- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 2,219
- Reaction score
- 296
- Location
- The Beautiful Yadkin Valley
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
It is yours, ungrounded, to think it as not.
nope but its your opinion to think the bible is fact
That wasn't my premise. Nice straw man though.Southern Man, your "argument" fails nearly all the criteria. The premise that the Bible is 100% literally accurate is, aside from being unsupported, highly unlikely.
A citation is required.No it's not what "most people do", it's what "most people find it's OK".
It is yours, ungrounded, to think it as not.
You have presented no evidence for your basis, therefore it is valueless... as usual. Let's see it.
That was easy.
My evidence is the Bible, still the hottest selling book in the world.
That was very easy.
My evidence is the Bible, still the hottest selling book in the world.
That was very easy.
True, but the same applies to your morals as well. Your belief that homosexuality is acceptable and that homosexual marriage is an acceptable permutation of the institution of marriage, that deserves the same recognition as the forms of marriage currently accepted in our society, is your opinion and it is not a fact for anyone who disagrees with you.
I'm not Christian, therefiore, it is irrelevant.
You lose again.
Morality is not scientific. It doesn't have to be.It is yours, ungrounded to think that it is. Prove it with facts from science and research.
What others? You are the only one on this thread who has accused me of trolling.
It is not a different topic. Your OP asked for a reason for gay marriage to be stopped. I have provided one. I am on topic.
Premise 1: No kind of marriage license should be recognized by the law
------Sub argument for Premise 1------
-SubPremise 1: The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone. (note that you have already agreed with this premise)
-SubPremise 2: Any kind of marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals.
-SubPremise 3: Not everyone is a married individual
-.'. No kind of marriage licenses should be recognized by the law
Premise 2: Gay marriage licenses are a kind of marriage license
.'. Gay marriage licenses should not be recognized by the law.
As you can see, the conclusion directly answers your original challenge in the OP, and as such is on topic. You can either try to debate the truth of my premises, or you can try to attack the validity of the logic. Your attempts to evade are transparent.
You have claimed that gay marriage licenses should be recognized by the law. I have claimed the exact opposite, and provided a reasoned argument for why. Your attempts to run away when your own challenge is answered aren't fooling anyone.
Yeah, about as easy as Creationism 101 at Weeping Shepherd Baptist High School, where the correct answer to every question on the test is "Cuz the bible sez so" or else "Goddidit".
:roll:
Subjectivist fallacy.
The relativist fallacy, also known as the subjectivist fallacy, is committed, roughly speaking, when one person claims that something may be true for one person but not true for someone else. The fallacy is supposed to rest on the law of non-contradiction. The fallacy, it is said, applies only to objective facts, or what are alleged to be objective facts, rather than to facts about personal tastes or subjective experiences, and only to facts regarded in the same sense and at the same time. On this formulation, the very name "relativist fallacy" begs the question against anyone who earnestly (however mistakenly or not) holds that there are no "objective facts." So some more work has to be done, in a non-question-begging way, to make it clear wherein, exactly, the fallacy lies.
There are at least two ways to interpret "the relativist fallacy": either as identical to relativism (generally), or as the ad hoc adoption of a relativist stance purely to defend a controversial position.
On the one hand, those discussions of the relativist fallacy which make the fallacy out to be identical to relativism (e.g., linguistic relativism or cultural relativism) are themselves committing a commonly-identified fallacy of informal logic, namely, begging the question against an earnest, intelligent, logically-competent relativist. It is itself a fallacy to describe a controversial view as a "fallacy"--not, at least, without arguing that it is a fallacy. In any event, it will not do to argue as follows:
Yeah? Well, my evidence is The writings of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Oh, sorry, it has to be a best seller? OK, then my source is Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, which has gay characters living peacefully and happily.
Sorry, I should be ignoring you but you're just too damn easy of a target!
Mine have a basis, yours do not. That was very easy.
bzzt. You misapplied the fallacy.
I'm sorry that you misunderstood the fallacy.
Queers can live together happily without lying to children. Try sticking to the argument.
My evidence is the Bible, still the hottest selling book in the world.
That was very easy.
OK, so your argument is that the Bible is never wrong? And since it's in the Bible, you think it should be the law of the land?
The Bible also allows for slavery. It says that if you plant two crops next to each other, it's a crime. It's OK to sell your daughter, and if your kids talk back, you are allowed to stone them to death.
So! How's your campaign in favor of slavery going? I mean, obviously, since the Bible cannot be wrong, you must support that. Otherwise, you'd be an absolute hypocrite, wouldn't you?
Subjectivist fallacy.
Morality is not scientific. It doesn't have to be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?