Rick Perry's View on Marriage

poet said:
You're late, as usual. Gay marriage is already legal in a handful of states...more states to folllow. Gay sex is as moral as straight sex. You're one to talk about morals.
Click to expand...
1. Argumentum ad populum.
2. The Bible states otherwise.
3. Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Social conservatives are pissing up a rope on the issue of gay marriage. Gays are not going back into the closet and are going to insist on equal standing under the law. Theirs is a logical and coherent position where as social conservatives position is emotional, illogical, defies long standing American values for personal liberty and freedom and, in their hateful and bigoted intolerance, is down right un-Christian too.
Click to expand...
You state conclusions without a coherent argument.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. Argumentum ad populum.
2. The Bible states otherwise.
3. Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning.
Click to expand...

1. Argumentum ad populum. No, since he was replying to your claim that I am trying to legalize gay marriage, he was correcting an error in your post.

2. The Bible states otherwise. Two points here: First, since straight couples are not penalized for the same sex acts, penalizing gays is discriminatory. Second, unless you are claiming that all morality comes from the Bible, your argument is Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority).

3. Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning. Your claim concerning his statement also fits your own statements of morality.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Actually, the Bible condemns sodomy as well, even when straights do it.
Click to expand...

Indeed it does. But then, I never said it didn't now did I? My point was that you wish to penalize gays for something straights can do without penalty. This is called discrimination.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. Argumentum ad populum.
2. The Bible states otherwise.
3. Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning.
Click to expand...

The Bible is not infallible.
There is no validity in "argumentum ad populum"? You wish.
You have your illogical fallacies mixed up. Stupid bitch.
 
WinterBorn said:
1. Argumentum ad populum. No, since he was replying to your claim that I am trying to legalize gay marriage, he was correcting an error in your post.

2. The Bible states otherwise. Two points here: First, since straight couples are not penalized for the same sex acts, penalizing gays is discriminatory. Second, unless you are claiming that all morality comes from the Bible, your argument is Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority).

3. Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning. Your claim concerning his statement also fits your own statements of morality.
Click to expand...

Ooops. Damn Yankee is a dumb , homophobic, racist bitch.
 
poet said:
The Bible is not infallible.
There is no validity in "argumentum ad populum"? You wish.
You have your illogical fallacies mixed up. Stupid bitch.
Click to expand...

1. "Abomination" is pretty straight-forward.
2. There is in a debate situation.
3. No.
4. Are you being sexist now?
 
SM, since you have been using logical fallacies as the basis for your arguments against facts (often used incorrectly, I might add), I thought I would point out the logical fallacies of your arguments.


1. The definition of marriage has evolved over 7,000 years and should not be changed: Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition).

2. Homosexuality is not normal: Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers).

3. Homosexuality is not moral: Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition) and Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority).

4. Homosexuality is not natural: Nature, appeal to
 
Solitary got burned badly with logical fallacies and has been boiling ever since. How long has it been, four years? :)
 
Damn Yankee said:
LOL Poet can't debate, so he plays the race/ homophobe card.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. LOLOLOL. You stupid bitch, when have you ever debated me? You think the back and forth on your belief that the Bible condemns homosexuality is "debate"? You present no evidence, links or sources for your claims...only your opinion. That's a pissing contest. And I'm closer to the ground than you, if you get my meaning.
There is no race card or homophobe card being played by me. You choose to imply racial pejoratives, the clear mark of a racist. You choose to hoist with your own petard and assert that I am somehow "less than" because I'm gay, implying that you are somehow better than I. How could that be?
Even some of the white conservatives who consider themselves heterosexual have chastised you, for crossing the line. That justifies me. When your own "calls you out", you have a problem.
Now, you got something to say? Say it.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Solitary got burned badly with logical fallacies and has been boiling ever since. How long has it been, four years? :)
Click to expand...

I have been boiling ever since? lol I have not been boiling over anything. But you seem upset when I point out the logical fallacies in your arguments.



Now if you would care to stay on topic we can continue.
 
Matthew 7:1-6... Just a suggestion...

These conversations become fruitless because people start into condemnation (both sides do this), it gets emotional and everybody starts to make it personal. If we can keep this to an intellectual discussion on the sin in question it would be a far better discussion. It's just a suggestion though, do as you will.
 
Damocles said:
Matthew 7:1-6... Just a suggestion...

These conversations become fruitless because people start into condemnation (both sides do this), it gets emotional and everybody starts to make it personal. If we can keep this to an intellectual discussion on the sin in question it would be a far better discussion. It's just a suggestion though, do as you will.
Click to expand...

At about this point in a conversation about all that sin bidness, i always find posting a picture of a dog dressed as a priest helps enormously.

images
 
I think what he means is NY has the right to determine their own laws on the matter until a Constitutional amendment is ratified. Fortunately, no such amendment will ever be ratified.

I'd personally have no problem voting for Perry. He's a wacko on social issues, but as President his impact on that would be pretty limited. The only significant impact Bush had was the partial-birth abortion ban (which I support).
 
poet said:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. LOLOLOL. You stupid bitch, when have you ever debated me? You think the back and forth on your belief that the Bible condemns homosexuality is "debate"? You present no evidence, links or sources for your claims...only your opinion. That's a pissing contest. And I'm closer to the ground than you, if you get my meaning.
There is no race card or homophobe card being played by me. You choose to imply racial pejoratives, the clear mark of a racist. You choose to hoist with your own petard and assert that I am somehow "less than" because I'm gay, implying that you are somehow better than I. How could that be?
Even some of the white conservatives who consider themselves heterosexual have chastised you, for crossing the line. That justifies me. When your own "calls you out", you have a problem.
Now, you got something to say? Say it.
Click to expand...
I haven't passed judgement on you except to judge that you cannot debate. That's why you play the race/ homophobe card, to end any chance of legitimate debate before it becomes obvious that you don't have a clue about the truth. :)
 
Damn Yankee said:
I haven't passed judgement on you except to judge that you cannot debate. That's why you play the race/ homophobe card, to end any chance of legitimate debate before it becomes obvious that you don't have a clue about the truth. :)
Click to expand...

Is his playing the race card anything like your post "Solitary got burned badly with logical fallacies..."?

I wouldn't exactly call that great debating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top