Toribash
Originally Posted by Aracoon View Post
They are denied marriage by their peers through fear of endangerment in the middle east. They have also stoned gay people to death and sawed their heads off. You never stated "... legally prevents gays from getting married,"

You can be in a gay marriage in the middle east, it is just not good for self preservation. If you don't want to then your it is your fear of death that is preventing the marriage, not the country.

Getting married and being married are different things, please acknowledge that. You can get married in America and move to the middle east and you are still married.

Sure being dead prevents the continuation of the marriage, but again, it is avoidable in some cases and therefore is not country-wide.
-----
On a side note: you should be winning this argument Aracoon, you have been too busy feeling sorry for gay people to notice the gaps in logic pig has made in quite a few of his arguments. Why did you ignore the "thought policing" argument he made? I swear that one was v. far fetched.
Last edited by Zelda; Sep 20, 2015 at 01:59 PM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
you have been too busy feeling sorry for gay people to notice the gaps in logic pig has made in quite a few of his arguments.

I think this is the problem with discussion forums. When you argue for logics/arguments sake you make simply retarded statements that have nothing to do with the real world (read every immortal pigs post). Sure in some idea world where only theory is applied, some of the arguments pig has used might work or be realistic. But in the real world, everything he has said thus far has been utterly wrong. I don't know if pig is playing the devils advocate or if he's just dumb, I can't tell but all the arguments he has made have either been based on semantics or some abstract philosophical ideas (and usually filled with logical fallacies)
To me this kind of discussion is banal, sure it gives more to talk about, but the quality of the discussion is simply worse. Especially when the other person is grounded in reality and the other isnt.

EDIT: Some homophobes paranoid rants are not exactly top notch discussion material to begin with.
Last edited by cowmeat; Sep 20, 2015 at 03:56 PM.
Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
I think this is the problem with discussion forums. When you argue for logics/arguments sake you make simply retarded statements that have nothing to do with the real world (read every immortal pigs post). Sure in some idea world where only theory is applied, some of the arguments pig has used might work or be realistic. But in the real world, everything he has said thus far has been utterly wrong. I don't know if pig is playing the devils advocate or if he's just dumb, I can't tell but all the arguments he has made have either been based on semantics or some abstract philosophical ideas.
To me that kind of discussion is banal, sure it gives more to talk about, but the quality of the discussion is simply worse. Especially when the other person is grounded in reality and the other isnt.

logic doesn't apply to the real world

My arguments are 100% logical and grounded in reality, making sweeping statements like "they are logical but have nothing to do with the real world" or "semantics and philosophy are bad" or "I don't like it, thus it is bad" are not productive at all.

If you want to discuss, then discuss. If you don't want to, then don't. How hard is that?

Originally Posted by tantoehard View Post
Denying gay marriage is pretty gay imo

Ayy u the real mvp fam, but you gonna get deleted.

Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
EDIT: Some homophobes delirious rants are not exactly top notch discussion material to begin with.

Oh shit, spare me the flames buddy. Saying you don't like X is allowed, but flaming can get you banned.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Well since the legit answer is gonna get deleted apparently, I shall give an even more legit answer. No matter your believes you should follow the law, no book on this planet will give you the right to disobey it. However, you can quit your job if it requires you to do something against your believes. But this does not make you a hero in any way, but it also doesn't make you a criminal.

TL;DR? As a gay guy I think people should think before they pick a job.
Last edited by Zelda; Sep 20, 2015 at 04:10 PM. Reason: Fixed smiley.
Nothing is as beautiful as mediocricy
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Ayy u the real mvp fam, but you gonna get deleted.

Originally Posted by tantoehard View Post
Well since the legit answer is gonna get deleted apparently, I shall give an even more legit answer.

Yeah, sorry, I know it sucks.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by tantoehard View Post
Well since the legit answer is gonna get deleted apparently, I shall give an even more legit answer. No matter your believes you should follow the law, no book on this planet will give you the right to disobey it. However, you can quit your job if it requires you to do something against your believes. But this does not make you a hero in any way, but it also doesn't make you a criminal.

TLR? As a gay guy I think people should think before they pick a job.

Well she had the job BEFORE the change came into effect, it's not like she picked the job knowing that she wouldn't be able to do it. So "think before you pick a job" isn't really very useful.

I agree with you about law is law, but law is not morality.
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
Yeah, sorry, I know it sucks.

So don't do it then? lol
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
If you want to discuss, then discuss. If you don't want to, then don't. How hard is that?

Discussion with a brick wall isn't very fruitful. With statements like "my arguments are 100% logical and based in reality" I highly doubt you would ever listen to anyone else than yourself; or someone who agrees with you. Ive yet to see a post here that isn't basically "Immortalpig is wrong and here's why" followed by more insane rebuttals that are "100% logical and based in reality"

I do like discussion as much as the next guy, that is why I'm here, but you are effectively ruining this discussion. It's like you're vomiting all over the board and when people get tired of shoveling vomit back and forth, you declare yourself a victor.
Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
Discussion with a brick wall isn't very fruitful. With statements like "my arguments are 100% logical and based in reality" I highly doubt you would ever listen to anyone else than yourself; or someone who agrees with you. Ive yet to see a post here that isn't basically "Immortalpig is wrong and here's why" followed by more insane rebuttals that are "100% logical and based in reality"

I do like discussion as much as the next guy, that is why I'm here, but you are effectively ruining this discussion. It's like you're vomiting all over the board and when people get tired of shoveling vomit back and forth, you declare yourself a victor.

Maybe you care too much about "winning" mate, you are not required to reply to my posts, you are not required to try and force people to agree with you. It's like you have some compulsion to be right and win every thread, who cares if the discussion isn't fruitful or someone doesn't agree with you?

You know how much I care when someone doesn't agree with me? Not at all - in fact I prefer that people disagree because it furthers the discussion.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
Discussion with a brick wall isn't very fruitful. With statements like "my arguments are 100% logical and based in reality" I highly doubt you would ever listen to anyone else than yourself; or someone who agrees with you. Ive yet to see a post here that isn't basically "Immortalpig is wrong and here's why" followed by more insane rebuttals that are "100% logical and based in reality"

I do like discussion as much as the next guy, that is why I'm here, but you are effectively ruining this discussion. It's like you're vomiting all over the board and when people get tired of shoveling vomit back and forth, you declare yourself a victor.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Maybe you care too much about "winning" mate, you are not required to reply to my posts, you are not required to try and force people to agree with you. It's like you have some compulsion to be right and win every thread, who cares if the discussion isn't fruitful or someone doesn't agree with you?

You know how much I care when someone doesn't agree with me? Not at all - in fact I prefer that people disagree because it furthers the discussion.

Created another thread for this... so get back to gay stuff please.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Lol name even 1 country that would prevent gays from being married, at any point in history, and I'll concede you that point the entire argument.

Can you do that?

all countries.


I already listed a bunch of very famous gay people that got married in the 20th century, read thread pls.

no you didnt.

1.Salvador Dali, a straight man who married 2 differnet women
2.Elton John, married in 2014 (not the 20th century) the year gay marriage was legalised in the UK
3.Freddie Mercury, was never married to a man.

please name me some more people who got married in the 20th century.


lol ok mate, fyi we are up 100% iPhone 6 ownership from a decade ago too. iPhone 6 inequality C O N F I R M E D.

what are you on about?

Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
I didn't say that, we do not know whether the number of gay couples per country is uniformly spread across all countries.

Im not honestly too sure what relevance this point has, but from your link:


like I said ~90%.



@immortalpig, the basis of the argument we are having is that you say
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
People have always had equal marriage rights regardless of sexuality

50 years ago gay marriage was illegal everywhere in the world. Ergo you are in fact saying that having no right to marriage is the same as having a right to marriage.

which as you said yourself is contradictory and noonsensical.
Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.