Same Sex marriage.

[morningstar2651]

I have yet to be convinced that same sex marriage should be illegal in the United States...let alone a logical argument why it should be illegal.

I'm creating this thread for people opposed to same sex marriage to argue their points. Thread guidelines are below. The most important guidelines are the first two -- follow them if you want me to listen to your argument. The rest are just preferences.

Also, I request no arguments for the legalization of same-sex marriage -- there are plenty of sound arguments for it and I've seen my share of them. I'm interested in seeing at least one sound argument against it.

The first person to rise to the challenge and post a sound argument wins a prize from me. Use of the counterexample method, Venn diagrams, truth tables, proofs, etc. to prove arguments valid/invalid are fine to post in this thread.

Here is your challenge: Prove that same sex marriage should be illegal in the United States of America.

Guidelines
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Therefore, arguments based on religion or religious sources (IE - Bible, Quran, etc.) shouldn't be used in your arguments.

Also, since the legalization of same sex marriage would change the legal definition of marriage in the United States, the current legal definition of marriage as being between man and woman only shouldn't be used.

2. Use deductive logic.
All arguments should be valid and sound. Include proof that your premesis are true unless it is a widely known truth...if it isn't I'll ask for proof. Cite sources if used in your argument.

3. The Standard form.
Using the standard form makes the analysis of the argument much easier. For the most part -- keep your premesis before the conclusion and I'll be happy.

• Your argument should end with the conclusion "Therefore, same sex marriage should be illegal in the United States." or a similar conclusion.
• Conditional statements preferably written in the form of "If A, then B."

Standard form categorical statements.

• Universal affirmative "All S are P."
• Universal negative "No S are P."
• Particular affirmative "Some S are P."
• Particular negative "Some S are not P."

Note: "Some" means "at least one".

 

[Crusader05]

After reading your post, thinking about the rules you laid out, and mulling over in my head what it all means I had an epthany. I cannot think of a single objective, non-religious reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. I believe from a religious point of view that marriage is a sacrement ordained by God and is meant for men and women only. But, when we remove religion from the equation (as we must because of the establishment clause) the only logical conclusion is that same sex marriage is permissible. But I wonder, what is the limit? Once we start on this permissive road when will it stop? Will be be allowing polygamy? People marrying animals or inanimate objects?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

After reading your post, thinking about the rules you laid out, and mulling over in my head what it all means I had an epthany. I cannot think of a single objective, non-religious reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. I believe from a religious point of view that marriage is a sacrement ordained by God and is meant for men and women only. But, when we remove religion from the equation (as we must because of the establishment clause) the only logical conclusion is that same sex marriage is permissible. But I wonder, what is the limit? Once we start on this permissive road when will it stop? Will be be allowing polygamy? People marrying animals or inanimate objects?

I thank you for coming to this realization. But, your argument really is a slippery slope. In order to make thi argument, you would also have to show that, in other countries that have allowed gay marriage, it has been the case that these things happened.

Also, on another note, marriage is a legal contract. Inanimate objects cannot enter into a legal document. As for polygamy, I may be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time) but isn't it already allowed in the US because of Mormon belief?

 

[Crusader05]

Good points.

 

[Phred]

But I wonder, what is the limit? Once we start on this permissive road when will it stop? Will be be allowing polygamy? People marrying animals or inanimate objects?

By that logic no marriage at all should be allowed, homosexuals might want to.

If you were to ban things because IF we do this someone else MIGHT do that... nothing would ever happen. We couldn't have banks because someone might rob one! No... the slippery slope is never a good reason to do anything.

 

[Crusader05]

Another good point, I guess my arguments are out the window!

 

[phoenix_kid82]

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Therefore, arguments based on religion or religious sources (IE - Bible, Quran, etc.) shouldn't be used in your arguments.

Also, since the legalization of same sex marriage would change the legal definition of marriage in the United States, the current legal definition of marriage as being between man and woman only shouldn't be used.

For any debate, we need to define what we're actually debating about.

You've posted this on a Christian website, and Christians recognise the definition of marriage to be the Biblical definition, as outlined by Crusader. Anyone from any other religion or spiritual group cannot use their definitions of marriage.

Another definition of marriage that's not allowed to be used is the legal definition used in the US.

The Biblical definition of marriage will not change. Definitions on marriage in the Qu'ran or documents seen as authoritive in other faiths will not change. So the only argument left is the definition of marriage that can change, which is the definition used in the US.

So is this meant to be an affirmative argument for the legalisation of gay marriage by changing the US definition of marriage?

 

[kdet]

I cannot understand someone coming to a Christian site and requesting that we support our fundemental beleifs without using the Bible or our religious beliefs, Christians donot seperate themselves from those beliefs, they are an inherent part of us. We believe that homosexuality is a sin, that abortion is a sin, that fornification is a sin and so on because of our religious beliefs.

http://www.siscom.net/~direct/sin/

 

[morningstar2651]

Not at all.

Let me give you a scenario if it makes more sense this way.

Assuming that same sex marriage were legal...argue why it should be made illegal.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

For any debate, we need to define what we're actually debating about.

You've posted this on a Christian website, and Christians recognise the definition of marriage to be the Biblical definition, as outlined by Crusader. Anyone from any other religion or spiritual group cannot use their definitions of marriage.

Another definition of marriage that's not allowed to be used is the legal definition used in the US.

The Biblical definition of marriage will not change. Definitions on marriage in the Qu'ran or documents seen as authoritive in other faiths will not change. So the only argument left is the definition of marriage that can change, which is the definition used in the US.

So is this meant to be an affirmative argument for the legalisation of gay marriage by changing the US definition of marriage?

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Perhaps you could phrase it differently? And as to the us definition of marriage, us definition of marriage does not state that it is between one man and one woman. If this was the case, we wouldn't have had votes on changing the definition of marriage, in some states, to be between one man and one woman.

 

[morningstar2651]

Rather than religious arguments, I'd like to see scientific ones.

 

[phoenix_kid82]

If i was a US citizen, in US politics, i would argue the Christian definition of marriage because i'm a Christian. Which would mean that the US would not recognise gay marriage as legal. But i can't put that forward because you earlier specified is not valid in this debate.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I cannot understand someone coming to a Christian site and requesting that we support our fundemental beleifs without using the Bible or our religious beliefs, Christians donot seperate themselves from those beliefs, they are an inherent part of us. We believe that homosexuality is a sin, that abortion is a sin, that fornification is a sin and so on because of our religious beliefs.

http://www.siscom.net/~direct/sin/

This is fine. No one is asking you to defend your beliefs, in this thread. What was asked, was why the US should not allow gay marriage. It is fine to ask that an argument cannot be based on religious belief, because when US law is decided, religious beliefs cannot be taken into consideration.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

If i was a US citizen, in US politics, i would argue the Christian definition of marriage because i'm a Christian. Which would mean that the US would not recognise gay marriage as legal. But i can't put that forward because you earlier specified is not valid in this debate.

Alright, I understand now.

 

[toxiciridescence]

Impossible. There is no non-Biblical or non-irrational fearing reason to outlaw marriage. This board is NOT asking you to support your fundamental belief as to why you think this is wrong within your belief system. This is asking you to explain why you would choose to disobey the first amendment to put your religious belief into law. If you don't want to do that, then this is not a question for you. It is just asking why, POLITICALLY, should there be no LEGAL same sex marriage. It is not asking whether religiously you believe that it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[morningstar2651]

Also note that even if nobody can prove it -- it doesn't necissarily mean that it isn't true.

 

[Phred]

I cannot understand someone coming to a Christian site and requesting that we support our fundemental beleifs without using the Bible or our religious beliefs, Christians donot seperate themselves from those beliefs, they are an inherent part of us. We believe that homosexuality is a sin, that abortion is a sin, that fornification is a sin and so on because of our religious beliefs.

Yeah, I know... in another thread here I'm finding out about Biblically Acceptable Slavery. By that logic there's also Biblically acceptable genocide. But I've also been informed, in the very same thread, that anyone causing these sins will go to heaven anyway if they accept Jesus.

In the face of that logic, you need to support your beliefs with more than just the Bible... there's a little matter of what's right and wrong you'll have to contend with.

.​

 

[phoenix_kid82]

This is a debate in Philosophy and Morality at a Christian site. If our philosophy and morality isn't allowed, this thread doesn't belong here.

Perhaps there's some political discussion site you could pose your question? You may get a more desired response.

 

[morningstar2651]

We believe that homosexuality is a sin, that abortion is a sin, that fornification is a sin and so on because of our religious beliefs.

I want to see an argument that anyone -- regardless of their beliefs -- can see and think to themselves "Hmmm, they have a really good point! Maybe it should be illegal!"

 

[morningstar2651]

Your philosophy is allowed...but the argument:

"The bible states that homosexuality is a sin.
Therefore, same sex marriage should be illegal in the United States."

Doesn't quite work because of seperation of Church & State -- which is in the Constitution.