Debunking the interracial marriage arguement.

dixon's arguments (such as they are) can be summed up as follows;

Appeal to Authority
Appeal To Belief
Appeal to Common Practice
Appeal to the Consequences of Belief
Appeal to Tradition
Poisoning the Well

 

No one denies same sex "relationships" and "unions" existed. We were speaking of "marriage" and "matrimony"

 

No, I appeal to the constitution and biology.

 

You people don't even comprehend my argument. Ive never made an appeal to a tradition of marriage limited to men and women to justify maintaining that tradition. And I instead point to the tradition of marriage limited to men and women, because only men and women procreate, to show that this limitation, then and now is so limited because only men and women procreate, AND NOT, as these courts allege, to exclude homosexuals.

 

Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult, all issues giving rise to legitimate governmental concern. Certainly a more legitimate governmental concern than increasing society's "respect" for gays and "dignity" they feel.

 

Sorry Sherlock the definition of marriage has changed over the centuries greatly. Used to be a man selling his daughter for property.

So once again, your argument ad tradition is null and void of merit.

 

Nobody is concerned with their dignity either. Procreation is simply irrelevant to who can marry. And using it as an argument is why you keep losing in court.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. The constitution specifically precludes your argument. It's why you keep losing.

- - - Updated - - -

which is why you keep losing. Your arguments have no validity.

 

From the California case. "Respect" and "dignity" for gays is their primary concern.

 

???. No, that's why the courts have to do everything they can to avoid my argument by alleging that the state doesn't limit marriage to men and women because only men and women procreate and that they instead do so to exclude homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals. An intent to actually "disparage and injure" homosexuals. Its a strawman.

 

None of those are logical fallacies. Dixons argugements are historical facts. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. http://www.inplainsite.org/html/same-sex_marriage.html

 

And over the millenniums, from the dawn of civilization until 2001, the one consistent feature is that it has always been between a man and a woman.

And he only sold his daughter, never his son, and always to a man, and never to a woman. In ancient Mesopotamia where wives were sold and bought, a refund of the price was due if she failed to produce a child. So not sure of your point.

 

I would argue a man with 5 wives isn't one marriage. It is 5 marriages, each and every one of them between a man and a woman. And while polygamy has been prevalent through history, polyandry has been rare because the father of the child is unknown while in polygamy the marriage points to the single husband as the father. Polyandry is seen in cultures with the belief in partible paternity. The belief that a child can biologically have more than one father.

 

Appeal to tradition is fallacious. Explain why things shouldn't change.

 

No. Osiris was making the appeal to tradition,

And I was making an appeal to reality to contradict his claim

 

Either way, go on and explain why how we've done things before is relevant to marriage now? Why shouldn't it be changed?

 

Because, any discrimination in the law, must at a minimum be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. If you want special treatment for homosexuals, you need SOME rational relation between being homosexual, and the legitimate governmental interest. Can you think of any such interest or relation?

 

The same legitimate government interests of any two individuals getting married - stability in the household, a pooling of resources which creates fewer burdens on the social safety nets, and more people taking care of children.

 

So there you have it...you've answered your own question. Marriage has always been an evolving institution. Your argument of tradition is meaningless in your own words.

 

Keep trying. To prohibit something there must be a legitament reason. There is none for preventing gay marriage, as has been shown again and again in court.

The legitament state interest in allowing gay marriage? Children. Gay couples have and raise children. THey are similarly situated as heterosexual couples. As has been proven again and again in court.

You've lost. You are so dead set against seeing reality it is truly sad.

Keep trying, we will keep winning in court.

- - - Updated - - -

No you were making an appeal to tradition, a commonly used fallacy by those arguing against gay marriage.

 

Incorrectly

- - - Updated - - -

I rest my case.

 

Appeal to Tradition, Appeal to Common Practice. Good to see that you follow the same fallacy reasoning

 

Why does the government need an interest in marriage? The citizens shouldn't exist to serve the government, the government should exist to serve the citizens.

 

Whats the difference between appeal to tradition and appeal to common practice?

 

To justify the discrimination between the married and unmarried. They cant just discriminate because they want to.

 

Im not appealing to either. These courts, the gays and their advocates claim marriage is limited to men and women in order to exclude homosexuals. Motivated by animus towards homosexuals. An intent to disparage and injure homosexuals. History, from the dawn of civilization through the present shows that it is so limited because only men and women procreate.

- - - Updated - - -

You would need to actually make your case first

[