• 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!

South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

1.) false dictionary definition with link proves your statments wrong TWICE now lol
by definition you in fact made a strawman argument

facts and the dictionary support my statement what do you have on your side again?

2.) this is ANOTHER strawman because I didnt claim you said that, I made an analogy that proved your original failed straw man to be even more wrong.
facts win again, tell us that "silly" line again LMAO

try to keep up
Look dude, if you want to continue to look foolish by misusing a term, that's your business. But here is a definition and an easy to read example to help you better understand the word and to identify it when it actually happens. And, no, I don't expect you to get it.

The straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to refute. Straw man arguments often oversimplify opposing views or disregard inconvenient points in favor of points that are easy to argue against.

Examples

In many instances, the person committing the straw man fallacy highlights the most extreme position of the opposing side—for example:
◾Opposing argument: Teens should be taught about contraception methods so they can practice safe sex should they choose to have intercourse.
◾Straw man argument: Proponents of sex education want to give kids license to have sex with no consequences.
 
Look dude, if you want to continue to look foolish by misusing a term, that's your business. But here is a definition and an easy to read example to help you better understand the word and to identify it when it actually happens. And, no, I don't expect you to get it.

The straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to refute. Straw man arguments often oversimplify opposing views or disregard inconvenient points in favor of points that are easy to argue against.

Examples

In many instances, the person committing the straw man fallacy highlights the most extreme position of the opposing side—for example:
◾Opposing argument: Teens should be taught about contraception methods so they can practice safe sex should they choose to have intercourse.
◾Straw man argument: Proponents of sex education want to give kids license to have sex with no consequences.

the dictionary and already prove you wrong, there's no changing this fact :shrug:
Ill go with Websters over your opinion and failed strawman, you know since its silly and foolish to use facts and the definition of a word. No need to lash out and name call because your argument failed and it was factually exposed as a strawman.

would you like them AGAIN?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-sex-marriage-licenses-76.html#post1063868729
: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated

do you have one solid reason why i should ignore facts and the dictionary, if so please provide it now LMAO

facts win again
 
the dictionary and already prove you wrong, there's no changing this fact :shrug:
Ill go with Websters over your opinion and failed strawman, you know since its silly and foolish to use facts and the definition of a word. No need to lash out and name call because your argument failed and it was factually exposed as a strawman.

would you like them AGAIN?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-sex-marriage-licenses-76.html#post1063868729
: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated

do you have one solid reason why i should ignore facts and the dictionary, if so please provide it now LMAO

facts win again
Oh my God. This must be what its like in the Twilight Zone. I gave you a definition and an example and you just pretend like nothing has happened. Look dude, believe whatever you want. Call everything a straw man, what the hell do I care. Every time I get into a conversation with you I want to kick myself for doing so. So you go back to misunderstanding simple definitions and Ill go kick myself for wasting my time
 
There you go again preaching God as if it were fact. Look, you are entitled to YOUR opinion. Live YOUR life the way YOU want to live it. Don't tell others that are gay what they can and cannot do. Maybe you should spend more time worrying about YOUR sins than some homosexuals getting married.

I don't believe blarg is gay and the subject ..as you said, is SSM so, I'll worry about that for time being.
 
I don't believe blarg is gay and the subject ..as you said, is SSM so, I'll worry about that for time being.

true im not he might have been referring to gay people and ssm in general though
 
They're not creating any laws here. They are striking restrictions within laws down. This places those laws in a state where they are not restrictive, which in the case of marriage, means that anyone who was restricted legally from entering into marriage due to the specific restriction that was struck down as unconstitutional, can now enter into it because there is no longer a valid restriction preventing them from doing so.

The mayor of Houston (who is Gay) just tried to pass a law that would restrict what ministers and priests could say from the pulpit regarding homosexuality. So don't tell me laws aren't created specifically for Gays.
 
What are most opponants of SSM?


Religious

And religion CANNOT be proven as fact, therefore should not be used to decide law STRICTLY on religion alone.
 
I don't believe blarg is gay and the subject ..as you said, is SSM so, I'll worry about that for time being.

Yes, the subject is SSM and you have said you want to force YOUR beliefs on others. That is authoritarian.
 
Many already are, you simply don't recognize it.

Many would consider bondage deviant behavior, and it is legal so long as it is consensual. Many would consider S&M deviant behavior, yet it is legal, at least to a point and again as long as it is consensual. Swinging, fetishes (at least some), and crossdressing, all considered by many to be deviant behavior, and all are legal (as I said, the fetishes to a point, it depends on the particular fetish, but most are legal). Others consider interracial or interfaith relationships to be deviant behaviors, they are legal. Some consider sex before marriage or masturbation to be deviant behaviors. Guess what? Both are legal.

It ends where the majority/state can show a legitimate (at least) state interest is furthered by restricting that behavior.
Bestiality, polygamy and pedophia on that list? How about ritualistic cannibalism?

You know exactly where I'm going here.
 
Beatiality, polygamy and pedophia on that list? How about ritualist cannibalism?

More slippery slope nonsense from someone that is losing the SSM argument.
 
Oh my God. This must be what its like in the Twilight Zone. I gave you a definition and an example and you just pretend like nothing has happened. Look dude, believe whatever you want. Call everything a straw man, what the hell do I care. Every time I get into a conversation with you I want to kick myself for doing so. So you go back to misunderstanding simple definitions and Ill go kick myself for wasting my time

true im not he might have been referring to gay people and ssm in general though

Then he's misrepresenting my post.
 
The mayor of Houston (who is Gay) just tried to pass a law that would restrict what ministers and priests could say from the pulpit regarding homosexuality. So don't tell me laws aren't created specifically for Gays.
No that is a lie on both counts.
 
Oh my God. This must be what its like in the Twilight Zone. I gave you a definition and an example and you just pretend like nothing has happened. Look dude, believe whatever you want. Call everything a straw man, what the hell do I care. Every time I get into a conversation with you I want to kick myself for doing so. So you go back to misunderstanding simple definitions and Ill go kick myself for wasting my time

once again, why does YOUR opinion of the definition trump facts and Websters dictionary?:lamo


facts remains, you posted a failed strawman that nobody educated, honest and objective buys
the fact you posted a strawman wont change no matter how desperately you try to deflect
facts win again
 
Oh my God. This must be what its like in the Twilight Zone. I gave you a definition and an example and you just pretend like nothing has happened. Look dude, believe whatever you want. Call everything a straw man, what the hell do I care. Every time I get into a conversation with you I want to kick myself for doing so. So you go back to misunderstanding simple definitions and Ill go kick myself for wasting my time

More slippery slope nonsense from someone that is losing the SSM argument.

I asked "how far will it go" and got no answer (including from you)

50 years ago, no one expected Gays and Ssm to be normalized or legal.

My point is as valid as it gets.
 
The mayor of Houston (who is Gay) just tried to pass a law that would restrict what ministers and priests could say from the pulpit regarding homosexuality. So don't tell me laws aren't created specifically for Gays.

seems to be demanding for a recording of what they say rather then limiting what they say but maybe that is going to far
 
The mayor of Houston (who is Gay) just tried to pass a law that would restrict what ministers and priests could say from the pulpit regarding homosexuality. So don't tell me laws aren't created specifically for Gays.

Somehow I doubt this is true, but if it is, then that is wrong. I could care less what ministers say to their congregations.

That being said, I highly doubt the law just covered what was being said against gays. I'm willing to bet it was much more general than that.

Do you happen to have a link to the actual law that he was trying to pass (and not some right-wing or Christian blog/website that likely doesn't give all relevant information)? I would like to see the actual full text of the attempted legislation.
 
I asked "how far will it go" and got no answer (including from you)

50 years ago, no one expected Gays and Ssm to be normalized or legal.

My point is as valid as it gets.

it actually has no validity at all based on law and rights, ignore that fact if you want but it wont go away lol
 
And religion CANNOT be proven as fact, therefore should not be used to decide law STRICTLY on religion alone.

is it even legal to make a law simply to compel others to follow part of your faith?
 
I asked "how far will it go" and got no answer (including from you)

50 years ago, no one expected Gays and Ssm to be normalized or legal.

My point is as valid as it gets.

How far will it go if we allow you folks to dictate SSM? Will you then force people to pray in school, give money to the church, pray to your god, etc? I mean we have seen in the past how religious nuts like to control the lives of people in the name of God. See I can do slippery slopes as well.

Again, playing idiotic slippery slope games is stupid. The issue at hand is this. Being homosexual is not illegal, a homosexual act is not illegal, and homosexuals raising children is not illegal. Therefore it is stupid to not allow SSM.
 
Bestiality, polygamy and pedophia on that list? How about ritualistic cannibalism?

You know exactly where I'm going here.

Actually, polygamy, where it isn't legally recognized but people merely living together is legal in most states and likely soon will be legal in all. Bestiality is legal in some states actually. Bestiality is not marrying an animal, but rather simply having sex with it. Certain forms of ritualistic cannibalism are actually legal, I believe.

But what you failed to notice or simply ignored is the last sentence,

It ends where the majority/state can show a legitimate (at least) state interest is furthered by restricting that behavior.

That is the difference. Outlawing, limiting, or restricting those things you mentioned can be shown, when challenged to further a legitimate state interest. Restricting marriage to only opposite sex couples cannot.
 
I asked "how far will it go" and got no answer (including from you)

50 years ago, no one expected Gays and Ssm to be normalized or legal.

My point is as valid as it gets.


50 years ago (1964) there were many people that didn't expect that coloreds could marry respectable white folk either would be normalized or leagal in all 50 states. Hell Alabama was one of the ones that passed a State Constitutional Amendment to make sure that didn't happen. The Loving decision was in 1967, that changed.



>>>>
 
Bestiality, polygamy and pedophia on that list? How about ritualistic cannibalism?

You know exactly where I'm going here.

I don't

if you need consent enamels and kids are off limits

pretty sure killing some one to eat them is a violation of a persons rights if you want to much on a corpse of some one who agrees to that and they die of natural causes I guess health considerations are the biggest thing that might stand in your way

but in any case we need a more compelling argument against something then yuck

like the lady said


ends where the majority/state can show a legitimate (at least) state interest is furthered by restricting that behavior
 
Back
Top Bottom