http://videosift.com/video/Your-Arguments-Are-Invalid-Gay-Marriage

Here is the video he is responding to.

*promote a new argument for gay marriage: "Traditional marriage? You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 3:52pm PDT - promote requested by messenger.

Okay, so my point is this. He says marriage is forever to most Christians, and then he includes Jews. Wrong douchebag. This is highly inaccurate and he is ignorantly stereotyping Jews. I claim that this guy, while making a great point that gay marriage should be legal, failed hard against accuracy...

http://www.jewfaq.org/divorce.htm

Besides that, many lay followers in the religious orders he names, which are the majority of a religious order, do divorce and consider divorce a freedom (At least in America.)

Still ain't so easy to get a get.>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Okay, so my point is this. He says marriage is forever to most Christians, and then he includes Jews. Wrong douchebag. This is highly inaccurate and he is ignorantly stereotyping Jews. I claim that this guy, while making a great point that gay marriage should be legal, failed hard against accuracy...
http://www.jewfaq.org/divorce.htm
Besides that, many lay followers in the religious orders he names, which are the majority of a religious order, do divorce and consider divorce a freedom (At least in America.)

Meh. "Failed hard" would be fair if his mistake had had some impact on his argument.>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Okay, so my point is this. He says marriage is forever to most Christians, and then he includes Jews. Wrong douchebag. This is highly inaccurate and he is ignorantly stereotyping Jews. I claim that this guy, while making a great point that gay marriage should be legal, failed hard against accuracy...
http://www.jewfaq.org/divorce.htm
Besides that, many lay followers in the religious orders he names, which are the majority of a religious order, do divorce and consider divorce a freedom (At least in America.)

Woah, just woah. His whole argument was based on the words that came out of his ass-mouth. I guess the fact that he sounded like a fucking prejudice douchebag didn't ruin his argument at all. Because intelligence, research and sophistication are not required for good arguments, just say the right shit that appeals to people's simplistic emotions and you will be a-okay. If this material is uninspired, repeated over and over again just for effect, all the better.

However, reverse this and the guy in the video would be very mad. He would say, "How dare they lump gay people together!" A case in point. I hear so many douchebags say that gays just wanna stir shit up and cause a ruckus and that they don't truly care about gay rights. And while that may be true for a lot of gays who just want to be heard, I am offended. It may not ruin their argument but it's still fucked up to generalize period.

We see mostly eye-to-eye but not here. Not here ever...



>> ^messenger:

Meh. "Failed hard" would be fair if his mistake had had some impact on his argument.>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Okay, so my point is this. He says marriage is forever to most Christians, and then he includes Jews. Wrong douchebag. This is highly inaccurate and he is ignorantly stereotyping Jews. I claim that this guy, while making a great point that gay marriage should be legal, failed hard against accuracy...
http://www.jewfaq.org/divorce.htm
Besides that, many lay followers in the religious orders he names, which are the majority of a religious order, do divorce and consider divorce a freedom (At least in America.)

>> ^messenger:

promote a new argument for gay marriage: "Traditional marriage? You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk


And no, his material isn't a new argument. It is a rehash of other people's arguments.

I'm guessing that you think marriage should be between "a man and a woman", @Lawdeedaw?

Because the rest of us hear this "rehash of other people's arguments" and hear someone who had done RESEARCH and APPLIED LOGIC to the topic.

Your emotional response -- and picking out one error (that I don't know is an error, I am taking your word for it) and declaiming loudly that the whole of the rest must be wrong -- smacks very strongly of an emotional, non-logical response to a series of rational statements.

Perhaps you might apply that emotional logic to your position? Maybe see that perhaps one itsy bitsy thing might be factually wrong with your position? Then you would be compelled, by your own logic, to throw out absolutely everything you believe.

Here's a proposition: Following are two statements of fact from this presentation:

1. Traditional marriage defined as "between one man and one woman" is a modern invention.

2. Denying marriage to committed gay couples is denying them the same rights and protections under the law as heterosexual couples.

Let's tack on another one -- there are plenty of Christians out there who believe that their religion is just fine with gay marriage. So why should your version of the Christian religion carry more weight in the law than their version of the Christian religion?

There is space here. Go to it. Refute those three statements with logic and facts. I'd be interested in hearing how you respond.

@Lawdeedaw

I personally found his argument logical and persuasive. My reasons are as follows:

Those who support the "traditional definition of marriage" argument against gay marriage are implying that one-man-and-one-woman is the universal definition of marriage, and therefore cannot be redefined if a minority want that. In this video, he's making the argument that this is not the case, not even within Christian history, so among arguments against gay marriage, this isn't a particularly good one. That is all.

@Lawdeedaw

My personal argument against the "traditional marriage" argument follows:

I'm going to try my best to make a "good argument" about this.

I think we agree on this:

** The "traditional marriage" argument goes: Marriage has traditionally been a union between one man and one woman. Therefore, by society's definition, gay marriage is not marriage at all, and therefore never can be. **

Within the church, for the last two thousand years or so, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. As the West was pretty much universally converted to Christianity or was founded by Christians (in the case of North America), this is just about all we in the West have done and seen for a long, long time. If that's what we mean by "traditional", then that's correct. I'm guessing you'll still be with me up to this point.

This "traditional marriage" was our culture's habit for such a long time, that nothing else seemed natural or even fathomable. Marriage began to be defined as a secular legal construct (as it was before religion). People started getting married outside the church, which probably met with resistance, but anyway was socially accepted. Then someone raised the possibility of two same-sex people getting married outside the church. It seemed ridiculous because that's not the way it had ever done been before.

That, to me, is the full extent of the "traditional marriage" argument: it's our tradition, the way we have done it for as long as we can remember.

But, so what? We have changed plenty of other traditional societal definitions in the past: we redefined black people as full persons and equal under law (as they were before we enslaved them); we redefined "leader of the nation" as whoever the population chooses. So it doesn't follow that having a traditional definition of something means that we cannot decide to change it if our society wants it.

If you're in favour of denying gays the right to marry for reasons other than "that's the way it's been as long as I can remember", then fine, but this particular "traditional marriage" argument does not have merit.

@Lawdeedaw

We see mostly eye-to-eye but not here. Not here ever...

One place we don't see eye-to-eye is that I don't hold absolute opinions on anything -- certainly not to the extent of dismissing all possible future arguments and information that I might learn, especially where someone's civil rights are at stake. It seems contradictory to me to talk about "good arguments" in the same breath that you say you're unwilling to ever consider any other possibilities. There can be no value to you in a good argument if you've already decided beforehand that the conclusion (not the premises or the argument) is wrong.

It seems you were the one that fell for the illogical Bareboards... Just because I stated an opinion against a person you assume that I take a stance counter to what the person is saying?

Let me make myself clear then. You are incorrect. I believe that marriage should be gifted to people that love and value each other. A man loving a man is no less beautiful than a man loving a woman. Who am I to judge, just because I am straight?

Likewise, I think a man or woman should be able to marry as he pleases. E.g., a man should be able to have three wives if he and they so choose. The law should not interfere such arrangements but support it.

You know what is ironic BB? Some gays and lesbians bash my point of view, that polygamy is acceptable, because they are bigoted against polygamy or because it inconvenient to their argument. For example, those against gay marriage bring up bestiality and polygamy as the "next logical step." They ask where these rights will end? Should a man be able to marry five wives or his dog, they say. And do most gays say, "WAIT THE FUCK UP. HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THE LOVE OF A MAN FOR MORE THAN ONE WOMEN TO THE LOVE OF AN ANIMAL?!!!!" No, no they do not. In fact, they ridicule my beliefs by stating something like, "No, nobody is talking about making bestiality or polygamy legal. Those are absurd lifestyles and will never be accepted."

I am actually shocked that they would allow the comparison, then go so far as to be derisive of other people's rights that they themselves fight tooth and nail for, and basically call those people's beliefs equal to that of pig fuckers.

You know why they do this right? For their own agenda. It's like the kid at school who is about to be picked on. That kid then turns on a weaker, more ridiculed kid and beats him up so that everyone will stop picking on him. I have only heard a few with courage enough to take the political heat and speak up for both sides...and it saddens me.

No, you won't find an argument from me against gay marriage. I am only in support of marriage equality. By pointing out to messenger that this is a rehashed argument, I merely, politely at first, was pointing out that his reason for promoting this video was a little silly. It, to me at least, was like he just woke up one day to find out that Obama won the presidency. This argument has been around for quite some time and it amused me--not at Messenger's expense.

Now, let me focus on my real discontent with the video content. Marriage for life is batshit insane. To accuse someone of having the belief that marriage is a lifelong commitment to me is a very serious accusation because marriage for life, as I have said, is batshit insane. I am equally offended when the religious nuts demean gays by accusing most of being into pedophilia. Both things I mention are batshit insane. You better have proof, at least to me, or your a bigoted asshole.

My message is clear. Don't lump people together. I would think that the persecuted, such as gays and lesbians, would understand this the most. But, in fact, it seems to be the opposite. It is okay to lump our enemies together because they do it to us...

>> ^bareboards2:

I'm guessing that you think marriage should be between "a man and a woman", @Lawdeedaw?
Because the rest of us hear this "rehash of other people's arguments" and hear someone who had done RESEARCH and APPLIED LOGIC to the topic.
Your emotional response -- and picking out one error (that I don't know is an error, I am taking your word for it) and declaiming loudly that the whole of the rest must be wrong -- smacks very strongly of an emotional, non-logical response to a series of rational statements.
Perhaps you might apply that emotional logic to your position? Maybe see that perhaps one itsy bitsy thing might be factually wrong with your position? Then you would be compelled, by your own logic, to throw out absolutely everything you believe.
Here's a proposition: Following are two statements of fact from this presentation:
1. Traditional marriage defined as "between one man and one woman" is a modern invention.
2. Denying marriage to committed gay couples is denying them the same rights and protections under the law as heterosexual couples.
Let's tack on another one -- there are plenty of Christians out there who believe that their religion is just fine with gay marriage. So why should your version of the Christian religion carry more weight in the law than their version of the Christian religion?
There is space here. Go to it. Refute those three statements with logic and facts. I'd be interested in hearing how you respond.

Thanks for the clarification, @Lawdeedaw.

I did not get any of that from your first short posts.

Now I know where you are coming from.