If You Believe Homosexual Acts Are Immoral, Why Are You Labeled a "homophobe"?

You are notorious for not backing up your claims until I hound you a couple of posts and then you become rather testy about it.

Just back your claims up from the beginning and you won't have to constantly do damage control.

BTW I see nothing that proves anybody lied. You have complained about this now for two days and fail to prove anything.

- - - Updated - - -

It's called holding your feet to the fire. I rather like watching you squirm.

 

My claim was backed up when I first quoted the court case and provided the link.

 

I read that the first 900 times you posted it. Haven't seen proof.

 

Just like racism. Just like sexism. And on and on and on.

 

I agree, it's become so benign for me to be called a racist that when somebody does call me that I simply say yeah yeah, I know I know. It's basically powerless.

My brother thinks that my relationship is immoral, but he doesn't really say any thing about it. I don't consider him a homophobe.

 

so you post this

in response to me, in the comment preceding this one and you state that someone else is "hanging on"

 

The quoted comment was in response to Poly, einstein

- - - Updated - - -

The quoted court case is the proof that you cannot see because you are blinded by your ideology.

 

Yet I got a notification that you had quoted me .. hmm go figure.

BTW: Still incorrect You put "Fugazi Claims", which should be "Fugazi Claimed"

 

Poly demanded that I point out the lie, and I quoted your post that contained the lie.

Youve said nothing to indicate otherwise until just now.

 

So you don't count my public apology at my mistake as an indication that I was wrong, what do you want blood.

 

Only thing you said was that you didnt see the link. Never admitted to being wrong about ANYTHING, other than the fact that I did post a link.

 

I read that the first 901 times you posted it. Haven't seen proof.

 

You would have to read the quote from the court case in order to see.

 

Nope, it's your claim you do the legwork.

 

what I said was

notice the comma, the apology was for not only missing the link offered but for the rest as well.

 

I already have.

 

See if you can convince Poly of "the rest as well".

 

Not my problem, I've offered my apology to you for my mistake .. I still maintain your position is one based on outdated definitions and old court cases used simply to justify your failing opinion.

 

Since the debate is

Any court case or definition less tha 1000 years, isnt "outdated" or "old".

 

In that case then the documented same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain that occurred on 16 April 1061, where they were married by a priest at a small chapel, is still relevant and shows your insistence that marriage has historically 'always' been between a man and a woman is false. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.

Furthermore any court case or definition that has been superseded by later court cases and definitions are outdated and old, or didn't you realise that new cases and definitions render older cases and definitions pretty much obsolete, add to this that your whole opinion is based on historical standings which is an appeal to tradition fallacy;

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age
Description of Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer. Second, sticking with things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older and traditional things out of laziness. Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy.

It should not be assumed that new things must be better than old things (see the fallacy Appeal to Novelty) any more than it should be assumed that old things are better than new things. The age of something does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context). In the case of tradition, assuming that something is correct just because it is considered a tradition is poor reasoning. For example, if the belief that 1+1 = 56 were a tradition of a group of people it would hardly follow that it is true.

Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that aged wine would be better than brand new wine, he would not be committing an Appeal to Tradition. This is because, in such cases the age of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the age is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim.

One final issue that must be considered is the "test of time." In some cases people might be assuming that because something has lasted as a tradition or has been around a long time that it is true because it has "passed the test of time." If a person assumes that something must be correct or true simply because it has persisted a long time, then he has committed an Appeal to Tradition. After all, as history has shown people can persist in accepting false claims for centuries.

However, if a person argues that the claim or thing in question has successfully stood up to challenges and tests for a long period of time then they would not be committing a fallacy. In such cases the claim would be backed by evidence. As an example, the theory that matter is made of subatomic particles has survived numerous tests and challenges over the years so there is a weight of evidence in its favor. The claim is reasonable to accept because of the weight of this evidence and not because the claim is old. Thus, a claim's surviving legitimate challenges and passing valid tests for a long period of time can justify the acceptance of a claim. But mere age or persistance does not warrant accepting a claim.

 

Noooo. Gay marriage in 2004 doesnt retroactively change the meaning of marriage back 1000 years, silly. And pointing back to the 1000 years of history to refute assertions about those thousand years, isnt an appeal to tradition. Its a grasp upon reality.

 

I don't see it.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay than, so marriage between two people off the same sex wouldn't be out dated either.

 

so then you using the word Gay is in fact incorrect, as your incorrect usage doesn't retroactively change the meaning of gay back 600 years, silly.

Yet we have gay marriage dating back to 1061, so in reality your 2004 date is just you ignoring evidence that does not support your ideology.

Its still an appeal to tradition no matter how you try to swing it. If it is not an appeal to tradition then prove it isn't.

 

Took Fugazi 3 days before he could see it. For you it could be months. Maybe never.

 

Is this a real justification? A thousand years ago, you wouldn't recognize English.