Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12
th, 2012 at 6:45pm:
Quantum wrote on Jun 12
th, 2012 at 5:28pm:
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12
th, 2012 at 5:14pm:
Quote:- why should a homos mental anguish take precedence over our own?
Because theirs can be fixed and yours can be ignored. Letting them be equal effects only them. Your "moral compass" seems to radiate and effect others. It needs to be banned.
SOB
If it effects someone's moral compass (therefore the assumption can be made that it effects them emotionally) then letting gays be "equall" actually does have an effect on others. If the people it can have an affect on can be ignored, then those wanting to marry the same sex can be ignored as well. Likewise, if we can and should ban people's moral compasses, then why can't we keep gay marriage banned?
Basically, why is one side of the argument permitted to use shockingly inconstant logic, while the other side needs to shut up?
Actually I just answered my own question. It is because one side uses shockingly inconsistent logic. Hence why no one will touch the earlier question on this thread of how a man marrying a five year old will personally affect them. Otherwise one would be forced to acknowledge that the arguments used in favor of gay marriage can also be used to allow anything no matter how perverse.
First of all that was tongue in cheek didnt the "they should be banned"" tip you off?
Sadly no. It is hard to tell these days. All the accusations of being a bigot or homophobic against anyone who disagrees with homosexual marriage, makes silencing opinion a matter of course.
Quote:Secondly someone marrying a 5 year old is a different thing entirely and would cause harm to the child so theres harm there. Same as the animal thing. 2 consenting adults though are people. They only affect themselves - nobody else. Who cares if someone elses feelings will be hurt if they do something. You set a precedent of letting that go then what if someone mowing their lawn in shorts bothers me. I can make them stop? Or maybe I could mind my own business and leave other ppl alone.
SOB
The discussion isn't if a man marrying a 5 year old is harmful to the kid. The discussion is if two men marrying each other will have any effect on the life of those who oppose. Therefore the same question can be asked if a man marrying a 5 year old will have an effect on those who oppose. No one wants to answer that.
If the argument is made that two men marrying each other does not effect those in opposition, then the same argument can made for;
Polygamy,
Zoophilia,
Pedophilia,
Incest,
Etc.
None of these will effect the greater population, yet even most gays would condem them.
Likewise the other argument put forward in objecting to gay marriage is that it is hurtful to homosexuals as they are not being treated as equall. Hence my comment that allowing it can be hurtful to those who object. You made the counter argument that if we took it to that extreme then we would have to ban everything that hurt someone. That's a fair enough point.
However, if we are to think about the feelings of the gays and give them what they want because it will hurt them to say no, why don't we think of the pedo's feelings and give them what they want? After all, who am I to tell two people in love they can't marry just because of age? It doesn't effect me right? Same for people wanting zoophilia, incest, polygamy. How can I hurt them by not giving them equality?
Therefore, the two biggest arguments in favor of gay marriage;
*If it doesn't effect you why object,
And
*it hurts the gays to deny them equality
Can be used for many other sexual preferences. So what guide do you use to draw the line at allowing gay marriage, while banning everything else?
Forum
Pages: 
Why R Homos and Greens so rude? (Read 21339 times)
