|
Author
|
Topic: Hate the sin but love the person...except when voting?
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
|
Message 7 of 391 (596655)
12-16-2010 11:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by iano
12-16-2010 9:01 AM
|
|
so it's not true to say that homosexuals marrying only affects homosexuals.
How does homosexuals getting married affect heterosexuals? Other than some misguided religious prohibition.
If someone is of the view that homosexual marriage is detrimental to society (they may, for example, consider Gods judgement to be attracted so..) then their efforts to deny homosexuals access to marriage wouldn't be based on condemnation of the homosexual population itself.
Bullshit. That is exactly what is based upon, no matter what kind of logical gymnastics you want to go through.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by iano, posted 12-16-2010 9:01 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 45 by iano, posted 12-17-2010 5:09 AM | | Theodoric has replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
(1)
| |
| |
| |
The amount of people covered by health inssurance affects the cost of health insurance for everybody*. Ergo, the denial of marriage affects the lives of more than just those who want to get married. Therefore your conclusion is false. Therefore heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married either.
Not necessarily (as exposed above). For example (made up), a person who hates the sin, but not the sinner, could also really want to keep thier health insurance costs up, so they might vote against homo marriage for that reason. This makes the assumption that higher health care costs would be the results. Your premise is flawed in many ways. Maternity care is a very high percent of costs for insurance companies. Homosexuals usually do not have maternity costs. Also, the bigger the pool of people insured the lower the cost of insurance. This is why smaller groups have higher premiums. So getting homosexual partners on to a plan could conceivable lower premiums. Your argument is very flawed and shows the logical gymnastics that those who want to be bigots are willing to go to justify and rationalize their behaviours.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Irrelevant. Not at all it goes directly to the point you are attempting to make.
It makes the assumption that lower healthcare costs would be the result. The made-up person wants to keep the higher cost so he votes against the marriage to maintain that because allowing it would lower the cost. What would the purpose of this be? Why is there an assumption of higher or lower costs? Here is where your argument falters. Why is there an assumption of health care costs changing?
You're argument is just plain wrong and shows just how blinded you'll allow yourself to be by your desire to vilify those who are different than you... bigotry in its own right.
Why am I not surprised that a response from you contains a personal attack. Please show me where there is vilification in what I said. You really need to keep your personal feelings about me(yet you don't even know me) out of the debate. But that will never happen will it. Your whole argument looks silly. It is based upon unsupported assumptions as Subbie stated.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
Your argument is very flawed and shows the logical gymnastics that those who want to be bigots are willing to go to justify and rationalize their behaviours. Did you think that comment was directed at you? I thought you were talking about some hypothetical person. Are you saying that bigots do not go through logical gymnastics to justify and rationalize their behaviours? Bigots have logical reasons for their behaviours? Alright, if you want to defend mindless bigotry I guess that is your right. Unless I am misunderstanding you here and your are not defending mindless bigotry. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
I'm providing an argument against a position. Are you not familiar with debating!? And I am providing an argument against your position. Are you not familiar with debating? Or is it not debating if I don't agree with you?
What's with all your vitriol? Welcome to nginx! : speech, writing, etc, displaying rancour, vituperation, or bitterness Not agreeing with you is vitriolic?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
Please explain
You have yet to explain why someone would vote against gay marriage in order to keep there health care cost from getting lower. maybe there is something key I am missing here. The whole argument seems rather illogical. But then again there maybe something I am missing.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Please explain
I'm not really sure what you are doing in this thread... I think I'm going to call it: "being a little bitch". You obviously have a problem whenever anyone questions your logic. I was not trying to be vitriolic, but you seem to want to take it that way. You have what seems to me to be a flawed argument. I am pointing out that I see this as flawed.
They work for an insurance company. Its in tough times...
You yourself admit that there is no way to know how it would effect insurance. But your hypothetical person knows? Your posit an argument that this person wants higher insurance costs and now this is the reason they vote against gay marriage. Higher health care costs don't automatically mean higher profits for an insurance company. Higher profits for an insurance company does not mean higher income for a person working for an insurance company. This is simple stuff and basic economics. Your argument is flawed. If you could come up with an argument that has some basis in reality maybe it could be considered. Your example is extremely out there. If you really think the reason that more than a few people would vote this way then more power to you. As I said before it seems to be an attempt to do extreme logical gymnastics in order to justify bigotry. Of course since this does not agree with your sensibilities you will accuse me of bigotry and call me more names. If it makes you fell better oh well.
Oni's claim was that a vote against gay marriage necessitates hating the sinner. I am taking the position against that and provided an argument for why it isn't true, along with an example. Its called a debate. I call 'em as a sees 'em. If you wouldn't automatically lash out at me everytime I disagree with you maybe we could have a normal debate. When my first response to you is answered with this
You're argument is just plain wrong and shows just how blinded you'll allow yourself to be by your desire to vilify those who are different than you... bigotry in its own right.
I am going to respond strongly. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
Re: Please explain
You yourself admit that there is no way to know how it would effect insurance. No, I haven't. In fact, I've said the exact opposite. So did you write this or not?
The amount of people covered by health inssurance affects the cost of health insurance for everybody*. Ergo, the denial of marriage affects the lives of more than just those who want to get married. Therefore your conclusion is false. *whether this is better or worse is beside the point So you are saying you know that homosexual marriage will lower health care costs. That these lower costs will result in lower profits and lower pay for people that work for insurance companies? Becasue that is what yout argument is saying. You still have not addressed many points I ahve brought up that shows your whole argument is flawed. Please address them. You ahve been very confusing so I hope I get these correct. 1) Supposedly you believe health care costs will drop if gay marriage is allowed. You present know evidence to back this assertion and it seems to be a big part of your argument. 2) If health care costs go down, insurance companies will take a hit financially. You have shown no evidence that this is a valid or sane argument. Lowering health care costs could result in higher profits for insurance companies I don't think we know. If you do please provide evidence. 3)If health care costs go down you assert that individual employees of insurance companies will take a hit financially. Lower premiums may be result of lower claims which could mean a financial bonus to employees. But in actuality would probably have no affect on their pay whatsoever. I don't think we know. If you do please provide evidence. I am trying my best to get along with you. Again I will repeat your argument is flawed I have shown why your argument is flawed and all you are doing is saying I am wrong and making personal attacks. Provide some sort of evidence to show your reasoning is correct. Or just ignore me completely.
It was just a part of a refutation of an absolute statement. He said "ONLY", I provided an exception. Your exception is logically flawed and has no basis in reality. See above.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
|
|
Message 39 of 391 (596803)
12-16-2010 11:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by onifre
12-16-2010 11:38 PM
|
|
Re: Please explain
and there could be someone that votes against it because he doesnt like Elton John music. But people like this would make up a minuscule percentage of those that vote against gay marriage.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by onifre, posted 12-16-2010 11:38 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 41 by onifre, posted 12-16-2010 11:52 PM | | Theodoric has replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 42 of 391 (596807)
12-17-2010 12:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by onifre
12-16-2010 11:52 PM
|
|
Re: Please explain
That's why I called his argument bogus. Ok. So it is just that I called him on his bogus argument. Evidently you are allowed to question his arguments, but I am not.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by onifre, posted 12-16-2010 11:52 PM | | onifre has seen this message but not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
|
|
Message 53 of 391 (596837)
12-17-2010 9:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by iano
12-17-2010 5:09 AM
|
|
example?
Is this your example? Cause it it is the only thing in the post I responded to that even remotely resembles an example.
If someone is of the view that homosexual marriage is detrimental to society (they may, for example, consider Gods judgement to be attracted so..) then their efforts to deny homosexuals access to marriage wouldn't be based on condemnation of the homosexual population itself. As you can see from your "example" all you can give is religious reasons.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by iano, posted 12-17-2010 5:09 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
|
|
Message 55 of 391 (596839)
12-17-2010 9:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by iano
12-17-2010 5:05 AM
|
|
Evidence
If Society found that male/female + 2.1 kids was optimal then they should, naturally, encourage that (say by tax breaks) and discourage other unions. Can you show any studies saying this is optimal? Also, can you tell us what you mean by optimal?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by iano, posted 12-17-2010 5:05 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 59 by iano, posted 12-17-2010 10:58 AM | | Theodoric has replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
|
|
Message 56 of 391 (596840)
12-17-2010 9:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by iano
12-17-2010 5:24 AM
|
|
It's job is to encourage that which it sees as beneficial to most and to discourage that which is see's as harmful to most. Here we are back to the rub. Seems almost circular doesn't it. How is gay marriage "harmful" to society?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by iano, posted 12-17-2010 5:24 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 63 by iano, posted 12-17-2010 11:16 AM | | Theodoric has replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
|
|
Message 60 of 391 (596848)
12-17-2010 11:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by iano
12-17-2010 10:58 AM
|
|
Re: Evidence
The you don't believe that male+female marriage is optimal?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by iano, posted 12-17-2010 10:58 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
|
|
Message 66 of 391 (596857)
12-17-2010 11:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by iano
12-17-2010 11:16 AM
|
|
You for example, might not see it as damaging that children are taught that it's perfectly acceptable for a man to have a relationship with a man. I don't. In so far as children are influenced so, I'd see it as harmful to society. So you think society should go with you "gut feeling"? If you want something no allowed it is necessary that you provide some sort of reason other than, "I think it is harmful to children". How is it harmful to children? Or are you ready to concede that your only problem with gay marriage is that it insults your religious sensibilities?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by iano, posted 12-17-2010 11:16 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 68 by iano, posted 12-17-2010 12:02 PM | | Theodoric has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2