The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

[valuecard]

This is a video where I discuss the logical reason as to why gay marriage should remain against the law

YouTube - The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should NOT be allowed

Phil

 

[quatona]

Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

 

[DeathMagus]

This is a video where I discuss the logical reason as to why gay marriage should remain against the law

YouTube - The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should NOT be allowed

Phil

The argument at 1:00 assumes that children can/should result from all marriages, and that familial roles are rigid/static. It also ignores the very real possibility of adoption by gay couples, as well as children by previous partners, surrogacy, and artificial insemination (Thanks, Cantata).

Arguments from nature (such as the one around 1:20) are logically fallacious.

Your slippery slope argument starting from 1:40 assumes that consent will no longer be required by both parties being married. Such a requirement means that animals, inanimate objects, and cartoon characters cannot marry, as they cannot sign a marriage license.

From 2:45 you're essentially arguing against all marriages that don't produce children, including marriage by the elderly, the sterile, and those who simply don't want children. You also, again, are ignoring adoption.

Around 3:30 you're making a slippery slope argument again, and are ignoring that the "natural meaning" of marriage has changed many times over the years. It's not just a fallacious Appeal to Tradition, but an appeal to a false tradition.


All in all, I'd say you argued the case against gay marriage about as well as anyone ever has, so props for that. Just need to spend a little more time drawing your conclusions.

 

[cantata]

It also ignores the very real possibility of adoption by gay couples.

And children by previous partners, and surrogacy, and artificial insemination.

*sigh*

 

[DeathMagus]

And children by previous partners, and surrogacy, and artificial insemination.

*sigh*

True that. Will add.

 

[JGG]

So here's my thoughts:

1. My friend had a condition when she was a child in which her uterus was more or less destroyed. She has known for her entire life that she cannot have children. Two years or so ago she was married. Her husband, her husband's family, the pastor that married them, all knew that this marriage could not produce children. By your logic, this marriage should have been illegal.

2. Could you please explain what "roles" the mother and father take on in raising children. What would someone reasonably expect to happen if these rolls are not filled in a child's life. I'm especially curious as to your answer as I happen to be both a widower raising a son, and that my father died before I was born, and was raised by my mother. What I'm asking is what role was not filled in my life, what role is not full.

3. Do you honestly think that someone marrying consenting member of the same sex is even remotely close to someone marrying an animal which is unable to consent?

4. Marriage is not actually natural. It is an institution which humans constructed for themselves. As we are not actually a naturally monogomous species, isn't polygamy closer to natural marriage than how you've defined it? And yet, I feel certain that you'd claim that polygamy is wrong as well. So how have we decided what "natural" marriage actually is outside of cultural norms?

 

[Isambard]

Why is it always the same PRATTs? Never anything knew, just slippery-slope arguments completely oblivious to the idea of consent *sigh*. That said, there is no such thing as a "natural marriage". Marriage is a convention, ergo, its artificial.

 

[LittleNipper]

The argument at 1:00 assumes that children can/should result from all marriages, and that familial roles are rigid/static. It also ignores the very real possibility of adoption by gay couples, as well as children by previous partners, surrogacy, and artificial insemination (Thanks, Cantata).

Arguments from nature (such as the one around 1:20) are logically fallacious.

Your slippery slope argument starting from 1:40 assumes that consent will no longer be required by both parties being married. Such a requirement means that animals, inanimate objects, and cartoon characters cannot marry, as they cannot sign a marriage license.

From 2:45 you're essentially arguing against all marriages that don't produce children, including marriage by the elderly, the sterile, and those who simply don't want children. You also, again, are ignoring adoption.

Around 3:30 you're making a slippery slope argument again, and are ignoring that the "natural meaning" of marriage has changed many times over the years. It's not just a fallacious Appeal to Tradition, but an appeal to a false tradition.


All in all, I'd say you argued the case against gay marriage about as well as anyone ever has, so props for that. Just need to spend a little more time drawing your conclusions.

Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. The bond between a father and mother is not normalized in homosexual relationships. 200 years ago, if the backwoods man ended up with a baby in a basket on his doorstep, he likely would have taken such to a local church.

In this modern age, there is really no reason to place any child in any environment where there is not a stable family/unit with a suitable man and woman relationship. This affords the child in question the BEST possible scenario, where he/she might even become a brother or sister to a child born natually to the adoptive parents...

This could never be the case in a homosexually controlled environment. There would also be the possibility of identity confusion for the adoptive child.

 

[JGG]

Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. The bond between a father and mother is not normalized in homosexual relationships.

What is the bond between a father and mother. What precisely would a "normal bond" be?

200 years ago, if the backwoods man ended up with a baby in a basket on his doorstep, he likely would have taken such to a local church.

What's yer point? Cultural difference include temporal change.

In this modern age, there is really no reason to place any child in any environment where there is not a stable family/unit with a suitable man and woman relationship. This affords the child in question the BEST possible scenario, where he/she might even become a brother or sister to a child born natually to the adoptive parents...

I was born to a widow. Should I have been taken away?

I might also add that statistically siblingless children are more likely to go to college as there is more money available for their education. Could that be considered the best possible scenario? Atheists, Jews and homosexuals, statistically speaking, have a higher income than Christians, and can provide better for their children. Is that not the better scenario? For that matter, statistically speaking Jews, and atheists are less likely to get divorced. Should they be higher on adoption lists than Christians? Just curious how your logic works.

This could never be the case in a homosexually controlled environment. There would also be the possibility of identity confusion for the adoptive child.

Can you define what you perceive identity confusion to be? To a great extent we create our own identity, as opposed to something simply ingrained within us. Everybody goes through identity confusion, it's called adolescence. In fact, in the past 30 or so years, adolescence has basically been defined as the period in which we resolve our identity confusion.

 

[LittleNipper]

Why is it always the same PRATTs? Never anything knew, just slippery-slope arguments completely oblivious to the idea of consent *sigh*. That said, there is no such thing as a "natural marriage". Marriage is a convention, ergo, its artificial.

Adoption is a convention, ergo, it's also artificial. However, a child is the product of a natural process of a fertalized egg. The raising of that child, one would think, is best served when the male and female aspects of behavior are part of the nurturing process of that child... This is not possible in a homosexual relationship; where either both act as one sex or where one is a mere characture of the other sex at best...

 

[JGG]

Adoption is a convention, ergo, it's also artificial.

That's an...ummm....interesting observation. I suppose it's true...although, adoption is at least somewhat natural, as it does essentially occur somewhat frequently in the wild. I guess I'm unsure why this is relevant in the first place.

However, a child is the product of a natural process of a fertalized egg.

Nyuh-huh....

The raising of that child, one would think, is best served when the male and female aspects of behavior are part of the nurturing process of that child...

What are the male and female aspects of behaviour? Why do we need both? Supposing my mother received both the male and female aspects of behaviour, is she not qualified to give both parts? If she is not, why does she need both? Why would I need both?

This is not possible in a homosexual relationship; where either both act as one sex or where one is a mere characture of the other sex at best...

A characture of what exactly?

 

[Isambard]

Adoption is a convention, ergo, it's also artificial. However, a child is the product of a natural process of a fertalized egg. The raising of that child, one would think, is best served when the male and female aspects of behavior are part of the nurturing process of that child... This is not possible in a homosexual relationship; where either both act as one sex or where one is a mere characture of the other sex at best...

This has absolutely nothing to do with my post, which was marriage as a convention.

 

[Inviolable]

I have to give the guy a ton of credit for putting his face on youtube and giving his feelings on the subject. I highly doubt any liberal here has the same amount of courage.
And before you say, sure I would say, I back homosexual unions. That doesn't take courage, especially when all your friends are agreeing with you. You'd get pats on the back.
This guy doesn't seem so stupid as to not realise every liberal on a highly liberal forum would attack his video.
So, make a video that you are for homosexual unions and put it on a forum that's very highly fundamentalist.
Then come back here and talk.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I have to give the guy a ton of credit for putting his face on youtube and giving his feelings on the subject. I highly doubt any liberal here has the same amount of courage.
And before you say, sure I would say, I back homosexual unions. That doesn't take courage, especially when all your friends are agreeing with you. You'd get pats on the back.
This guy doesn't seem so stupid as to not realise every liberal on a highly liberal forum would attack his video.
So, make a video that you are for homosexual unions and put it on a forum that's very highly fundamentalist.
Then come back here and talk.

If his arguments weren't fallacious, then perhaps they wouldn't be "attacked"...

 

[JustMeSee]

I have to give the guy a ton of credit for putting his face on youtube and giving his feelings on the subject. I highly doubt any liberal here has the same amount of courage.
And before you say, sure I would say, I back homosexual unions. That doesn't take courage, especially when all your friends are agreeing with you. You'd get pats on the back.
This guy doesn't seem so stupid as to not realise every liberal on a highly liberal forum would attack his video.
So, make a video that you are for homosexual unions and put it on a forum that's very highly fundamentalist.
Then come back here and talk.

I give him loads of credit for posting his self video on the forums. It exposes more of himself than virtually everyone here, but that is not the point. Though he speaks well, his logic is filled with holes. Reading the numerous post on page 1, you can see that.

1. Many heterosexual couples can not or do not want offspring.
2. Many heterosexual couples adopt. Homosexual couples are just as capable of raising children as single parents.
3. If we looked at ideal environment for children, we would move them around to different people. Would you want your child to be removed from your custody because someone else could give him a better home?

4. The whole animal marriage argument is nonsense. Humans and animals are different species. Animals and children are not capable of giving consent. Viewing homosexual relationships in this way is very disrespectful.

 

[quatona]

I have to give the guy a ton of credit for putting his face on youtube and giving his feelings on the subject. I highly doubt any liberal here has the same amount of courage.
And before you say, sure I would say, I back homosexual unions. That doesn't take courage, especially when all your friends are agreeing with you. You'd get pats on the back.
This guy doesn't seem so stupid as to not realise every liberal on a highly liberal forum would attack his video.
So, make a video that you are for homosexual unions and put it on a forum that's very highly fundamentalist.
Then come back here and talk.

You seem to be eager to discuss the person rather than the quality of his arguments.
In any case, he posted his video here and asked for discussion. He didn´t post his video and made posting videos the prerequisite for discussing his video. He also didn´t ask for posts like yours that consisted of pats on his back.

 

[Inviolable]

If his arguments weren't fallacious, then perhaps they wouldn't be "attacked"...

I didn't mean to say, that his argument shouldn't be debated.
I apologize if I sounded overbearing.

I do have a point and I feel it needed to be made to a few posters here.
But my point wasn't to shutout everyone who wanted to debate the argument from this thread.
My point was, that here is a person with way more courage then to simply shout Fundamentalist! Anonymously.

And I apologize to anyone who may have felt insecure in posting an argument.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I didn't mean to say, that his argument shouldn't be debated.
I apologize if I sounded overbearing.

I do have a point and I feel it needed to be made to a few posters here.
But my point wasn't to shutout everyone who wanted to debate the argument from this thread.
My point was, that here is a person with way more courage then to simply shout Fundamentalist! Anonymously.

And I apologize to anyone who may have felt insecure in posting an argument.

Fair enough.

The question now is what does this person do with the criticisms of his arguments? Does he modify them and try again, abandon them, or ignore the criticisms and just keep presenting the same arguments?

Too often I've seen Christians admit to the problems in their arguments, only to spout the same arguments later on.

 

[LittleNipper]

I give him loads of credit for posting his self video on the forums. It exposes more of himself than virtually everyone here, but that is not the point. Though he speaks well, his logic is filled with holes. Reading the numerous post on page 1, you can see that.

1. Many heterosexual couples can not or do not want offspring.
2. Many heterosexual couples adopt. Homosexual couples are just as capable of raising children as single parents.
3. If we looked at ideal environment for children, we would move them around to different people. Would you want your child to be removed from your custody because someone else could give him a better home?

4. The whole animal marriage argument is nonsense. Humans and animals are different species. Animals and children are not capable of giving consent. Viewing homosexual relationships in this way is very disrespectful.

Society has looked at marriage blanketly in the past. No one knew if a man and woman were joined in marriage would eventually have any children... EVERYONE knew that two guys could never have children ---- the same goes for two women.

Society, friends, and parents have always asked the question, "So when are you going to have a baby..? When are you two going to have some kids?" And that was pressure on the couple... The Bible points out that not just one woman as upset at the thought of not having a baby...

As for a better home, it's been proven that children do far better in a poor home with loving parents than a rich home adoption where such a child maybe considered a object of possession... The word, "ROSEBUD," come to mind...

 

[OllieFranz]

In this modern age, there is really no reason to place any child in any environment where there is not a stable family/unit with a suitable man and woman relationship. This affords the child in question the BEST possible scenario, where he/she might even become a brother or sister to a child born natually to the adoptive parents...

I'm not certain I would disagree with you in a "perfect world." But this world is far from perfect, and there are a lot more children needing loving families than there are perfect families willing and waiting to have them. Too many children are institutionalized with no parents. Are you really claiming that this kind of life is better than being raised by loving parents who do not happen to be a "perfect family"?

Should a couple not be allowed to adopt because they already have two children, and can't give three all the attention they need? Or because, while they can give a child the basics and a lot of love, they can't afford to give the kid a pony if she asks for one?

And if we only want "perfect families" raising children, should we take away a parent's children when the spouse dies, or the couple divorces?

In a perfect world, the "best interests of the child" is a situation with every possible positive thing and nothing negative. In the real world, this ideal "best interest of the child" does not exist. The best interest is the one of the choices actually available to that child at that time which has the most positives and the least negatives.