Gay marriage

[Napoleon Ier]

Basic patronization used to simulate intellectualism. Sad really.

That is indeed what you're doing.

Hey Snorri, isn't what Nappy did there an Ad Hominem attack and thus a logical fallacy?

Hmm. Dancing Mustard certainly isn't guilty of those.

[Fieryo]

seeing as how we're descending into what some might call "off topic", i was wondering if our anti-homosexual commentators could be coaxed into giving me a legal reason as to how a thing such as a ban on gay marriage would work. in other words, how do you get around the whole "discrimination" thing?

[Snorri1234]

Basic patronization used to simulate intellectualism. Sad really.

That is indeed what you're doing.

Hey Snorri, isn't what Nappy did there an Ad Hominem attack and thus a logical fallacy?

Hmm. Dancing Mustard certainly isn't guilty of those.

Yeah, but the difference is that DM has an actual point.

[Dancing Mustard]

Those arguments are terrible. The only good argument is that society should not have to recognise marriage outside natural law.

Oh get lost you insufferably ignorant little boy.

You clearly haven't got a clue what natural law is. It's not a theory which dictates what law ought to be and what it ought not to be, it's one of a great number of jurisprudential devices which can be used to determine whether something 'is' or 'is not' law.

Tell me, since you seem to be attempting to pass yourself off as a legal expert once again, have you ever heard of Profesor John Finnis? As I'm sure you have, perhaps you could tell me what you think of his cornerstone-work 'Natural Law, Natural Rights'? Given that he's a devout catholic, and the first ever non-clergyman that a Pope has seen fit to call an official aide, and given that as he is universally regarded as the last century's most emminent scholar of 'natural law'; why is it that (despite his moral rejection of homosexuality as a practice) his works concede that it is impossible to use the doctrines of natural law to prohibit homosexuality, or recognition of the lawfulness thereof?

Alternatively, if you don't have a clue about any of that, then you could just admit that, once again, you're simply chucking out big words and lofty concepts that you have no comprehension of as a smokescreen to disguise your ignorance and unfounded prejudices?

Basically Nappy Rash, you don't have a clue what natural law is, and you're just flinging the name of the concept around in a vague attempt to bamboozle people who don't know enough about it to challenge your intellectually dishonest attempts to sidestep their questions.

A family always has been a man and a woman. That much is undeniale.

Wrong again 'mon ami'.

There are still human tribes which exist today that have no concept of a nuclear family, raising babies as children of the group, rather than as children of the parents. Furthermore there is documented behaivour amongst animals (hippos being an obvious example) which shows female only 'families' raising children, while males abandon their young for life.

Statements about family always being a man and a woman are just bullshit that you're making up in a weak attempt to appeal to some fictitious concept of 'nature' now that you've had the rest of your arguments exposed as illogical nonesense.

Therefore, the law should recognise what isn't a family.

That would be vaguely acceptable if the propositions that came before it weren't completely wrong, and if the purpose of marriage laws was to recognise 'family'. As your 'sterile people shouldnt marry' failure demonstrated, family is just one thing a marriage might lead to, not its underlying purpose.

Sorry, but you lose again. But then, that's getting kind of predictable now really....

To be honest with yu snorri, I don't oppose or support gay marriage, but I certainly believe homosexuality is a damaging psychological phenomenn found in all of us.

To be honest with you Snorri, I don't dare to say that I oppose gay marriage any more, because people have torn all my pathetic 'points' to shreds; but I am still definately against homosexuals because I can't accept the fact that my prejudices against them are based on nothing more than ignorance and fear.

Basic patronization used to simulate intellectualism. Sad really.

Heh heh, didn't think you'd be able to come up with a logical rebutal for that.

Oh hey. Isn't this the second time your professed 'legal expertise' has left you in a slightly sticky situation? Perhaps bluffing it isn't the strong play you seem to imagine eh?

At any rate, perhaps we'll be spared your bumbling attempts to use the phrase 'natural law' to fob us off with in the future... what with us now knowing that you haven't got a clue what it means.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm referring to it the theological sense, as Finnis in part does.

Tell me, since you seem to be attempting to pass yourself off as a Theological expert once again, have you ever heard of St. Thomas AquinasAs I'm sure you have, perhaps you could tell me what you think of his cornerstone-work 'Summa Theologica'?

Alternatively, if you don't have a clue about any of that, then you could just admit that, once again, you're simply chucking out big words and lofty concepts that you have no comprehension of as a smokescreen to disguise your ignorance and unfounded prejudices against Christians?

[Neoteny]

I have never ascribed homosexuality to choice, but to psycholgy.

Without explaining what you mean by that of course.

Simply put, it is a Psychological Disorder, like that of Autism or Depression. The only reasons you may not see it on a list of disorders, is because of a group of homosexuals calling the study of it politically incorrect back in the 70s and 80s.

Current trends in autism research indicate genetics as a very common cause...

[Napoleon Ier]

That is irrelevant. His point stands.

[Snorri1234]

That is irrelevant. His point stands.

Actually, it doesn't. Just like we thought autism was the result of psychological reasons, we thought homosexuality was the result of psychological things.

[Napoleon Ier]

That is irrelevant. His point stands.

Actually, it doesn't. Just like we thought autism was the result of psychological reasons, we thought homosexuality was the result of psychological things.

Yur argument is sound but not valid, the fact that autism may be genetic does not necessarilycorrelate with homosexuality being genetic.

[Snorri1234]

That is irrelevant. His point stands.

Actually, it doesn't. Just like we thought autism was the result of psychological reasons, we thought homosexuality was the result of psychological things.

Yur argument is sound but not valid, the fact that autism may be genetic does not necessarilycorrelate with homosexuality being genetic.

No it doesn't. But the fact that you assert with such certainty that homosexuality is a psychological disease is just wrong.

[Neoteny]

That is irrelevant. His point stands.

Not quite irrelevant, but off topic for sure. Either way, I don't know enough about the politics of homosexuality in the eighties to comment on that. But, even if there is something different between a homosexual's brain and a heterosexual's brain (be it genetically, developmentally, or environmentally initiated), that does not give us permission to refuse them a right (back on topic).

Depressives and autistic people are still allowed to marry. Is that irrelevant? Is it perhaps because depression and autism aren't considered sins in the Bible?

EDIT: Correcting diction issues...

[Dancing Mustard]

I'm referring to it the theological sense, as Finnis in part does.

Referring to what? What point are you trying to make with this sentance? Just making a generic statement as if it proves something doesn't help you here. This is just chaff.

Tell me, since you seem to be attempting to pass yourself off as a Theological expert once again

I've never professed any expertise in any discipline, least of all theology. I did however attempt to engage you on the subject of jurisprudence, something which you appear to have missed...

have you ever heard of St. Thomas Aquinas

Obv. If you'd read Finnis then you'd take that as a given... way to prove your ignorance of his work while you attempt to impress me with your knowledge of the subject.

As I'm sure you have, perhaps you could tell me what you think of his cornerstone-work 'Summa Theologica'?

It's perhaps the most fun thing I've ever read in my life. Why do you ask?

Tell me, were you making a point here? Or were you just spouting random book names that you haven't actually read, in a vain attempt to assert some kind of intellectual superiority? You do appreciate that there's no value in referencing a text unless you're actually appealing to its contents as argument. Right?

I referenced Finnis because it's the obvious starting point for any 'natural law' debate, and because it proves that a wiser man than you, who accepts your principles, had rejected arguments that use an identical methodology. Because I knew you hadn't read the book I made points alongside the reference that also detonated your arguments... isn't it funny how you appear to have sidestepped answering those?

Basically Nappy, you're just trying to divert our attention with empty rehtoric to draw attention away from the fact that you've just been dismantled again.

[Fieryo]

Basically Nappy, you're just trying to divert our attention with empty rehtoric to draw attention away from the fact that you've just been dismantled again.

powned.

[Napoleon Ier]

No, I'm trying to tell you Finnis isn't the supreme authority on natural law. The fact you've heard of John Finnis, maybe looked at his name on a wikipedia page after googling natural law, doesn't suddenly make him the only authority on a subject. You seem to have some bizarre desire to prpve you've read Finnis and I haven't, which somehow would give some higher degree of sapience in this debate. You should know that natural law was addressed a long while back before the seventies by a fellow called St. Augustine of Hippo (look him some time, yeah?), and since by Aquinas, Hobbes and others.
Now you're constant inability to understand Thomist principles and your repeated reference to "nature" in the context of this debate as having biological implication demonstrate clearly to me you have little understanding of the subject in which you are feigning intellectual superiority.
Now both Aquinas and Augustine claim that natural law is the "essence of a substance that unify soul and body", and view it in a strictly ontological sense, and in it is found the virtue that marked perfection in man's pre-lapsarian state.
In that light, I argue, which is what you fail to see in your pre-occupation with irritating and incessant whines contending that only religious bigots oppose gays, that homosexuality, being contrary to natural law, since it is a psychological phenomenon created by societal and enviromental factors which have stripped men of their virility and natural roles (in the ontological sense), it must be mrally opposed.
Furthermore, some have argued that as such, society cannot recognise a union of homosexuals as such a union furthers the damaging psychlogical and societal effects of homosexuality (which are real and measurable, homosexuals are more likely to become criminal or sociopathic, all the studies demonstrate it).
However, I would say a civil union contract is an acceptable recognition as the state has no right to impose it's dictates on individuals, and that if the state through greater liberty has fostered a healthy society, the negative causes and effects of homosexuality are greatly reduced.

[Napoleon Ier]

Basically Dancing MouseTurd, you're trying to divert our attention with the aid of one of the few literary works with which you are familiar in order to patronize us with your ridiculus brand of arrogant pseudo-intellectualism.

[darvlay]

You guys might dig this place:

http://www.timeforchess.com/board/threa ... forumid=23

If any of you play chess, that is...

[jiminski]

Basically Dancing MouseTurd, you're trying to divert our attention with the aid of one of the few literary works with which you are familiar in order to patronize us with your ridiculus brand of arrogant pseudo-intellectualism.

hehe pseudo-intellectual; the death knell of any lively debate.

[Snorri1234]

(which are real and measurable, homosexuals are more likely to become criminal or sociopathic, all the studies demonstrate it).

WTF? What studies?

[darvlay]

(which are real and measurable, homosexuals are more likely to become criminal or sociopathic, all the studies demonstrate it).

WTF? What studies?

All of them.

[rambos poodle]

How is this a danger to society napoleon ?

[Snorri1234]

How is this a danger to society napoleon ?

THEY'RE GOING TO KILL US ALL!

JUST LOOK AT THEM! WITH THEIR EVIL LITTLE EYES AND THEIR BUTTSEX!

THEY IS CORRUPTING OUR CHILDRENSS!!!!11

[jiminski]

careful! you can never be certain with those little old ladies lesbians; quite often they are KGB sleepers!

[Fieryo]

careful! you can never be certain with those little old ladies lesbians; quite often they are KGB sleepers!

no, no, they're al qaeda. duh.

[Frigidus]

You guys might dig this place:

http://www.timeforchess.com/board/threa ... forumid=23

If any of you play chess, that is...

Sweet. Thanks.

[gryffin13]

I don't. I know it is wrong to have children intentionally brought up by gays thoug, and that is every developmental psychological principle from Freud onward you flout by allowing Gay Marriage.

I got behind in the forum, and as I am catching up I have to talk about this. I know that someone called him out on this already but I have to.

My dad is a psychologist, and there is absolutely no actual evidence that suggests that gays will make bad parents or cause any problems to a child while raising him.