If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[Green Gaia]

I think it's high time to raise the issue of whether naked homosexual migrant laborers should really be picking our fruits and vegetables or not? Who wants to go first?

What has Dobson put in the water over there?

 

[lunamoth]

I think it's high time to raise the issue of whether naked homosexual migrant laborers should really be picking our fruits and vegetables or not? Who wants to go first?

That sounds very dangerous!

 

[lilithu]

Meh. I'm withdrawing for other reasons. It's not because I find you guys antagonistic. It's because I'm tired of the back and forth lack of progress and focusing on the gnitty gritty details. That and the fact that we're all so think headed that no one wants to give any ground or concede any points and that isn't really good if you want the debate to actually go places.

Debate has never been about concession. Where did you get that idea from? If you want concession, you go to collective bargaining, not debate.

I will concede points when I think the other person has a valid point. I will not concede points simply for the sake of "progressing" to a compromise.

The abolitionists did not compromise about slavery. The suffragists did not compromise about women's rights. Gandhi did not compromise with the British Imperialists. Dr King did not compromise about civil rights. Mandela did not compromise about apartheid. If one side is wrong, compromise is not progress.

That said, I've already conceded any claims for same-sex MARRIAGE because I thought religious groups had a valid point about MARRIAGE being a religious concept. I have yet to see any valid points against the legal recognition of same-sex civil unions. And I'm not going to compromise on that just because some people don't like it.

 

[sojourner]

Sure. As long as they are "white-collar" laborers. But then, they wouldn't be naked would they?

Maybe they're from "Chippendale's"...: hamster :

 

[doppelganger]

Maybe they're from "Chippendale's"...: hamster :

That might provide an interesting business plan. You could underpay them to pick melons and charge admission to women (and men) to watch them do it!

 

[lilithu]

I'm talking about conessions on individual points, not on the topic as a whole. If you don't concede on individual points, you'll just start saying the same thing over and over and over again, like we were towards the begging of the debate and like we were towards the end.

You remember when people started throwing in things like biology and civics and sociology/psychology? That was progress because we were focusing on different facets of the same issue, instead of just saying "Yes it is" and "No it isn't" over and over again. As soon as that started to happen, I decided to pull out. I hope that makes sense.

I didn't see that as progress because it was all irrelevant. The central question is whether we have a right to decide what someone else can and cannot do. My answer is that we have a right ONLY to the extent that someone's behavior directly harms others. Period. Beyond that, you can toss in all sorts of ideas about biology, sociology, etc, and it's all irrelevant. Some issues really are cut and dry.

 

[lunamoth]

Maybe they're from "Chippendale's"...: hamster :

Is that Chip or Dale?

 

[doppelganger]

Is that Chip or Dale?

Applecore . . . !

 

[sojourner]

Is that Chip or Dale?

I suppose it depends upon who picks the bigger melons...

 

[mostly harmless]

I asked for mostly_harmless to provide reasoning on why the logical flow of legalizing some relationships (homosexual) leads to the legalization of others (polygamy) is absurd, and I've received no response. Can someone else help?

First of all, I went to bed and haven't been feeling well all day so I haven't been online.
Secondly, assuming that legalizing some relationships will lead to the legalizing of others is not logical; and, is based purely on assumption. That is why it is absurd.

Assumption is the mother of all f-ups.

 

[lilithu]

I asked for mostly_harmless to provide reasoning on why the logical flow of legalizing some relationships (homosexual) leads to the legalization of others (polygamy) is absurd, and I've received no response. Can someone else help?

nutshell, I responded to your OP in the beginning and you never responded to me.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=590455#poststop

 

[nutshell]

First of all, I went to bed and haven't been feeling well all day so I haven't been online.

I hope you feel better and I wasn't looking for an explanation, just an answer from anybody.

Secondly, assuming that legalizing some relationships will lead to the legalizing of others is not logical; and, is based purely on assumption. That is why it is absurd.

Assumption is the mother of all f-ups.

Why is it not logical? Slowly we've allowed the legalization of other types of relationship and that has led to the fight we have today. So, historically, logic is on my side and no assumptions were being made.

 

[Green Gaia]

Why is it not logical? Slowly we've allowed the legalization of other types of relationship and that has led to the fight we have today. So, historically, logic is on my side and no assumptions were being made.

Just because I may have liked every ice cream I've ever eaten does not logically follow that I will automatically like the next one. I may hate it.

 

[nutshell]

Just because I may have liked every ice cream I've ever eaten does not logically follow that I will automatically like the next one. I may hate it.

So you're saying a historical pattern is irrelevant when considering the future? That doesn't sound logical to me.

 

[Green Gaia]

So you're saying a historical pattern is irrelevant when considering the future? That doesn't sound logical to me.

I'm saying that we shouldn't jump to conclusions until something has been examined on its own merits. I shouldn't assume I will love Bubble-Gum flavored ice cream with Dora the Explorer chocolates just because I love Ben & Jerry's Dublin Mudslide, even though they are both ice creams.

 

[MaddLlama]

So you're saying a historical pattern is irrelevant when considering the future? That doesn't sound logical to me.

Ok, so what if you're right, and one does inevitably lead to the other. Why not deal with each issue seperately rather than say "Oh, well we shouldn't do this because then we'd have to also consider doing this"?

 

[nutshell]

I'm saying that we shouldn't jump to conclusions until something has been examined on its own merits. I shouldn't assume I will love Bubble-Gum flavored ice cream with Dora the Explorer chocolates just because I love Ben & Jerry's Dublin Mudslide, even though they are both ice creams.

I see what you're saying. That makes sense. And I agree, things should be examined by their own merits...so I must ask:

When making the argument for homosexual marriage, why do people often reference the change in interracial marriage of the past?

 

[nutshell]

Ok, so what if you're right, and one does inevitably lead to the other. Why not deal with each issue seperately rather than say "Oh, well we shouldn't do this because then we'd have to also consider doing this"?

If you visit the OP, you'll see I never made the argument that "we shouldn't do this because then we'd have to also consider doing this." I just noted that this argument comes up and it seems to offend those for homosexual marriage. I'm just trying to understand the "why."


And, MaddLlama, I'd like to take this time to share with you a dancing chipmunk. Simply because I have never done so before.
: hamster :

 

[lamplighter]

Why homosexual mariage makes since is because it's between two people, and humans are only the most happy equally in a partnership. Where as polygamy is generaly for mens ego and primal desire to procreate as much as possible to spread his genes everywhere. Women actualy evolved (the s**t is going to hit the fan over this I bet) to not show when they're in estrous, to force early man to commit to one female. Also as far as I'm aware there aren't any women who have any desir to be one of many to begin with.

 

[Green Gaia]

I see what you're saying. That makes sense. And I agree, things should be examined by their own merits...so I must ask:

When making the argument for homosexual marriage, why do people often reference the change in interracial marriage of the past?

To note that the idea of what is a legal marriage has been changed in the past. It is usually in response to those who claim it has never been changed and if we change it the whole thing will fall apart.

No one is saying that because we allowed interracial marriage we must therefore allow same gender marriage. If same gender marriage weren't a legitimate cause on its own, we wouldn't be having this discussion.