Irrelevant. It doesn't prove your position. It is a Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). Here is the definition:: This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way. Just because it has been done this way, does not prove that it is correct. We are not arguing from a legal standpoint. If that were the case, every abortion argument would be won by the pro-choicers. Are you getting it, yet?Lesson #1 Traditional marriage has been between a man and woman throughout the history of this country. It is a fact not a fallacy.
You just contradicted yourself nicely. Thank you. If there is evidence that gay marriage is not harmful, even if this evidence is from other countries, then there is evidence that gay marriage is not harmful.Lesson #2 Laws passed in other countries are inconsequential since we do not live under a world government. We use our own Constitution and require people like you who want to change the law to back it up with a factual argument. That is the logical fallacy of your side since you have failed repeatedly to do so.
So, you have given us one logical fallacy, and have given us evidence that you are wrong. Let's continue.
Once again, you are demonstrating that you do not know how to debate. Just because the majority agrees on something does not mean it is right. This is the Argumentum ad numerum fallacy (argument or appeal to numbers). It is defined by this: this fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Again, if you want to argue law, then anyone who disputes anything that is currently legal, loses. I will remember this when/if you and I debate on other topics.Lesson #3 It is not a fallacy to vote as a majority on a ballot issue. The very fact you cannot understand that simply shows you do not understand how state government functions. The fallacy is for officials to deny the vote once the signatures were given by the people to vote on the law. You really need to do a little research on what propositions are and how they are lawful.
You have no evidence of this, but I'd love to see it. I've already destroyed the "homosexuality leads to polygamy" argument several times, so be my guest to present it.Lesson #4 It is a slippery slope argument and a factual one when you claim it is a "rights" issue to allow gay marriage. If you call it a rights issue it is a fallacy to believe you can restrict other alternative lifestyles when they use the same argument you are making. A "rights" argument does not end with homosexuality.
Firstly, you STILL don't seem to grasp the concept of sexual orientation. There is no way to determine, genetically or biologically how sexual orientation is determined...thats BOTH hetero- AND homosexuality. You on your side always forget this simple fact. If one is not genetic, then neither are. Further, you STILL don't seem to grasp the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, though I have explained it numerous times with many examples. My guess is that this is deliberate because it destroys your position.#5 is the only one where you are correct and an important point when you read further down...
Until you can provide factual studies not based on filled out unsurpervised questionaires that actually prove a genetic link that you claim exists, you have no basis to change the law to only narrowly allow gay marriage while excluding all other alternative lifestyles when you cannot even prove it isn't a choice which flies in the face of what we know of people who live one way then change their mind decades later or go to jail and engage in homosexual sex after being lifelong heterosexuals or finally, how some church groups have people who claimed to be gay only to be "cured". These are real life examples not theories or flawed studies. Its funny how so many people on your side flock to someone who comes out of the closet in their adult life but I wonder what you say to the people who claim they are gay only to renounce it later in life. Would you support their decision as well?
It fails every time because, like you, most people do not understand the concepts that cover the issue. Or, they don't want to. Take your pick.Its why this fails every single time it is brought forth to let the people decide. They understand you have no basis other than your belief in homosexuality being something you are born with and as #5 correctly points out, belief is not a argument to change the law.
See, now this is how biased and closed-minded you are. In all of this, you've never asked me what my position is. My position is that all government sanctioned marriage should be eliminated and replaced with civil unions...for both straights and gays. Only religions can use the word marriage and sanction marriages. It is then up to THEM whether to allow gays to marry or not.Civil unions are the compromise for everyone but the zealotry your side has in pretending gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage without evidence to support it will only result in more failed votes by the people.
So, what we have in your 5 points are 3 logical fallacies and a host of not understanding or refusing to understand concepts around the issue. I would have thought that after 100+ pages you would have gotten some information from this thread, but I suppose not.