yguy

Uh huh. I'll bet those kids you're a sperm donor for will appreciate yours like crazy.

Kimpatsu

You should live half for yourself and half for others. True altruism doesn't exist, because nobody says, "I don't care about me, just let others be happy". Even seeming altruism is rooted in selfishness, insofar as there is the personal reward of an inner glow of satisfaction. Perhaps a better why to describe the ideal social dynamic is, "First do no harm".
As already indicated, there were myriad causes ofthe fall ofthe Roman empire but one of them was that the empire grew soft and complacent. Having conquered the known world, they stopped training and started indulging in soft living--fine wines, baubles, etc.--which meant he more hardened Goths were able to kick them around. Also, the Danube had always been a pretty good barrier against invasion from Germania, but they year the Goths invaded, the river froze completely, allowing the invaders to ford it with ease. No selfishness there--unless you count the selfish wish of the invaders to conquer Rome.

dk

Jinto: What do you mean when you say "Interracial marriage was colloquial, not universal?" I can't figure that one out.
dk: Marriage based upon the nuclear family is blind to race, but not sex. In Northern Africa, India, and the Middle East interracial marriages has been common for thousands of years. By colloquial I meant according to provincial or local custom. “Colloquial” was a poor choice here.

Jinto: Inter-species? Where the hell did that come from?
dk: Another hypothetical extension of the x-family.

dk: My proposition was no more fallacious than yours, and they were both fallacious.
Jinto: I am proposing a change. You are resisting it for no other reason than that it has never been done before, and therefore your paranoia leads you to believe that everything in civilization will collapse if we do things differently, never mind that that "logic" has never been valid, and that the premises aren't even true. That is the precise fear of change that I am talking about, and you FUCKING know it.
dk: No I really have no idea why “change” equates to progress, though clearly some changes lead to progress. The Soviet Union changed Russia from a Monarchy to Command Style Communism, and the failed experiment destroyed the lives of 10s of millions of people. The Temperance movement failed to eradicate alcoholism. The Great Society failed to eradicate poverty, inequality and illiteracy. The Gay Rights Movement stands on their accomplishments, and those apart from leading young gay youth into a destructive lifestyle are few and far in-between. Gays have a problem marriage can’t fix and the nuclear family has problems that can’t tolerate gay couples. I feel awful that gays are destroying themselves with anonymous anal sex, but that’s a weak argument for gay marriage. This illustrates that gay values, gay venues, gay forums and gay social structures threaten progress because they are degenerative, self destructive, psychopathic and malformed. I don’t now how to tell you this Jinto, but the gay outreach and support programs are failing miserably. Gay mentors put in positions of trusted authority have betrayed the public trust, and especially the young gays in their charge (7%/year rate of hiv infection). Many abused their young protégés, and the public schools and universities serve them up on a silver platter face down, with cheeks held high. Many aren’t mentors but sugar daddies.

dk: I have no idea in what sense you mean humanity, but to assert a change to group A, justifies a change to group B is unjustified, unless Group A implies Group B. Interracial marriage doesn’t imply same sex marriage; anymore than same sex marriage implies inter-species marriage because the forms are fundamentally different.
Jinto: You don't know what humanity is? And you can't grasp the point that the argument is INVALID? And you can't grasp inductively that not only is it invalid, it has been spectacularly unsuccessful? And you can't draw the logical and OBVIOUS conclusion from that? Please. The fact is that things should NEVER be rejected simply because they propose to do things differently than the way things have always been done. If humans followed your logic, we'd still be living in hunter-gatherer societies. In fact, I can hear the ancients speak: "The hunter-getherer tribe has formed the archetype of all civilization, and civilization will collapse if we ever settle down rather than following the herds."
dk: And you fail to grasp the fallacy of the Undistributed Middle. The two elements you’ve errantly placed into one group, “(1) race (2) gays & lesbians”, may share a property but are otherwise disconnected.

dk: Its not enough to call a foul, you’ve got to explain and tag the foul specifically. Imagine a basketball referee that called a fouls but never explained which player committed the foul. Whin you call a slippery slope foul, then you’re oblige to explain, “A does not necessarily lead to B, C, D,,,”. If you call a non sequitur you’ve got to explain, “statement A is a {truism, tautology or circular} because ......
What astonishes me is the number of fallacious statements you packed into a single paragraph Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
I have no idea what connects your hypothesis to my statement. I don’t like stds. I think children bless a marriage. Gay marriage is a mockery of marriage. How in the world can such opinions be construed to mean “I don’t care”?
Jinto: You say that you feel gay marriage is a mockery of non-gay marriage because it fails to produce children, yet do not condemn non-gay marriages which fail to produce children as a mockery of marriage. Clearly, it is not whether or not children are produced that leads to your condemnation.
dk: No, but I’ve said several times, gay marriages mock marriage. I have no idea what non-gay marriage speculates about. Your last statement is a laugher, it starts off with the word “Clearly”“ then goes on to explain “not x or not y”. This construction is anything but clear to me, I don’t have a clue what it means.

dk: I imagine the marriage would be a mockery. Experiment all you want, but I don’t fit into homophobic straight jacket. Even if an extra special Gays couple were granted a marriage license, it would still be a mock marriage. Men have undergone "sex change operations" to become a bride. They got married with all the legal trappings. The marriage is called a fraudulent. I don't have to imagine it, it happens.
Jinto: In other words, you cannot imagine a legitimate gay marriage. Experiment complete. My hypothesis is confirmed.
dk: No, I can imagine a gay marriage, it’s a mock marriage.

Jinto: So you don’t believe gay marriage has a chance of becoming the law of the land?
dk: Actually I do think there’s a chance. I also think its would make a mockery of marriage, and the law of the land.

Jinto: Non-sequitur. I believe that it won't result in dissolving your family, especially considering that it is derived directly from it. And how is it that you can equate "allowing gay people to marry" and "destroying the nuclear family, and/or having any effect whatsoever on your family?" That's like saying that if you step on a crack you'll break your mother's back.
dk: I can tolerate anyone that respects my family and religion. That’s where I personally draw the line.

dk: A response proportional to the threat being posed in my world means justice. Gay marriage posses a eminent and deadly threat to civilization, so I’d call it prudent, even due diligence as opposed to paranoid.
Jinto: WHAT threat to civilization? Again, your paranoia is obvious, if you want a threat to civilization you need look no farther than your local indoctrination facility a.k.a. baptist church, and see peole who actually are praying on innocent kids to spread their ideology, who actually are trying to force people into agreeing with them by circumventing the courts, whose power is already so prevalent that they have forced the government to print their ideology on your fucking money, and who are trying to outlaw or dilute the archetype that alowed our society to claw its way out of the dark ages: science. But you'll ignore this and say "oh, but we can't allow people to marry people of the same sex, because then everything changes." What will it change? People will still be allowed to marry peole of the opposite sex, people will still have the same family structure, and frankly, I don't see how legally recognizing gay marriage will do ANYTHING except maybe give gay people a chance to be with the people that they love. And that you would kill to prevent people from doing something that poses NO concievable threat to you, is an OBVIOUS sign of paranoia.
dk: Gay marriage replaces the nuclear family with the x-family archetype. I know many good Baptist families. I trust in God. We disagree on gay marriage, gay culture, Gay Rights Movement, and morality. Morality governs people so we can understand one another. The proposition of Gay marriage makes it almost impossible for us to communicate. That much we can agree upon.

dk: : and no matter how strong my desire to protect my family, I’d still be morally obliged to control and direct my urges. I really think gay marriage would culminate in what could can only be described as a civil war. Its a substantive factor.
Jinto: Your conspiracy theories don't even make sense. No one is killing anyone over this, except you.
dk: That’s because it is not a conspiracy theory, more of a tortured journey up the bowels of oblivion.

dk: Given the duplicitous perverted conduct of gays I’d argue for prudence . There’s no doubt this is an emotionally charged issue that dehumanizes people divisively.
Jinto: In other words, you're letting your emotions allow you to dehumanize the enemy. You implied it earlier: you can dehumanize anyone by viewing them as a cancer, and that's exactly what you have done with gay people isn't it?
dk: I understand sex to be procreative act of self donation. I’ve tried not to dehumanize gay people, I do see gay culture as a pathological and dehumanizing. .

Jinto: And you're not qualified to tell me what gays do or do not want, because you're not one of them and you have already demonstrated that you have no empathy.
dk: We’re all human beings, and I don’t mistake empathy for justification.

dk: You’re talking to yourself again, nothing I said relates to pedophilia. Hey, do you think Kinsey’s sexual experiments on prepubescent kids were pedophilia? Why are women pedophile’s rare? Why are women rapists rare? Are their gay rapists? Are there lesbian rapists?
Jinto: I am neither familiar with Kinsey, nor do I wish to be. And you are the one who said I can’t understand homosexuality anymore than I can understand someone that sexually abuses a child. You made the analogy, now you fucking deal with it.
dk: People can’t understand one another at all apart from the moral law that governs them. In a secular sense the moral law orders the nuclear family, and by extension orders a nation or civilization suitable for social, economic and political intercourse.

dk: This whole discussion’s about a hypothetical, gay marriage
Jinto: Hypothetical? It's been legal in the Netherlands since April 1, 2001 (and no, it wasn't an april fools joke). You will notice the distinct lack of the collapse of civilization. I'm just asking us to apply the same principle here. And frankly, your hypothetical situation has no grounding in reality.
dk: The population of Netherlands is about 16million people, about the population of LA and 2/3 of NYC metropolitan areas. The Netherlands has taken a unique approach to social ills, they simply institutionalize them in the name of tolerance. Netherlands like the rest of Western Europe can’t raise enough children to maintain infrastructure, field an army to protect its borders, or replace a retiring labor force. In the 1980-90s the failing workforce compelled the Netherlands to allow increasing numbers of Muslim immigrants. . Interestingly enough in 2002 a new political party rose to prominence with a distinctly anti-immigrant attitude, and the party’s founder, Fortuyn, was assassinated two weeks before the election, “Fortuyn sought in immigrants and naturalizing citizens. His approach could be summed up as: we will tolerate you so long as you are, like us, tolerant in every way. In an interview with the BBC he explained that Muslims in the Netherlands are, in his view, intolerant -- of homosexuals and women, in particular. Their presence in the country, and role in debates, could undermine the high level of tolerance (some call it permissiveness) which the society has attained, and which most within it appreciate.” ----- http://www.migrationinformation.org/...play.cfm?ID=43 . Truth stranger than fiction.

dk: I appreciate your concern, but my bailiwick and hostility regards gays marriage, not gay people.
Jinto: I don't care if it concerns invisible pink unicorns, the fact that you would kill over the passing of a simple law is evidence enough of your paranoia.
dk: I know you don’t care.

Jinto: In conclusion, dk has shown that he is unable to respond to any of my arguments and is being deliberately dense in order to avoid conceding the debate. You have relied on fallacies of misdirection, ad hominem, false generalizations, argument from emotion, argument from force, strawmen, slippery slope, tu quoque and the good old standby: the invincible wall of willful ignorance. Frankly, unless you can actually formulate a response without using any of these fallacies, I really don't see the point in continuing debate. Good fucking luck.
dk: Good idea because you haven’t made an argument.

yguy

I knew you'd swerve into some element of truth sooner or later.

Indeed, there are people who get a feeling of self-worth out of helping others - which needs that they are in constant need of people who NEED help. That is, if those people should become independent so as to no longer need their help, they feel empty and useless.

Tell me, do you think Jesus got an "inner glow" when Peter denied Him? You think the firefighters and police who died saving others on 9/11 got an "inner glow" as they were being crushed to death? They didn't give a damn about how it made them feel - they just did it because they loved their fellow men and women.

Kimpatsu

Being gay is not a problem, except in the minds of homophobes like you.

Kimpatsu

Everything I say is truth. I am the most enlightened person you will ever meet. For example, most people on these boards want a bigot like you shot, but I'm in favour of a more enlightened approach, such as life imprisonment or banishment to the moon.
Who's Jesus? The Mexican guy who runs the bodega at the end of my block?
The brave men and women who gave their lives on 9/11 didn't go in expecting to die; they recognised the possibility, but weren't embracing martyrdom, so your question is meaningless.

yguy

This contradicts what I said how, exactly?

Kimpatsu

You were talking about the warm glow of satisfaction experienced by those undergoing suffering for a higher cause.
And I still want to know what the Mexican bodega has to do with it.

dk

Assuming homophobe is short for homophobia, like acrophobia, kleptophobia, claustrophobia, but much more dangerous. It would appear you believe that anyone opposed to gay marriage suffers from a mental illness. That's an interesting take. The logical course might be to force medicate or intern such people, for psychological processing (treatment) of course. The health solution sounds positively Orwellian. What's are your thoughts?

Kimpatsu

"Homophobe" is someone who suffers from homophobia, just as someone who suffers from agoraphobia is an agoraphobe, and a sufferer from arachnophobia is an arachnophobe. Debate with me and double your vocabulary! Learn two more words!
All phobias are irrational mental diseases. That's why they're called phobias. Some phobics are quite content not to seek medical treatment, and as long as their irrationality doesn't adversely affect other people, that's their choice. When did I ever advocate mandating treatment? However, you are advocating denial of spousal rights and equality to gays. This has a negative effect on their lives, and as such, cannot be tolerated.
Do you advocate medical treatment to "cure" homosexuality?