DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 28, 2009

texmaster said:
It really is sad you continue to deny the very basics in introducing a new law and supporting it with facts to support your argument to change the law.

It's really sad that you still cannot see how you argue from non-logic. Let me demostrate:

Lesson #1 Traditional marriage has been between a man and woman throughout the history of this country. It is a fact not a fallacy.

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 #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.

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.

So, you have given us one logical fallacy, and have given us evidence that you are wrong. Let's continue.

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.

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 #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.

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. :lol:

#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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Warspite · Dec 28, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a prime example of a marvelous faculty called "Logical Thinking".

CriticalThought · Dec 28, 2009

texmaster said:
It really is sad you continue to deny the very basics in introducing a new law and supporting it with facts to support your argument to change the law.

Lesson #1 Traditional marriage has been between a man and woman throughout the history of this country. It is a fact not a fallacy.

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.

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.

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.

#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?

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.

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.

Wow, I guess some people who are opposed to same sex marriage really do not know how to use basic logic. I always give people the benefit of the doubt, but actually following through on the fallacies I listed...wow...sad. Regardless of whether you oppose or support same sex marriage, please learn how to utilize basic reasoning skills. I feel painfully embarrassed for you after reading what you just typed.

Appeal to tradition fallacy - Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to majority fallacy - Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity
Slippery slope fallacy - Fallacy: Slippery Slope

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 28, 2009

CriticalThought said:
Wow, I guess some people who are opposed to same sex marriage really do not know how to use basic logic. I always give people the benefit of the doubt, but actually following through on the fallacies I listed...wow...sad. Regardless of whether you oppose or support same sex marriage, please learn how to utilize basic reasoning skills. I feel painfully embarrassed for you after reading what you just typed.

Appeal to tradition fallacy - Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to majority fallacy - Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity
Slippery slope fallacy - Fallacy: Slippery Slope

This has been the issue through this entire debate. The opposition does not have logic on their side. There IS a logical defense, but none of the folks debating this, currently, use it; it doesn't follow with their agenda.

winston53660 · Dec 28, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
This has been the issue through this entire debate. The opposition does not have logic on their side. There IS a logical defense, but none of the folks debating this, currently, use it; it doesn't follow with their agenda.

What would that logical defense be in your opinion?

CriticalThought · Dec 28, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
This has been the issue through this entire debate. The opposition does not have logic on their side. There IS a logical defense, but none of the folks debating this, currently, use it; it doesn't follow with their agenda.

You know, this isn't fair. I need to give these guys a chance to prove that they are not as illogical as they seem to be coming off. For the sake of determining whether they even have the basic reasoning skills to warrant discussing the issue with them, or anyone for that matter, I think a litmus test is in order. So I welcome any of the opposition to same sex marriage to answer these five simple questions...

Same sex marriage litmus test...

1. Is it true that since marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman then only marriage between a man and a woman is correct?
2. Is it true that since majority of people reject same sex marriage that automatically proves that same sex marriage is wrong?
3. Is it true that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy?
4. Can it automatically be assumed that same sex marriage will cause harm to this country despite evidence that it has caused no such major harm in other countries that have it?
5. Are you an authority on homosexuality based simply on what your religious beliefs say about the topic? In other words, do you know everything of relevance about homosexuality and same sex marriage based simply on what your religious scriptures say?

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 28, 2009

winston53660 said:
What would that logical defense be in your opinion?

The only logical defense that gives me any problems at all in this debate is the position that government should get out of marriage entirely; no benefits, nothing. It is a logical position and is defensible. I have plenty of information that demonstrates the health, social, and societal benefits of government sanctioned marriage, so it is usually a very lively debate that often ends in an agreement to disagree... though I can pretty much prove that the benefits outweigh the negatives. It often heads into a debate about rights. Ethereal is very good at this opposing position.

However, in as far as opposing GM, but sanctioning straight marriage, I haven't seen an argument that I couldn't take apart, easily.

winston53660 · Dec 28, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
The only logical defense the gives me any problems at all in this debate is the position that government should get out of marriage entirely; no benefits, nothing. It is a logical position and is defensible. I have plenty of information that demonstrates the health, social, and societal benefits of government sanctioned marriage, so it is usually a very lively debate that often ends in an agreement to disagree... though I can pretty much prove that they benefits outweigh the negatives. It often heads into a debate about rights. Ethereal is very good at this opposing position.

However, in as far as opposing GM, but sanctioning straight marriage, I haven't seen an argument that I couldn't take apart, easily.

Okay cool i see your POV. I disagree but I understand. I do think there are reasons for government to be involved in marriage. Things like inheriting a house from a spouse and hospital visitation rights as well as creating a more stable society.

CaptainCourtesy · Dec 28, 2009

winston53660 said:
Okay cool i see your POV. I disagree but I understand. I do think there are reasons for government to be involved in marriage. Things like inheriting a house from a spouse and hospital visitation rights as well as creating a more stable society.

I agree with you. All I did was tell you the only logical position as a defense against GM. It is entirely logical to debate FOR government to be out of marriage. It's a pretty "tight" position and much harder to oppose than what we have been seeing in this thread, thus far.

misterman · Dec 28, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
Irrelevant. It doesn't prove your position. It is a Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition).

His problem is much worse than that. He said "it's a fact not a fallacy" - meaning he doesn't even understand what a logical fallacy is, meaning he doesn't know what logic is.

Charles Martel · Dec 28, 2009

CriticalThought said:
I'm just curious, what would be the basis for a federal amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

So, you ask me a question and give me the 'only' five reasons I could base my answer on?

What a joke. You interested in a conversation wiht me...or yourself?

I can only see five ways that you could answer such a question. Not a single one is consistent with reason.

And furthermore, not just tell me there are only 5 ways to answer, but that all five are without reason? You're funny, is this the way you have most of your "critical thought" conversations.....ask the question, supply the only 5 wrong answers. Sorry, the circus games don't impress me.

And what I would base my answer on is what I linked to. Courts in some states and even in some cases, city Mayors...as in SF...some of this occurs in lower court rulings, or some state supreme court finds same sex marriage opposition unconstitutional and thus legalizes it in that state...or requires the legislature to take action. Some states may indeed legalize same sex marrriage and thus those same sex couples have every right to expect their marriages to be recognized by other states. A federal amendment excluding other states from recognizing such marriages is what I'd support and for obvious reasons. To define marriage as a society...by our society...rather than the executive branch or judicial branch of our government, this decision would be decided once and for all by a legislative endeavor.

So my two reasons....I reckon I'll call these 6 and 7 as your limited knowledge on this subject reigned you in at 5.

6). To make sure this issue is decided upon by a legislative or referendum endeavor thus making sure marriage is defined by We the People.

7) To make sure that should one state legalize same sex marriage, there is no reason to expect other states to recognize such marriages. Right there in our Constitution(as the federal DOMA says right now), would be language quite specific concerning marriage in these United States. No reason for lawsuits, no arguments, no debates, no fuss, no worries. It would cone this issue down to a state by state issue and where I think it belongs.

Now...a very important personal note here. I don't necessarily support a federal amendment. However, in reaction to states that are legalizing marriage expecting those marriages are recognized elsewhere. It's the EXACT REASON why the current and standing DOMA was voted on and approved so overwhelmingly, I find it odd you list of 5 didn't include my 6 and 7 as those two reasons ARE why existing law is on the books.

1. An appeal to tradition fallacy. (marriage has always been between a man and a woman)
2. Ignoring the countries that have legalized same sex marriage and making a fallacious argument that it would be somehow harmful to this country.
3. An appeal to the majority fallacy. (most people don't agree with same sex marriage)
4. A slippery slope fallacy. (if we allow same sex marriage then we have to allow polygamy)
5. Religious condemnation. (its a sin)

These aren't even good guesses.

Please prove me wrong and provide some rational that isn't listed above for why a federal amendment banning same sex marriage would be a good idea.

I just proved you wrong. And the rationale is the same as the rationale for the current DOMA, here, allow me to quote that law signed by Bill Clinton and voted on by som many in your current Congress such as Harry Reid and Execs running your government that you voted in like Joe Biden.

1)No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2)The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

Isn't that easy to read. OBVIOUSLY, a federal amendment would protect this law, only a matter of time before some court gets involved, an amendment would solidify and code the DOMA. And it protects other states from recognizing those states that do legalize same sex marriage.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Here is where all the selective outrage shows. NEVER...will Bill Clinton ever be called the names and accused of discrimination or hate of gays or anything close to it. Neither will ANY of the Dem Senators or House members who voted against same sex marriage. It's all quite transparent, this pretend outrage from the gay community concerning this marriage issue, it's a political issue. NOBODY can marry within gender in this nation and have it recognized, gay or straight, bi or tri, it doesn't matter.

I found the text from Wiki, their quote here gives the reason why so easily...and doesn't use one of your 5 "only" reasons that are all wrong.

At the time of passage, it was expected that Hawaii (and possibly other states) would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

And that is why in some cases, I can see a federal amendment making sense. If the state's rights to define marriage for themselves is challenged, a federal amendment reinforces We the People's decision here to define our own institutions, any court properly interpreting would clearly see this and dismiss any irrepsonsible and kneejerk legal action from gay communities. They'd just be told sorry, it is Constitutional. Now...you can overturn if you'd like, the amendment process is crystal clear.

Binky · Dec 28, 2009

Orius said:
I'm not even concerned that GM is being shot down in other areas. As long as a few States have it for now, that is a great first step. It will provide a working model for other States that have fears or are simply on the fence to show them that households with gay partnerships are as normal and functional as heterosexual setups.

"are as normal"..........:rofl: 2funny:

Charles Martel · Dec 28, 2009

CriticalThought

roll

, I can only see 5 reasons for you to disagree with my fact laced opinion above. And none stand on its own, all 5 answers you could possibly give me are unreasonable. They are:

1) You aren't aware of the current DOMA
2) You aren't aware many oppose other states marrying within gender and then expecting it be recognized by their own states for many more reasons than the 5 you;ve limited yourself to.
3) You believe the courts and execs have been consistent even when, NY votes one way, Iowa the other, California Mayors start marrying within gender in their cities but prop 8 squashes that endeavor.
4) It's up to courts or the executive branch, the legislature should have no say and neither should We the People.
5) You have an agenda to force We the People to accept your alternative lifestyle.

All 5 of these wrong headed and mistaken. Thus, there are no reasonable arguments from Criticalthought or CC, all agenda driven arguments. Once your politics leaves the arena, I think you'll see my reasons are sound and also happen to be current law.

windovervocalcords · Dec 28, 2009

CriticalThought said:
You know, this isn't fair. I need to give these guys a chance to prove that they are not as illogical as they seem to be coming off. For the sake of determining whether they even have the basic reasoning skills to warrant discussing the issue with them, or anyone for that matter, I think a litmus test is in order. So I welcome any of the opposition to same sex marriage to answer these five simple questions...

Same sex marriage litmus test...

1. Is it true that since marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman then only marriage between a man and a woman is correct?
2. Is it true that since majority of people reject same sex marriage that automatically proves that same sex marriage is wrong?
3. Is it true that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy?
4. Can it automatically be assumed that same sex marriage will cause harm to this country despite evidence that it has caused no such major harm in other countries that have it?
5. Are you an authority on homosexuality based simply on what your religious beliefs say about the topic? In other words, do you know everything of relevance about homosexuality and same sex marriage based simply on what your religious scriptures say?

1. No. We have had traditions not allowing marriage between people of different races before and it was wrong and has since been corrected.

2. No. Majority arguments are a logical fallacy. We've had a majority of citizens reject marriage between the races in the past and that has been since proved wrong.

3. There is no evidence that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy.

4. It can not be assumed that same sex marriage will cause harm to the country. There is no evidence that supports that claim.

5. No one posting here can be considered an authority on homosexuality due to their religious beliefs. Marriage equality is a civil law issue. Religion is irrelevant to the discussion.

PS Nice outline. I'm a proponent of marriage equality but couldn't resist responding to your clear and concise outline. Too bad opponents, so far are unwilling to use your outline to debate the issue.

sazerac · Dec 28, 2009

It all boils down to approval and acceptance.

The Church declares approval and acceptance of 2 people living together by virtue of a wedding ceremony. "It's morally acceptable now for you two to sleep together."

The government needs to make the same decision. Does it approve of gay marriage or not? This is not a moral decision. It is just legal.

CriticalThought · Dec 28, 2009

Charles Martel said:
CriticalThoughtroll, I can only see 5 reasons for you to disagree with my fact laced opinion above. And none stand on its own, all 5 answers you could possibly give me are unreasonable. They are:

Charles, you misunderstood. I was asking in general why you are opposed to same sex marriage. Why do you need DOMA? Why do you need any state ban? Why do you need a federal amendment to ban it? In essence, I was asking for you to justify your entire position, not just a federal amendment. I thought I was clear on it because tex seemed to instantly know what I meant. I'm sorry you seemed to misunderstand. I feel the opposition to same sex marriage's arguments are limited to those 5 positions I presented. I asked you to prove me wrong. Please do prove me wrong. I have yet to hear a rational basis for your position.

1) You aren't aware of the current DOMA

I'm aware of the Defense of Marriage Act. I'm also aware that traditional marriage people are afraid of it being struck down by the courts because it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. I'm also aware that Bill Clinton rescinded on his position.

If you are still confused of my intention, then please just simply answer the questions I added right after to clarify...

CriticalThought said:
Same sex marriage litmus test...

1. Is it true that since marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman then only marriage between a man and a woman is correct?
2. Is it true that since majority of people reject same sex marriage that automatically proves that same sex marriage is wrong?
3. Is it true that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy?
4. Can it automatically be assumed that same sex marriage will cause harm to this country despite evidence that it has caused no such major harm in other countries that have it?
5. Are you an authority on homosexuality based simply on what your religious beliefs say about the topic? In other words, do you know everything of relevance about homosexuality and same sex marriage based simply on what your religious scriptures say?

If you can think of a rational not listed above for why you wish to oppose same sex marriage (via federal amendment, state statute ban, DOMA, whatever...) then please provide it. Otherwise, I am forced to assume that you are an illogical lot who know very well that you opposing same sex marriage based simply on your prejudices.

hazlnut · Dec 28, 2009

CriticalThought said:
Same sex marriage litmus test...

1. Is it true that since marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman then only marriage between a man and a woman is correct?

Great post, I just want to elaborate on that word "tradition".

TRADITIONALLY Marriage has been a lot of things. It started out as a business deal between two patriarchs. The father of the bride would be selling his underage daughter as part of land deal or to pay off a debt.

TRADITIONALLY wealthy men could have as many wives, sex slaves, and servants as they could afford.

More recently: TRADITIONALLY in California (and other states) Blacks could not marry whites. That has been changed.

Also, all married Christian Evangelicals please be advised: That wedding band on your finger is a pagan tradition. You must take it off now and get down on your knees to pray for forgiveness. Filthy pagans. You probably sang songs and danced at your wedding ceremonies, just like the pagans! (I know I did)

Charles Martel · Dec 28, 2009

CriticalThought said:
Charles, you misunderstood. I was asking in general why you are opposed to same sex marriage. Why do you need DOMA? Why do you need any state ban? Why do you need a federal amendment to ban it? In essence, I was asking for you to justify your entire position, not just a federal amendment. I thought I was clear on it because tex seemed to instantly know what I meant. I'm sorry you seemed to misunderstand. I feel the opposition to same sex marriage's arguments are limited to those 5 positions I presented. I asked you to prove me wrong. Please do prove me wrong. I have yet to hear a rational basis for your position.

Beacuse marriage is a unique relationship in our society and while many people define it differently, our society needs to define it exactly so as we can make laws and apply standards. It does stand above all others as far as human relationships go and defining marriage as such keeps it standing above all others.

I'm aware of the Defense of Marriage Act. I'm also aware that traditional marriage people are afraid of it being struck down by the courts because it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. I'm also aware that Bill Clinton rescinded on his position

Exactly...so rather than be concerned the full faith and credit clause is applied, why not fully define and Constitutionally cement the definition of marriage? Once and for all. Secondly, you'll NEVER hear anyone criticize Clinton nor did you during his terms regarding his position on same sex marriage. You'll NEVER hear Biden or Reid or Clinton nor any Democrat leveled for his position, no one will ever accuse them of fearing gays or being a homophobe. The reason I realize it's all poltiical on the Left's part, this entire same sex marriage agenda is a political effort.

If you are still confused of my intention, then please just simply answer the questions I added right after to clarify...

Not confused at all, your position clear....but wrong.

If you can think of a rational not listed above for why you wish to oppose same sex marriage (via federal amendment, state statute ban, DOMA, whatever...) then please provide it. Otherwise, I am forced to assume that you are an illogical lot who know very well that you opposing same sex marriage based simply on your prejudices.

Assume whatever you'd like, who really cares? You just told me there were only five reasons and all five are all wrong. You have all the answers to all of your own questions, who cares what assumptions you're 'forced' to take or not take.

The joke continues, you're not in here for conversation, you're trying to name call. Opposition to same sex marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with being gay, it's the knowledge that marriage is much more than a contract, much more than benefits afforded, much more than two people who love each other. It's an important fabric holding our nation together, it's the ultimate relationship that is required for a healthy happy society.

Again...the absence of homosexuality...would mean nothing. No two men or two women acting or oriented towards each other in any way or form adds to society, isn't required by society, it isn't necessary, it isn't defined as marriage. Not by me and most others. Marriage...the unique relationship between one man and one woman has obvious and relevant influence on children, society, our education levels, the prosperity of this nation and I believe you naive and agenda driven if you cannot clearly see this. I must assume you're just another Left wing agenda driven political animal trying to force your lifestyle on others. Ain't gonna happen.

Charles Martel · Dec 28, 2009

sazerac said:
The government needs to make the same decision. Does it approve of gay marriage or not?

No, it doesn't. By overwhelming majorities. And the disapproval is on same sex marriage, not gay marriage. Hundreds of thousands of 'gays' are married, with children. It's obvious we allow gays to marry. A gay man and lesbain woman could get a marriage license tomorrow in any city given they're not already married. IT's irrelevant your orientation or being 'gay.' You're being discriminated against for gender, plase use the appropriate lingo.

CriticalThought · Dec 28, 2009

Charles Martel said:
Beacuse marriage is a unique relationship in our society and while many people define it differently, our society needs to define it exactly so as we can make laws and apply standards. It does stand above all others as far as human relationships go and defining marriage as such keeps it standing above all others.

That makes no sense. Why would allowing gays to marry in any way hurt the standards or status of marriage? If you are going to make such a statement, then you need to back it up with facts, otherwise it is simply an assumption that falls under 2nd of the 5 positions I presented earlier in this thread.

Not confused at all, your position clear....but wrong.

You have yet to provide a rational basis for your position.

Assume whatever you'd like, who really cares? You just told me there were only five reasons and all five are all wrong. You have all the answers to all of your own questions, who cares what assumptions you're 'forced' to take or not take.

I asked you to prove me wrong. You have yet to do so. Or is the rational basis for your position, "To secure the standards and status of marriage by defining it as between a man and a woman"?

Charles Martel · Dec 28, 2009

CriticalThought said:
That makes no sense. Why would allowing gays to marry in any way hurt the standards or status of marriage?

Gays marry all the time! Are you asking why we don't allow same sex couples to marry?

You have yet to provide a rational basis for your position.

It's both rational and correct. Because you don't agree is why you claim no rational basis, you've been labeling 'irrational' and being forced to assume this or that and name calling since you got here. You're an agenda driven Leftist, anyone objective can see this.

I asked you to prove me wrong.

I already did, in fact, you were unaware of much on this issue as well.

The rationale is that marriage is a unique relationship. Both for the purposes of defining our culture, but in raising children, and in defining families. Women change their names, children take the last name of the father, we don't define any other relationship as important or critical.

You haven't been anywhere near right, there isn't any reason to prove you wrong, a school student could do it. Your argument is...."there's no opposition that makes sense to me..so....there is no argument that should make sense to anyone else either....I'll have to assume you're all homophobic evildoers."

Captain America · Dec 28, 2009

I don't care if same sex couples get married. No skin off my nose.

Why should only straight people have to suffer the bonds of matrimony? :rofl

CriticalThought · Dec 28, 2009

Charles Martel said:
Gays marry all the time! Are you asking why we don't allow same sex couples to marry?

Charles, that was a rather pathetic dodge of my question. It seems clear to me that your entire position falls under the 2nd of the 5 positions I earlier presented.

2. Ignoring the countries that have legalized same sex marriage and making a fallacious argument that it would be somehow harmful to this country.

You have assumed, without evidence, that allowing same sex couples to marry would somehow be detrimental to the standards or status of marriage. You have provided no basis for this rational and ignore evidence to the contrary. It is therefore clear that your position is illogical since it requires you ignore all evidence which does not agree with it.

If you have some alternative rational, then I would love to hear it, otherwise it is clear to anyone reading this thread that the debate is over. You have no rational basis for your position.

As far as my position, I have argued time and time again, with evidence, that same sex marriage would be good for the 8 to 10 million children of gay and lesbian parents in this country.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/118/1/349

Unlike you, I actually care about having evidence and reason on my side.

Apparently those families don't fall within your "standards". It disgusts me that there are people like you out there who would deny children the chance at having a home headed by a married couple simply because the parents share the same sex. It further disgusts me that you apparently have no rational basis by which to deny those families that right. You should be ashamed of yourself going out of your way to hurt children.

Taylor · Dec 28, 2009

CriticalThought said:
As far as my position, I have argued time and time again, with evidence, that same sex marriage would be good for the 8 to 10 million children of gay and lesbian parents in this country.

That's not much of an argument.

CriticalThought · Dec 28, 2009

Taylor said:
That's not much of an argument.

That's not much of a counter argument.

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Warspite

Active member

CriticalThought

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

winston53660

CriticalThought

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

winston53660

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

misterman

Charles Martel

Well-known member

Binky

Well-known member

Charles Martel

Well-known member

windovervocalcords

sazerac

CriticalThought

hazlnut

Charles Martel

Well-known member

Charles Martel

Well-known member

CriticalThought

Charles Martel

Well-known member

Captain America

Jedi Master

CriticalThought

Taylor

CriticalThought