I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

10 Reasons To Ban Gay Marriage [Pic]

Hits: 7831 | Rating: (2.8) | Category: Community & Lifestyle | Added by: iansquall
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 810 11 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
mykunter
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 2213 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:37:04 PM
I don't have a problem with gays having the same rights, such as taxes, bank accounts and whatever other stuff goes along with marriage. But do we have to call it 'marriage'? Can we call it a 'civil union' or something? Just some sort of way to differentiate from normal marriage... you know, two people, from separate genders, that mate and spawn? Not that that's what is required (spawning) to define marriage, but just as a societal ideology of sorts?

How do you all feel about polygamy?


piratefish
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 635 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:34:23 PM
@HumanAction:

"Would you like me to rewrite them and allow you to answer them?"

If you look back, I already did.

And I applauded chalket because he actually used the pure form of a syllogism, and his premises were not invalid.

A caveat to this, however, is that a syllogism can have valid premises and a valid conclusion, but still not be sound. The validity of an argument does not depend upon whether its premises or conclusions are true. It merely depends on the formal relation between the premises and conclusion. Valid syllogisms can have false premises or false conclusions. An argument is sound when it is valid and has true premises. Validity is only part of what it takes to make an argument sound.

No hypocrisy here, just recognition of a valid syllogism. Yours wasn't. No offense, just a simple fact.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:29:18 PM
@piratefish

And you think that is what should define a right?

Again, you're confusing 'is' with 'should be'.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:28:32 PM
@piratefish

By this definition, there are NO rights whatsoever.

You're ignoring time. There are no absolutely permanent rights. However, we currently enjoy many rights that are afforded to us.

if the government declared it illegal for you to eat chicken tomorrow, does that mean you lost the right to do it?

Yes, of course.

piratefish
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 635 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:26:27 PM
@5cats:

"And these "rights" you ascribe to gays do NOT apply to heterosexuals in America, so what's YOUR point?

Remember, you said it yourself: "Almost" every hetero- couple can get married? But not all, it's true."

What??? What rights only apply to homosexuals and not to heterosexuals? What are you talking about?????? You have completely lost me.

paddy215
Male, 18-29, Europe
 1666 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:26:24 PM
I couldn't care less who marries who, but whoever wrote this must at least be borderline retarded.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:25:43 PM
@piratefish

Simply put, your definition of a right relies on an invisible, undeterminable, untestable, unknown, and unchallengeable force.

Do you see the issue here?

piratefish
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 635 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:23:43 PM
@HumanAction:

"Exactly! Which is why we must conclude that marriage is not a right."

So for something not to be a right, by your reasoning, all that needs to be so is the ability (and not the actual doing) of a group to strip you of it? By this definition, there are NO rights whatsoever. Literally, anything can be made illegal and taken from us by the government. And you think that is what should define a right? I call that very scary thinking.

Follow the logic through: if the government declared it illegal for you to eat chicken tomorrow, does that mean you lost the right to do it? Not only would I disagree with that idea, but I am pretty sure most other Americans would too.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:23:12 PM
@piratefish

A logical fallacy, by very definition, invalidates a premise.

The answers given were put there in parentheses to denote my answer to the questions given; this is standard fare on the internet.

This was done mockingly as @chalket, who you praised, had done the same. Therefore, your criticism is a bit hypocritical here.

Would you like me to rewrite them and allow you to answer them?

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24124 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:22:58 PM
@PirateFish: And these "rights" you ascribe to gays do NOT apply to heterosexuals in America, so what's YOUR point?

Remember, you said it yourself: "Almost" every hetero- couple can get married? But not all, it's true.

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13145 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:22:16 PM
Funny thing is the people preaching for equality here support special taxes and privileges for couples that put their faith in each other onto a piece of paper and usually an overpriced ceremony. Just to tell everyone their going to be together forever....Over 50 percent of the time it fails. Want equality take away the benefits of that ceremony and leave it for what it is. There's plenty of people who just don't feel the need to do that to prove they love someone and they don't get special treatment.

piratefish
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 635 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:17:59 PM
@HumanAction:

"It was done purposefully and it has no bearing on the legitimacy of the premises offered. Thus, it does not invalidate the logic given."

What? Seriously? Do you understand syllogisms and logic? A logical fallacy, by very definition, invalidates a premise. Your major premise (the first in your syllogism) introduced a logical fallacy. As a matter of operation, it invalidates your conclusion.

However, arguing logic (a subject that is one of my favorites) is, per se, a red herring in the current discussion.

Again, simply put: law does not grant rights (at least not according to the framers of our Constitution, who I happen to agree with). Laws are meant to protect our rights, so when they fall short, it is our obligation to address them.

Laws do NOT equal rights. I cannot say it any simpler than that.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:15:58 PM
@piratefish

The problem is that your definition of 'natural rights' is wholly subjective, untestable, undefinable, and unchallengeable.

If I argue that something is not a right, you'll just pull out the magic trump card: it's a natural right provided by some mystical force.

We can't use logic, reason, or really any sensible analysis to test your natural rights theory; it's akin to saying that God exists. We can't test that in any meaningfully manner.

Forgive me, but I won't entertain an argument with someone who holds the "some magical force did it" trump card.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24124 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:15:24 PM
Who said anything about denying rights to heterosexuals? Where did this idea even come from?


@PirateFish: You said it, here: 2:51:27 PM
"...deny a marriage certificate to almost any heterosexual couple..."

So there ARE heterosexual couples who ARE denied the 'right' of marriage, correct?

I even gave a non-religious example: 3:34:24 PM = Citizenship marriages.

If hetero- couples CAN be denied this 'right', you literally have no case.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:11:13 PM
@piratefish

Our forefathers wholeheartedly disagreed with this idea.

Well... somewhat. Keep in mind that the entire Constitution is written as an instruction manual for running a government. As such, it is a declaration that some rights cannot be denied by government.

Also, oftentimes, such arguments fall to "God gave us these rights" which seems... unlikely. In your case, you suggest that "nature" is playing the role of God in providing us these rights which is equally absurd.

neither can they take them away

Exactly! Which is why we must conclude that marriage is not a right.

1. Government cannot take away rights.
2. Government can take away marriage.
C. Marriage is not a right.

piratefish
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 635 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:10:07 PM
Bottom line: rights and laws are two different things. They are NOT synonymous.

I'm arguing for rights, some of you are responding with laws. They are not one and the same. Unless you feel Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Caligula, Kim Jong Un, Kim Jong Il, etc. were all on the moral high ground and set the rights for human beings.

And this doesn't even begin to answer the question of "whose laws are the authority?" It gets just as tricky as religion then. For instance, is Russian law superior to US law, but inferior to Thai law? And which parts?

That's why pointing to law to define human rights is fundamentally flawed and impossible to sort out.

piratefish
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 635 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 4:05:36 PM
@HumanAction:

"Natural rights deal with what should be rather than what currently is, and thus, are completely subjective and undefinable."

Our forefathers wholeheartedly disagreed with this idea. And it's a damn good thing, too.

Also, I completely disagree with the notion that people in other countries do not have the right to free speech. They are born no differently than us, and simply because their governments oppress their rights does not mean they do not have them.

Also, look at the wording of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. The language is very specific and very clear: rights are natural, God-given things. The government DOES NOT grant them, neither can they take them away (that is what inalienable means). Further, our Constitution claims it is the obligation of our government to PROTECT (not grant) these natural rights. The idea (at least in the US) is that rights are natural, not government provided.

piratefish
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 635 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 3:59:19 PM
@5cats:

"So this "right" can be denied to heterosexuals, but not to homosexuals? Colour me confused"

What? You completely lost me? Who said anything about denying rights to heterosexuals? Where did this idea even come from?

piratefish
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 635 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 3:54:48 PM
@MeGrendel:

"It does not matter what people argue, it matters what is the law."

I completely disagree. Never forget that everything Kim Jong Un does in North Korea, everything Hitler did in Nazi Germany, and that everything Stalin did in the Soviet Union were completely 100% legal in their nations. The law does not make something infallible or morally right.

In fact, the law is inferior to morality. If not, then one must conclude that anything that is legal is morally correct. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, and Kim Jong Un would be thrilled to enjoy this degree of justification.

Laws are, after all, built my man, and often do not reflect justice, equity, nor morality. History is full of such examples.

Also, literally EVERY single poll done clearly shows that the majority of Americans not only support same sex marriages, but even more also feel that the federal government should recognize them regardless of state laws.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 3:48:01 PM
@piratefish

It's a common and very well documented fallacy.

It was done purposefully and it has no bearing on the legitimacy of the premises offered. Thus, it does not invalidate the logic given.

However, if you'd prefer, I could certainly rewrite it in a manner that retains the meaning while restraining from begging the question.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 3:45:30 PM
@piratefish

No worries; I tend to respond in kind.

Regarding natural rights, I think any such classification is dubious - at best. Natural rights deal with what should be rather than what currently is, and thus, are completely subjective and undefinable.

Rather, I view rights as entitlements guaranteed to us by sufficiently powerful entities.

For example, we currently enjoy the right to free speech. However, the people of many other countries do not have such a right. Why? Well, we enjoy it because it is afforded to us by our government. There is no entity more powerful than our government willing to take that right away.

That being said, I can't think that anything is a right if you need to pay a fee, follow arbitrary rules, and obtain a license before having it. Driving, which is very similar in this regard, is most definitely a privilege as opposed to a right.

piratefish
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 635 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 3:44:48 PM
@HumanAction:

"You know what? You're right; syllogisms are fun."

Syllogisms are only as valid as their premises. If the major or minor premise is flawed, the conclusion is also. That is why quite a few different logical fallacies have been identified and defined.

In your syllogism, the major premise contains a logical fallacy known as "begging the question". It's a common and very well documented fallacy.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24124 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 3:40:52 PM
My view is that a right is a natural right; it exists by virtue of birth and is (in the words of our forefathers) inalienable.


So this "right" can be denied to heterosexuals, but not to homosexuals?
Colour me confused

"Marriage" is a political construct. It's also part of some religions too. They (religious marriage and political marriage) should be (ideally) entirely separate, but they're not.

Now in Canada? We have "common law marriage" where a person can sue for divorce without actually getting married!
There's plenty of crazy laws to go around, why ad more to the pile? Fix what's broken first, then add to that, eh?

piratefish
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 635 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 3:39:46 PM
@HunanAction:

"In your opinion, if something is a right, can it legally be denied to you as a result of your sexual orientation? (Answer: No) "

I think this is where we may be experiencing our difference in what we consider to be the definition of a right.

My view is more similar to that of our forefathers in that certain rights are natural and inalienable. They are not dependent on the recognition of a government or other groups; they just exist in nature by virtue of our birth.

Further, I believe, as did the framers of our Constitution, that it is a government's obligation to protect these natural rights. So my answer to your question of whether or not a right can legally be denied to someone (on any basis, let alone sexual orientation) is - YES. And, sadly, history is chock full of examples of this very kind of oppression.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24124 Posts
Friday, March 14, 2014 3:34:24 PM
Are gays human? Yes.
Is marriage a right? Yes.
Therefore 3 gay men + marriage = human + right.


Fixed it @Chalket! After all, polygamy is every bit a right as gay marriage! It's even supported by the Bible and by Muslims!!

piratefish-I doubt there is a court in this land that would deny a marriage certificate to almost any heterosexual couple


Almost? ALMOST?? So they would deny SOME couples, yet you claim this proves/disproves something? It does prove OUR side, eh?

I can list lots of couples who would instantly be denied, mostly based on incest... marriages for citizenship are denied or overturned frequently too.
Thanks for proving our point dude!

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 810 11 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.