Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

telling? i agree
nothing to reply to since you offered nothing of substance

you want to get rid of marriage fine thats a different topic and still does nothing to the OP and criteria, nor change that its discrimination thanks

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read your own OP. This was the question you posed:

So does anybody have ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage.

Click to expand...

To which the answer is yes, gay marriage needs to be stopped, not because it is gay, but because it is marriage. Here is my argument:

Premise 1: The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone. (note that you have already agreed with this premise)
Premise 2: A marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals.
Premise 3: Not everyone is a married individual

.'. Marriage licenses should not be recognized by the law

Click to expand...

The the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate how this argument is unsound, unreasonable, illogical, biased, selfish, arrogant, hypercritical, or anti-american

In order for the argument to be unsound, one or more of the premises must be false. You have already identified that premise 1 is true, so you must demonstrate that either premise 2 or 3 is false for it to be unsound.

For it to be unreasonable or illogical, the conclusion must not necessarily be drawn as a result of true premises, in which case you must run a truth table to demonstrate an instance in which all three premises are true, and in which the conclusion is false.

For it to be biased or selfish, you must demonstrate that I have some benefit from the outcome which has affected an expressed opinion.

For it to be arrogant, the argument itself must make some assumption of a superior position.

For it to be hypercritical, the argument must make a critique which exceeds a set of standardize criteria.

For it to be anti-american, the argument must present a conclusion which is opposed to the existence of the American continents.

Good luck.

Centrist77 said:

actually his response is 100% accurate as you didnt contest it one bit you only gave other examples per you opinion LOL

if this was still a time when women and minorites couldnt vote and he said "minorities cant vote its discrimination" and you reply "women cant vote either so no its not" that doesnt change the fact that it is still discrimination that minorites cant vote

Click to expand...

You seem to have either reading comprehension issues, or logic issues. I asked what I as a straight man can do that a gay man cannot, and his response was "Get married to the person you love."

The person I love is my dad. I cannot marry him. Therefore I cannot marry the person I love. How do you have trouble understanding this?

why do you continue to troll my argument is about gay marriage you want to stop ALL marriage, so thats a different topic my friend, NEXT lmao
we get it you dont want marriage but its here and not what we are debating, maybe you should red it again slower because i understand it has I wrote it LOL

so i have no burden of proof has you are off topic

thanks for the luck but i didnt need it has it was very easy lol

I just wonder how adopted children will like living with two moms or two dads.

why do you continue to troll my argument is about gay marriage you want to stop ALL marriage, so thats a different topic my friend, NEXT lmao
we get it you dont want marriage but its here and not what we are debating, maybe you should red it again slower because i understand it has I wrote it LOL

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I red things at the same speed that I blue and yellow them. The question you posed was:

So does anybody have ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage.

Click to expand...

I have just such a reason. And it happens to be the same reason that I have for stopping straight marriage. Gay marriage is a type of marriage, and as such, the arguments against any marriage are applicable.

If asked why I think Acapulco gold should be decriminalized, I would give the reasons why I think all drugs should be decriminalized. The fact that my reasons apply to more than just Acapulco gold does not make them irrelevant. Similarly, that fact that my arguments apply to all marriage, and not just gay marriage does not negate the fact that gay marriage is one of the types of marriage that they apply to.

I think gay marriage should be stopped because it is a type of marriage. My argument for this is sound, reasonable, logical, non-baised, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, and not anti-american. Prove otherwise if you can.

so i have no burden of proof has you are off topic

thanks for the luck but i didnt need it has it was very easy lol

Click to expand...

Your attempts to escape your own challenge are transparent. Claiming that I am off topic when I have clearly demonstrated why my argument for stopping all marriage would include stopping gay marriage (a fact which should have been immediately apparent to any rational creature) is disingenuous.

Edit: Please note also that the criteria you yourself outlined in the OP included that it be sound, reasonable, logical, non-baised, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, and not anti-american. Being on-topic was not one of the criteria listed, so regardless of whether you think it is on topic or not you have yet to find fault based on your own OP criteria.

ZGM said:

I just wonder how adopted children will like living with two moms or two dads.

Click to expand...

Assuming they were two good moms or two good dads, they would be fine with it either way.

Panache said:

You seem to have either reading comprehension issues, or logic issues. I asked what I as a straight man can do that a gay man cannot, and his response was "Get married to the person you love."

The person I love is my dad. I cannot marry him. Therefore I cannot marry the person I love. How do you have trouble understanding this?

Click to expand...

he gave a 100% correct answer as you can get married to a person you love, not the ONE example you listed but a person you love and the gays can not get married to that same type of person/relationship
like i said per my example adding too the list doesnt take away the facts you didnt contest his statement one single bit LOL
you have trouble understanding REALITY vs SEMANTICS vs smart people who wont let you play that game

Panache said:

Sorry, but I red things at the same speed that I blue and yellow them. The question you posed was:



I have just such a reason. And it happens to be the same reason that I have for stopping straight marriage. Gay marriage is a type of marriage, and as such, the arguments against any marriage are applicable.

If asked why I think Acapulco gold should be decriminalized, I would give the reasons why I think all drugs should be decriminalized. The fact that my reasons apply to more than just Acapulco gold does not make them irrelevant. Similarly, that fact that my arguments apply to all marriage, and not just gay marriage does not negate the fact that gay marriage is one of the types of marriage that they apply to.

I think gay marriage should be stopped because it is a type of marriage. My argument for this is sound, reasonable, logical, non-baised, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, and not anti-american. Prove otherwise if you can.



Your attempts to escape your own challenge are transparent. Claiming that I am off topic when I have clearly demonstrated why my argument for stopping all marriage would include stopping gay marriage (a fact which should have been immediately apparent to any rational creature) is disingenuous.

Edit: Please note also that the criteria you yourself outlined in the OP included that it be sound, reasonable, logical, non-baised, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, and not anti-american. Being on-topic was not one of the criteria listed, so regardless of whether you think it is on topic or not you have yet to find fault based on your own OP criteria.

Click to expand...

sorry you are just factually wrong whether you choose to aknowledge it or not LMAO nothing changes as its here in black and white
you want all marriage gone, fine we get it, as you keep saying like a robot. thats a different topic since marriage is here and this debate is about stoping marriage, mainly but not soley based on discrimination.If we get rid of all marriage this debate doesnt happen but since thats not the case an I live in reality your opinion is noted and does not applly has it is another topic.

untill marriage doesnt excisit your point is in fact meaningless

ZGM said:

I just wonder how adopted children will like living with two moms or two dads.

Click to expand...

nothing to really wonder about studies have shown pasted in this thread that the kids arent effected in any grand way, the home is equally good or bad that didnt change and also the well roundedness of the child didnt change

I agree it can be a "concern" has with biricial kids, a kid with one parent a kid with a disabled parent, a kid with an overweight parent etc. but in the end if the parents are good it doesnt seem to matter.

I don't think it is right to stop gay marriage. It amazes me when people oppose gay marriage, because it really doesn't affect them. It doesn't make their marriage any less valid. It just allows LGBT people to have the same opportunities, and advantages of being married.

Your Star said:

I don't think it is right to stop gay marriage. It amazes me when people oppose gay marriage, because it really doesn't affect them. It doesn't make their marriage any less valid. It just allows LGBT people to have the same opportunities, and advantages of being married.

Click to expand...

exactly it only stops discrimination

Centrist77 said:

he gave a 100% correct answer as you can get married to a person you love, not the ONE example you listed but a person you love and the gays can not get married to that same type of person/relationship
like i said per my example adding too the list doesnt take away the facts you didnt contest his statement one single bit LOL
you have trouble understanding REALITY vs SEMANTICS vs smart people who wont let you play that game

Click to expand...

A gay man can marry a woman that he loves so long as she isn't either already married or related to him. Perhaps a gay man doesn't have the kind of romantic relationship you are talking about with a woman, but on the other hand, there are plenty of straight guys who don't have that kind of romantic relationship with a woman either.

The fact of the matter is, that there is no woman that I wish to marry, and so the privileges associated with marriage continue to be denied to me unless I marry someone I don't want to.

Centrist77 said:

sorry you are just factually wrong whether you choose to aknowledge it or not LMAO

Click to expand...

Which fact did I espouse which you believe to be incorrect? Source?

nothing changes as its here in black and white
you want all marriage gone, fine we get it, as you keep saying like a robot. thats a different topic since marriage is here and this debate is about stoping marriage, mainly but not soley based on discrimination.

Click to expand...

No. Read your own OP. This debate is about finding one reason to stop gay marriage. I have provided such a reason. Gay marriage is a type of marriage. All types of marriage should be stopped. Therefore, gay marriage should be stopped. It is a perfect logical syllogism.

If we get rid of all marriage this debate doesnt happen but since thats not the case an I live in reality your opinion is noted and does not applly has it is another topic.

Click to expand...

Do you even have a clue how ridiculous that sounds? I can dismiss your argument for how things should be based on them not being that way currently too. Look:

If we allow gay marriage[sic] this debate doesnt happen[sic] but since thats[sic] not the case[sic] an[sic] I live in reality[sic] your opinion is noted and[sic] does not applly[sic] has[sic] it is another topic.

See? That was easy. Now, would you care to back your claim that I have made some factual error, or are you just going to admit that you have encountered a well reasoned answer to your challenge?

untill marriage doesnt excisit your point is in fact meaningless

Click to expand...

There we go again with dismissing arguments for how things should be based on how they are. Let me give it a go with your point:

untill[sic] gay marriage excisits[sic] everywhere, your point is in fact meaningless[sic]

See how that works? You say that gays should be allowed to get married, and I say that they aren't currently allowed to get married, so your point that they should be allowed to get married is meaningless. Does that actually make some sort of sense in your brain?

Panache said:

A gay man can marry a woman that he loves so long as she isn't either already married or related to him. Perhaps a gay man doesn't have the kind of romantic relationship you are talking about with a woman, but on the other hand, there are plenty of straight guys who don't have that kind of romantic relationship with a woman either.

The fact of the matter is, that there is no woman that I wish to marry, and so the privileges associated with marriage continue to be denied to me unless I marry someone I don't want to.

Click to expand...

which is all STILL meaningless to the debate as it changes nothing LMAO but yet very funny that you think it is

Panache said:

Which fact did I espouse which you believe to be incorrect? Source?



No. Read your own OP. This debate is about finding one reason to stop gay marriage. I have provided such a reason. Gay marriage is a type of marriage. All types of marriage should be stopped. Therefore, gay marriage should be stopped. It is a perfect logical syllogism.



Do you even have a clue how ridiculous that sounds? I can dismiss your argument for how things should be based on them not being that way currently too. Look:

If we allow gay marriage[sic] this debate doesnt happen[sic] but since thats[sic] not the case[sic] an[sic] I live in reality[sic] your opinion is noted and[sic] does not applly[sic] has[sic] it is another topic.

See? That was easy. Now, would you care to back your claim that I have made some factual error, or are you just going to admit that you have encountered a well reasoned answer to your challenge?



There we go again with dismissing arguments for how things should be based on how they are. Let me give it a go with your point:

untill[sic] gay marriage excisits[sic] everywhere, your point is in fact meaningless[sic]

See how that works? You say that gays should be allowed to get married, and I say that they aren't currently allowed to get married, so your point that they should be allowed to get married is meaningless. Does that actually make some sort of sense in your brain?

Click to expand...

logic is obviously not your strong suit has you fail to use it each time LOL
my op is based on marriage exsiting which IT DOES, and since it does my argument is theres no good reason to not allow gay marriage because among other reasons it discrimination. Marriage exists sorry, your example is NOT the same by any stretch of the imagination. You just want to keep TRYING to change the debate but i wont let you

please continue though has this gets more entertaining with each post and you look more silly

your factual error is that you have not argued against the OP or proved it isnt discrimination but then again you cant because that fact will always reign true because it is discrimination

keep trying though this is funny:laughat:

opcorn2:

If Gay Marriage is legal then children will have to be taught a lie, that homosexuality is normal moral natural and healthy, which it ain't.

Southern Man said:

If Gay Marriage is legal then children will have to be taught a lie, that homosexuality is normal moral natural and healthy, which it ain't.

Click to expand...

None of what you say is accurate or logical. As usual. Firstly, morality is relative, so your point is negated. Secondly, it is found in nature, so it is natural, so your point is negated. And thirdly, homosexuality is not unhealthy. Certain behaviors that homosexuals and heterosexuals practice are unhealthy... so your point is negated.

That was easy. Destroying your entire position in one simple paragraph. And didn't even need to break a sweat.

Centrist77 said:

Im sure this issue has been debated over and over again but since im doing research and studying Id love more opinions cause its fun.

Also let me add not only am I looking for your opinion im looking for your reasoning if your answer is yes.

I have discussed gay marriage many many times and have yet to hear ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage Almost every reason I have ever heard was also used about womens rights, equal rights interracial marriage etc. they were dumb and didnt apply then and they certainly havent changed now

now mind you, pay attention to my verbiage, I said reason to STOP it.

That means in America I think its fine for anybody to:
THINK its wrong, gross or offensive etc
TEACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
PREACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
BELIEVE its wrong gross or offensive etc
FEEL its wrong gross or offensive etc
etc

but once you try to stop it I think you wrong on so many levels.
I cant imagine how AMERICANS think they have the right to tell two CONSENTING ADULTS who and who they cant marry lmao
Does it get anymore pompous and arrogant and selfish and hypercritical and anti american than that. How anybody thinks they have the right to tell a person they cant marry another one is beyond me.

I myself im not gay so i REALLY feel its non of my business but has an american I have to call BS on the other so called americans that do think its there buisness some how.

Anyway maybe this time will be different, it actually be VERY interesting if it is different. So does anybody have ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage. Who thinks they have a sound reason on why they should get to determine who two consenting adults can and can not marry.

Click to expand...

It's very simple: if you consider that mariage is a private matter and that equality and absence of discrimination are core values, then gay mariage is OK.

Southern Man said:

If Gay Marriage is legal then children will have to be taught a lie, that homosexuality is normal

Click to expand...

It's the society as a whole that decides of what is normal and what is not. Normality is a social construction, and a construction that changes over time.

In 1950 it was "normal" that black people were second class citizen. In 1900 it was "normal" that women did not have the right to vote. In 1850 it was "normal" that black people could be slaves.

In 2010 these things are not "normal" anymore. In 2010 it is normal that black men are equal to white men. It is normal that women are equal to men. And it is normal that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals.

moral

Click to expand...

Same as normality

natural

Click to expand...

What do you call "natural"? If it is "what happens in nature", then homosexuality is natural since there are homosexual people.

and healthy, which it ain't.

Click to expand...

What is not healthy in homosexuality? Is it anal sex? Then do you also forbid anal sex among heterosexuals? And what is not healthy in it anyways?

And if you're worried about what is unhealthy, do you support bans on cigarettes and fast food?

CaptainCourtesy, bub, you took the words right out of my mouth. Totally agree.

Panache said:

I love my mom. I'm not allowed to marry her. I love my dad, I;m not allowed to marry him. I love my brother and sister, and I'm not allowed to marry either of them. I have no more interest in marrying a girl right now than a gay man does.

Clearly your response is inaccurate.

Click to expand...

Clearly your response is hilarious!

Oh, were you serious? You love your parents and want to live with them forever and have sex with them? You have bigger problems than I thought.

Centrist77 said:

logic is obviously not your strong suit has you fail to use it each time LOL

Click to expand...

Very well then, why don't you draw up a truth table to demonstrate how my premises can be true while the conclusion is false?

my op is based on marriage exsiting which IT DOES,

Click to expand...

So? Of course marriage exists. Lots of things exists that shouldn't. Murder exists, theft exists. I have provided a reasoned argument to stop marriages, including gay marriages, which was the challenge issued in the OP. You have yet to address this argument at all, because you can't. Instead you try and pretend like the argument doesn't address your question.

and since it does my argument is theres no good reason to not allow gay marriage because among other reasons it discrimination.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is a good reason not to allow gay marriage. The good reason is that gay marriage is a type of marriage, which is an institution that needs to be stopped.

Marriage exists sorry, your example is NOT the same by any stretch of the imagination. You just want to keep TRYING to change the debate but i wont let you

Click to expand...

Ok, supposed you asked for one good reason why blondes shouldn't be allowed to murder brunettes, and your argument was that it was discrimination against blondes. I would say that blondes shouldn't be allowed to murder brunettes because murder infringes on the rights of others. Then you say: "my op is based on murder exsiting which IT DOES, and since it does my argument is theres no good reason to not allow blondes to commit murder because among other reasons it discrimination."

Do you see how little sense this makes? Murder needing to be stopped is a perfectly good reason to stop blondes from committing murder against brunettes. Similarly, marriage needing to be stopped is a perfectly good reason to stop gays from getting married.

please continue though has this gets more entertaining with each post and you look more silly

Click to expand...

Says the the one who can't structure a sentence.

your factual error is that you have not argued against the OP

Click to expand...

First of all, yes I have. You asked for one good reason not to allow gay marriage, and I have provided one. Since you have failed to form a rebuttal addressing the actual argument, my reasoning has gone unchallenged.

Secondly, even if I hadn't, that wouldn't be a factual error. A factual error is when one presents inaccurate information as fact. If I said that Madrid is the capital of Italy for example, that would be a factual error. Not addressing the OP is not a presentation of information of any kind, and accordingly cannot be a factual error.

or proved it isnt discrimination

Click to expand...

The challenge was to provide a good reason for it to be stopped, not to prove that it wasn't discrimination.

but then again you cant because that fact will always reign true because it is discrimination

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. You asked for a reason to stop gay marriage. I provided one. You have not formed a rebuttal. You need to either prove that marriage does not give special privileges to married couples that are not available to unmarried individuals, or prove that everyone in the world is married.

keep trying though this is funny:laughat:

Click to expand...

What is funny is you continuing to try and evade addressing your own criteria.

Groucho said:

Clearly your response is hilarious!

Oh, were you serious? You love your parents and want to live with them forever and have sex with them? You have bigger problems than I thought.

Click to expand...

No. I do love my parents, but I don't want to live with them forever and have sex with them. Then again, there aren't any women I want to live with forever either, or men for that matter, so what's your point? I like being single. Why should I be treated as as second class citizen for choosing to remain so?

Panache said:

Very well then, why don't you draw up a truth table to demonstrate how my premises can be true while the conclusion is false?



So? Of course marriage exists. Lots of things exists that shouldn't. Murder exists, theft exists. I have provided a reasoned argument to stop marriages, including gay marriages, which was the challenge issued in the OP. You have yet to address this argument at all, because you can't. Instead you try and pretend like the argument doesn't address your question.



Yes, there is a good reason not to allow gay marriage. The good reason is that gay marriage is a type of marriage, which is an institution that needs to be stopped.



Ok, supposed you asked for one good reason why blondes shouldn't be allowed to murder brunettes, and your argument was that it was discrimination against blondes. I would say that blondes shouldn't be allowed to murder brunettes because murder infringes on the rights of others. Then you say: "my op is based on murder exsiting which IT DOES, and since it does my argument is theres no good reason to not allow blondes to commit murder because among other reasons it discrimination."

Do you see how little sense this makes? Murder needing to be stopped is a perfectly good reason to stop blondes from committing murder against brunettes. Similarly, marriage needing to be stopped is a perfectly good reason to stop gays from getting married.



Says the the one who can't structure a sentence.



First of all, yes I have. You asked for one good reason not to allow gay marriage, and I have provided one. Since you have failed to form a rebuttal addressing the actual argument, my reasoning has gone unchallenged.

Secondly, even if I hadn't, that wouldn't be a factual error. A factual error is when one presents inaccurate information as fact. If I said that Madrid is the capital of Italy for example, that would be a factual error. Not addressing the OP is not a presentation of information of any kind, and accordingly cannot be a factual error.



The challenge was to provide a good reason for it to be stopped, not to prove that it wasn't discrimination.



Irrelevant. You asked for a reason to stop gay marriage. I provided one. You have not formed a rebuttal. You need to either prove that marriage does not give special privileges to married couples that are not available to unmarried individuals, or prove that everyone in the world is married.



What is funny is you continuing to try and evade addressing your own criteria.

Click to expand...

Still trying huh, i love it!
How much denial could you possible have? You seem to REALLY believe it LMAO
Sorry the fact that marriage excisits to only certian groupd and gays are discriminated against the OP still clearly stands has ever reason so far has been found to be:

unsound
unreasonable
discriminative
illogical
bias
selfish
arrogant
hypercritical
and/or anti-american

Let me know when you have something on topic ill be waiting :laughat:

CaptainCourtesy said:

None of what you say is accurate or logical. As usual. Firstly, morality is relative, so your point is negated. Secondly, it is found in nature, so it is natural, so your point is negated. And thirdly, homosexuality is not unhealthy. Certain behaviors that homosexuals and heterosexuals practice are unhealthy... so your point is negated.

That was easy. Destroying your entire position in one simple paragraph. And didn't even need to break a sweat.

Click to expand...

I wonder why a 750-posts-long debate is even needed to reach this conclusion. Copy/past this very paragraph (is that correct English?) and you can destroy any anti-gay mariage argument.