusion HAS to be true. It's quite literally against the rules of logic to 'disagree with a conclusion' - have you never studied philosophy?
    I have. And you're wrong, you may have presented a faulty argument e.g.

    1) All dogs are evil
    2) My mother likes dogs
    3) Therefore my mother is evil.

    You can agree with the premises (1 and 2) yet disagree with the conclusion (3).
    • 14 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by orcprocess)
    I have. And you're wrong, you may have presented a faulty argument e.g.

    1) All dogs are evil
    2) My mother likes dogs
    3) Therefore my mother is evil.

    You can agree with the premises (1 and 2) yet disagree with the conclusion (3).
    That's because 3 doesn't logically follow in your example. However in the case that NYU was presenting to jmj all the premises were true, and the conclusion logically followed the premises. Therefore jmj could not just refute the conclusion while still accepting the premises. She would have to refute a premise to then further refute the conclusion.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 12, 2012
New on TSR

'Stalking pages' have changed!

Find other uni applicants with University Connect

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.