2014: the year Ellen Page made scores of neckbeards cry out in psychic anguish

[Hugh Mughnus]

 

 

I like my societies collapsed and gay.

 

edit: oh shit MisterE is writing a post, BAILING

heh. nah i'm just admiring adieu's incessant strawmen. very watmmy.

duuuuurrr daaaaahhh doooooaaaahahhh i dont geeeeeet ittttttttt. how am you be saying men and womenz cant get married aduhhhhhh dooooooeeeerrrr duuuuhhh

funny but im looking through their posts and i never saw either of them say that. weird.

 

 

Please son. I don't strawman. The only reason I changed the subject from "this does not destroy the institution of marriage" to all the EXTREMELY RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT subjects and questions was because we are at an impasse. My purpose here is only to convert and create a questioning internal dialogue for those in opposition to my views. The premise of whether changing a tradition in anyway destroys said tradition is irrelevant to all of us. I most definitely wasn't strawmaning. You cannot prove or disprove an opinion. I gave them facts they ignored them. It is what it is.

 

 

I kind of think anyone who shouts "straw man" or "fallacy" should have to show their work. It's an easy way to dismiss someone, but I'm seeing them used broadly at best in this thread.

 

Google is your friend. You will be linked to several thousand scholarly articles stating problems with homosexual couples, and several thousand articles contesting this evidence. Fact of the matter is, there is no definitive proof on the matter so it should be approached carefully and objectively, not with the approach of "gay couples should get whatever they want".

 

I don't think most hetero couples deserve children either. So many irresponsible hetero couples.

 

 

You just proved my point.

 

I kind of think anyone who shouts "straw man" or "fallacy" should have to show their work. It's an easy way to dismiss someone, but I'm seeing them used broadly at best in this thread.

my work? he's asked numerous times for sheath and brian to explain how gay marriage destroys marriage between a man and a woman, but neither of them said that. there. how's that?

 

unless...

 

you can show me YOUR work? show me where they said that.

 

 

Actually, the word REVOKE and ERADICATE were very clearly used.

 

 

Just because many hetero couples (you know the ones) are wrongly afforded the right to have children, doesn't mean homosexual ones should be also.

[Adieu]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adieu, stop saying people are insane because they say things you disagree with.

 

On that note, you are insane if you think there is no debate to be had on the rights of children and homosexual adoption.

 

 

If you want to give children full rights in the case of their own adoption give them the opportunity to choose to accept or disqualify any of their potential adopters. That is having all of your rights. To determine that people are not capable of being a guardian to children due to an arbitrary personality trait is pretty insane

 

 

 

 

I'm not taking a side in this argument. But I'm pretty sure there are thousands of studies spanning at least a century regarding gender roles in raising a child. Taking a gender out of the equation (child raising) likely has consequences. No idea what the consequences are.

 

 

Everything has consequences.

 

A highly irrelevant proposition in my opinion.

 

Divorce has a high likelihood of damaging children's development. Maybe we should make divorce illegal. It does say in the vows, "Until death do us part, for better or for worse". Yet, I don't see people lobbying to enforce those words.

 

 

Irrelevant? My statement is in rebuttal to you saying "arbitrary personality traits". Gender is hardly arbitrary, based on the thousands if not 10s of thousands of supporting studies. How is that somehow irrelevant?

 

 

Gender is relevant in various ways. Sexual orientation is not relevant to ones parenting abilities in a meaningful way. At least it has not been proven as such. But it's very misleading to say "well these things likely have consequences" when in reality the consequences are not known. Opening an argument in question of something with evidence to suggest that questioning is valid is sort of important. It sets the foundation for which we should not make any changes to anything for fear of any negative consequences. It also promotes inflexibility to change which will always be detriment.

 

 

There are several thousand studies citing severe consequences of absence of a male or female parental figure. These things are basically proven (it's pretty colloquial at this point to refer to people as having "daddy issues" or having a parental complex). Gay parents are of the same gender. Thus there is the absence of either a male or female parental figure. Therefore there are consequences. Yes there are outliers here; gay couples that can raise a proper child etc.

 

But it's ignorant to just afford them this right when there are very likely consequences. The field needs to be explored further.

 

To be clear I have nothing against gay people and quite frankly it's none of my fucking business what gay or straight people are doing in their bedroom or personal life. But to afford them the right to raise a child when there are significant amounts of studies indicating that there might be problems is a little ignorant.. =/

 

Edit: your last statement was a logical fallacy by definition. It is a faulty analogy. You are equating two very different things.

 

 

 

Is there though? Please show me one that accounts for the numerous variables that exist within such an environment. Please show me how these relate to a homosexual family unit as well. Please show me how they relate to a homosexual family unit when their lifestyle is accepted as legitimate by society.

 

daddy issues doesn't = absence of daddy necessarily

 

Is it ignorant? I mean heterosexuals are doing a brilliant job. If we let the homos raise children then they might cause problems.

 

The only way to accurately study the effects of this are to allow it.

 

Once again show me the significant studies before you claim such studies accurately indicate this possible problems.

 

My equating the inconsistent nature of enforcing something with no evidence to suggest it as detriment, but legally allowing such a thing as divorce, which can very accurately be shown to have detrimental effects is not a fallacy. Furthermore, I was only using that point to show the inconsistency of those opposing for religious reasons and their selective enforcement of the bible.

 

 

Why is the burden of proof on me? Why don't you cite the significant studies showing that there aren't possible problems? What a shit argument you've made.

 

I've got nothing against you but quite frankly, none of us on this INTERNET MUSIC FORUM are authorities on the issue and everyone should stop acting like they are.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but rights should not be afforded when there is ambiguity surrounding the issue. If a guy wants to be with another guy, that's none of my business. But there is significant ambiguity around homosexual couples raising children and the effects thereof. To just afford them the right to raise children without exploring this ambiguity further is silly.

 

 

It's not a shit argument. I'm highlighting the point that it is impossible to prove and useless to attempt. And honestly I don't have time to look for a bunch of these. I'm already neglecting my work as is.

 

If you are going to make the argument that the ambiguity is threatening enough to not allow it then you really should have some good ideas about how the possible outcomes will be worse than the current state of orphans. I feel like the odds are much in favor of having a good family regardless of other variables.

[MisterE]

Please son. I don't strawman.

a) son?

b) you don't get to say you aren't strawman when you are strawman

 

here you are, saying this:

Marriage between men and women still exists. The institution is still available to them. All marriages that happened previous to that are still recognized. Their institution is still valid. Nothing is ending.

That just isn't true at all. If that were true then once gay marriage was within the definition of marriage man+woman marriages would no longer be valid and recognized. This is obviously not the case.

Firstly, you cannot revoke something for someone by allowing something for another. You have to revoke something to revoke it. Arguing that changing the definition of something is a revocation is nonsense.

so there you are, at least 3 separate times, implying that someone said that gays being allowed to marry meant that now men and women couldn't marry, or that their ability to marry was in danger, or that the marriages between them would be revoked. and yet... i'm over here not finding where anyone ever said any of those things.

 

those be strawmen.

you=strawman

 

if you can show me one quote where they said anything like you have implied that they have said in those quotes, and probably numerous other times by now, i'll revoke that accusation and apologize.

[Guest A/D]

Just because many hetero couples (you know the ones) are wrongly afforded the right to have children, doesn't mean homosexual ones should be also.

Actually, it does! We live in a society where first-class citizens are free to make mistakes, and second-class citizens aren't. What I said isn't a fallacy - you clearly said that homosexuals shouldn't just be allowed to adopt children. If you've reconsidered, let me know.

 

I did some googling for studies. This reminded me of why I hate studies and never use them in an argument if at all possible. Here's why:

A news story that says children of homosexual parents do better than average

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/05/worlds_largest_study_on_gay_parents_finds_the_kids_are_more_than_all_right/

A "Family Research Council" study that says they do worse than average

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

[brian trageskin]

he's asked numerous times for sheath and brian to explain how gay marriage destroys marriage between a man and a woman, but neither of them said that.

 

i did say that gay marriage destroys traditional marriage, but not in the sense that it litterally "destroys" it, like with a hammer or anything lol.

by changing the terms of the contract that give access to it, the traditional instution disappears and gets replaced with a new one. that's what i mean by "destroying". and some people don't like that. and the government won't give a fuck what the people think. democracy.

[Guest A/D]

how about many people think that marriage is the institution that approves the union between a man and a woman only, which has been a traditional form of sociality for quite some time, and by allowing two men or women to marry, you basically revoke the the ontological base of that institution, its very nature, which is the same as destroying it.

if you consider this homophobic, then the planet is infested with homophobes lol.

did you read carefully what i wrote? most people consider marriage as solely designed for a man and woman, whether you find that fair or discriminating. from that perspective, by changing the terms of the contract, the institution is nullified. if everybody can access this institution (as long as they're adults and willing), the institution is no longer. a new institution replaced it, keeping entirely intact the terms of the old one, except its fundamental principle (man+woman). is all.

It's not false adieu. If a Chinese person is someone with Chinese lineage, and then people from Senegal start protesting that they want the right to be Chinese, granting them that right is eradicating what Chinese originally meant and replacing it with something new.

Here you go MisterE. These are the posts which refer to the meaning of marriage being revoked/eradicated.

[MisterE]

 

he's asked numerous times for sheath and brian to explain how gay marriage destroys marriage between a man and a woman, but neither of them said that.

i did say that gay marriage destroys traditional marriage, but not in the sense that it litterally "destroys" it, like with a hammer or anything lol.

by changing the terms of the contract that give access to it, the traditional instution disappears and gets replaced with a new one. that's what i mean by "destroying". and some people don't like that. and the government won't give a fuck what the people think. democracy.

 

you said pretty clearly that the definition of marriage as being a union only between one man and one woman is what has been destroyed. that's the institution you were talking about, and you even specifically said it just like that a few times at least, even including the word 'definition' and saying that it has been destroyed and replaced by a new definition. and that's a 100% indisputable fact. it has been replaced by a new definition. then he tried to suggest that you were somehow saying that existing marriages between men and women would be revoked, or that they wouldn't be allowed to get married anymore and only gays could. and that's 100% strawman bs.

[brian trageskin]

and to second misterE, indeed, nobody said that man+woman marriage would be revoked and made impossible in the future. that's at best fallacious from adieu, or at worst, not understanding a single word of what's been discussed.

[Adieu]

 

I don't understand. What is an anti-gay marriage protest if not homophobic?

 

how about many people think that marriage is the institution that approves the union between a man and a woman only, which has been a traditional form of sociality for quite some time, and by allowing two men or women to marry, you basically revoke the the ontological base of that institution, its very nature, which is the same as destroying it.

if you consider this homophobic, then the planet is infested with homophobes lol.

 

 

 

 

Firstly, you cannot revoke something for someone by allowing something for another. You have to revoke something to revoke it. Arguing that changing the definition of something is a revocation is nonsense.

 

did you read carefully what i wrote? most people consider marriage as solely designed for a man and woman, whether you find that fair or discriminating. from that perspective, by changing the terms of the contract, the institution is nullified. if everybody can access this institution (as long as they're adults and willing), the institution is no longer. a new institution replaced it, keeping entirely intact the terms of the old one, except its fundamental principle (man+woman). is all.

 

 

Both of you assholes

 

thanks mate lol :)

 

 

 

 

That just isn't true at all. If that were true then once gay marriage was within the definition of marriage man+woman marriages would no longer be valid and recognized. This is obviously not the case.

 

you got it wrong. as marriage was until now exclusively reserved to man+woman, once you allow other configurations to the party, you no longer respect the former principle. the institution then no longer exists, as illogical as that might sound. what is now called marriage is not the same institution as the former one, because the former one no longer exists.

 

Who gets to define the fundamental principle of marriage? You think it's gender-based, I think it's love-based.

 

i didn't say it was gender-based. i didn't even share my opinion on it.

as for who gets to define the principles, well, that's exactly what the french protesters are campaigning for. they don't want the former institution of marriage to be revoked by the government.

 

 

 

It's not false adieu. If a Chinese person is someone with Chinese lineage, and then people from Senegal start protesting that they want the right to be Chinese, granting them that right is eradicating what Chinese originally meant and replacing it with something new.

 

 

 

And marriage between men and women is effected how?

 

it's effected in the fact that it's no longer what was meant with marriage. it's basically the end of an ancient institution.

not to mention the agenda- pushing forcing that is very undemocratic.

 

 

 

Here you go Mr. E. Apologize now.

[Hugh Mughnus]

 

Just because many hetero couples (you know the ones) are wrongly afforded the right to have children, doesn't mean homosexual ones should be also.

Actually, it does! We live in a society where first-class citizens are free to make mistakes, and second-class citizens aren't. What I said isn't a fallacy - you clearly said that homosexuals shouldn't just be allowed to adopt children. If you've reconsidered, let me know.

 

I did some googling for studies. This reminded me of why I hate studies and never use them in an argument if at all possible. Here's why:

A news story that says children of homosexual parents do better than average

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/05/worlds_largest_study_on_gay_parents_finds_the_kids_are_more_than_all_right/

A "Family Research Council" study that says they do worse than average

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

 

 

You're assuming that I believe hetero couples should "just be allowed" to adopt children.

 

I don't.

[brian trageskin]

 

how about many people think that marriage is the institution that approves the union between a man and a woman only, which has been a traditional form of sociality for quite some time, and by allowing two men or women to marry, you basically revoke the the ontological base of that institution, its very nature, which is the same as destroying it.

if you consider this homophobic, then the planet is infested with homophobes lol.

did you read carefully what i wrote? most people consider marriage as solely designed for a man and woman, whether you find that fair or discriminating. from that perspective, by changing the terms of the contract, the institution is nullified. if everybody can access this institution (as long as they're adults and willing), the institution is no longer. a new institution replaced it, keeping entirely intact the terms of the old one, except its fundamental principle (man+woman). is all.

It's not false adieu. If a Chinese person is someone with Chinese lineage, and then people from Senegal start protesting that they want the right to be Chinese, granting them that right is eradicating what Chinese originally meant and replacing it with something new.

Here you go MisterE. These are the posts which refer to the meaning of marriage being revoked/eradicated.

 

 

do you guys understand the meaning of the word "institution"? what gets destroyed is the institution, not the civil rights of married heterosexual couples.

some people (quite a fucking lot) don't want that institution to disappear and get replaced by a new one. is all.

[MisterE]

Here you go MisterE. These are the posts which refer to the meaning of marriage being revoked/eradicated.

good job A/D. you found posts where brian said that the meaning, AKA 'definition' of marriage has been destroyed and replaced by a new one. and it has. that's exactly what i was saying he actually said.

 

what's your point?

 

find me a post where he said that the current marriages between men and women have been destroyed, as adieu has been suggesting he said, if you're attempting to defend adieu's honor or something here. because with those quotes and your description of them, you just basically backed what i'm saying up and contradicted adieu's suggestions that brian was saying something else entirely.

[gmanyo]

maybe if everyone could just be not gay thatd be great thanks

[Guest A/D]

You're assuming that I believe hetero couples should "just be allowed" to adopt children.

 

I don't.

Ha! Fair point. But, they aren't, at least in the US and Canada, for example. There are lengthy, expensive processes in place. Obviously mistakes are made, and good parents are hard to judge, but I think gay parents should be allowed the same right.

 

do you guys understand the meaning of the word "institution"? what gets destroyed is the institution, not the civil rights of married heterosexual couples.

some people (quite a fucking lot) don't want that institution to disappear and get replaced by a new one. is all.

OK, then what are the stakes? What is the outcome of that institution being amended? (I refuse to use the word destroyed, that seems ridiculous.)

[Adieu]

You guys are making this discussion devolve into petty bullshit semantic nonsense. And Mr.E you are only promoting it by doing what you are doing. I'm holding it against you.

 

All the real important questions are now being sidestepped for the sake of disproving some bullshit strawman claim. The dude who was basically banished from the thread because he could support no substantial arguments is back because he has support from another.

 

Stop wasting my fucking time. If you want to discuss gay marriage and homosexuals, the effects it has on society, and the entire subject reasonably then let's do it. But when these dudes sidestep important questions when I very clearly answer anything thrown my direction it shows an inability to reason. It is an unfair discussion.

 

Marriage exists now as an institution between a man and a woman. If you claim that institution is destroyed by changing it you claim the marriage is not valid due to said change. It's as clear as that.

 

Furthermore, I don't think I should have to emphasize that marriage is an institution between two people so arguing that the marriages of others affects their own personal institution is garbage.

 

Selectively using this word "institution" to support some bullshit point is retarded.

 

People are just afraid to say what they really feel because they are bigots and cowards.

 

I don't have to strawman to make these idiots look stupid.

[Guest A/D]

the meaning, AKA 'definition' of marriage has been destroyed and replaced by a new one.

I think that the meaning of marriage was destroyed when the word prohibited those in love from marrying, and it could be corrected by amending that. What do you care about the meaning of marriage? What changes for you if gay people are included in that right?

[Adieu]

 

 

how about many people think that marriage is the institution that approves the union between a man and a woman only, which has been a traditional form of sociality for quite some time, and by allowing two men or women to marry, you basically revoke the the ontological base of that institution, its very nature, which is the same as destroying it.

if you consider this homophobic, then the planet is infested with homophobes lol.

did you read carefully what i wrote? most people consider marriage as solely designed for a man and woman, whether you find that fair or discriminating. from that perspective, by changing the terms of the contract, the institution is nullified. if everybody can access this institution (as long as they're adults and willing), the institution is no longer. a new institution replaced it, keeping entirely intact the terms of the old one, except its fundamental principle (man+woman). is all.

It's not false adieu. If a Chinese person is someone with Chinese lineage, and then people from Senegal start protesting that they want the right to be Chinese, granting them that right is eradicating what Chinese originally meant and replacing it with something new.

Here you go MisterE. These are the posts which refer to the meaning of marriage being revoked/eradicated.

 

 

do you guys understand the meaning of the word "institution"? what gets destroyed is the institution, not the civil rights of married heterosexual couples.

some people (quite a fucking lot) don't want that institution to disappear and get replaced by a new one. is all.

 

 

It doesn't disappear you fucking retard. It's fucking amended. There is a difference. Say what you really think you fucking coward.

[MisterE]

Here you go Mr. E. Apologize now.

adieu, in every one of those quotes, he was saying 'institution'. and you were replying by suggesting that he was saying that actual marriages are now revoked or destroyed, or that what he meant was that men and women couldn't get married anymore. and you fucking know better. you know that wasn't what he was saying. but just in case you don't know better, and really don't understand what he has said, here's a clue. it's the definition of institution. i just opened another tab on my internet browser and got this in like 5 seconds btw:

 

1. a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose.

 

2. an established law, practice, or custom.

 

now, we can safely set aside that first one because it's talking about societies and organizations (of people), and marriage isn't that. it's more like the 2nd one. a law, practice, or custom. so, let's swap out the word 'institution' with that definition to see what brian was saying, in all of those quotes you posted there, shall we?

 

"it's effected in the fact that it's no longer what was meant with marriage. it's basically the end of an ancient institution. not to mention the agenda- pushing forcing that is very undemocratic."

turns into

"it's effected in the fact that it's no longer what was meant with marriage. it's basically the end of an ancient custom. not to mention the agenda- pushing forcing that is very undemocratic."

 

ok which part of that is incorrect? and where in there did he say that men and women can't get married anymore, like you've been suggesting he said? if the 'ancient custom' is that marriage is ONLY recognized as a union between ONE man and ONE woman, then it has ended. has it not? and when he said that marriage between men and women was effected in the fact that it is no longer what is meant with marriage, is that not correct? marriage no longer means union between a single man and woman. so... 'it's no longer what is meant with marriage'... that's 100% correct.

 

time and time again brian clearly, and plainly stated that the institution/custom/definition/idea of marriage as ONLY being a union between a man and woman, is what has been destroyed, and replaced by a new definition.

 

the definition.

 

not the actual marriages between men and women, or their ability to get married.

 

the definition.

 

the custom.

 

it has been replaced by a new one.

 

and it has.

 

adurrrrrrr.

[LimpyLoo]

Are we against interracial marriage in here too?

[pcock]

 

To just afford them the right to raise children without exploring this ambiguity further is silly.

 

 

 

Im really not into debates on watmm, it no longer interests me, but this quote does not make me feel warmly towards you.

 

It seems as though you feel gay people are a separate entity of human, who should be controlled at your straight whim as to wether they would be good parents. pretty much fucking anyone can have a kid, and half the world is absolutely awful at it.

 

your judgemental belief that a gay persons right to children should be regulated upsets me.

[brian trageskin]

It doesn't disappear you fucking retard. It's fucking amended. There is a difference. Say what you really think you fucking coward.

 

oh yes it disappears, but not in the sense that man+woman can't marry anymore.

it disappears in the sense that everybody until now agreed that only man+woman could marry. if those terms change, then you get something new, where man+woman can still marry, except it's not marriage, as it was always intented to be, anymore. it's something new. deal with it yo.

the tricky part for your brain is that the rights remain, the name remains, and the situation is exactly the same for heterosexuals. except it's not the same situation, because the former principle was violated. therefore, the former institution is no more.

btw, lol at the insults. love you bro

[pcock]

who gives a fuck what a bunch of dudes 2000 years ago decided marriage should mean? the world adapts. should we also still consider women property and swap them for camels, to mantain the sanctity of a bunch of ancient idiots deciding it was right millenia ago? you are a complete retard brain.

[gmanyo]

extreme talk

[Adieu]

 

Here you go Mr. E. Apologize now.

adieu, in every one of those quotes, he was saying 'institution'. and you were replying by suggesting that he was saying that actual marriages are now revoked or destroyed, or that what he meant was that men and women couldn't get married anymore. and you fucking know better. you know that wasn't what he was saying. but just in case you don't know better, and really don't understand what he has said, here's a clue. it's the definition of institution. i just opened another tab on my internet browser and got this in like 5 seconds btw:

 

1. a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose.

 

2. an established law, practice, or custom.

 

now, we can safely set aside that first one because it's talking about societies and organizations (of people), and marriage isn't that. it's more like the 2nd one. a law, practice, or custom. so, let's swap out the word 'institution' with that definition to see what brian was saying, in all of those quotes you posted there, shall we?

 

"it's effected in the fact that it's no longer what was meant with marriage. it's basically the end of an ancient institution. not to mention the agenda- pushing forcing that is very undemocratic."

turns into

"it's effected in the fact that it's no longer what was meant with marriage. it's basically the end of an ancient custom. not to mention the agenda- pushing forcing that is very undemocratic."

 

ok which part of that is incorrect? and where in there did he say that men and women can't get married anymore, like you've been suggesting he said? if the 'ancient custom' is that marriage is ONLY recognized as a union between ONE man and ONE woman, then it has ended. has it not? and when he said that marriage between men and women was effected in the fact that it is no longer what is meant with marriage, is that not correct? marriage no longer means union between a single man and woman. so... 'it's no longer what is meant with marriage'... that's 100% correct.

 

time and time again brian clearly, and plainly stated that the institution/custom/definition/idea of marriage as ONLY being a union between a man and woman, is what has been destroyed, and replaced by a new definition.

 

the definition.

 

not the actual marriages between men and women, or their ability to get married.

 

the definition.

 

the custom.

 

it has been replaced by a new one.

 

and it has.

 

adurrrrrrr.

 

 

Do I have to keep saying the same thing over and over? This is why I started talking about the important points.

 

If it were the end to an ancient custom that would mean the custom would no longer be performed. By claiming "an end" you claim that something is no longer. But that is obviously not the case, because all marriages will be recognized from before said criteria was amended, and all couples desiring in the present and future to be married will still be allowed to do so. Hence, nothing is ended and nothing is destroyed.

 

Don't mistake your inability to correctly interpret things as my attempt at a strawman.

 

Only difference is a bunch of pissed of people that don't like homosexuals will have to deal with it.

[Guest A/D]

Adieu man, I'm with you all the way, but the anger isn't helping. Give yoself a big hug. It's been a long day on the internets.

 

"the tricky part for your brain is that the rights remain, the name remains, and the situation is exactly the same for heterosexuals. except it's not the same situation, because the former principle was violated. therefore, the former institution is no more."

 

Can you explain this? This sounds like a guy who overreacts to a parent putting in wall-to-wall carpet in his old bedroom. "YOU'VE DESTROYED THE BEDROOM!" No, they added some carpet. Just like marriage, except we're adding carpet munchers. DING!