Are gays "born gay"?

Beefy said:
Gay marriage would have a negative impact on marriage. You're married. Thus it would impact your marriage.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't impact my marriage. It has the potential to adversely impact the institution of marriage as the foundation for a civilized society. In other words: future marriages and families.
 
Southern Man said:
It wouldn't impact my marriage. It has the potential to adversely impact the institution of marriage as the foundation for a civilized society. In other words: future marriages and families.
Click to expand...

Thats fearmongering and has absolutely no basis.
 
How would allowing them this legal union effect anything in society when they already live in these family units but withtout the legal potections other Americans(including people who have murdered their kids) have?
 
Its pretty sad to think they see two people of same sex as to scary to allow to marry yet there are people in prison for murdering their entire families who are allowed to marry again and they see no harm in that.

People just dont think things through sometimes.Note my first signature.
 
Thorn said:
This isn't my specific area, but as with other reports of biological research some findings do make their way into the pile. Off the top of my head, here are two findings of note:

Some years ago it was learned that the medial preoptic area in the brains of gay men (an area well established as being involved in sexual behavior) was more similar to that in the brains of heterosexual adult females than the same nucleus in straight males.

More recently, a link was found between the number of boys born consecutively to a mother and the incidence of homosexuality among the youngest. Nothing specific can be derived from a correlational study but it can point the way for future research. In this case, the hypothesis derived was that the consecutive births of males (uninterrupted by female births) somehow changed the mother's ability to provide an appropriate hormonal environment for subsequent male offspring. To broaden this study, it would be necessary to conduct an extensive longitudinal study among gay males and their parents. Ultimately it might be possible to identify a marker, not only among large families, but during gestation to see if a hormonal balance exists and what effect, if any, it might have on gender identification/sexual preference among the offspring.
Click to expand...

My dad mailed that to my brother as soon as he found it. My brother is the youngest of nine children and five men.
 
Southern Man said:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw man
Click to expand...
Again, I simply asked for evidence that you have failed to provide three times now and attempted to pass an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy as an argument. It is not a Strawman Fallacy to ask for evidence, that is why it is so clear you have no understanding of what a Strawman Fallacy is.

I have asked three times now. (Four counting this post). You again have shown no evidence. So far your argument has been to repeat "strawman" without producing any evidence to buttress the claim that "most of America agrees with me" that "Marriage would be harmed by gay marriage". Directly after I stated that only you could desanctify your marriage. I have not used a Caricature, I have followed logical progression to get where I am.

You attempt to buttress your argument with a fallacy, one that is quite literally a caricature of an extreme of an argument (doom will befall your marriage if gays are allowed to be married). However you attempt to use it to buttress your argument rather than to argue against another (this does not take away from the fact that it is still a logical fallacy).

Then you use the Appeal to Popularity:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
Click to expand...

You use it in this context.

State "A" voted against Homosexual Marriage, therefore they feel that it would "desanctify" marriage. See? Most people agree with me!

I pointed out that it was a fallacy, that it is impossible to determine simply by vote count the merit of your argument, as well as 11 states or so is certainly not a majority. That it was an Appeal to Popularity and therefore a fallacy is very clear. That it does not provide evidence to back up your assertion of "most people"'s agreement is also clear.

You again repeated "Strawman" as if you were making a point. You were not, you use it to distract from your complete lack of evidence to prop up your own Strawman.

I will ask again, please provide real evidence that more than half the nation believes as you do, that it will destroy your marriage if gays get married. A poll, something of the kind from a verifiable source will do that asked the question "Do you think your marriage would be harmed by gays being allowed to marry?"

I haven't said you were wrong, I have simply wanted evidence of your assertion.

This time, please, instead of trying to distract from the actual question by attempting to argue another fallacy, please provide actual evidence to back up your assertion. It may be that you are correct in that assertion, though I think that others (as myself) would vote against those laws for different reasons than you assign.
 
Damocles said:
.....I will ask again, please provide real evidence that more than half the nation believes as you do, that it will destroy your marriage if gays get married. .....
Click to expand...
1. I gave you the results of actual ballot initiatives in 11 states, along with my opinion on why people voted the way that they did. That opinion is based on the popular arguments used in the debates on those initiatives. An example of those arguments is referenced here. http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

2. I never said gay marriage would harm my marriage, but would harm the institution of marriage. For you to assert otherwise is a straw man.
 
Southern Man said:
1. I gave you the results of actual ballot initiatives in 11 states, along with my opinion on why people voted the way that they did. That opinion is based on the popular arguments used in the debates on those initiatives. An example of those arguments is referenced here. http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

2. I never said gay marriage would harm my marriage, but would harm the institution of marriage. For you to assert otherwise is a straw man.
Click to expand...
And again, I showed how the results of ballot initiatives are not evidence of your assertion.

I will, fourth time now, ask for evidence of your assertion or we can assume you are talking out your behind now based on your own prejudice not on evidence.

The "institution of marriage" includes the subset of "your marriage" unless you somehow think that your marriage falls outside that "institution". Your answer was specifically towards that question as well.
 
Damocles said:
And again, I showed how the results of ballot initiatives are not evidence of your assertion.

I will, fourth time now, ask for evidence of your assertion or we can assume you are talking out your behind now based on your own prejudice not on evidence.

The "institution of marriage" includes the subset of "your marriage" unless you somehow think that your marriage falls outside that "institution". Your answer was specifically towards that question as well.
Click to expand...

My assertion is again based on the arguements given. You can claim that a huge majority of voters made their decisions based on some other reason but that would be less logical than my assertion.

2. Your logic escapes me. I have never asserted that a present or future policy would affect a past event. That would be illogical.
 
Southern Man said:
My assertion is again based on the arguements given. You can claim that a huge majority of voters made their decisions based on some other reason but that would be less logical than my assertion.

2. Your logic escapes me. I have never asserted that a present or future policy would affect a past event. That would be illogical.
Click to expand...
1. No, it would be based on the fact that votes do not show motives, polls do. Where are the polls about specifics that were taken? That is what you want to take from it. Exit polls did exist, therefore post them. I, again, am not saying you are wrong, only that you didn't present evidence to support that position.

2. Any marriage is part of the "institution of marriage" you not only suggest that gays getting married would effect your marriage, but suggest that it would also effect mine. It's total rubbish.
 
Gay marriage will not harm "the institution of marriage". Gay's are not some corrupt leper. Whenever they touch marriage, it does not shrivel and die because two men love each other.
 
Damocles said:
1. No, it would be based on the fact that votes do not show motives, polls do. Where are the polls about specifics that were taken? That is what you want to take from it. Exit polls did exist, therefore post them. I, again, am not saying you are wrong, only that you didn't present evidence to support that position.

2. Any marriage is part of the "institution of marriage" you not only suggest that gays getting married would effect your marriage, but suggest that it would also effect mine. It's total rubbish.
Click to expand...

1.
One of the most common reasons given against permitting same-sex marriage is that it will erode the status of traditional marriage. Yet few Americans think that is the real reason that people oppose it.

Asked to describe what they see as the main motivation behind those who oppose same-sex marriage, nearly three quarters of Americans – on both sides of the issue -- say that opponents’ motivations are mainly the belief that homosexuality is wrong, not concern over its impact on marriage.

REASON MOST PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DO SO?
Concern about effect on traditional marriage
16%
Believe homosexuality is wrong
72%
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/15/opinion/polls/main606453.shtml

2. You are misinterpreting my earlier statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top