• 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

dixon01767 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never said you said there was anything wrong with homosexuality. And I didnt say you said there was anything wrong with straight marriage.

I said you didnt discuss the actual things you were claiming, for example, if you were against legal marriage in general, you only framed in within the context of gays and didnt bring up straight marriage *in that context.*
 
Wan said:
Appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

If the question is whether gay marriage is "marriage" in the eyes of the law, the state, creditors, hospitals, courts, etc. then citing the authority on what the law IS simply isn't an appeal to authority. It's no more an "appeal to authority" than citing the dictionary about the meaning and spelling of a word. Both might be a "appeals to authority" but neither are logical fallacies. Sometimes/often appeals to authority are perfectly valid arguments.

Sure, anyone can assert that any given legal marriage is not a 'true' 'marriage' in the eyes of the church, or that person, or the cosmos, or whatever, but that can be true of opposite sex marriages, such as following divorce, interracial or interfaith marriages, or those marriages not consecrated by the church. I could for example assert that Newt Gingrich's third marriage is not "MARRIAGE" as I've determined it, because he married his mistress for the second time! And according to my own standard, that's NOT A MARRIAGE AND NOTHING YOU CAN SAY WILL CHANGE MY MIND!!!! In that case appealing to the SC is of no consequence, because my determination has nothing to do with the law or the state or society at large, but my own subjective beliefs, and there is no objective standard we can apply to subjective beliefs.
 
dixon01767 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The 'contract' is 'legal marriage.'

And why should the govt recognize an unmarried couple for anything? There's no legal status or relationship at all. They even created one to try, yrs ago...domestic partners.

There's no permanence for "2 people together"...they could be together one day and not the next. A bus driver and a passenger could claim benefits. :roll: There's no way to administer such things. So if that's where you were going... good Lord :doh
 
Somerville said:
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?
Click to expand...

No such tax breaks and governmental entitlements were EVER made on the basis of sexual orientation. They've put this silly idea in your head that marriages limitation to men and women, as old as civilization itself, was all a nefarious plot to exclude homosexuals. It wasn't.
 
dixon01767 said:
No such tax breaks and governmental entitlements were EVER made on the basis of sexual orientation. They've put this silly idea in your head that marriages limitation to men and women, as old as civilization itself, was all a nefarious plot to exclude homosexuals. It wasn't.
Click to expand...

It's not some great conspiracy...some of us just wondered why gay people couldnt marry the people they love like straight people.
 
dixon01767 said:
There is no such marriage contract "between one party and a couple".
Click to expand...

Oh for God's sake. It was an analogy.

Nevermind, heaven forbid you'd have to actually address the content of the discussion. It's not a surprise to see you avoid it.
 
dixon01767 said:
Giving, for example, a married couple a tax break that is not given to an unmarried couple is UNEQUAL treatment under the law.
Click to expand...

Of course it's "unequal" but why is that statement of the stupidly obvious relevant to this discussion. Lots of things are "unequal" treatment under the law, like Medicare benefits, only available to those over age 65. Or VA benefits, typically only available to active or retired military. Congressional pensions are only available to former members of Congress. Voting in federal elections is only available to citizens. Driver's licenses are only available to those who pass a test and are of a certain age and who don't violate certain laws. Child credits are only available to those with children who are their dependents. All those are examples of "unequal" treatment under the law.

The question at issue is whether gay couples should have the same, or "equal," access to the "unequal" treatment of marriage. The "unequal" treatment of married couples versus unmarried 'couples' is a given, completely obvious to everyone involved, and ignored because it's not relevant to any part of this debate.
 
Wan said:
Appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. When it comes to law, SCOTUS is the ultimate authority in the U.S. if a law is constitutional. You are misrepresenting the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority. It's not true merely because they said it's true. It's true because in the case of law, they decree and define that it's true.
'.
 
dixon01767 said:
What pointless irrelevancy you glom onto. Make that "closely" related and the relevant point remains the same.
Click to expand...

Why don't you use the word "siblings" instead of "closely related" and then I, and others, might post less "pointless irrelevancy". Words have meanings which are commonly understood and then there are those who seemingly prefer their own definitions. It does make it hard to hold rational conversations.

Once we could say, "The British and Americans are separated by a common language." Now, it seems 'conservatives' and other humans are separated by that common language.
 
Somerville said:
Why don't you use the word "siblings" instead of "closely related" and then I, and others, might post less "pointless irrelevancy".
Click to expand...

Because the prohibitions in 50 states arent limited to siblings.
 
dixon01767 said:
Tell that to those who so vehemently deny it.
Click to expand...

No one denies that there are valuable benefits to being married. It's why we get married, and why denying those benefits to gay couples was a problem.

It's a dumb argument, which is why you won't quote and address the rest of my post, because you know it's crap and cannot defend it.

"but why is that statement of the stupidly obvious relevant to this discussion. Lots of things are "unequal" treatment under the law, like Medicare benefits, only available to those over age 65. Or VA benefits, typically only available to active or retired military. Congressional pensions are only available to former members of Congress. Voting in federal elections is only available to citizens. Driver's licenses are only available to those who pass a test and are of a certain age and who don't violate certain laws. Child credits are only available to those with children who are their dependents. All those are examples of "unequal" treatment under the law.

The question at issue is whether gay couples should have the same, or "equal," access to the "unequal" treatment of marriage. The "unequal" treatment of married couples versus unmarried 'couples' is a given, completely obvious to everyone involved, and ignored because it's not relevant to any part of this debate."
 
Last edited:
dixon01767 said:
Tell that to those who so vehemently deny it.
Click to expand...

People dont deny anything you state is unequal people deny how you are trying to apply it which is factually wrong and meaningless to same sex marriage. Hence why you havent been able to show why your feelings matter one bit based on legality, law and rights.
Equal rights doesnt mean everything and everybody is equal :shrug:

all you have done this whole thread is have most of your posts destroyed by facts definitions and multiple posters and stomp your feet.

Not one thing you said matters to same sex marriage and your feelings about equality havent proven to be anything more than that and this is why your posts are failing over and over again. Its very entertaining watching but you think its its going to go somewhere . . its not until you can make a logical, factual point based on legality.
 
dixon01767 said:
What pointless irrelevancy you glom onto. Make that "closely" related and the relevant point remains the same.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't. Since most closer relatives than "first cousins" are already considered legal family in most of the same ways that married couples are. The exceptions are perhaps aunts and uncles, maybe grandparents. Are you now advocating that they should be allowed to marry simply for the same benefits?
 
RAMOSS said:
Not necessarily. When it comes to law, SCOTUS is the ultimate authority in the U.S. if a law is constitutional. You are misrepresenting the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority. It's not true merely because they said it's true. It's true because in the case of law, they decree and define that it's true.
'.
Click to expand...
This is correct if we are strictly talking about the legality of gay marriage. But we are not, or at least I am not. I don't care if the scotus declare that gay marriage is marriage. It's not. At least not to me.

Of course, I am not saying what I think has an impact on other people's lives, or anything.
 
Wan said:
This is correct if we are strictly talking about the legality of gay marriage. But we are not, or at least I am not. I don't care if the scotus declare that gay marriage is marriage. It's not. At least not to me.

Of course, I am not saying what I think has an impact on other people's lives, or anything.
Click to expand...

And your marriage or future marriage may not be a "real marriage" to others. They have no more right to enforce their beliefs as law on you than you have to enforce "gay marriages are not real marriages" on others.
 
roguenuke said:
And your marriage or future marriage may not be a "real marriage" to others.
Click to expand...
This would be fine by me. I don't care whether gays think my marriage is real or not.
They have no more right to enforce their beliefs as law on you than you have to enforce "gay marriages are not real marriages" on others.
Click to expand...
I am not forcing anything on anybody.
 
Wan said:
This would be fine by me. I don't care whether gays think my marriage is real or not.

I am not forcing anything on anybody.
Click to expand...

Have you voted against same sex marriage? If so, then you were in fact trying to force your beliefs on others.

And it isn't just gays that may believe your marriage isn't real. Why would you automatically think that was the case?
 
roguenuke said:
Have you voted against same sex marriage? If so, then you were in fact trying to force your beliefs on others.
Click to expand...
No I haven't (I am not an American).

I can also turn your argument on its head and say that gays are trying force their beliefs on me.

And it isn't just gays that may believe your marriage isn't real. Why would you automatically think that was the case?
Click to expand...
I really don't care if the entire world thinks my marriage isn't real. As long my husband feels that it's real, that's all that matters to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom