Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by learis, Oct 13, 2015.

?

Why Are You Against SSM

  1. Your Religion Says It's Wrong

    5 vote(s)
    19.2%
  2. Same Sex Couples Are Incapable of Genuinely Loving Each Other

    2 vote(s)
    7.7%
  3. Allowing SSM Will Lead to Allowing Beastiality, Polygamy, Incest, etc.

    2 vote(s)
    7.7%
  4. Other

    17 vote(s)
    65.4%
  1. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It establishes legal rights to one another. The ability to make calls as to what should be done should one of the partners be incapacitated, it establishes burial and funeral decision making, inheritance, joint ownership of property. Joint guardianship of children. Many things.

    Things are brother and sister would already have same with a parent and child.

    Next of kin is a legal status.
     
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because what they are joining into is not a marriage. If they want legal benefits and protections, then each State could decide whether or not to recognize civil unions as well, or decide whether or not to redefine the word marriage to include gay couples. Personally, I believe that redefining marriage in this way reduces the institution to irrelevancy. I think that Alan Keyes had it right in his 2004 Illinois Senate debates against Obama. Smart man, Mr. Keyes is...

    No, I think that homosexuals can wed if they wish to do so, but that their wedding cannot, by definition, be called a marriage, because they cannot procreate.

    It makes perfect sense.

    They make perfect sense.

    I am aware of the 14th Amendment. States WERE applying the protections equally. Gays HAD the right to marry just as much as Straights had the right. Nothing was being applied unequally. Nothing was being denied access to.

    What moral superiority?? You're making **** up now... I simply asserted that I know more about the Constitution than SCOTUS does. I truly believe that I do, and believe that I have evidenced as much.

    A fallacy is an error of logic, akin to a mathematical error. Logic and Mathematics are both closed systems; they both are defined by their axioms and they both make use of proofs.
     
  3. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ARF. (Argument by Repetition Fallacy). As I've counter argued before, they WERE being treated equally. They DID have the right to marry. They chose not to marry because they weren't attracted to the opposite sex.

    ARF. See above.

    ARF. See above.

    ARF. See above.

    How can feelings be "incorrect"?? Feelings simply ARE. And it's not my feelings btw, it is supported by the Constitution itself. ARF. See above.

    ARF. See above.

    Yes, you are. You wish to liberally apply laws/policies, the very definition of a liberal. Do you wish to redefine this word too?

    Nope. I am a conservative. I aim to preserve the US Constitution.

    Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You cannot argue "not A" unless you first provide "argument C" as a predicate which leads to conclusion "not A". This is basic logic.

    Strawman Argument Fallacy. I never argued that the 14th Amendment ONLY applied to freed slaves. I stated that the 13th Amendment and the 14th Amendment were a pair. The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to grant those slaves full citizenship.

    ARF. See the beginning response.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  4. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, a STATE government issue, NOT a federal one...

    See Article I Section VIII.
    See Article III.
    See Article V.
    See Article VI.
    See Article VII.
    See Amendment X.
     
  5. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But it is marriage...
    You may disagree but legally — it is.
    States can refuse to issue marriage licenses all together but they cannot deny specific groups as that is in violation of the 14th Amendment.
    You know what reduced the institution to irrelevancy? Divorce, marriage for healthcare, marriage for citizenship, quick marriages in Vegas, adultery, annulment, no fault separation...

    This is factually incorrect. The definition of marriage never had the word procreation involved.
    That was suddenly an issue when gay people started saying this is unequal. If the elderly or infertile couples would have been banned previously then you would have a point — but they weren’t, so you don’t.


    Like blacks had the ability to marry other blacks but not whites? It was perfectly fine as it they could marry anyone they wanted, as long as they were the same race. Is that really your argument?

    No, you haven’t
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  6. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The heterosexual relationship has always been referred to as a 'marriage'. In order to also call a homosexual relationship a "marriage" (ie, equating it to a heterosexual relationship), you MUST show how it is identical to a heterosexual relationship. Otherwise, it is like calling a car "car" and a bike "car". Sure, they're both "transportation", but they are not identical transportation. Homo and Hetero relationships are both "unions", but they are not identical unions. This comes back to that 'proof of identity' bit of logic which you keep rejecting, as you also choose to do with the rest of logic it seems. As you said earlier, words have meanings. When you speak, you need to speak clearly.

    Correct. They each have different identities (since they each consist of different people), but since they are all examples of a man/woman relationship, all of their relationships are classified as marriages.

    Not an argument.

    Correct.

    Yes, I did. You chose to respond with an Argument of the Stone Fallacy instead. I'm getting sick of typing that out, so I will now refer to that fallacy as AOTSF.

    ARF.

    Yes it is.

    Nope, they are not parents. They are merely acting as parents. "Playing mommy" is not the same thing as actually BEING mommy.

    Compositional Error Fallacy. One argument is not all arguments. And the one argument that you are referring to was one which you falsely attributed to me.

    I'll accept this as fact simply because it's irrelevant. This is referring to an argument which you falsely attributed to me.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  7. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, so you think it was inadequate. What precisely was inadequate about it? Otherwise, this is simply another AOTS Fallacy on your part.

    This concerns fairly basic logic and I can't reduce it down much further than I already have... But let's start from the very beginning point. Do you accept that an 'argument' is defined as a set of predicates and a conclusion?? This takes the form [A -> B], where [A] is the set of predicates and (B) is the conclusion.

    What's not adequate about it?

    Here, you are openly admitting that you don't want to consider opposing viewpoints.

    Sure it is... Rationalizing is forming sound arguments, as I have done with the whole "circular argument vs. circular argument fallacy" bit which you have simply dismissed as "inadequate" without any rationalization as to WHY it is "inadequate". I think I have distinguished between the two quite well.

    I can't reduce this position down much more than I already have, but I'm starting from the very basics... Maybe you will understand once you go through the basics...

    That dismissal without counterargument quite literally IS the fallacy. Again, this is fairly basic logic.

    The time is still of valuable to others who may be reading through our exchanges.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  8. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Animals harm each other all the time, so if harming each other can help get us ahead, why is that objectively wrong?

    Also, simply avoiding harm doesn't give any positive value to doing things such as loving one another, giving gifts to one another, making sacrifices for one another, etc...
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  9. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seems like you're noticing that he's locked in paradox regarding his own standard of morality. He's attempting to argue the following:

    [1] If an act harms someone, then that act is immoral.
    [2] Incest marriages (ie, an act that DOESN'T harm someone) are immoral.


    He needs to clear his paradox in order to argue rationally once again...
     
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ARF. RAAA.
     
  11. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Invariably deeming everything as a fallacy isn't a rationalization. It's Posturing.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
    cd8ed likes this.
  12. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Autistic screeching isn't a rationalization.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
    cd8ed likes this.
  13. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Incest does harm someone.

    There is no paradox. Incest does harm people.
     
  14. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    14th amendment.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  15. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am glad you have acknowledged why this case was lost in court and will not be reversed.

    You do not have an argument
     
  16. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Animals are not held to the human standard.
    Get ahead of what?
    Altruism is a greater thing than morality. Morality is the lowest acceptable standard.
     
  17. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I seriously doubt your arguments — if they could even be called that — will change a single person’s mind that didn’t already agree to the fallacy that gay people cannot wed.
     
  18. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the wave for Incest marriages has taken notice in England mostly. We have the American singer MacKenzie Phillips who in her book confessed that she and her dad had a wild sexual adventure spanning 10 years. Even when married to other men, she dived under her Dad's covers since she enjoyed sex with him so much.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  19. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you say GAY? And more, why do you say WED?
     
  20. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's level of convincing.
    Invariably labeling everything a fallacy is not a rationalization
    Than you are ill equipped to rationalize.
    The lettering gibberish in bold above I cannot follow, try an example.

    I am still safe in doubting.

    If I didn't want to consider your view point I wouldn't be here asking you to rationalize it. I would have called you a bigot, dismissed you and moved on.

    I want to hear your view point that's why you are not on ignore. I'm just not the echo chamber that is people who agree with your view. I take absolutely nothing for granted.

    Circular reasoning requires I first accept an axiom, in this case that traditional Marriage is so different from same sex massage that it is inappropriate to call it that. I am willing to hear your further realization, but so far all you have managed to say is the procreation principal is the defining factor. That is something I simply don't take for granted.

    I think it's simply a sharp shooter fallacy.

    My reasoning is I've never heard that before outside of arguments as to why SSM is wrong.

    Mostly what I hear from religion, marraige councilling, and many sources including biological is that Marriage is a social custom engineered to curtail the promiscuous nature of men.

    I'm cultures that don't value it we see children not being cared for, hedonism rampant.

    It is to restrain our nature.

    Maybe it'll help to not give examples but specifically talk about why I must accept that three differences between same sex marriage and traditional Marriage are so different as to require different names.

    I don't believe that you have asked me to rationalize my position, though I have in this thread, I'll gladly do it if you are interested.

    So you are squawking about fallacies and not rationalizing your position for others?

    I find that doubtful.
     
  21. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dred Scott was reversed. A plethora of gun laws were reversed. Even the income tax law was reversed. When the Feds snooped into polygamy, they intruded on marriage.
     
  22. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I noticed you didn't address my response to your claim about incest.

    Why is that?
     
  23. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, I did not see such a post.
     
  24. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A Supreme Court ruling requires an amendment to be overturned. Dred Scott was not overturned by the courts. Same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional and no lower court can rule in contradiction to a Supreme Court ruling.
     
  25. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My deceased brother Jim was a homosexual. Frankly he mentioned a desire for him to marry a woman one time to me. Seems he wanted a child. But he never in his lifespan of 43 years said he wanted to marry a man. At least not to me. Jim had worked for me and done fine work prior to my being drafted into the Kennedy Army. We were more on great terms than on less than great terms. Yet he did not claim a wedding for him was to a man, yet did bring up him marrying a woman.Jim understood that no amount of using the rectum for ??fun? could produce a child for him.
     

Share This Page