| |
AngelofRelief Torrent_Of_Octane AngelofRelief The_Broken_Angel_Of_Time Torrent_Of_Octane
Bullshit. Please show proof of age and the way people vote are related. I'm 21 and I'm against gay marriage. I know old 60 somethings that are for gay marriage.
My grandma just turned 60 and she's for gay marriage. My friend who is... 16 is against gay marriage. So, I agree with Octane.
Apparently you two fail to see the correlation in the generation gaps. I did not say that everyone was that way, by all means I don't support gay marriage, however to deny that it will happen would simply be denying the inevitable truth. Take Civil Rights; originally such a thought was unheard of and considered blasphemous, however in our day and age equality among races has become more and more socially acceptable. Are there still racists and bigots? By all means yes, however most of us have progressed past that and see each other as equal.
Appeal to history and incorrect comparesent. First off, race and homosexuality cannot be compared as you have. Sexual deviency cannot be compared to race. The second is just because it happened before is not a guarantee that it will happen again.
AngelofRelief Now the fact that I have to explain the "baby boomer" situation is just downright despicable, shame on the both of you for not knowing your history. It is not news that the percentage of religious people back in the day was much higher than it is now, these people were raised on hard-lined morals and developed a strong sense of right and wrong.
You act like religion was the only reason people are against gay marriage. Again, its up to you to provide the sources of your claim of two thing.
1. Percentage of religious people are higher in the past than now.
2. Percentage of non-religious anti-gay voter ratio against religious anti-gay voter.
3. Then cross examine proportionally (very important that its a proportion figure) both of the source to come up with an analysis of your claim. However I strongly suspect you just pulled that statement out of your a** without validating it just because "it seems like so".
AngelofRelief Many of these people were hold extremely Christian morals and as such are not quite as tolerant of homosexuality.
Sure many do, but again you have ignored non-religious and non-christian voters that is also against homosexuality. I for example was not raised Christian, but I'm still against gay marriage.
AngelofRelief Also note that the "Baby Boom" was started do to a fear of another world war and thus the people felt the need to populate the Earth as much as possible.
Hoo, boy... You know what I'm going to ask right now... because I heard a very different story regarding this.
AngelofRelief Now take our generation, we find that more and more people in our generation are not necessarily brought up to believe that homosexuality is wrong, thus many will either find it acceptable, or they have a "who gives a s**t" mentality. Let us also not forget that the older generation outnumbers ours by the masses.
One more thing, you're entire argument rests on several fallacies. You're assuming that the way people are raised are the way they will vote. You're assuming that the older population vote a certain way because of religion. On the other side, you're doing the exact same thing. You're assuming that the younger population will vote a certain way due to a lack of religious values.
Again, where are you getting these claims from?
AngelofRelief So let me put it into simple perspective for you; once many of the hard-lined Christian "baby boomers" have started to pass away, our generation will rise up and will find homosexuality either "socially acceptable" or they'll just give them their rights to make them all shut the ******** up. Now I hear what you're saying, I don't like homosexuality either, but if you look at it from a theoretical perspective and use a little something called "logic" and "analysis," you will find that gay marriage in itself is inevitable. And like I said before; I don't like gay marriage, repeat DO NOT LIKE gay marriage (although with no bias to people that are so), but cannot deny the facts that have been laid out before me.
I have pointed out serveral times where you're premises have lacked solid backing. Sure, you made a logical argument, but you're argument is not sound due to the fact that you rest on several logical fallacies and unvarifiable assumptions.
Cite, cite, cite. Statistics, statistics, statistics. If I honestly had the time or, let alone, an actual reason to copy and paste such information then I would. However the fact that you're knit-picking my arguement, and for some reason can't see a correlation in trends, leads me to the conclusion that you can't use deductive reasoning to figure this out on your own.
No. You expect me to believe a statement that you're making based on assumptions and your own personal experiences and observations.
Here: http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php
Quote: Anecdotal evidence fallacy - (Confabulation fallacy) Attempts to establish a proposition as fact or as a universal principle based solely on anecdotes, personal experience, and testimony, where no other evidence for the assertion or way to test it exists. AngelofRelief So I'll put it simply; go back in time, oh say, one hundred years and ask yourself this, "in a time when scientific knowledge hasn't yet posed a serious threat to religion, are the people as accepting of homosexuality as they will be now." If you answered yes, then you are a lost cause.
Ever herd of Greece?
AngelofRelief Homosexuality was demonized in the past due mostly to the fact that religious institutions stated that it was immoral, science had not yet played a part. If you compare science to how it was back in the day, you will find that it was almost nowhere close to providing a "logical" explanation other than a diety forming all of humanity. Today, science is the main reason why so many people turn their backs on religion. Religion typically teaches that homosexuality is downright wrong, and back then almost nobody argued that case. However, now science is gaining more and more influence while also making it harder for people to believe in their faith.
So you are still assuming that religion is the reason people are against homosexuality, more specific Christianity. I would like to point out that you ignore those that are not religious and against homosexuality as well those that are not Christians against homosexuality. Also you're assuming that the younger generations are not going to be homophobic. All I'm asking is you prove that statement and not merely use your own personal anecdotal as the basis of your argument.
AngelofRelief And if you haven't been clued in yet, atheists are typically more accepting of homosexuality because they don't have a religious institution telling them it is wrong.
Yet the same unfound statement. The bolded is the keyword.... You're using purely observations of what it seems like to you to make a statement as if it was facts.
AngelofRelief I'm not saying that all people feel this way, however you are constantly denying the fact that society progresses as it sees fit. Look at Europe, they've become socially accepting of homosexuality, the Islam states haven't because they are ruled by religion and believe homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. (Yes I'm aware the Islam states are in the middle east, I was doing a compare and contrast, before you knit-pick at that.) Europe, and America are not run by religion, therefore at some point in time homosexuals will be allowed to wed. I personally don't want to see it happen, but you are denying an inevitable fate that will eventually come to fruition.
I'm not anything. You cannot call it "fact" unless its varifiable. I'm asking you for sources to back up your statements and not merely use personal experiences and observations.
Regarding the different countries, the comparesents are invalid due to the political and social differences, not just religious difference. So you cannot pinpoint the reason to religion as there are many factors at work.
The second thing regarding this is, again, you're appealing to history. Something happening before or in another instance dont mean it must apply to this case.
|
 |
