[Ford Prefect]

Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?

I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough. Religion has nothing to do with it.

No, that's not rational enough. I can consider steak to be a dairy product, but my new application of the term has no bearing on the series of characteristics denoted by the commonly accepted definition. You can't just make an affirmation and deem it rational. By making that affirmation you have effectively claimed that you can logically substantiate it. You're going to find that this is a very basic principle in just about every discourse community in the world, except maybe Dadaists and psychiatric patients.

[Bobboau]

so you are using argument #2, "cause I say so", why do you say so, and can we just skip ahead to the actual reason, not another meaningless statement like "I think it's a sickness" why? "because it's harmful" how is it harmful? "it just is"

you have a general dislike of homosexuality, it's obviously based on you being a Christian and nothing more. anything else you add is stuff you cherrypicked to make yourself feel better about it.

why don't you allow gay people to live there life they way they want to?

[Kazan]

Aldo:

It's exactly that tenant that makes the entire thing a load of horse**** and completely unacceptable to try to force other people to conform to.  it's exactly that principle that makes religion the most arrogant of arrogances   

---------

TrashMan

Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?

to make it a law you sure as ****ing hell do

I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough.

and ever decent doctor on the planet would call you out on that - because you're dead ****ing wrong, and downright bigoted

look up the Xq28 mutation sometime

Please, give me an example of what you would accept as evidence for God's existance.

evidence of god's existance, DUH - some piece of evidence that supports the existance of a diety!  It's not that difficult of a concept, you know, scientific evidence.

Secondly, what good would that evidence do?

it would render your claims RATIONAL

The apostols had all the evidence you could possibly want and still tehy doubted.

no they didn't - nothing they had constituted scientific evidence - even less since it's only CLAIMS about what they had written town in a book

A book does not constitute evidence

Thirdly, irratioal belief is when you belive in something the evidence speaks against.

wrong - it's anytime you believe something which you have no rational justification for

Even science doesn't deal in absolutes - so you're not really 100% of anything - you're 95% or 97% or 70% sure  in most things in your life, wether you acknowledge that or not.

nothing I have said requires science to deal in absolutes


----

Ghostavo, Ford and Bob: BRAVO!

[karajorma]

Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?

No one is saying you need a rational reason not to be a homosexual yourself. But if you want to pass a law limiting the freedoms of homosexuals then, yes. You do.

Otherwise the leader of any country could pass a law saying that anyone not wearing their underwear on the outside of their trousers on the 3rd of every month would be shot.

And if you ignore religious reasons banning homosexual marriage makes about as much sense.

I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Why? What measurable harm does it do? Apart from causing them problems with christians. What's the pathology of this sickness? Where is the  proof in reputable medical journals that it is a sickness?

There is no medical evidence. There is no measurable harm. You simply call it a sickness because you believe that there must be something wrong with people to be homosexual because you believe it's wrong. And you believe it's wrong because the Bible tells you it's wrong. So we're back to the root cause being religion again.

[Kazan]

Trashman is the kind of person who, 100 years ago, would have been believing claims like "if a pregnant woman were to vote she would miscarry, and a nursing mother's milk would run dry"


(i love history textbooks!)

[TrashMan]

Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?

I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough. Religion has nothing to do with it.

No, that's not rational enough. I can consider steak to be a dairy product, but my new application of the term has no bearing on the series of characteristics denoted by the commonly accepted definition. You can't just make an affirmation and deem it rational. By making that affirmation you have effectively claimed that you can logically substantiate it. You're going to find that this is a very basic principle in just about every discourse community in the world, except maybe Dadaists and psychiatric patients.

Is having a sixth finger harmfull? Hardly. But it is a genetic malformation.
Is that skin condition where you loose your pigment deadly? Nope, the one who has it will live hapily till he dies of old age. But it's still a sickenss..


Another thing, rational does not equal truth.
100 years ago it would be rational to belive in the setup of the universe as explained by the science. But here comes Einstein with his theory of relativity and rocks the boat. and suddenly everything you had "rock solid" proof, everything that was rational suddenly isn't anymore.

Can you tell me that all of you belive in right now is the truth? Can you tell me that another scientist won't appear and rock science again?

and just for hte record, homosexuality was indeed considered a sickness, but it was removed from the list. We can debate as to why, but there's enough circumstancial evidence for me to belive it is a sickness.
It's a perfectly plausable theory, with the probability factor high enough for me to belive in it.

to make it a law you sure as ****ing hell do

But to vote for it I don't.. I can vote for whatever I want to for whatever reason. Simply becouse I "feel like it"

FYI - I couldn't care less about gay marriage, one way or another (as long as it's not church marriage)

and ever decent doctor on the planet would call you out on that - because you're dead ****ing wrong, and downright bigoted

Do you even have another word in your vocabulary? When it comes to giving away insults, you're the most generous man I've ever met

And don't forget that they won't tell that it's definately isn't. however if they tel lyou they think it is they'll prolyl losoe their job becosue of the outside pressure...

And I asked for an EXAMPLE of evidence of Gods existacne you would accept. You still didn't give me one.



Regardless, this discussion is pointless.

You are too consumed by your hatered for religion to even talk to without insults, and we both know that neither side will yield, so what's the point?

[aldo_14]

Bob says. And he's right.

There is no other reason to be against gay marriage other than ones that stem from religion. That was the entire point Bob was making. He didn't say that it applies to everything a religious person say but it certainly does apply to being against gay marriage.

Namen one reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't stem from being religious.

Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?

I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough. Religion has nothing to do with it.

That's wholly irrational, actually, because you have no rational basis for it whatsoever.

[NGTM-1R]

Trashman is the kind of person who, 100 years ago, would have been believing claims like "if a pregnant woman were to vote she would miscarry, and a nursing mother's milk would run dry"


(i love history textbooks!)

And I love ad hominem. Don't you?

Pot calling the kettle black. Crediblity rapidly approaching zero.

[WMCoolmon]

Is having a sixth finger harmfull? Hardly. But it is a genetic malformation.
Is that skin condition where you loose your pigment deadly? Nope, the one who has it will live hapily till he dies of old age. But it's still a sickenss..

By including harmless conditions together with homosexuality, all you're doing is defeating your own argument (whatever that may be). Unless, of course, you're promoting some kind of genetic purity movement.

Another thing, rational does not equal truth.
100 years ago it would be rational to belive in the setup of the universe as explained by the science. But here comes Einstein with his theory of relativity and rocks the boat. and suddenly everything you had "rock solid" proof, everything that was rational suddenly isn't anymore.

Can you tell me that all of you belive in right now is the truth? Can you tell me that another scientist won't appear and rock science again?

Is being openminded really a problem? Assuming that you're going to be completely right the first time, every time, is sheer arrogance and will only lead to counterproductive close-minded thinking.

and just for hte record, homosexuality was indeed considered a sickness, but it was removed from the list. We can debate as to why, but there's enough circumstancial evidence for me to belive it is a sickness.
It's a perfectly plausable theory, with the probability factor high enough for me to belive in it.

What does 'sickness' mean to you? Anything that deviates from the median? You've listed at least one condition as a 'sickness' that I can see being a gift to someone who does fine work with their hands. (Eg playing the piano, to use an example from Gattaca)

[Ford Prefect]

Is having a sixth finger harmfull? Hardly. But it is a genetic malformation.
Is that skin condition where you loose your pigment deadly? Nope, the one who has it will live hapily till he dies of old age. But it's still a sickenss..


Another thing, rational does not equal truth.
100 years ago it would be rational to belive in the setup of the universe as explained by the science. But here comes Einstein with his theory of relativity and rocks the boat. and suddenly everything you had "rock solid" proof, everything that was rational suddenly isn't anymore.

Can you tell me that all of you belive in right now is the truth? Can you tell me that another scientist won't appear and rock science again?

and just for hte record, homosexuality was indeed considered a sickness, but it was removed from the list. We can debate as to why, but there's enough circumstancial evidence for me to belive it is a sickness.

Your argument has zero to do with my point, except at the end, where you come right back to square one by concluding that your being convinced-- based on evidence you have yet to cite-- is, in and of itself, an adequate argument.

[Bobboau]

Is having a sixth finger harmfull? Hardly. But it is a genetic malformation.
Is that skin condition where you loose your pigment deadly? Nope, the one who has it will live hapily till he dies of old age. But it's still a sickenss..

you know what your right we need to clean the world of the sickness of black people too, there different therefor it must be bad.

heh... yes anything that isn't you is detracting from perfection because you are jesus himself aren't you you little perfict person you.



rational is better than stupid, which is what the alternative is, you know all those laws you know nothing about that you said were burned with einstien, well it turns out they are not wrong, they are just not right for certan situations, newtons laws are still tought today, because they are still right and accurate so long as you aren't moveing near the speed of light, wich not much on the surface of the planet is.

rational is thought out, with a reason, everything else is just purely random and has no meaning, and you can live your life by it if you want but you are going to have to kill me before you subject me to a law based on it.

 I can tell you right now what is known in science is known to a very high degree of certainty, that certainty is not 100%, but to the degree we can measure it is known and will never change. I can also tell you one day some scientist will come along and give a more accurate explanation that improves our understanding further, but at the levels of detail we know now, there will not a significant difference.

if you don't want people to consider you an idiot, then you should at least try to make it seem like you are capable of reasoning.

[Nuke]

i sence that kaz is due for another name change

[BlackDove]

Well as long as you "sence" it.

[Ford Prefect]

Ahhhhahaha! Ahh, that was a cheap shot but I can't help it-- that was funny.

[Scuddie]

You know what I havent had in a while?  Big League Chew.

[BlackDove]

Ahhhhahaha! Ahh, that was a cheap shot but I can't help it-- that was funny.

I know I feel much better.

[aldo_14]

You know what I havent had in a while?  Big League Chew.

Kinky.

[TrashMan]

Is having a sixth finger harmfull? Hardly. But it is a genetic malformation.
Is that skin condition where you loose your pigment deadly? Nope, the one who has it will live hapily till he dies of old age. But it's still a sickenss..

By including harmless conditions together with homosexuality, all you're doing is defeating your own argument (whatever that may be). Unless, of course, you're promoting some kind of genetic purity movement.

Nope.
My argument is that it is a condition that is not something you chose or want and that you would like to be born without it.
Homosexuality, just like a second head or sixth finger, is something that humanity should strive to get rid off via medical treatment.

Another thing, rational does not equal truth.
100 years ago it would be rational to belive in the setup of the universe as explained by the science. But here comes Einstein with his theory of relativity and rocks the boat. and suddenly everything you had "rock solid" proof, everything that was rational suddenly isn't anymore.

Can you tell me that all of you belive in right now is the truth? Can you tell me that another scientist won't appear and rock science again?

Is being openminded really a problem? Assuming that you're going to be completely right the first time, every time, is sheer arrogance and will only lead to counterproductive close-minded thinking.

Exactly! That's why I'm not stating my theories as absolutes. I'm very well aware that I might be wrong.
Real close-mindedness is when you don't even want to consider that you might be wrong, and I'm not the one who's been doing it in this thread.

and just for hte record, homosexuality was indeed considered a sickness, but it was removed from the list. We can debate as to why, but there's enough circumstancial evidence for me to belive it is a sickness.
It's a perfectly plausable theory, with the probability factor high enough for me to belive in it.

What does 'sickness' mean to you? Anything that deviates from the median? You've listed at least one condition as a 'sickness' that I can see being a gift to someone who does fine work with their hands. (Eg playing the piano, to use an example from Gattaca)

[/quote]

Would you wnat to be born with a sixth finger?
If there was a medical way to "fix" the gene that caused that, woudl you take it?

By Ford:

Your argument has zero to do with my point, except at the end, where you come right back to square one by concluding that your being convinced-- based on evidence you have yet to cite-- is, in and of itself, an adequate argument.

Convinced of what?

you know what your right we need to clean the world of the sickness of black people too, there different therefor it must be bad.

That sentance is wrong on so manny accounts I don't even need to comment on it...


Signing off.....

[BlackDove]

My argument is

We've already established that your argument is stupid through the deduction of facts set against it.

The discussion ended on the previous page, when you wrote;

Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?

We know the answer to that one. You don't seem to.

[aldo_14]

Is having a sixth finger harmfull? Hardly. But it is a genetic malformation.
Is that skin condition where you loose your pigment deadly? Nope, the one who has it will live hapily till he dies of old age. But it's still a sickenss..

By including harmless conditions together with homosexuality, all you're doing is defeating your own argument (whatever that may be). Unless, of course, you're promoting some kind of genetic purity movement.

Nope.
My argument is that it is a condition that is not something you chose or want and that you would like to be born without it.
Homosexuality, just like a second head or sixth finger, is something that humanity should strive to get rid off via medical treatment.

Why should 'you' not choose or want it?  Because you individually happen to be against it without being to provide any form of logical reason, only poor analogies that can be extended to provide justification for other things like sectarianism, racism, etc?