How many times can Craig James

[footballdad]

By all means, you and Craig go ahead and agitate tirelessly for LGBT members of your churches to be celibate...

"Agitate tirelessly"? What does that even mean?

...or try to pray the gay away....

Cute.

You show remarkable ignorance that there might possibly be an intelligent argument for currently unpopular opinion. That maybe, just maybe, our grandparents and every other generation in every culture reaching back to the dawn of time could have been on to something. Homosexuality does not ultimately lead to human happiness or flourishing.

Illiteracy, fear, mythology......oh yes, the enlightened goat herder age.

[ponyboy]

Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."

Though someone might very reasonably find a shared view held by the overwhelming majority of humanity across cultures and times as something one ought to pause and consider, what you say is true. While we are at it, you should have also pointed out Dukie's fallacy of appeal to majority.

[footballdad]

Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."

Though someone might very reasonably find a shared view held by the overwhelming majority of humanity across cultures and times as something one ought to pause and consider, what you say is true. While we are at it, you should have also pointed out Dukie's fallacy of appeal to majority.

Pause and RE-consider makes a lot more sense.

[peruna81]

straw man arguments aside, the issue of faith (or lack thereof) is a wonderful starting place to watch the great cry of 'tolerance' that is so easily espoused by folks, and so rarely given by these same folks to those of differing opinions.

[East Coast Mustang]

Couch 'em is right. The next phase will be polygamy, or perhaps 100% government subsidized sex changes for "trans" people using our tax dollars. Pretty soon we'll all be living in forced LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM communities: http://www.wesleyan.edu/reslife/housing ... _house.htm

[Dukie]

You show remarkable ignorance that there might possibly be an intelligent argument for currently unpopular opinion. That maybe, just maybe, our grandparents and every other generation in every culture reaching back to the dawn of time could have been on to something. Homosexuality does not ultimately lead to human happiness or flourishing.

Let me know when you're ready to share any of those intelligent arguments.

You keep saying versions of "a popular opinion is not necessarily right," but you're ignoring why public opinion has changed: because so many people now understand they have LGBT coworkers, neighbors, and family members, and they recognize them as just trying to live their lives the same as everyone else. Good luck reversing all that.

Homosexuality doesn't lead to happiness or unhappiness, flourishing or non-flourishing. Neither does heterosexuality. But you're in a rapidly diminishing minority in your inability to see that LGBT people can be happy and flourish.

[One Trick Pony]

Lesbians [deleted] me off. As one of my gay friends says they're mean!

[East Coast Mustang]

If gays want to get married, whatever. Doesn't affect me. No reason they shouldn't have the same legal benefits as straight couples. But when you force churches to perform gay weddings against their religious beliefs, or penalize bakeries for refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings against their religions objections, that's where I have a problem. I don't care, but you can't force me TO care.

[ponyboy]

Let me know when you're ready to share any of those intelligent arguments.

Well, as one example one could reasonably argue from design, the teleology of human reproductive organs, the complementarity of man and woman. But really all of this is a result of our historic radical individualism and near-worship of the sole virtue we've been taught for the last fifty-plus years: openness to anything and everything. This society is unravelling and quickly. The gay marriage debate is but one highly unfortunate, no tragic, symptom.

[RebStang]

Couch 'em is right. The next phase will be polygamy, or perhaps 100% government subsidized sex changes for "trans" people using our tax dollars. Pretty soon we'll all be living in forced LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM communities: http://www.wesleyan.edu/reslife/housing ... _house.htm

I'd never support government subsidized gender modification surgery (even though it is coming)... that said... why is polygamy among consenting adults illegal? Why shouldn't 2 or 3 consenting adults be able to decide that they want to get married?

In a strictly legal sense, marriage is nothing more than a contract. Yes, it's a more 'touchy' contract than most but the issues wouldn't change just because the number of parties to the contract went from 2 to 3 or 4.

The only arguments against polygamy are religious in nature... and, last time I checked, we lived in a nation that had the concept of religious freedom and freedom of religious exercise - laws against polygamy are, in fact, discriminatory against religions that allow polygamy.

[One Trick Pony]

I feel gay reading this thread yet I'm drawn to it.

[couch 'em]

Let me know when you're ready to share any of those intelligent arguments.

Well, as one example one could reasonably argue from design, the teleology of human reproductive organs, the complementarity of man and woman. But really all of this is a result of our historic radical individualism and near-worship of the sole virtue we've been taught for the last fifty-plus years: openness to anything and everything. This society is unravelling and quickly. The gay marriage debate is but one highly unfortunate, no tragic, symptom.

not exactly a hay marriage crusader here but don't you think that's a bit melodramatic? The Roman Empire was full of gay activity and it ruled the western world for 1000 years. Or is it the actual marriage part that is the problem?

[RebStang]

Let me know when you're ready to share any of those intelligent arguments.

Well, as one example one could reasonably argue from design, the teleology of human reproductive organs, the complementarity of man and woman. But really all of this is a result of our historic radical individualism and near-worship of the sole virtue we've been taught for the last fifty-plus years: openness to anything and everything. This society is unravelling and quickly. The gay marriage debate is but one highly unfortunate, no tragic, symptom.

There is a strong argument to be made that the United States is deeply rooted in an ideal of 'radical' individualism. The whole idea of our country is that the individual is a sovereign entity unto himself - that government is subservient to the will of the people and that the people are a body of sovereign individuals. Essentially, our government (in theory) exists to protect the rights of the people and to defend the people's property from foreign aggression.

[peruna81]

that Craig James was a heck of a running back...why, I seem to recall one Clement Fox sealing the corner with a crushing block for a long run by James against those hated Longhorns....

[footballdad]

Let me know when you're ready to share any of those intelligent arguments.

Well, as one example one could reasonably argue from design, the teleology of human reproductive organs, the complementarity of man and woman. But really all of this is a result of our historic radical individualism and near-worship of the sole virtue we've been taught for the last fifty-plus years: openness to anything and everything. This society is unravelling and quickly. The gay marriage debate is but one highly unfortunate, no tragic, symptom.

There is a strong argument to be made that the United States is deeply rooted in an ideal of 'radical' individualism. The whole idea of our country is that the individual is a sovereign entity unto himself - that government is subservient to the will of the people and that the people are a body of sovereign individuals. Essentially, our government (in theory) exists to protect the rights of the people and to defend the people's property from foreign aggression.

Thank You RebStang! Radical individualism is the only thing that will save his 'unravelling society'. Radical government and radical religion are the problem, not the solution.