• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

Robert Prey said:
Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve. (Bible)
Click to expand...

Yes, but what about Matt and Chris? What do the fictional "first humans" that the Israelites imagined some 6 thousand plus years ago have to do with the what legal rights we are willing to give people today, around 12,000 years after the beginnings of human civilization?

Do you think same-sex couples will want the legal protections of matrimony in 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? 20 years? If a large amount of Americans today reject the notion that the first male and female to exist should be the foundation of what the logistics of marriage should and should not be (and they do), what are you going to do, Robert, to convince them that they should? Perhaps you should flesh out those arguments here, now, if you are interested in actually arguing a case, instead of spitting out some lame bumper sticker phrases.
 
I like this idea of just throwing in a quote tag from something/someone that didn't actually say what you're saying. It's fun, check it out:

"I think A Laughing Baby is the greatest poster of all time, and a great-looking cool guy, to boot."--George Washington
 
Robert Prey said:
Homosexual marriage undermines the basic unit of human society -- a family headed up by male and female, mother and father.
Click to expand...

So you want to return to traditional Marriage? Because a return to TRUE traditional Marriage would solve the issue of homosexual marriage.

One where the husband owns his wife.

Men would be prohibited from marrying men, because you cannot own another man.

Women would be prohibited from marrying another woman, because they would have no rights.

Marriage, even your limited view of 'traditional' marriage has changed drastically over time.
 
Robert Prey said:
Traditional dictionary definition backed up by 10,000 or so years of human experience trumps any conveniently contrived definition of a temporary moment in time.
Click to expand...
You are now switching arguments.

You've gone from appeal to definition (which is fallacious)
to appeal to antiquity (which is also fallacious).
Using your reasoning, since slavery was was a part of human society for thousands of years, it must still be an acceptable practice.


Further, in your other arguments, you have resorted to the claim of Marriage for child procreation. I would be very careful with this argument as, by extension, you are asserting that couples who are infertile shouldn't be married.
 
Robert Prey said:
Traditional dictionary definition backed up by 10,000 or so years of human experience trumps any conveniently contrived definition of a temporary moment in time.
Click to expand...

Oh. . . so you want to return to treating women as property, as they were during most of that "10,000 or so years of human experience".
 
joobz said:
Further, in your other arguments, you have resorted to the claim of Marriage for child procreation. I would be very careful with this argument as, by extension, you are asserting that couples who are infertile shouldn't be married.
Click to expand...

I predict he will duck this.

Robert Prey, you think gay people shouldn't be married because they cannot procreate?

So then do you approve of denying sterile heteros the right to marry?

(Included are those who are sterile through none of their own doing, those sterile by choice, and women who are sterile due to their age.)

ETA: And if not, then will you please admit that your support for a prohibition on gay marriage in no way relies on an argument that there is a state interest in encouraging procreation?
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
Oh. . . so you want to return to treating women as property, as they were during most of that "10,000 or so years of human experience".
Click to expand...

If RobertPrey believes that the ancient tale of Adam and Eve is an accurate portrayal of early human history, I wonder how he can he possibly believe that there was human experience "10,000 or so years" ago?
 
Robert Prey said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994f19cce17e426.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Are you Godwin'ing the thread or trying to get me to Godwin it by comparing Santorum to Hitler?

Regardless, it doesn't answer my question. Please describe what would bigotry towards homosexuals would be like, if it isn't what Santorum suggests.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What? :boggled:

Your answers make less and less sense, not more.
Click to expand...

I think the 'logic' is something like this:

I find the idea of gays having sex disgusting
Therefore all other straights find the idea of having gays disgusting
If gays can marry than straights will not be able to think about anything other than gas having sex.
Therefore straights will be too disgusted to have sex themselves
Ergo no more babies.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I predict he will duck this.

Robert Prey, you think gay people shouldn't be married because they cannot procreate?

So then do you approve of denying sterile heteros the right to marry?

(Included are those who are sterile through none of their own doing, those sterile by choice, and women who are sterile due to their age.)

ETA: And if not, then will you please admit that your support for a prohibition on gay marriage in no way relies on an argument that there is a state interest in encouraging procreation?
Click to expand...

The state should have no interest in promoting unnatural acts.
 
joobz said:
You are now switching arguments.

You've gone from appeal to definition (which is fallacious)
to appeal to antiquity (which is also fallacious).
Using your reasoning, since slavery was was a part of human society for thousands of years, it must still be an acceptable practice.
Click to expand...

Another strawman. Strawwoman. The subject is marriage, not slavery. Obviously. And not an appeal to antiquity, but an appeal to common sense.
 
Robert Prey said:
The state should have no interest in promoting unnatural acts.
Click to expand...

Strawman argument. There is nothign unnatural about homosexuality. It has been around throughout the history of humanity and is present in other species as well.

Homophobia like yours is comparitively much more unnatural. Maybe you should be forbidden to marry.
 
Last edited:
Shalamar said:
So you want to return to traditional Marriage? Because a return to TRUE traditional Marriage would solve the issue of homosexual marriage.

One where the husband owns his wife.

Men would be prohibited from marrying men, because you cannot own another man.

Women would be prohibited from marrying another woman, because they would have no rights.

Marriage, even your limited view of 'traditional' marriage has changed drastically over time.
Click to expand...


Over time? Yeah, like the last ten years in a very limited segments of the world's population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom