"Sorry mate.. you have zero credibility because you cannot address the clearly morally superior arguments of Proxy...
The case is closed and the argument won by those who care about the texture, shape and morality of our society. I.e...those WITH an argument, such as Proxy and myself and I'm sure, others."
-ALGOREisRICH

ROFLMAO.

"David..here is how it works.
POSITION=> IMPLICATIONS
E.G."
-ALGOREisRICH

Wow, who taught you this 'logic'? The logic that philosophers use and teach involves conclusions being drawn from premisses. I've never heard the terms postion and implication being used in this manner, which leads me to suspect that you haven't actually studied any logic at all. Isn't it awfully arrogant of you to assume that you know more about the subject than somebody who has actually studied it?

"but by reasoning which any philosophy 101 student would agree is 'completely appropriate'."
-ALGOREisRICH

ROFLMAO. Proxy's appalling reasoning takes this form:

(1) Homosexuality is morally equivalent to bestiality, necrophilia and other forms of rape.
(2) We don't allow those who practise bestiality to marry animals.

Therefore: We should not allow homosexuals to get married.

Which would be a sound argument, were it not for the fact that premise (1) is false. Homosexuality is not morally equivalent to bestiality etc.; it is morally equivalent to heterosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality. The only people I've ever encountered who believe homosexuality is morally equivalent to rape appear to be Proxy and yourself (which makes you a smaller minority than Holocaust deniers, though just as erroneous), and I have my suspicions that you only cling to this demonstrably false belief because it validates Proxy's dodgy syllogism.

ALGOREisRICH,

You and Proxy are incapable of logical discussion. Possibly because of a susceptibility to cultural/religious indoctrination coupled with a genetic propensity towards gullibility.

I would think that opinion would have a consensus amongst rational people who frequent these forums.

That you can't see this, certainly indicates a comprehension problem or an inability to think outside your own thoughts.

That may or may not be curable.

David

I was not the one who used the false rape analogy.
I have never discussed homosexuality in terms of morality.

"And they were all issues on which, in the progressive circles that controlled public discourse, only one point of view was permitted. All dissent was mocked, vilified, and treated as totally beyond the pale. But since that dissent very often consisted of stating the facts in the face of ideology, prejudice or even – as with the deranged and obsessional hysteria against Israel – genocidal bigotry, reason itself along with the defense of life and liberty seemed to be turning into truths that dared not speak their name.

Please don’t mistake me – I’m not saying that there aren’t legitimate differences of opinion on such issues. But what I’m talking about goes beyond genuine disagreement. I’m talking about the sheer impossibility of bringing facts and evidence to the table, as it were, because the ‘progressives‘ hold that there simply cannot be any alternative to their ‘received truth’. They are in short impervious to reason, so that those who try to inject some evidence or alternative ways of thinking into the debate are demonized as evil or insane. These ideologies rest very often upon distortions, fabrications and lies, and yet intimidate opposition into silence. And that’s very frightening. It’s a totalitarian mindset."

The World Turned Upside Down
Melanie Phillips
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/11/18/the-world-turned-upside-down/

"I was not the one who used the false rape analogy.
I have never discussed homosexuality in terms of morality."
-Proxy

Really? I could have sworn you did. But there is nothing wrong with changing your mind. So let's see your new argument against gay marriage, expressed in proper logical form, i.e.:

(1) Some premise
(2) Another premise
(3) And just keep on adding premisses until you have all that you need to establish your conlusion.

Therefore: Conclusion

A clever bloke like you should have no trouble doing that.

Another reason that homosexual activists don't want a referendum on "gay""marriage"
and another victory for the people and decency:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=223585

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg