[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[Lursa]

It wouldnt, it would give them the thousands of tax breaks and government entitlements that go along with marriage

Except that related people already get a lot of those anyway. "families" :doh

 

[bomberfox]

Lol wut? I have no idea what you meant by "power level".

Show the text behind all the garbage subtext.

 

[Lursa]

I didnt say there was anything wrong with homosexuality. And equal rights would involve treating the married and unmarried equally. Marriage is unequal by design.

So then end it for straight people if 'you think it's wrong.' Dont complain about gays being treated equally...you are still implying they dont deserve it. Fine if you think that, but then neither do straight couples and you have not addressed straight couples distinctly here.

Hence, calling BS on your claims it's all about how discriminatory legal marriage is. It's a thread about gay marriage, not 'marriage.'

 

[bomberfox]

Except for one thing: the left shoved this down our throats BEFORE it was "legal" with no legitimate reason other than "we want it". And you were one of them.

So we are doing what the moonbats on the left are doing to Trump - resisting.

Being a reactionary to “resist” any attempt to share the priveleges that people like you hold to oppress others is not fighting the power.

 

[bomberfox]

I will rephrase: you can jump up and down and throw yourself on the ground and kick your feet and throw all of the temper tantrums you want but this so called "gay marriage" is not marriage anymore than boys are girls and girls are boys.

And you can't make me or any of these other objectors say that it is. You are just kidding yourself but you are not kidding us.

So go ahead and live in your fantasy world and melt down anytime someone tells you the truth but the reality is that you have failed - you have not changed anybody's mind.

SCOTUS disagrees. Marriage is a legal institution and gay marriage is marriage QED. You can stamp your feet all you like but it is marriage according to the only institutions that matter :3

 

[Wan]

SCOTUS disagrees. Marriage is a legal institution and gay marriage is marriage QED. You can stamp your feet all you like but it is marriage according to the only institutions that matter :3

Appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy.

 

[Logician Man]

Appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy.

Please explain how SCOTUS's ruling is a 'logical fallacy.' ( it isn't FYI )

 

[Wan]

Please explain how SCOTUS's ruling is a 'logical fallacy.' ( it isn't FYI )

No. I did not say the ruling of Scotus is a logical fallacy. The fact bomberfox invokes scotus as if they must be right just because they are scotus, is an instance of appeal to authority.

 

[bomberfox]

Well it IS up for discussion because as a Priest in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, we believe marriage is a sacrament and if you expect us to recognize it as marriage it has to be administered as a sacrament.

Believe what you want, and I'll believe what I believe but don't bother trying to tell me what I should believe. Maybe YOU'RE not going to tell me I'm wrong but you're in a tiny minority.

Nobody cares what you call it and being a priest in an institution that covered up for child sex abuse for as long as the catholic church did really doesnt give you much moral authority.

 

[AGENT J]

No. I did not say the ruling of Scotus is a logical fallacy. The fact bomberfox invokes scotus as if they must be right just because they are scotus, is an instance of appeal to authority.

its neither an appeal to authority not a logical fallacy for many reasons. You claiming it is is actually the fallacy

was is neither . . just real quick

-its not the sole argument and it has logic
-legal marriage is a LEGAL concept so referring to a legal body isnt not illogical
-also its not just scotus it was about 100+ court cases and even more judges

so your claim is false, try again

 

[Logician Man]

No. I did not say the ruling of Scotus is a logical fallacy. The fact bomberfox invokes scotus as if they must be right just because they are scotus, is an instance of appeal to authority.

Then why did you mention ' logical fallacy' in that post to bomberfox ? Where is the 'logical fallacy', and how do you define the term 'logical fallacy' ?

 

[Wan]

Then why did you mention ' logical fallacy' in that post to bomberfox ? Where is the 'logical fallacy', and how do you define the term 'logical fallacy' ?

Sorry, I don't take you seriously.

 

[Lursa]

Sorry, I don't take you seriously.

Translation: I'm in over my head and cant actually explain my post.

Certainly the opposite of discussion. Perhaps this will invite her to return to actually discussing.

 

[dixon01767]

1. Equal rights means treating the married and unmarried the same.

False. Who told you that stupid crap.

The definition of "equal".

 

[ecofarm]

The definition of "equal".

Dictionary educated. I should have guessed.

 

[dixon01767]

Being a reactionary to “resist” any attempt to share the priveleges that people like you hold to oppress others is not fighting the power.

"Oppress"????? What nonsense. Lack of tax breaks, governmental entitlements or government endorsement isn't oppression.

 

[Lursa]

The definition of "equal".

Why should a contract between one party and a couple have to be equal by law to a contract between one party and one individual? The substance of the contract may be substantially altered when limited to one person or divided for 2.

 

[dixon01767]

So then end it for straight people if 'you think it's wrong.

I didn't say there was something wrong with homosexuality and I didn't say anything was wrong with straights marrying.
Your nearly constant grasping for strawman arguments to slay is getting old.

 

[dixon01767]

Why should a contract between one party and a couple have to be equal by law to a contract between one party and one individual? The substance of the contract may be substantially altered when limited to one person or divided for 2.

I have no earthly idea what you are going on about with this "contract between one party and a couple". Some kind of threesome? Im sure its irrelevant to the substance of the debate, which of course, is why you go there.
Giving, for example, a married couple a tax break that is not given to an unmarried couple is UNEQUAL treatment under the law.

 

[Somerville]

"Oppress"????? What nonsense. Lack of tax breaks, governmental entitlements or government endorsement isn't oppression.

By these words, one might come to think that you believe that a person's sexual orientation is sufficient cause to remove rights granted to other citizens of the nation. Seems like oppression to me, inasmuch as it affects a person's financial well-being simply because of their sexual proclivity.

 

[dixon01767]

That isn't for people who are related.

Yeah, were all clear on the fact that all 50 states prohibit people who are related from marrying. Ive stated it repeatedly. Really no need to point out the obvious.

That is for people who are making a family.

No, its for people who marry. And there are millions of people who are making a family and don't get the benefits without marriage. You should probably stick with pointing out the obvious for us.

 

[dixon01767]

By these words, one might come to think that you believe that a person's sexual orientation is sufficient cause to remove rights granted to other citizens of the nation. .

Actually it has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. Somebody put the silly idea in your head that anyone who isn't a fan of same sex marriage, hates gays. AND tax breaks and governmental entitlements aren't "rights"

 

[CLAX1911]

Yeah, were all clear on the fact that all 50 states prohibit people who are related from marrying. Ive stated it repeatedly. Really no need to point out the obvious.

yes and being closely related is a different criteria than being the same sex.

No, its for people who marry. And there are millions of people who are making a family and don't get the benefits without marriage.

that's stupidity on their part.

You should probably stick with pointing out the obvious for us.

I did.

 

[Somerville]

Actually it has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. Somebody put the silly idea in your head that anyone who isn't a fan of same sex marriage, hates gays. AND tax breaks and governmental entitlements aren't "rights"

My questions did not imply that you "hate" gays. If refusing tax breaks and other government entitlements are done on the basis of sexual orientation, how then is that not taking away the rights fo a citizen? What are the criteria you believe should be applied for the granting of "tax breaks and other government entitlements"?

 

[Somerville]

Yeah, were all clear on the fact that all 50 states prohibit people who are related from marrying. Ive stated it repeatedly. Really no need to point out the obvious.

Nope, first cousins ARE allowed to marry in several states. It is a criminal offence in five states. Cousin marriage law in the United States by state - Wikipedia