Can someone explain this logic to me?

[m9lc]

Statement: Many gay people live promiscuous lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, we cannot allow gay people to participate in a declaration of commitment to one another.

 

[Fear]

It's a crappy justification for bigotry.

 

[.Sabre.]

It's not logic. It's just senselessness.

 

[gwenmead]

Can someone explain this logic to me?

Statement: Many gay people live promiscuous lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, we cannot allow gay people to participate in a declaration of commitment to one another.

The reasoning makes sense if you judge homosexuality to be morally wrong, and wish to see gay people punished for their behavior by being denied a legal status you yourself can self-righteously enjoy.

Really, though, it's a stupid non sequitur. And a lousy excuse for bigotry. (Not that I can think of any good excuses for bigotry.)

 

[PassionFruit]

It's just stupid and a foolish excuse to discriminate towards people.

 

[Redac]

There's no logic there at all. It's just a stupid excuse for people to be hateful towards others.
​

 

[BlackBerry]

It's a crappy justification for bigotry.

Agreed.

 

[platzapS]

Statement: Many gay people live promiscuous lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, we cannot allow gay people to participate in a declaration of commitment to one another.

It's a counterproductive view. If you really wanted just to promote long-lasting monogamous relationships, you should encourage gays to get married, and accept/applaud gay couples when they come to a dinner party together and announce they've been faithfully dating each other for many years.

If heterosexuality was scorned (assume babies were created in a lab), heterosexuals were not allowed to marry, and announcing that you're dating a member of the opposite sex was enough to get you kicked out of the house, then most straight sex would probably come from bathroom trolling and "glory holes" in the back of pornographic bookstores.

 

[NavyGuy7]

It's a counterproductive view. If you really wanted just to promote long-lasting monogamous relationships, you should encourage gays to get married, and accept/applaud gay couples when they come to a dinner party together and announce they've been faithfully dating each other for many years.

But I can't do that (the encouraging part) because to do so, I'd have to go against what I believe to be right. I couldn't justify doing so in my mind. I just believe it to be a desecration of something sacred.... although those "shotgun" weddings in Vegas aren't all that much better... ugh....

If heterosexuality was scorned (assume babies were created in a lab), heterosexuals were not allowed to marry, and announcing that you're dating a member of the opposite sex was enough to get you kicked out of the house, then most straight sex would probably come from bathroom trolling and "glory holes" in the back of pornographic bookstores.

LOL. That made me laugh. Hoo boy. I seriously do not think that would ever happen. Wow.... *wipes tears from eyes*. Too bad, too bad. But many people have the same moral conviction I do.. and "we" are not about to let the human race come to such an end.

I don't say this just because. I say this because, well, heterosexuality is a natural part of human nature. Homosexuality, however, is not. Were it not for some of the lies society pressures on people, combined with our form of communication today (i.e. TV, radio, telephone... etc.), I'd think most people would be... well, preferring the company of the opposite sex. I'd say this whole paragraph you typed is a work of fiction. Could never realistically happen. Sorry to criticize you so.. but I just don't think it's possible.

Not to mention, i don't think we'll ever be successful in cloning a human being like how we think. Even if you cloned the body, you can't clone what makes us human. But that's a discussion for another time.

*Rides off on his noble steed out into the sunset, thus leaving the thread, for now....*

I apologize if I have offended anyone, btw.

 

[sister_maynard]

The example isn't about realism- it's making a point about the natural form that relations take when those relations are shunned by society.
How do you resolve the conflict for yourself, then- am I correct in hazarding a guess that gay people should abstain or push themselves into therapy with highly dubious success rates and methods?

 

[Beanieboy]

Statement: Many gay people live promiscuous lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, we cannot allow gay people to participate in a declaration of commitment to one another.

It's faulty in a number of ways.

It negates itself, suggesting that the negative (promiscuity) is bad, which can certainly be discouraged by marriage.

It sets up a double standard. Heterosexuals are promiscous. Men will brag about how many women they have had sex with, and use it to define their manhood. Wilt Chamberlain once bragged that he has had sex with at least 10,000 women, and yet, no one has a problem with that. You watch a TV show, like Cheers, where Sam Malone has shallow sex with countless women, and think, "That's so cute" or "boys will be boys."

Then it is seen as completely different with homosexuals.

So, on the good side, the anti-gay marriage proponents have no ability to debate, and those who do can't come up with any good reason why gays should be denied this right to marry.

The end of the human race? Are you serious? Do you think that legalizing gay marriage is going to make everyone gay?

 

[JGG]

I don't say this just because. I say this because, well, heterosexuality is a natural part of human nature. Homosexuality, however, is not.

That's a real tough sell considering...well, reality.

Were it not for some of the lies society pressures on people, combined with our form of communication today (i.e. TV, radio, telephone... etc.), I'd think most people would be... well, preferring the company of the opposite sex.

Except that there have been, and still homosexuals in reigions, and cultures where there are no TV's, radios, and telephones. Not to mention homosexuality obviously pre-dates all of these things. It isn't as though homosexuality is something new and recent.

 

[TheOutsider]

I don't say this just because. I say this because, well, heterosexuality is a natural part of human nature. Homosexuality, however, is not.

You must have some weird definition of "human nature" that the rest of us do not know.

Were it not for some of the lies society pressures on people, combined with our form of communication today (i.e. TV, radio, telephone... etc.), I'd think most people would be... well, preferring the company of the opposite sex.

People catch Teh Ghey from using the telephone? That's a new one to me.

 

[Pwnerer]

It's not logic. It's just senselessness.

Not only that but it is a Straw Man. I've never met a pro-marriage type who says people with SSA can't make a statement of commitment to eachother. They have no problem with that. What they do have a problem with is giving the right to all individuals to enter into a marriage contract with someone of the same gender.

 

[.Sabre.]

Not only that but it is a Straw Man. I've never met a pro-marriage type who says people with SSA can't make a statement of commitment to eachother. They have no problem with that. What they do have a problem with is giving the right to all individuals to enter into a marriage contract with someone of the same gender.

Yep. You are right.

Strawman=one of my favorite fallacies. I have a radar for it.

 

[Inviolable]

It's not bigotry. If being ignorant leads to bigotry then I'm seeing it in the people who claim it is.

Christians do what they can to avoid sin. It's who we are.
If you cant accept it then I'd certainly say you have a tendency for bigotry yourself.
Underlining one of the things Christians believe in and separating it from everything else to make your acts of bigotry sound morally acceptable is just another form of ignorance.
Here is the reason and response Christians give,

From GotQuestions.org

Question: "What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?"

Answer: The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When a person continues in sin and disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.

God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that a person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27), and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for then to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality.

However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

Lets not forget that it says, "According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation"

 

[Inviolable]

That's a real tough sell considering...well, reality.

Whats reality say about homosexuality?
Besides what the APA says which is majorly influenced by the gay and lesbian community. I'd say every single hetero person I have ever talked to has very plainly stated they wouldn't enjoy sex with someone of the same gender in the least. Even pro gay hetero's admit to it.
So is the reality that is influenced by someone better then the reality that people admit to freely?

 

[Caylin]

It's not bigotry. If being ignorant leads to bigotry then I'm seeing it in the people who claim it is.

Its not bigotry! Its just not allowing a group of people to have certain rights because I think what they are doing is wrong based on my 2000 year old book!

 

[Pwnerer]

That's a real tough sell considering...well, reality.

I'm having a hard time with this. As I recall the biological purpose of sex is reproduction, right? So how does same sex attraction fit into that? What biological purpose does homosexuality serve when there isn't even a biological counterpart to it?

 

[Pwnerer]

Its not bigotry! Its just not allowing a group of people to have certain rights because I think what they are doing is wrong based on my 2000 year old book!

What group, and what rights? And BTW the teachings of Hinduism are more than 2000 years old, so you're off the mark with that.