No, you didn't. You gave an opinion - well, not yours, but a purported one. An illogical, irrational opinion with no weight. So it isn't an argument. Here's something we're going to touch upon a bit later: just because someone has a belief doesn't mean that belief is worthwhile, or meaningful. Nor does it make it right, or infallible.
Except, you're completely wrong. Go take a class in psychology. This is how human psychology works. People want what they want, they don't give a forget what other people want. If they pretend to, they're doing exactly that. Pretending.
It's not irrelevant at all. You're not grasping the scope of the argument. The point was made because people use this section of the bible to justify their discriminatory viewpoint while entirely ignoring the other forms of traditional marriage that are illegal/severely looked down upon in this country. And as a result, they've been shown to be hypocrites. And a hypocrite's viewpoint is worthless. You cannot pick and choose which passages of the bible you want to follow.
I don't care what people use it for, I'm making an argument against it. If you shoot someone with a kevlar vest on in the face, their teammate can't come up to you and say "HEY! He wore that vest so that people who shoot at his body won't kill him!" I purposely aimed at the weak spot in the argument. I don't care if they're hypocrites, I'm showing how the argument is stupid. If the bible lists such a broad spectrum of classifications for marriage, yet miss a very, very central one, it was obviously not included for a reason.
Thank you for disproving yourself for me. Yes, the creation parable is a facade and is entirely untrue. Yes, it was written by men during a time where they hung homoloveuals. So now that we both agree the creation parable is just a story and nothing more, it cannot be used as a counterpoint for allowing gay people to marry because it is a fairy tale. It never happened. God never made Adam and Eve.
I don't see how this is an argument against me. I didn't disprove myself nor you. I disproved the poster, which was my original goal.
No, it doesn't. Repeating myself: simply because someone holds a belief does not make it credible or worthwhile. An irrational form of discrimination (loveism) cannot be used to validate another form of discrimination because it is illogical to begin with.
I didn't say it was credible or worthwhile. I said it invalidates their argument. Which it still does.
That's great. And irrelevant. In the hypothetical situation you posed, a religious person responding to this flow chart would have said that the Church should indeed abide by Paul's laws. Unfortunately, this is blasphemy and not only is it not credible to the Church, but in an argument it's the equivalent to agreeing with another person. 'Yeah, I agree with X, gays are bad.' Not a valid counterpoint.
I never mentioned that the person responding to the flow chart was religious. Your assumption is wrong, thus your deduction is wrong, making your counterpoint to my counterpoint wrong. Good job.
Didn't disprove what I said.
I wasn't trying to? I was aware before reading the poster that that point has a very huge flaw in it. I gave that point up from the very start-- it's not even grounds to argue on right now.
Funny, but not relevant. Jesus told us to love our neighbor as he loved us - unconditionally. Not to judge them or anything like that, but to love them, to show them kindness and tolerance. And so all these people campaigning against gay marriage aren't even listening to the figurehead of their own religion.
You're implying everybody that's against gay marriage is religious. Which is an exceptionally ignorant, biased, unintelligent assumption to make. You're being just as bad as people who argue against gay marriage.
You phrase your counterpoints very badly. You're not even trying that hard. If you want to win this argument by spouting continuous nonsense for me to endlessly rebuke, I'm afraid I can't stay up all day for that. It's already six in the morning and I should have went to sleep a long time ago. So if you actually have anything worthwhile to say I suggest you do it now.
Of course I'm not trying that hard. I'm arguing from a point I don't honestly believe in. It's also 5:14 AM. But that won't stop be from winning an argument. You should have seen when I went up against Lugnut, maybe you did. We burned a good 20 pages of massive essay posts. Making an argument then telling someone that you won't continue to argue with them is also the most cowardly and childish move ever known to man. It's essentially the same as trying to get the last word by saying what you're going to say then covering your ears and yelling "NANANANANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
I'm going to bed-- leave your argument here if you have one. I'll come back to it tomorrow and resume.
