The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Damn Yankee said:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/pro-gay-bias-in-study-of-pedophilia/

Prediction: you will attack the messenger.
Click to expand...

Your prediction comes true! Here is some info about Paul Cameron, chairman and founder of the Family Research Institute.

"Another study claims that [http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html
29% of child molestation is done by homosexuals]. The sample size used in the study was so low that statistically it had a 33% margin of error and the study had half a dozen methological problems any one of which would have been sufficient to invalidate the study."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Cameron
 
Damn Yankee said:
So y'all argument is that men who molest boys aren't gay. LOL
Click to expand...

I don't argue it. I simply understand what has been shown by the FBI. If someone is attracted to men, a prepubescent boy is not the same thing. And many of those same pedophiles will molest either boys or girls, which does further damage to your argument.


But you still have no rational argument against allowing gays to marry.
 
Damn Yankee said:
There's a clear link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
Click to expand...


arrest-the-pope-tshirt.png
And here it is:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases





​
 
As with all arguments against gay marriage there is no argument in the OP. The fundamental concept is that love isn't sufficient for marriage as then we are on the slippery slope to hell. That makes no sense as then the same argument can be used against straight marriage as anyone alive has seen horrid straight marriages, so then they too should be forbidden, given slippery slopes do not discriminate and who really knows where marriage ends, sometimes in murder.
 
The “slippery slope” argument is not a valid debating technique for reason that (1) it begs the question, and (2) mischaracterizes the issue. Using the subject of same-sex marriage, supra, consider the following sentence: “The sanctioning of same-sex unions is the start down the slippery slope to the loss of sanctity of marriage and immorality.” This statement, petitio principii, begs the question (viz. the conclusion that same-sex unions are illegal or illegitimate is assumed in the premise), while mischaracterizing gays and lesbians (without mentioning them) by labeling them as immoral. Such circular reasoning is illogical for it is premised upon a presupposed bias or prejudice rather than facts susceptible of proof; and it is inherently unfair because it at once postures the opponent as against the sanctity of marriage and in favor of immorality. Thus framed, the argument goes round and round and gets nowhere, while the framer paints the opposition in a bad light. Sadly, in political debate, there has been a great deal of this of late.
 
Its a simple fact that a hetero man won't get the same reaction looking at beans and franks as he does clams, any peecee theory notwithstanding. Gays in the priesthood has been a problem for a while. A few got in, were tolerated, and then attracted more of them. No surprise that the Church ended up with a pedophile scandal. The same thing will happen in the armed forces, IMO.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Its a simple fact that a hetero man won't get the same reaction looking at beans and franks as he does clams, any peecee theory notwithstanding. Gays in the priesthood has been a problem for a while. A few got in, were tolerated, and then attracted more of them. No surprise that the Church ended up with a pedophile scandal. The same thing will happen in the armed forces, IMO.
Click to expand...

Wut? Gays have been allowed in the armed forces for decades.

Do you have a legitimate reason you oppose gay unions, or are you just a homophobe?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Its a simple fact that a hetero man won't get the same reaction looking at beans and franks as he does clams, any peecee theory notwithstanding. Gays in the priesthood has been a problem for a while. A few got in, were tolerated, and then attracted more of them. No surprise that the Church ended up with a pedophile scandal. The same thing will happen in the armed forces, IMO.
Click to expand...

And neither of them will get the same reaction looking at a child. Gays are not automatically pedophiles, regardless of what you want to claim. And the link I posted showed, the survey used by Paul Cameron was so small as to have as much as a 33% margin of error. The man is a lunatic with an agenda.
 
Oh look, another straw man, and another attack at my source. I didn't say all gays were pedos, just that a higher portion of them are relative to heteros.

Its retarded to think that a ten-year old girl looks like a ten-year old boy. Can't you tell the difference?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Oh look, another straw man, and another attack at my source. I didn't say all gays were pedos, just that a higher portion of them are relative to heteros.

Its retarded to think that a ten-year old girl looks like a ten-year old boy. Can't you tell the difference?
Click to expand...

Did I say I couldn't tell the difference. You accuse me of making a strawman argument, and then make one yourself. Hello pot/kettle?

And none of this has any bearing on the topic. As far as your source, he IS a lunatic with an agenda. Here is a tidbit I bet you didn't know about him:

"At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, 'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.' According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995

Now you may claim he is unbiased and a reputable source for scientific data. But other researchers have debunked his research and the quote above pretty much shows how much he hates gays.

More quotes from the chairman and founder of your source? Ok:

"At least twice Cameron has advocated the tattooing of AIDS patients on the face, so that people would know when they were meeting with an infected person. The penalty for trying to hide the tattoo would be banishment to the Hawaiian island of Molokai, a former leper colony. In the event that a vaccine were developed to prevent AIDS, Cameron has proposed that homosexuals be castrated to prevent them from 'cheating' on nature." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.
 
Return of Dune said:
What legitmate reason do you have to restrict the civil rights of certain individuals? Your mind is the only thing that is closed.
Click to expand...
Homos have EVERY right that heterosexuals have....
The government does not legislate the sexual preferences of either husband or wife....

Neither homos nor hetros can marry animals, insects, reptiles, fowl or members of their own sex .....that rule applies to EVERYONE
Their are also rules about blood relationship and the age of the partys

Homos can marry other homos, and enjoy every right and privilege that heterosexuals do....
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Homos have EVERY right that heterosexuals have....
The government does not legislate the sexual preferences of either husband or wife....

Neither homos nor hetros can marry animals, insects, reptiles, fowl or members of their own sex .....that rule applies to EVERYONE
Their are also rules about blood relationship and age or the partys

Homos can marry other homos, and enjoy every right and privilege that heterosexuals do....
Click to expand...

More strawman arguments from the anti-gay crowd.
 
That's not a straw man; its an appeal to common sense. Do you see a difference between boys and girls or not?
 
Damn Yankee said:
That's not a straw man; its an appeal to common sense. Do you see a difference between boys and girls or not?
Click to expand...

I see a difference between adults and children. That is the important distinction. And yes, it was a strawman argument.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Its a refutation of your theory. That's why you refuse to answer a simple question. :)
Click to expand...

It refutes nothing. You claimed straights would not have the same reaction to female genitals as they would male genitals. And the same is true for gays. But my counter was that neither would have the same reaction to children's genitals as adult's genitals.

Whether I can tell the difference is completely irrelevant. That I can tell the difference does not dispute anything about who is attracted to children and who is attracted to children. It is still irrelevant. Just like this entire line of discussion is irrelevant to the topic of gay marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top