Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
It also ignores the very real possibility of adoption by gay couples.
And children by previous partners, and surrogacy, and artificial insemination.
*sigh*
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.
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...
This has absolutely nothing to do with my post, which was marriage as a convention.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...
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 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.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 didn't mean to say, that his argument shouldn't be debated.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.
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.
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...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?