• 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!

[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

Angel said:
Angel posted a clever argument. Did you not see it? Or didn't you get it?
Here:
Click to expand...

Your post isn't a clever argument, instead it's specious logic.
 
Angel said:
Specious? How so?
Click to expand...

Every argument that is made is logically wrong. It is romantic ideas that aren't necessarily true.

Parental care does not require monogamy.

Marriage does not require monogamy

There isn't even support that humans are naturally monogamous or that it is biologically necessary or advantageous.

The idea that marriage and the sexual division of labor are linked is laughable.
 
Lisa said:
Every argument that is made is logically wrong. It is romantic ideas that aren't necessarily true.

Parental care does not require monogamy.

Marriage does not require monogamy

There isn't even support that humans are naturally monogamous or that it is biologically necessary or advantageous.

The idea that marriage and the sexual division of labor are linked is laughable.
Click to expand...
All the premises you find laughably specious are drawn from evolutionary biology. Do you not buy into that mythology?
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
What in the links makes you think that "it should be paternal care → monogamy"? Please be specific.
Click to expand...

Because that's that the links are talking about.
DUH!!!!!!
I know simple logic is well beyond your limited abilities but really this is should be beyond obvious even for you
 
Angel said:
All the premises you find laughably specious are drawn from evolutionary biology. Do you not buy into that mythology?
Click to expand...

No you are confused because you dont understand biology or evolution (heck you dont even accept evolutionary). So not only are you trying to make an argument based on a field you dont understand you are trying to make an argument based on a field you believe is complete nonsense
Now try to defend your 2nd line
 
Lursa said:
No. And 'it is not discrimination because we also dont allow closely-related couples to marry' has also not worked.
Click to expand...

String together a few words stating how it is not discrimination.
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
Because that's that the links are talking about.
DUH!!!!!!
I know simple logic is well beyond your limited abilities but really this is should be beyond obvious even for you
Click to expand...
The links are talking about both sides of the arrow. What in the links makes you think that "it should be paternal care → monogamy" instead of monogamy → paternal care? Please be specific.
 
Quag said:
No you are confused because you dont understand biology or evolution (heck you dont even accept evolutionary). So not only are you trying to make an argument based on a field you dont understand you are trying to make an argument based on a field you believe is complete nonsense
Now try to defend your 2nd line
Click to expand...
Your antagonistic post puts me in mind of the words of Jesus in one of the New Testament stories. Jesus, as the story goes, while spending time in the desert practicing austerities, is heckled by the Devil, who talks a lot of nonsense in an attempt to distract Jesus from His spiritual exercises. Jesus' dismissal of the Arch Heckler is one of the great dramatic moments in His ministry.
 
dixon01767 said:
String together a few words stating how it is not discrimination.
Click to expand...

We've been thru this before and you refused to acknowledge it. But I'll repost it for some of the newer participants.

The key reason closely related couples were refused marriage was because of medical reasons, concerns over genetic issues. Those public health concerns were real at the time, as there were individuals of such couplings that had mental and physical defects. Do you believe that those 'medical reasons' are the same as discrimination? Is public health concern the same as discrimination? (And I am using 'discrimination in the context that it has been used by yourself and others here in the discussion)

That was a decision made long in the past before there was a better understanding of genetics and the means to test people.

Why arent we re-examining closely-related couples marrying today? We did it for interracial couples. We did it for gay couples. Why is there no movement for relatives? Where are 'closely-related couples' a protected class?

Because there is no interest in it. There is no such movement. At least not one that rises to the level of any state's interest.

So, where is the 'discrimination?' Altho the reason for the decision in the past may no longer be valid, it was not based on discrimination, and it seems there is no "protected class" demanding marriage for relatives today.

If you are going to respond, please answer the questions before presenting your arguments.

Edit: for others, the reason that this was discussed earlier was because Dixon claimed that it was 'not' discrimination to refuse gays marriage. His reason: because there are other couples that we do not allow to marry. And when I asked 'what other couples?' the only other example was closely-related couples. And so then he had to try and prove the reason they were denied marriage was 'discrimination.' Which is of course, not true.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
The links are talking about both sides of the arrow. What in the links makes you think that "it should be paternal care → monogamy" instead of monogamy → paternal care? Please be specific.
Click to expand...

Because that is what they say
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Angel said:
Your antagonistic post puts me in mind of the words of Jesus in one of the New Testament stories. Jesus, as the story goes, while spending time in the desert practicing austerities, is heckled by the Devil, who talks a lot of nonsense in an attempt to distract Jesus from His spiritual exercises. Jesus' dismissal of the Arch Heckler is one of the great dramatic moments in His ministry.
Click to expand...


You are not polite or honest enough to be Jesus and no where near clever enough to be the Devil
But you do have the devils over inflated sense of self worth
 
Quag said:
Because that is what they say
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
What do you think the links say that makes you think that "it should be paternal care → monogamy" instead of monogamy → paternal care? Please be specific?
 
Quag said:
You are not polite or honest enough to be Jesus and no where near clever enough to be the Devil
But you do have the devils over inflated sense of self worth
Click to expand...
Keep up the personal cracks. You're impressing Lursa.
 
Angel said:
What do you think the links say that makes you think that "it should be paternal care → monogamy" instead of monogamy → paternal care? Please be specific?
Click to expand...

Try reading the links!!!
 
Quag said:
Try reading the links!!!
Click to expand...
I've read the links. Have you? Now, again, what do you think the links say that makes you think that "it should be paternal care → monogamy" instead of monogamy → paternal care? Please be specific?
 
Angel said:
I've read the links. Have you? Now, again, what do you think the links say that makes you think that "it should be paternal care → monogamy" instead of monogamy → paternal care? Please be specific?
Click to expand...

You obviously havent read them
 
Angel said:
Keep up the personal cracks. You're impressing Lursa.
Click to expand...

Quag said:
Just treating you the way you treat others
Click to expand...
That's an outright lie. I never make personal cracks, never the like of the crudities in your posts. But as I said, keep up your personal cracks about me -- they're attracting the attention and approval of one Lursa from the Abortion forum.
 
Quag said:
You obviously havent read them
Click to expand...
Answer the question or bow out.
I've read the links. Have you? Now, again, what do you think the links say that makes you think that "it should be paternal care → monogamy" instead of monogamy → paternal care? Please be specific?
 
Lursa said:
We've been thru this before and you refused to acknowledge it. But I'll repost it for some of the newer participants.

The key reason closely related couples were refused marriage.......
Click to expand...

We all know why they WERE, in the past excluded. Youve presented nothing here to support the argument that it is not now discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom