It is the case that any adult can draw up a health care proxy document (sample forms available free on the 'net; no need for 'enough money for legal fees') and name whomever they wish as their medical decisions proxy should they be incapacitated. These documents are honored by medical personnel. Anyone can be named - your neighbor, your friend, your partner. The 'google' reference is simply wrong, unless filling in a couple of names on a form is regarded as exceptionally 'difficult'.

I question many of the other 'difficult of impossible' items on that list, too. Joint adoption? It's been happening. Name change? Anyone can change his or her name for any reason. The list has been compiled by people who have a clear bias, and it isn't entirely accurate.

The other thing I question is the bizarre wholesale feeding frenzy taking place on a forum member who a) disagrees with those who happen to be frequenting the thread and b) has the temerity to say so. So he makes an argument you don't like or agree with. Isn't this a discussion forum? Or is it really just a mutual admiration society where no one is allowed to disagree? I was told this was an interesting place full of different opinions and ideas, but what I see is a single, very narrow perspective on politics, morality, ethical issues, and religion. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to the prevailing point of view is personally attacked, insulted directly and by insinuation, and driven away (proudly) by the very angry regulars.

If disagreement on an ethical or political issue makes you foam at the mouth, shouldn't you question yourself? Or is forced groupthink the true agenda? Or is this just a forum for returning to the schoolyard - oh, wait - some members did that explicitly, didn't they? Some of the same members who also have imperfect spelling?

I just moved back from Canada, where there was and continues to be a lot of discussion about gay marriage. There was some very good debate, and people who disagreed could agree to disagree. I thought that might be the case here.

I can see that most frequent posters regard themselves as extremely broad-minded and tolerant. But if only one opinion is tolerated, that's about as provincial as it gets. Why isn't anyone here permitted to disagree with changing the definition of marriage? (Some black leaders and black groups have gone on record against gay marriage, and against the idea that it's a civil right. Why not discuss why they took that position?) Why don't we question the existence of 'diversity' and 'tolerance' programs? Aren't they an artificial imposition of someone's principles on everyone else? Does anyone here feel nervous about being 'reeducated' until our views match the prescribed politically correct one?

I don't want to debate any of these topics here, because instead of logical discussion/argument there will only be ad hominem attacks and spurious accusations. From here on I think I'll just lurk on the borders of Orwell-land.

So wait, we can discuss gay marriage, but if someone disagrees with us we arent allowed to discuss it with THEM? Okay, some people ARE attacking him, but as far as I can tell, the majority of posters are simply arguing and discussing the fact that his position is unacceptably discriminatory and homophobic.

I haven't attacked the poster in any way, but 9th continually ignores my posts. The only ones he seems to address are the ones which he finds insulting.

WTF with this permission to disagree crap? Most posters are asking 9th to defend his viewpoint, not demanding that he not state it or even that he change it. Nobody has demanded that he leave and I would expect that if polled, 100% would demand that he stay.

There are plenty of minority viewpoints here and being a long-termer means you've lived through having the minority view a couple of times. It's hard, you're actually asked to defend yourself. And if you can't defend yourself, people don't take you seriously. (While if you do, even those that disagree will respect you.)

Now, I will say that at this point, I don't respect 9th, or at least his views on this because I find being a homophobe to be on par with being in the KKK or being a neo-nazi.

I can live with any interpretation of my viewpoint, but I don't think the comparison to the KKK or neo-nazi's holds any water at all. Both of those groups advocate violence against their target groups, I haven't done anything of the sort. I choose not to overlay homosexuality with nonscientific information, but to look at it as what it most likely is, a genetic permutation in some part of the genes controlling phermone or other chemical receptors. I make no connection between that chemical shift and the person as a whole, and have no malice toward homosexual individuals.

I often don't respond to posts I don't agree with because I first spend my time responding to ones where I have a different opinion to offer. I generally don't bother to simply post an agreement, although I may make a point to from time to time now. Ali, the only time you posted anything that someone could respond to in this thread was that last post right before my massive one which was dedicated to as complete of an explanation of my view as I could fit in there.
If there was someone else arguing my point as well I'd probably be able to respond to more people directly, but as it is I'd have to spend way more time then I have right now on just this thread.

I just don't see how you can advocate discrimination against people based soley on their gender, ESPECIALLY based on their gender in relation to anybody elses. To me, that is simply, completely, utterly, and wholly wrong.

Well then, if you only have limited time to respond, I personally vote that you respond to my post. ;)

How am I discriminating based on gender?? I really don't think homosexuality is the case of a woman's mind being born into a man's body (or the other way round), but even if it was it still wouldn't be gender discrimination. You are basing your argument on the idea that the legal bond of marriage is based on love, I don't believe that. A gay man can marry a woman even if he doesn't love her (I'd take your side completely if someone suggested making sure gay men couldn't sire children), but you say that because he loves another man that he should be granted the extra right of marrying him instead. That's a big point of disagreement between us and unfortunatly I don't think that's going to change.:neutral:

So you're saying it's an ''extra" right for people to marry someone they love rather than just getting married to anyone?

I don't understand your argument.

What youre saying is sexist, at the essence of the term, because it says that we can decide who can do what with who based on gender.

That, boys and girls, is discrimination, plain and simple.

:haha: Ah, this is why you and I will probably NEVER see eye to eye on things Ali, you just posted exactly what I think and then proceded to say you don't understand it at all. I'm not comfortable with love taking a place in legality, we can't even figure out what the damn thing is but we'll legislate based on it? Besides, just look at what you said, 'the right to marry someone you love', you think that would make any sense in the constitution??

For someone so young you seem very cynical 9th.

So you think no one should get married then? Or people should only get married to 'benefit' one another in a financial sense? What?

I think Ali's point is that you're calling it an EXTRA right to be able to marry someone.

EDIT: or maybe not, but its MY point, thats for sure.

There are lots of married people on this site who're conservative or liberal, and I doubt any of them considered it an 'extra' right to marry the one they love instead of someone who might have been more 'suitable' for whatever reason there could be.

I'm not advocating marriage as just a utilitarian tool, and I certainly abhor arranged marriages, but I just don't think that writing new laws so that love can conqure all is ever going to have its intended effect. The idea of fairness in the eats at me too. If I said that two gays who love each other should be able to marry no matter what hurdles we have to deal with in the process of working that into law, then I'd be a complete hypocrite if I didn't say the same for people like polygamists and other groups that would have that same right. No matter what the consequences of the original action, those that come from further actions neccessitated by the first fall under the same catagory. I'd have to choose between being a hypocrite and making decisions that I honestly think would do more harm than good.

I do realize that I'm extremely cynical about alot of things, the reality of law and the nature of human relationships among them unfortunately. It stems from the fact that I was very idealistic early on and got hit hard by reality through highschool and my first years in college so far. At heart I'd love for everything to be as fair and balanced as possible, that's why I'm mostly a classic libertarian. I'd fight tooth and nail to keep someone from raising my taxes %X, but I harbor a fantasy about being a philanthropist and inspiring teens when I probably could have used some inspiration myself. Is it any wonder I come across as a complete misanthrope?

How can you call yourself a libertairan if you advocate the government being able to decide who you can and can't marry based on ANYTHING, whether it be sex, race, height, or eye colour?

That's the essence of a message board. I don't see how one could get much out of it otherwise.

Good post. You've defined the terms and established your position, while trying to trim the fat. But... At the end of it all, this is what I see your point being left with: when you balance "the pros and cons" of the position you factor "government pensions, tax breaks, and insurance policies" versus a big fat nothing. You attempt to evaporate the opposition viewpoint (if I may presume to lump) in a puff of peripherally related science jargon. In effect, to you: there is no opposition viewpoint. That's not a debate, that's just rhetorical masturbation.

If we follow, to it's logical conclusion, your proposal that no human emotions be considered in the crafting of our laws, then the world would be a very different place. That simply isn't realistic, and it doesn't stand to reason that a society of organisms with biological mechanisms that produce emotions would govern themselves in a sort of theoretical vacuum where thses emotions don't exist. That very idea simply represents a different kind of idealism. Pragmatism has to follow it's own rules, or it risks becoming a parody of itself.

Because unfortunately we don't live in a libertarian society, you can't make decisions based on the way you want things to be rather than taking into account the way things are and working with the system. I really don't support the perks that come along with marriage now, the best solution in my mind would be to have the government stop all involvement and let people do as they please in their own lives. If bad things came from marrying 12 other people then no one would have to clean up the mess, and if people find a way to make themselves happy then kudos to any who can figure it out. I just don't trust people not to f*&# it up for alot of other people.

EDIT... I wish you could see what other people have posted since you started writing your new post :(

If you really want to know what I think I'll tell you, but not unless you specifically want to know. lol

In my mind, and I hope in the mind of lots of other people as well, the idea of marriage is to provide a haven for two people who love each other to come together and have their union accepted by their society. For some people that involves having the union blessed by their church. If you say that those two people have to be of different sex's then you're excluding a whole group of people whose ability to contribute as a married couple should for all intents and purposes, be just as productive as anyone elses.

Why do people get married these days? It's certainly not so they can get laid. You don't need to be married to get laid (in western society) these days.

It just doesn't make any sense to try and stop people from marrying if it's what is the right thing for them. Most people who want to marry want to do so for emotional reasons. Not for any benefits they might recieve for doing so.

What's wrong with believing that love is the wrong reason to want to do something?

To expand on Ali's post: gays are popularly demonized as being sexually deviant, yet not letting them get married doesn't exactly help them to settle down and live monogamously, does it? The idea of restricting their rights often seems to be based on the hope that they will simply go away.

This is the social context of this debate. You can't have the debate and ignore this stuff.

Hmmmm...marriage doesn't necessarily guarantee monogamy though. ;)

Nothing in life is guaranteed, but marriage is based on the idea of a monogamous relationship.

Saying "we don't want you AIDS-spreading deviants to settle down and get married" just doesn't make alot of sense to me.

If one were really worried about their "destructive influence" it seems that encouraging more "normal" behavior might be a good idea.

ahuh...is that really what they're saying? lol Doesn't sound too PC to me.

That's "okay" though, if you believe gay-ness is a "choice" (which is necessitated, to support certain other positions...)

lol...gay-ness. Funny word that one.

as is gay-dar and most other derivatives for some reason:3eye:

Perfect.

I'd like to add...legalizing marriage for gays and lesbians would be a boon to the economy in many ways. How? Just start out by looking at the massive expenses that go into a wedding.

Summarized as you had posted previously in the longer post. It is your opinion and you have every right to it. But where in any of that do gay marriages, even slightly, adversely affect you? 9th - you have not even attempted to prove how this adversely affects you in any way - in the slightest. However you have taken such aversion to other's right to marriage that you have converted a non-issue into a major (and silly) issue. If you (and those like you) just ignored the issue, then the issue would be solved without hate, all persons rights would be honored, and other pressing issues could then be addressed.

Gay marriage affect you neither any way nor ever. This demonstrated by post and after post where you have yet to demonstrate how this affects you. Complete avoidance of why it affects you demonstrates that gay marriage is totally irrelevant to your life. The only reason it affects you is because you are emotionally opposed to gay marriage - for no logical reasons - and for reasons you do not attempt to explain.

I know gay people who call things "gay" as in: IE7 is "gay" - the same as it "sucks" or is "lame" . . .

Over here all the kids say, 'that's so gay' when referring to something they consider suckful etc. I caught my kids saying it and reprimanded them...while reminding them what the word gay means. I don't know if gay people would find it offensive or not. I probably should ask some time, but I just don't think about it that much.

No, my reasoning has been spread over quite a few different posts I guess, I'll explain. I believe that I must behave in accordence with the current state of the system, and I also believe that once I make a stand on an issue I must stand by my logic or take back everything based on it right back to the first step. Refering back to something I posted a short while ago I explained my doubts with making a first step because the rest of the system will not be able to remain in isolation from it (that's what I meant when I said it affects me, I am responsible for everything I stand for). So if I said, "I will vote on my conscience that everyone has the right to marry who they love" then I have to make all subsequent decisions without breaking that statement. Because our society is so interlinked other groups would be able to make strong cases based on the same logic, polygamists are already poised to start pushing mainstream. No matter what the consequences of my first decision, I am obliged to support new people and new causes which I may feel very strongly against, because otherwise I would be a hypocrite. Polygamy by itself is a good example. If it becomes mainstream and is purged of the obvious abuses that plauge the isolated communities now then people would probably say that it was a good thing to legalize it. However, the ramifications of legal polygamy are much more complicated (this has been brought up I think), and would probably cause harm overall. However, I would still be stuck by my original statement that people who love each other should be allowed to marry, and can you look at a group of people and say who does and does not love each other? Because of all this I feel that I cannot make that first statement, because I cannot ignore the problems and abuses (intentional and unintentional) that may follow later as a result.
That is how it will affect me tw, I cannot pretend that I live in a system other than the one we have, or that I can make idealistic decisions and retract earlier statements as I see fit. You would be asking me to turn a blind eye to my eventual hypocracy.

and with this I bid you goodnight...
 

That's a long-winded version of "if we allow gays, what's next, bestiality?" etc. ad nauseum...
That's weak-sauce, IMO. Illogical premise, purposefully-illogical outcome. G.I.G.O.

Why can't you make one decision for the sake of that particular decision then worry about the next one when it happens?

It seems to me you're more worried about who else besides gay people might be able to lay claim to the right to marry.

From my perspective, I support gay marriage. I'm not sure what i think about polygamous marriages and so don't really have a point of view on that as yet other than that if all parties love each other then it would seem fair.

Do you see the reasoning. One thing at a time. Might make life easier for yourself.

9th, you obviously recognize the legitimate point of view regarding gay marriage, but you're lumping it in with a bunch of other crap. Take a breather to separate the issues, and it will make more sense.

I don't see that in 9th's post. Admirable is his ideal that one must be so careful so as to never make a mistake. However, blindly sticking to a mistake, no matter what, is also called .... Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is indeed a wonderfully smart man. Intelligence that is lost, useless, so destructive, and classic anti-American only because Rumsfeld also was not smart enough to admit and was so emotionally attached to his mistakes. There is nothing admirable in that mindset that even justified the holocaust and killing fields.

But again, none of this explains how gay marriage adversely affects anyone. It only says, "I was wrong but my principles will not allow me to ever be right." With Rumsfeld, that was a prescription to justify mass murder.

Principle is also characteristic of one who believes he is the new messiah. Does that personal (religous) belief justify hate of gay marriage. IOW stifling innovation is good? America's greatest secret for success is about change, innovation, and therefore the advancement of mankind. An engineer would never be so anti-American. And yet that is 9th's stated principles. Meanwhile, that principle does not prove that gay marriage adversely affects anyone.

9th Engineer's post reminds me of Eisenhower who knew he was wrong and would have to lie to an embarrassing question. Ike’s press conference answer made same sense as 9th Engineer's post so that the press would not dare ask any more questions. Ike's answer was a ‘total nonsense’ classic. So is 9th Engineer's reply.

Sorry 9th. I am not buying it. Like Eisenhower, you have not explained anything. Posting gobbledygook does not explain why gay marriage affects you.

So do you really believe you are the new messiah?

Either way, still unanswered is how gay marriage adversely affects anyone. Why no answer? When we have eliminated all other possibilities, the valid answer is one that remains. Apparently gay marriage only hurts emotions of those who hate gays. Why is that the only answer? Because still intentionally unanswered: how does gay marriage harm anyone. Gay marriage should be banned only because it is a classic example of being American – because it is socially innovative? Such innovation only hurts emotions of those who hate.

Clearly gay marriage harms no one. Clearly banning of gay marriage does harm some. Clearly this issue would be totally irrelevant if others did not so hate - gays and social innovation. Amazing how some so hate things that made America great. So we have an answer based in gobbledygook. Turkeys live!

You make some good points. Yes, there is too much personal derision vs disagreement with positions, but I think that human nature. It's probably because people are emotional animals, for better or worse. I think it probably keeps some lurkers lurking rather than adding their thoughts because they are afraid of having to defend their position.

I also think it's human nature to defend your thoughts/feelings, even if someone posts a logical argument you haven't thought of, because to accept their argument would be admitting you hadn't been smart enough to think it through, hadn't prepared properly.
That's a shame because it makes posting a risk in self esteem and social (online) standing, rather than casual conversation that can bring lots of views and opinions to light.

That said, I know I'm as guilty as anyone in arguing points aggressively.
I try to stick to the issues but....sometimes I forget my original signature, "Don't make it personal, don't take it personal".:o

orthodoc, we haven't achieved nirvana here yet, but I haven't found any place better, have you?

After you write your post, hit refresh and check, before you hit "submit entry".;)

Oh yeah, gay marriage?
Sure.... it's about time those queers got to experience a break up that means losing more than their underwear.
The pleasure of not being able to collect your Social Security because they only allow one payment per couple.
The convenience of not being able to make major financial planning moves without somebody else's notarized signature.
The thrill of paying higher car insurance because you love a klutz.

Yes indeedy, share the wonderful world of having your nesting blessed by the government.:rolleyes:

Really? He said we can't allow gay marriage because we'd have to allow everything else, and I pointed out that this is a well-worn "talking point" against gay marriage. I'm not sure if you read his post, because if you did I don't understand what you "don't see" in it. I'm absolutely sure he didn't say anything about Rumsfled, so I think you may be confused about which thread you're in. This is the gay marriage thread.

However, if you remove love from the equasion as 9th advocates, you DONT HAVE TO allow anything else... because, as I stated, saying someone can or can't do something based simply on their gender, for ANY reason, is sexism, and on as issue as important as marriage then it is completely, utterly unacceptable.

That's not even in the same ballpark as allowing polygamy, bestiality, or anything else at all.

So you think you should be allowed to use the ladies room?
Marriage, and who can and can't, is not simple. It's not a right, it's a privilege granted by the government, that carries rights, benefits and liabilities. Like any privilege the government grants, they establish what the rules are and that is never simple. That's why there is a debate. :D

What I said "no they don't" to was that gays are treated the same as married couples, which is proven by the need for the extra steps described.And what I said they need legal fees for was to duplicate "any benefits of marriage that they think of ahead of time, which straight couples can take for granted", of which there are over a thousand, only a few of which could be done by filling in a standard form (even then, one more form than married couples need). A "marriage-duplicating" contract would need to be hundreds of pages long, and even longer if the couple has any intention of moving to a different state. That contract isn't a standard form, would cost a lot of money, and would be subject to any number of legal challenges due to its complexity that a simple marriage license would not. It also would be a snapshot of current law (as far as the lawyer was able to duplicate) and would not be affected if marriage laws were updated. Further, there are plenty of marriage benefits that cannot be contracted for at all, including survivors' benefits.

If everyone took that approach, the would be no USA - we just would have behaved in the current (British) system. We also would never have allowed women or African Americans to vote.

Allowing same-gender marriage would not create a whole new set of laws. It would merely allow a greater number of people to be married.

BTW - Do you feel that you must behave in accordance with the current state of other systems? For instance, you don't want to change the current welfare system?

I could give a fuck what anyone else thinks or says. I disagree with his destructive, exclusionary, opinion, that could spread and continue the trend that harms others... so I disagree.
You don't like it and think I am wrong, show me where and precisely how with logic and reason.
Sounds to me like you just like and underdog... been waiting for this typical syndrome.
No one says this of me and my stance on guns... funny that, huh?
It is just slang. I know gay kids that say it.
Just like I know white kids that call each other "my nigger" now.
It is not harmful.
It takes the that term's ability to do harm away.
It is a good thing.
Only older gays dislike it, as far as I have seen.
It used to drive me nuts until I realized it was not just a local thing because my wife used it... I'm old.
Men & women who are gay are adopting kids and becoming awesome parents to those kids in need (the statistics prove it). In fact, there is a statistic you will like, their kids become gay, per-capita, less than those of straight parents.
It is not an extra right... it is a human right & we are violating it.

I've often seen a distinction being made nowadays, at least in written form, between "gay" (homosexual) and "ghey" (teh suxxors).

Sometimes its extra wrong!:p

9th... please do not call yourself a Libertarian.
The LAST thing we do is worry about what others are doing. You have issues with others who have sex with others of the same sex and want to deny them security for your own reasons. Fine, deal with it.
However, that concept is as far from the idea of Libertarianism as any concept can get.

Ibram, for the n'th time would you explain how this is sexism? Gay is not a gender. Also, you absolutely cannot remove love from the equation, that's all this is based on. A gay man wants to marry another man because of love (I'm assuming for the sake of argument), otherwise he is free to marry a woman. With love removed it disentigrates into "I wanna do this!", which isn't a valid reason for anything more important than a late night snack. I want some more arguments from Ibram that don't boil down to either "It's sexism!"(unproven) or "It's just WRONG not to!"(is that the best you can do?).
Lovely little rant about my being unAmerican there tw, so now you think you are right because you label your opponet as freedom hating and unAmerican? Readers would do well to remember how fast he was to resort to smear tactics and challenges of Americanism once responded to. His other key blunder is that his entire post is hinged on his statement that he is right.

Lets look beyond the fact that you are equating my viewpoint with mass-murder here for a second. I said that my principles will not allow me to agree with you, you make the leap to saying that they will always keep me in the wrong. You say two things boldly up front here, neither of which are true 1) You admit you are wrong - Really? Where do I say that? I am no more convinced of any error on my part than when we started. 2) Since I disagree with you I can never be right - Wow, ladies and gentlemen I give you the great debating prowess of tw! I stand in awe, but not of your capacity for argument.


I'm going to keep this one, you are actually accusing me of proclaiming myself as a relieous messiah??:sweat::biglaugha I'm touched

Ah yes, I disagree with a change you like and that means that I am standing in the way of progress. Has anyone ever challenged your notion that your viewpoint constitutes the advancement of mankind? Perhaps you need a little more varience in the opinions of those around you. And you shouldn't be supprised that it's an engineer taking you up on this, we're trained to think things through to every outcome and not to become blinded to an ideology.

You demand my explanation and then pretend I didn't answer?? Can you really have read my posts and still think that this little rant means anything? More adhominem attacks on his opponents Americanism.

All you did in that entire post was restate your unsupported opinion over and over again while challenging my worth as an American. I'll let people judge for themselves how this reflects on your ability to debate an issue.

Ok, a breather, then on to the next batch of responses...

You did not answer. You have never stated, specifically, how gays getting married will affect you personally.

It is an easy question. What is the problem?

:whofart: Is that seriously how you vote? Or for that matter make any decisions in life??

You are basically telling me you have a blind devotion to the cause and really aren't basing your decision on an underlying set of principles. Are you trying to come across as a siren in that last line? 'Don't think ahead, just do what feels right, it'll be easy'. I wouldn't be this far in life if I followed advice like that.

If you want to phrase it that way then I certainly do, I oppose it.


Nice little attack and retreat there rkzenrage, care to provide an explanation of your own logic?
I am a Libertarian at heart, I am, but I am not stupid enough to pretend I live an a libertarian society. For example, I'd love to see a world in which everyone is responsible for themselves and we don't need a welfare system, but I certainly wouldn't vote for a measure to eliminate welfare from our current system.
And for the last time, love is NOT a human right.

I absolutely did say how this affects me personally, re-read post 92#. There is nothing more pitiful than a hypocrite, but I see that having a set of principles has gone out of style

Your morals are your actions, not what you say they are.

The pursuit of happiness is amongst the inalienable rights of man.

Post #92 is about lots of things other than gay marrage... it is a red herring and a non-answer.
Again:

post #92
 

Do you support gay marriage? No, I don't support polygamy. Hey, look over there!

You cannot say you support something but do not support the principles it is based on. Conversely, you cannot say you do not support something, yet claim to support the principles on which it is also based.

Any argument can easily be made flawless, albeit only within the parameters in which you've framed it. >>> pssst! you're still very idealistic!

You can't come up with anything wrong with gay marriage, and make a vague "[polygamy] would probably cause harm overall" claim. Sounds to me like you have some additional principles that come into play with polygamy that you can't apply to gay marriage, in which case your attempt to join them in post 92 fails.

Don't you see? He's inexorably classified them as being "based on the same principles" (defined exclusively by himself, of course) and now Lord Xenu will smite him for hypocrisy if he backpeddles. It's all so clear. THOU CANNOT SUPPORTETH THIS, THOU CANNOT PROCLAIMETH THAT etc. etc.

Lord Xenu? Try any educated, logical, or mature person. If you do not base your decisions on an evaluation of the underlying principles then you have made no thought about it at all. Everyone is gingerly steping around the underlying point that this is all merely an argument based on love, and even though we have a right to the pursuit of happiness there is no stipulation that says you can do so through any means you see fit. The house of cards you call an argument is based on a romantic notion, but this is how you want to see laws made. I want to see a logic trail based on facts and science, no emotion, no claims of who loves who, or who is unhappy. If you cannot do that then you should take your ideas to basement support groups where such drivel is best kept. I turn the burden of proof back on you to convince me that there is a logical reason why I should agree with you without appealing to emotions or flights of fancy.