tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6975406485976511105.post1942878109097466814..comments2023-03-24T04:03:32.682-05:00Comments on The Pastoral Urbanite: 4 Argument's You Can't Use Against Gay Marriage.Pastoral Urbanitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08433444372802871735noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6975406485976511105.post-86555811837310213722009-06-22T15:53:57.059-05:002009-06-22T15:53:57.059-05:00Popular was not the word I was meaning... Actually...Popular was not the word I was meaning... Actually I really agree with your statement "Laws should change to produce the greatest amount of freedom possible without trampling on the rights of others in the process." Although morally I am against the act of homosexuality, those who perform it should have equal rights under law. Personally I would prefer to see government set a flat tax and remove any benefit for married couples (Heterosexual or Homosexual) since that is unequal to singles.Faithfulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569063773215805401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6975406485976511105.post-66092280797705549212009-06-22T14:42:02.188-05:002009-06-22T14:42:02.188-05:00Popularity is not at issue. Laws should change to ...Popularity is not at issue. Laws should change to produce the greatest amount of freedom possible without trampling on the rights of others in the process. Homosexuality isn't "ok" now that people accept it. It was always a choice individuals should have had but society wasn't prepared to deal with it. Just like civil rights were not created by the Emancipation Proclamation.<br />Pedophilia is categorically different as it takes advantage of individuals that are unable to give consent and by definition would violate the rights of another person.Pastoral Urbanitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08433444372802871735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6975406485976511105.post-88049872028263361892009-06-22T13:55:55.917-05:002009-06-22T13:55:55.917-05:00That depends on your definition of "evil"...That depends on your definition of "evil" and "abnormal" since homosexuality was largely grouped into those words 50 years ago. So according to you laws should eventually change to those who perform pedophilia when it becomes popular?Faithfulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569063773215805401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6975406485976511105.post-32042035205072757412009-06-22T13:44:38.761-05:002009-06-22T13:44:38.761-05:00And I answer, certainly they have. Most assuredly ...And I answer, certainly they have. Most assuredly sexual beliefs and customs have changed dramatically over the last 50 years. And they should. And the laws of the country should mimic that change in belief. Change will certainly encourage all those who desire more change. However, the possibility that change <i>might</i> motivate those who desire evil is not a justification for continuing to hold a minority unequal before the law. Secondly, your question still assumes that homosexuality and abnormal sexual desires are on the same scale, which they are not. The progress made in legalizing homosexual marriages will do more for rectifying the tax, legal, and social inequality faced by homosexuals than it would ever do to promote sexual perversions, such as pedophilia.Pastoral Urbanitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08433444372802871735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6975406485976511105.post-32328708517074410362009-06-21T22:32:14.642-05:002009-06-21T22:32:14.642-05:00In response to your comment about Homosexual marri...In response to your comment about Homosexual marriage not leading to pedophillia "because an entire society's definition of consent would also have to be rethought, accepted, and legislated", I ask haven't certain definitions and concepts regarding sexual issues already been rethought, accepted and legislated? Homosexuals who marry may not later engage in these acts, but the progress made will encourage those who want to practice such behavior to try to change society's thinking on these issues.Reubennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6975406485976511105.post-21166224937434919382008-12-17T12:55:00.000-06:002008-12-17T12:55:00.000-06:00Thanks for this post. It is nice to see someone se...Thanks for this post. It is nice to see someone sees the same fallacies in our so-called Christian "arguments." Without saying whether I am for or against gay marriage (which I do not know if I can even define that) I will add that I really did enjoy hearing the quote a few weeks ago "So we're afraid that the gays will ruin the institution of marriage. It seems that we're doing a fine job of that ourselves."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6975406485976511105.post-66897507831226646132008-12-17T06:36:00.000-06:002008-12-17T06:36:00.000-06:00Actually the opposite. The reason that slippery sl...Actually the opposite. The reason that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies is because there is no reasonable cause and effect relationship between the issues. Slippery slope is and never should be considered an actual reason to believe anything. It is by definition a flawed argument. In the case of homosexual marriage leading to other sexual or moral changes in the country, one would have to prove that the effect of interspecies dating (my example, but any argument would suffice) for example would have no choice but to be legalized if homosexual marriage was legalized. This is simply not true. Think of it this way... If I argue that A will lead to G, I must prove that B, C, D, E, and F are unavoidable effects of A. There can be no chance of any other actions or my argument becomes a slipperly slope fallacy. Generally what you find is that D or E may in fact cause G but A has no real effect on the situation. Back within our subject, the major flaw with arguing that homosexual marriage will lead to deviant unions is that all the examples of what would follow are categorically different from homosexuality in one major way: Consent. Homosexual marriage is between two consenting adults. Every example I've seen given of what must follow if we legalize Gay marriage are between an individual and a being that is by law unable to give consent. Therefore... Homosexual marriage cannot lead directly too them, because an entire society's definition of consent would also have to be rethought, accepted, and legislated.<BR/><BR/>The reference to pedophilia is wholly different. My point is that only extremely religious conservatives view homosexuality between consenting monogamous individuals as deviant. Modern psychology and American Law do not and American society certainly doesn't. So when conservative's use arguments that lump homosexual couples in with sexually deviant groups they miss the mark entirely.Pastoral Urbanitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08433444372802871735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6975406485976511105.post-11952530526058733172008-12-16T17:06:00.000-06:002008-12-16T17:06:00.000-06:00Can you please explain your argument against the "...Can you please explain your argument against the "Armageddon argument" your statements lead me to believe that "cause and effect" are of no relevance in Homosexual unions? The case that Heterosexual and Homosexuals alike find Pedophilia "horrifying" is parallel to the case of Heterosexuals finding the act of Homosexuality "horrifying". So, how does this not lead one to come to the hypothesis that a possibility of a "slippery slope" of morality is in effect here?Faithfulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569063773215805401noreply@blogger.com