• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
In response to both SM and CC

easy-button.jpg
 
My evidence is the Bible, still the hottest selling book in the world.

That was very easy.

Yeah, about as easy as Creationism 101 at Weeping Shepherd Baptist High School, where the correct answer to every question on the test is "Cuz the bible sez so" or else "Goddidit".

:roll:
 
My evidence is the Bible, still the hottest selling book in the world.

That was very easy.

Yeah? Well, my evidence is The writings of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Oh, sorry, it has to be a best seller? OK, then my source is Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, which has gay characters living peacefully and happily.

Sorry, I should be ignoring you but you're just too damn easy of a target!
 
True, but the same applies to your morals as well. Your belief that homosexuality is acceptable and that homosexual marriage is an acceptable permutation of the institution of marriage, that deserves the same recognition as the forms of marriage currently accepted in our society, is your opinion and it is not a fact for anyone who disagrees with you.

I agree but since i havent tried to push my morals has fact the point is moot.
I have only argued its discrimination which it is and my morals have nothing to do with that. In america i clealry understand my morals are not yours nor would i force mine on you and my morals would never be the basis or argument and never were.
 
What others? You are the only one on this thread who has accused me of trolling.



It is not a different topic. Your OP asked for a reason for gay marriage to be stopped. I have provided one. I am on topic.

Premise 1: No kind of marriage license should be recognized by the law
------Sub argument for Premise 1------
-SubPremise 1: The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone. (note that you have already agreed with this premise)
-SubPremise 2: Any kind of marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals.
-SubPremise 3: Not everyone is a married individual

-.'. No kind of marriage licenses should be recognized by the law

Premise 2: Gay marriage licenses are a kind of marriage license

.'. Gay marriage licenses should not be recognized by the law.

As you can see, the conclusion directly answers your original challenge in the OP, and as such is on topic. You can either try to debate the truth of my premises, or you can try to attack the validity of the logic. Your attempts to evade are transparent.

You have claimed that gay marriage licenses should be recognized by the law. I have claimed the exact opposite, and provided a reasoned argument for why. Your attempts to run away when your own challenge is answered aren't fooling anyone.

ignored again due to off topic trolling and repeating yourself over and over again but not changing reality and the facts. Already explained to you as to way its CLEARLY off topic and Im dont has others are actually trying to debate the OP.

Thanks take care, good day sir :D
 
Subjectivist fallacy.

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Subjectivist_fallacy/

The relativist fallacy, also known as the subjectivist fallacy, is committed, roughly speaking, when one person claims that something may be true for one person but not true for someone else. The fallacy is supposed to rest on the law of non-contradiction. The fallacy, it is said, applies only to objective facts, or what are alleged to be objective facts, rather than to facts about personal tastes or subjective experiences, and only to facts regarded in the same sense and at the same time. On this formulation, the very name "relativist fallacy" begs the question against anyone who earnestly (however mistakenly or not) holds that there are no "objective facts." So some more work has to be done, in a non-question-begging way, to make it clear wherein, exactly, the fallacy lies.

There are at least two ways to interpret "the relativist fallacy": either as identical to relativism (generally), or as the ad hoc adoption of a relativist stance purely to defend a controversial position.

On the one hand, those discussions of the relativist fallacy which make the fallacy out to be identical to relativism (e.g., linguistic relativism or cultural relativism) are themselves committing a commonly-identified fallacy of informal logic, namely, begging the question against an earnest, intelligent, logically-competent relativist. It is itself a fallacy to describe a controversial view as a "fallacy"--not, at least, without arguing that it is a fallacy. In any event, it will not do to argue as follows:

bzzt. You misapplied the fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Yeah? Well, my evidence is The writings of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Oh, sorry, it has to be a best seller? OK, then my source is Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, which has gay characters living peacefully and happily.

Sorry, I should be ignoring you but you're just too damn easy of a target!

Queers can live together happily without lying to children. Try sticking to the argument.
 
So about gay marriage in Belgium

First, in the Civil Code of 1804, mariage was
- "indissoluble" (once you got married, it was until you died).
- it was not a private matter, it was the matter of the society (you still get married in front of a judge, and now if you divorce it is also done by a judge)
- it was hierarchical: the man leads, the wife obeys and has no right
- don't even think about sex if you're not married

However, during the 60's, there was the "individualist revolution", and marriage
- was not eternal anymore, it became much more easy to get divorced, and today it is a right
- became a private matter
- became egalitarian, men and women are equal
- dignity became central: now a husband can be sued for rape on his wife
- homosexual marriage became acceptable

Basically, marriage used to be based on transmission of patrimony and feeding/educating kids, today it is based on love, being married is "being free together". The core values of this "privatization" of marriage were freedom and equality.

When it legalized gay marriage, our government said:

"The logic that underlied that one of the necessary conditions for marriage was to have two people from different sex, came from the idea that the goal of marriage was procreation. Since people of the same sex are not able to procreate, both the doctrine and the jurisprudence used to consider that the spouses had to be from different sex.

However, today, this explanation is obsolete. Indeed, children are conceived and born both in and outside marriages, and many wed couples do not consider that procreation is an essential purpose of their marriage. In our society, marriage is felt as a relation between two persons whose main purpose is the creation of a lasting "life community". Marriage offers the two partners the possibility to affirm their relation and their feelings in broad daylight.

Mentalities having evolved - marriage today being used to exteriorize and to affirm a relation, and has lost its procreative nature - there is no reason anymore not to let people of the same sex get married.


They also said that giving the right of marriage to gay people was also a way to establish a kind of symbolic equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
 
Queers can live together happily without lying to children. Try sticking to the argument.

OK, so your argument is that the Bible is never wrong? And since it's in the Bible, you think it should be the law of the land?

The Bible also allows for slavery. It says that if you plant two crops next to each other, it's a crime. It's OK to sell your daughter, and if your kids talk back, you are allowed to stone them to death.

So! How's your campaign in favor of slavery going? I mean, obviously, since the Bible cannot be wrong, you must support that. Otherwise, you'd be an absolute hypocrite, wouldn't you?
 
My evidence is the Bible, still the hottest selling book in the world.

That was very easy.

This is both the ciricular resoning and appeal to popularity logical fallacy. The Bible is not evidence that your morals are fact, you cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible is fact, and the Bibile's popularity is meaningless in proving facts.

You keep trying and you keep failing. Where are those links to research that prove your position? :lol:
 
OK, so your argument is that the Bible is never wrong? And since it's in the Bible, you think it should be the law of the land?

The Bible also allows for slavery. It says that if you plant two crops next to each other, it's a crime. It's OK to sell your daughter, and if your kids talk back, you are allowed to stone them to death.

So! How's your campaign in favor of slavery going? I mean, obviously, since the Bible cannot be wrong, you must support that. Otherwise, you'd be an absolute hypocrite, wouldn't you?

Maybe God was just having a bad hair day or PMSing when she dictated those parts.
I certainly hope SouthernMan takes the lobster prohibition seriously, though.
I have it on good authority that God really meant that part.
Also the part about how it's an abomination if men trim the corners of their beards.
 
Morality is not scientific. It doesn't have to be.

Excellent. Which is why you can neither prove it as factual, nor show evidence that it is better than mine or any one elses. You just proved moral relativity.

Self-pwnage at it's best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom