• 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:
Silly....? logic there. There is no comparison between the two in my argument.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. Your attempt to do so failed. Thank you.

It only took you 200+ pages to admit it.
 
dixon01767 said:
You both seem equally invested in the irrelevancy.
Click to expand...

Nah Im just replying to his nonsense, it is a discussiuon board after all.
Just curious why did you quote me in that and not Angel since it is his puppy
 
dixon01767 said:
Silly....? logic there. There is no comparison between the two in my argument.
Click to expand...

In 10 years from the Obergfell v. Hodges decision, what will be the problems will have been created because of LGBT people having marriage equality to heterosexuals?
 
dixon01767 said:
You guys still going at the paternal care → monogamy vs monogamy → paternal care debate. Seems kind of irrelevant in a thread about gay marriage. Monogamy is important in heterosexual relationships in that it helps identify paternity and helps preserves the father's resources to care for the children of his wife instead of shared among the children of many women. All irrelevant in the case of gay relationships. That's why they invented a new word to describe a longterm committed gay relationship. "Monogamish" which means not monogamous.
Click to expand...

LGBT couples can be just as monogamous as heterosexuals. Monogamish applies equally to heterosexuals who have a semi-open or open marriage. What about Mormons? Are their marriages virtues of monogamy, or do they get a pass because they are white religious homophobic bigots?

Donald Trump claims to be hetero. Has he had good paternal instincts with any of his wives or mistresses?
 
Quag said:
If you arent going to read the links then why did you post them?
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.
You made the counterclaim: support it. Or even just explain it, for heaven's sake.
 
Lisa said:
LGBT couples can be just as monogamous as heterosexuals. Monogamish applies equally to heterosexuals who have a semi-open or open marriage. What about Mormons? Are their marriages virtues of monogamy, or do they get a pass because they are white religious homophobic bigots?

Donald Trump claims to be hetero. Has he had good paternal instincts with any of his wives or mistresses?
Click to expand...

My oldest daughter has been in a same sex relationship for thirty years. They have two wonderful children by donor. They are a very happy family. Dixon is wrong.
 
zyzygy said:
My oldest daughter has been in a same sex relationship for thirty years. They have two wonderful children by donor. They are a very happy family. Dixon is wrong.
Click to expand...
"Wrong" about what?
And what are you right about? Your post is an incoherent non-sequitur.
 
BEWARE OF DOG

Quag said:
Talk to angel its his puppy
Click to expand...

3IG95oo.jpg

Angel's Argument


[NSFW]
(Not Safe For Windbags)​
 
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.
You made the counterclaim: support it. Or even just explain it, for heaven's sake.
Click to expand...

You obviously havent read the links
 
Quag said:
You obviously havent read the links
Click to expand...
You're wasting my time and DP bandwidth. Of course I read the linked articles, vetting them for posting.
You, on the other hand, haven't given any indication you've either read the linked articles or understand your own counterclaim about the order of implication.
 
zyzygy said:
It can't have gone over our heads because it hasn't been launched.
Click to expand...
Launched and orbiting your personal animus:

Angel said:
Scientific and Cultural Arguments AGAINST MARRIAGE
(and therefore against both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage)


for Tanngrisnir​



monogamy → the need for paternal care
marriage → monogamy
but -the need for paternal care
therefore, -monogamy
therefore, -marriage

monogamy→sexual dimorphism
marriage → monogamy
but -sexual dimorphism
therefore, -monogamy
therefore, -marriage

monogamy→sexual division of labor
marriage → monogamy
but -sexual division of labor
therefore, -monogamy
therefore, -marriage
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
You're wasting my time and DP bandwidth. Of course I read the linked articles, vetting them for posting.
You, on the other hand, haven't given any indication you've either read the linked articles or understand your own counterclaim about the order of implication.
Click to expand...

You either never read the links or they were far beyond your ability to comprehend I was giving you the benefit of the doubt
 
Quag said:
You either never read the links or they were far beyond your ability to comprehend I was giving you the benefit of the doubt
Click to expand...
Still with the personal cracks, yes. Explain your objection to the order of implication or stand down.
 
Angel said:
Still with the personal cracks, yes. Explain your objection to the order of implication or stand down.
Click to expand...

Your order of implications is not an example of coherent thinking.
 
Rich2018 said:
I don't get it so perhaps you can spell it out. What is the, non religious, argument against same sex marriage?
Click to expand...
Gladly.
The only argument against same-sex marriage is an argument against marriage in itself (opposite sex marriage included, in other words), and that argument can be made based on evolutionary biology. No religion here.
 
Lisa said:
Your order of implications is not an example of coherent thinking.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? That order comes from evolutionary biology research. What do you think the coherent order of implication should be, and why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom