• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

I'm getting tired of hearing the same rubbish arguments ad nauseum from you. It's getting extremely redundant. Time to agree to disagree and retire from this. It is stale.
You do what you want. Your arguments either hold no water....or you can't even state them. This is a debate forum, debating is the presentation of argument. Saying "you thought wrong" is not an argument, whining about not getting anywhere is not an argument, it is a concession.

If you want to get somewhere, then make an argument that holds up, otherwise go somewhere...else.
 
Claiming your arguments win based on your own say so doesn't constitute debate, either. The debate part is over at that point and we're left with empty posturing. See ya around.
 
Still, the underlying FACT without the false dilemma is that more people would approve of civil unions than would approve of gay marriage. Granted, some activist ninnies do, in fact, reject civil unions because they're holding out for gay marriage but for the most part, those who favor legal regonition support BOTH civil unions and gay marriage even if they prefer "marriage". Argue that's not true at your own risk. It's a stupid argument and one that you would have no supporting facts for, but far be it from me to tell you not to try a stupid argument if you wish.

Actually, it is your argument that is stupid. We have the data. Let's look at the numbers. When given a choice between SSM and civil unions, 37% support SSM and 33% support civil unions (with 25% against both). This immediately shows that you premise is incorrect, but let's continue. The numbers I mention equal 70%. Last poll I saw showed that overall support of SSM (where the choice was either that or keeping it illegal) was 58% (with 36% against). If you look at the numbers, 21% of those who would choose civil unions (if that was a third option) would THEN support SSM if that option was eliminated, whereas 11% would then favor keeping it illegal.

So what this means is the following. If given a choice, MORE people would support SSM than civil unions... and this number is growing consistently. A vast majority (2:1) of people, if there were no choice, would change their support to SSM. And finally, of course, the support of SSM is pretty strong and growing.
 
The reason for state sanctioned marriage has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with establishment and support of acceptable and sensible biological pairings.

No it doesn't. No matter how often you make this erroneous claim... which has been proven to be erroneous countless times in these threads... it doesn't make it true. I hope you know that.
 
I think people that support same-sex MARRIAGE either don't understand the purpose of marriage or think that homosexual marriage should be created as an option even though it doesn't further the purpose of marriage. What is disingenuous is to deny that acceptable biological pairings was ALWAYS the foundation of marriage law in this country with all else being support for that foundation. Even Loving vs. Virginia was meaningful because it included a reasonable and logical biological pairing that was only denied due to issues of race. The real purpose of marriage was already satisfied by their biological male/female coupling.

And since this position of yours has been debunked many times, I'll just keep reminding you of this... and others, so that others don't take any of it as based in facts or logic.
 
And I don't need one. The onus to produce a compelling argument is on those advocating homosexual marriage. If they can successfully produce an argument that there is a significant state benefit by expanding their marriage criteria to include same-sex couples, they'll win. Arguing that if the state can't explain why it doesn't want to, that it must make those changes isn't going to win. And there are... what.... 38 states that don't feel homosexuals have made a compelling argument.

You are correct. A no-harm argument is a failing argument in this debate. The argument IS about how it benefits the state. There are many, including the successful rearing of children, the health and stability (both financial and social) of individuals in licensed monogamous relationships, and financial benefits for both the private industry and government. These are the benefits to the state and why the sanctioning of SSM is compelling.
 
Claiming your arguments win based on your own say so doesn't constitute debate, either. The debate part is over at that point and we're left with empty posturing. See ya around.
LOL...now you can't even quote me....sigh.

I am not sure where you found me saying my arguments win because I say so, I think I said your arguments lose because you cannot support them...or they diminish into contrarianism.

Better luck next time....buhbye.
 
I don't think any of those arguments would hold up if the concept of marriage becomes "consenting adults who wish to enter into a domestic partnership". Any legal argument that homosexuals put forward, if compelling, paves the way to virtually any arrangement being endorsed and maybe some people think that's swell, too. I don't.

That is untrue. There is research that supports the arguments that support SSM. There is not for other arrangements.
 
That is untrue. There is research that supports the arguments that support SSM. There is not for other arrangements.

Any argument that traditional marriage of man and woman be changed to open it to other combinations opens up arguments for ANY combination. After all, it's not just a man and a woman, so why not ___xyz__ ... then all the same arguments ensue about bigotry, discrimination, victims, blah blah blah blah blah.
 
Any argument that traditional marriage of man and woman be changed to open it to other combinations opens up arguments for ANY combination. After all, it's not just a man and a woman, so why not ___xyz__ ... then all the same arguments ensue about bigotry, discrimination, victims, blah blah blah blah blah.

This is just a slippery slope logical fallacy. SSM and the other combinations are not equivalent.
 
This is just a slippery slope logical fallacy. SSM and the other combinations are not equivalent.

It's known as precedent and the slippery slope in this case is not a fallacy. While it is possible it may never be borne out, I can't think of any legal arguments to expand marriage beyond a man and a woman that can't be leveraged to try to expand it to other permutations, as well. You may argue that polygamy and incestuous relationships are different, but we're setting a precedent that different isn't inherently wrong, so now the argument that the state must prove some sort of harm from allowing polygamy or incestuous marriage just like you demanded the state show for homosexual marriage. You may claim there is some harm, roguenuke did, but the arguments will likely not stand before critical scrutiny. Why can't a brother marry his sister? What harm to you? What harm to the state? Children? Marriage isn't about procreation per YOUR argument (which I think is wrong)... but you want that argument to stand so you can't rely on that to stop incest.

This really is a slippery slope. Of all the slippery slope arguments I've heard from gun control to abortion, this is the only one that is unquestionably a steep slope and unquestionably covered with oil.
 
It's known as precedent and the slippery slope in this case is not a fallacy. While it is possible it may never be borne out, I can't think of any legal arguments to expand marriage beyond a man and a woman that can't be leveraged to try to expand it to other permutations, as well. You may argue that polygamy and incestuous relationships are different, but we're setting a precedent that different isn't inherently wrong, so now the argument that the state must prove some sort of harm from allowing polygamy or incestuous marriage just like you demanded the state show for homosexual marriage. You may claim there is some harm, roguenuke did, but the arguments will likely not stand before critical scrutiny. Why can't a brother marry his sister? What harm to you? What harm to the state? Children? Marriage isn't about procreation per YOUR argument (which I think is wrong)... but you want that argument to stand so you can't rely on that to stop incest.

I have never argued the "harm" position... in fact, I AGREED with you that it was a weak position to argue in post #1481. Therefore, everything you just said does not apply to my position and is not relevant. Please do not ascribe positions to me that I do not hold.

This really is a slippery slope. Of all the slippery slope arguments I've heard from gun control to abortion, this is the only one that is unquestionably a steep slope and unquestionably covered with oil.

No, it's a fallacy because of the lack of equivalency. Equivalency is not based on harm, but benefit. I have been VERY clear throughout this entire debate that benefit is what I argue.
 
I have never argued the "harm" position... in fact, I AGREED with you that it was a weak position to argue in post #1481. Therefore, everything you just said does not apply to my position and is not relevant. Please do not ascribe positions to me that I do not hold.



No, it's a fallacy because of the lack of equivalency. Equivalency is not based on harm, but benefit. I have been VERY clear throughout this entire debate that benefit is what I argue.

Others, then, were on the "harm" angle, i.e., if you can't prove "harm" then you must make it legal. I agree that's a silly argument. I thought it was you but didn't want to look through a thousand posts to double check. I'll take your word for it.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that if you can successfully argue that marriage is not a male/female construct for the sake of procreation, all manner of permutations become possible and I have no doubt some will offer as much in the way of "benefit" arguments that the homosexuals have, ranging from individual rights to whatever else they are advertising as the benefit of homosexual marriage to the state.
 
Others, then, were on the "harm" angle, i.e., if you can't prove "harm" then you must make it legal. I agree that's a silly argument. I thought it was you but didn't want to look through a thousand posts to double check. I'll take your word for it.

I read all of the "harm" arguments when I came online. Instead of going after each post, I just made one statement responding to you, agreeing with your assertion. It was such a recent post I would have though you'd have seen it. Many pro-SSMers don't like that I disagree with that position. Don't you think THAT'S interesting? ;)

Nevertheless, the fact remains that if you can successfully argue that marriage is not a male/female construct for the sake of procreation, all manner of permutations become possible and I have no doubt some will offer as much in the way of "benefit" arguments that the homosexuals have, ranging from individual rights to whatever else they are advertising as the benefit of homosexual marriage to the state.

Actually, that's not accurate. The benefit argument for SSM is supported by quite a bit of research, None of the other permutations are... and some have research AGAINST their benefits.
 
I read all of the "harm" arguments when I came online. Instead of going after each post, I just made one statement responding to you, agreeing with your assertion. It was such a recent post I would have though you'd have seen it. Many pro-SSMers don't like that I disagree with that position. Don't you think THAT'S interesting? ;)



Actually, that's not accurate. The benefit argument for SSM is supported by quite a bit of research, None of the other permutations are... and some have research AGAINST their benefits.

Ahh, but this paves the way. The research will begin. You pay researchers to get you the answers you want and you'll get the answers you want. It works that way on everything from global warming to all the great things homosexual marriage will do for society. It will also work for polygamous marriages. Remember.... polygamous marriages have been more common throughout history than homosexual marriages and by a wide margin. If you think the proponents of polygamy won't be in line for their share of the "hope and change", you're mistaken. And if you think they leverage the legal arguments that opened up marriage to other permutations than man/woman... again, you are mistaken. Right now homosexual marriage is en vogue but it won't be forever.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...p.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48572450,d.eWU&biw=853&bih=626
 
Ahh, but this paves the way. The research will begin. You pay researchers to get you the answers you want and you'll get the answers you want. It works that way on everything from global warming to all the great things homosexual marriage will do for society. It will also work for polygamous marriages. Remember.... polygamous marriages have been more common throughout history than homosexual marriages and by a wide margin. If you think the proponents of polygamy won't be in line for their share of the "hope and change", you're mistaken. And if you think they leverage the legal arguments that opened up marriage to other permutations than man/woman... again, you are mistaken. Right now homosexual marriage is en vogue but it won't be forever.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...p.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48572450,d.eWU&biw=853&bih=626

Which has not one damn thing to do with same sex marriage. We all know heterosexual marriage leads to marriage among adults and children, people and pets, and lamps and any other stupid thing you care to throw out there. The slippery slope starts with heterosexual marriage.
 
Ahh, but this paves the way. The research will begin. You pay researchers to get you the answers you want and you'll get the answers you want. It works that way on everything from global warming to all the great things homosexual marriage will do for society. It will also work for polygamous marriages. Remember.... polygamous marriages have been more common throughout history than homosexual marriages and by a wide margin. If you think the proponents of polygamy won't be in line for their share of the "hope and change", you're mistaken. And if you think they leverage the legal arguments that opened up marriage to other permutations than man/woman... again, you are mistaken. Right now homosexual marriage is en vogue but it won't be forever.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...p.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48572450,d.eWU&biw=853&bih=626

And until there is valid research that proves benefits, you have nothing but a slippery slope, so your argument is illogical. And... since polygamy has been more common throughout history, and yet with THAT there is no valid research that shows the kinds of benefits that compels the state to sanction marriage, the lack of logic of this argument is even more clear.
 
And until there is valid research that proves benefits, you have nothing but a slippery slope, so your argument is illogical. And... since polygamy has been more common throughout history, and yet with THAT there is no valid research that shows the kinds of benefits that compels the state to sanction marriage, the lack of logic of this argument is even more clear.

Clear logic would tell you that the arguments in favor of the oxymoron called homosexual marriage attempt to establish marriage as an amorphous social contract and that welcomes all players. Polygamy advocates are trembly pleased with the progress homosexuals have made in paving the way for them. Marriage; its not just for a man and a woman any more. Where it ends is anyone's guess but homosexuals aren't the only interested group.
 
Clear logic would tell you that the arguments in favor of the oxymoron called homosexual marriage attempt to establish marriage as an amorphous social contract and that welcomes all players. Polygamy advocates are trembly pleased with the progress homosexuals have made in paving the way for them. Marriage; its not just for a man and a woman any more. Where it ends is anyone's guess but homosexuals aren't the only interested group.

Clear logic and fact-based information that focuses on the benefit-argument would easily tell you that your assertion meets none of the criteria for a logical argument.
 
I think you're lying. Possibly to me, possibly to yourself. Can't be sure.



Sure there is. But there's no conscious decision making going on with respect to who you're attracted to. Again: you're confusing distinct issues.

Prove it.
 
Clear logic would tell you that the arguments in favor of the oxymoron called homosexual marriage attempt to establish marriage as an amorphous social contract and that welcomes all players. Polygamy advocates are trembly pleased with the progress homosexuals have made in paving the way for them. Marriage; its not just for a man and a woman any more. Where it ends is anyone's guess but homosexuals aren't the only interested group.

I sorry to have to point this out to you but in fact "clear logic" would indicate that you are using a fallacious slippery-slope argument in support of your position. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim.

BTW, please be careful and do not provide support for your argument by stating "everyone knows," or "it's an obvious result," as premises. That only becomes an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people").

It is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so" (an invalid premise), "it is so" (an unsound conclusion).

If you call on logic then make certain your premises are valid so that your conclusion is sound. Just a point of clarification. :)
 
Last edited:
I sorry to have to point this out to you but in fact "clear logic" would indicate that you are using a fallacious slippery-slope argument in support of your position. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim.

There is absolutely reason to believe challenges to polygamy laws will follow any successful transition of marriage into an amorphous social contract with many permutations. Polygamy advocates are TELLING us that they're waiting in the wings for this. That makes it reasonable to believe it's going to happen. If you have some logical reason to believe they're lying about that, go ahead and explain it.
 
There is absolutely reason to believe challenges to polygamy laws will follow any successful transition of marriage into an amorphous social contract with many permutations. Polygamy advocates are TELLING us that they're waiting in the wings for this. That makes it reasonable to believe it's going to happen. If you have some logical reason to believe they're lying about that, go ahead and explain it.

There you go doing exactly what I expected. I was discussing Logic here, not your position on the issue.

I did not say you could not use that argument...I merely stated your argument does NOT follow "clear logic." Both your original post and this current one are not based on logical premises. Just because something appears reasonable to you does not necessarily make it "logical." Okay?
 
It's known as precedent and the slippery slope in this case is not a fallacy. While it is possible it may never be borne out, I can't think of any legal arguments to expand marriage beyond a man and a woman that can't be leveraged to try to expand it to other permutations, as well. You may argue that polygamy and incestuous relationships are different, but we're setting a precedent that different isn't inherently wrong, so now the argument that the state must prove some sort of harm from allowing polygamy or incestuous marriage just like you demanded the state show for homosexual marriage. You may claim there is some harm, roguenuke did, but the arguments will likely not stand before critical scrutiny. Why can't a brother marry his sister? What harm to you? What harm to the state? Children? Marriage isn't about procreation per YOUR argument (which I think is wrong)... but you want that argument to stand so you can't rely on that to stop incest.

This really is a slippery slope. Of all the slippery slope arguments I've heard from gun control to abortion, this is the only one that is unquestionably a steep slope and unquestionably covered with oil.

Legally this is wrong. All the state has to prove in any other case is that there is a legitimate state interest being furthered in those restrictions. The arguments for what state interest is being furthered in those restrictions is not changed because the legal argument for why marriage should be restricted on the basis of sex/gender is not, despite your beliefs, "because it has always been this way". At least not a winning legal argument.
 
There is absolutely reason to believe challenges to polygamy laws will follow any successful transition of marriage into an amorphous social contract with many permutations. Polygamy advocates are TELLING us that they're waiting in the wings for this. That makes it reasonable to believe it's going to happen. If you have some logical reason to believe they're lying about that, go ahead and explain it.

There is no reason to believe that these challenges will be successful. Just as there was a challenge to the restrictions on same sex marriage within a couple of years of the Loving decision and yet it was still ruled valid because the circumstances and arguments are different. Plus, there have been challenges to the laws limiting how many spouses a person can have throughout much of our history (especially once we gained Utah as a state). They have all been shot down, and it shows that it does not require same sex marriage being legal to push for polygamy. It still has to be argued on its merits and on what state interest the state can show is being furthered in keeping that restriction in place. The arguments for these are much different than those involving restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender.
 
Back
Top Bottom