Spain 3rd country to legalize Homosexual Marriage

[vern]

---

I think you are mistaken. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is basically saying, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." That is NOT present in my argument.

Yes, because obviously assuming that pedophilia, bestiality, and all sorts of things will follow if same-*** marriage is allowed is not what you are getting at. This is not logic as you claim it to be. At best, it is opinion and other countries clearly disagree with your opinion and believe it or not, all these horrendous acts happen with less frequency there. If logic was followed, then same *** marriage would discourage these other "activities" since countries who have allowed same *** marriage arguably are the richer countries and are not places notorious for such "activities". Countries on the other hand such as Malaysia are great havens for child prostitution but strictly disallow same *** marriages for the plain fact that it is an Islamic country. This is LOGIC by way of example, not logic by way of assumption that one is inevitable and must follow another ... hence Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

[seven_segment]

Let them enjoy their rights as we enjoy our rights. They are also human like us. They didn't choose to be that way. If ikaw ang bading and your are being discriminated what will you do? If ikaw ang naging bayot, or imo tatay, brother or uncle how would you feel that they are being called sinners? Besides, wala sa 10 commandments ang about homosexuality. In the Bible, there are little things about homosexuals. Out of 100% writting in the Bible, I think mga 3% ra ang gi discuss about homosexuals.

Good luck~

is there a right to have *** with same ***?

sa bible it was Eve and Adam nga gisugo sa Ginoo to -go and"multiply"-

it means pag-jerjer para maka multiply dili for the sake of pleasure...

wa man musuo nga -'go and have "pleasures"-

the reason Why God made it "lami" kay kung gasakit2x lang na...way plano ang mga tawo

mu-multiply...kahasol ba mudala for 9 months nya sakit2x pa jud ug sugod...haha


but anyway, for those who don't believe in God...who dont have such principle...

bisag ang logic na lang na "like poles repels" + sperm to sperm dili jud na ka-create ug family...

[Kishin888]

pasagdahi na sila ... ilaha ng kinabuhi .... WA TAY LABOT ANA NILA

[pinoyapache]

..hahahahaha..unsa mana nga reasoning bai?!..

..kay wala lage kay bayot na parente against ka sa homo marriage?..pero, kung naa kay parente na bayot di na ka against ana?..lolz..

Against gihapon. Di ko motunga sa ilaha invitation. Pakaulaw lang na sa pangan amo kaliwat. Kun naa man gani. Naa ra ba gyud. Paeta. Pero lagyo na.

[mannyamador]

Yes, because obviously assuming that pedophilia, bestiality, and all sorts of things will follow if same-*** marriage is allowed is not what you are getting at.

Like I said, that is NOT a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. My argument does NOT depend on the sequence in time. It depends, rather, on the same logic being applied. There is a huge difference. Your analysis is simply wrong. You do not undertand what post hoc, ergo propter hoc means.

Now, you can question whether acceptance of the logic of the arguments for same-s3x marriage will actually lead to certain events. I'm fine with that, as that is in the realm of speculation.

But that is NOT my argument either. My argument focuses only on the logic being used. And, from a logical poitn of view, if you grant one group the right to redefine marriage to accommodate their sexual orientation, then you must grant the same right to others as well.

Take note that there are already very disturbing moves in the U.S. psychiatric/medical community to normalize pedophilia:

• In 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child *** entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy." One writer in this issue said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve "miracles... not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them"!!! And that a "loving pedophile" can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62). A professor of social science at the State University of New York says he looks forward to the day when Americans will "get over their hysteria about child abuse" (p. 325) and child pornography.
  
  
• The American Psychological Association A.P.A. Published a study claiming that not all pedophile relationships are harmful!
  
  
• American Psychiatric Association also redefined the criteria for pedophilia. Their diagnostic manual (DSM--IV) says that a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. It looks like the A.P.A. has left room for the "psychologically normal" pedophile.

Just as homosexuality was slowly normalized, it seems that pedophilia is going the same way. I think that accepting the logic that allows groups to redefine things such as marriage or pathological behavior to accommodate their sexual orientation will have such an effect.

Marriage is already under attack, and is slowly crumbling. Why should we allow yet another move that may undermine it further and faster?

[vern]

But that is NOT my argument either. My argument focuses only on the logic being used. And, from a logical poitn of view, if you grant one group the right to redefine marriage to accommodate their sexual orientation, then you must grant the same right to others as well.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Just as homosexuality was slowly normalized, it seems that pedophilia is going the same way. I think that accepting the logic that allows groups to redefine things such as marriage or pathological behavior to accommodate their sexual orientation will have such an effect

post hoc, ergo propter hoc

[mannyamador]

post hoc, ergo propter hoc

You're still making the same mistake. Look it up, sir.

[vipvip68]

Lisod ni sabton from the point of view sa mga dili gay or lesbian.

So if you guys wanna understand it from their point of view... pagpa bayot ug tomboy sa mo.


I think there's a fine line between something thats legal and something thats morally right.

Legal would be something that does not affect the rights of others. Moral would be something that follows people's beliefs and standard way of living which in different cultures is subject to change (i.e. muslims can have 4 wives)

Legalizing homosexual marriage I think does not deprive anyone else of his rights and should be legal. It is up to the others to judge for themselves the morality of such acts based on their own religious affinity and moral compass.

[kumquat69]

it would be good a solution for the population growth in the country together with the reproductive health bill

and sa mga lake na naa pay pa "yuck2x!" ani, kamo mismo mga bayot mo! since, stereotype perception na man inyong pang huna2x...naa ba moy madunggan na straight na mo-express ug "yuck" sa iyang reaction, mga bayot ra man ug babae ang naay expression na ing-ana. GAYS IN DENIAL! you think by saying something like that would make you feel straight?! huh! b!tch

and for the people who thinks so much of religion that it is against the bible and blah blah blah! we go and multiply. maka huna2x ra mo ana, because you've never been a part of a big family and living below poverty. kita mo anang mga naa squatter areas mga bata na yagi au tan-aw, nang burot na ang tiyan tungod sa bitok, or kung dili bukog nalang nahabilin tungod sa pagka malnourish! IS THAT THE CONCEPT of "GO and MULTIPLY?!". applicable pa ba na ha?!.. i am not against the teaching of the bible, but there are some that is not parallel my principle and i do believe in god. God knows how much i work my ass out to be in a stable position, to take myself away from that hell. but for you, who are so much concerned with the religion, well DAMN YOU!. you dont know how it feels to be in that position coz you live in a comfortable life. you only how to sympathize! that's all you can do! just to feel pity and still keep your mind in the stereotypes of our society!

some of you think that gays are to be condemned because of what is in the bible and that GOD is against!. really?! YOU NEVER KNOW JESUS AT ALL!. do you think HE will condemn us because of our preferences? do you think he will send wrath to us because of what we are?! you only think a GOD that is all about punishments!
the GOD i know is a loving one, accepts me of what i am and never denies me as HIS child! I may have committed sins but being gay is not a sin! it is a preference! if we sin! then all those FAT people also have sinned! coz they prefer to eat to their hearts content and GLUTTONY is one of the 7 deadly sins.

someone said, that we come here and multiply not to experience pleasure! speak for yourself! didn't you take pleasure on masturbation? didn't you enjoy squirting it out?! YOU speak so righteous because you think that you are a follower of GOD. but i know i reality that you only do so FEW good deeds on your fellowmen. you are so much concerned with christian values that you forgot the second most important commandment of GOD "love your neighbor as you love yourself", but you never did live up to this commandment!.

[pinoyapache]

Yuck! What a dilemma I am into. Yuck! Hahahaha...stray bullets