The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

[MoonLancer]

When California's elitist judges trumped the votes of the people,

The path of liberty has been paved by judges overruling the the will of the majority.

and elitist? that's trashy conservative talk. If you tip your hand like this it lets me see your cards.

 

[JGG]

The reason these debates on thread are so heated is because those who are pro-marriage generally know actual logical arguments regarding the issue. It is then that gay marriage activists are taught to avoid reason and use either an emotional appeal or shaming to avoid any discussion of procreation.

Also, they the emotional appeal often shows that they don't have a logical argument and appeals that allows should be awarded marriage to help them with their differences.

Also, I read a recent article, wherein it is indicated that the best need to identify themselves as gay first, and then indicates that anyone who is against gay marriage therefore hates them, which, as I have indicated is not a logical conclusion, but a malignant type of rhetoric.

Finally, you can see by going through these thread the lack of respect for children and families that is taught to gay marriage activist. As if I'm abhorrent just because I'm different than? And that is were the unnatural argument comes in, when you don't respect natural mothers and fathers, and comprehend natural differences, then you aren't in reality.

In fact, many of the arguments aren't even logical. And among those that are logical they fail to see that logic has many paths, and many of them are false.

You had actual potential up until this point. This is poisoning the well just on terms of the use of vocabulary and labels. "Pro-marriage" (as though I'm not pro-marraige) people are good, smart, and logical, "gay-marriage activiststs" are illogical, emotional and stupid.

Realistically, most of us made arguments that countered your logic, to which you have yet to respond, and you essentially used an ad-hominem to counter us.

Then you pull out the "when you don't respect natural mothers and fathers, and comprehend natural differences, then you aren't in reality." Which is in itself an emotional appeal.

Of course I respect "natural" mothers and fathers. I am the biological father of my son, and I am his father. We are unto ourselves a "family unit." I just don't believe my way is the only way to create the "family unit," and I respect any person who strives to create their own healthy, supportive, version of family. I cannot claim that mine is the best, and certainly not the only way to fit into a family. Why would I reject someone else's version if it works?

As someone else has said "You've shown your hand:" you don't have a logical argument, you have an ideological argument.

 

[fated]

I never claimed that contrary arguments are all illogical. Indeed, I did just the opposite, I attempted to assist you in seeing what line of logic your argument was on. Then, I told you were you could find more.

I said that full natural equality is not logical, and is only presented as such rhetorically for the sake of making an argument.

Indeed, simply attacking logic and saying it's been definitively defeated is something like fear mongering tactics often favored by the GOP, or maybe its more like Democrat alarmism... I'll have to think about which fear tactic its more like...

The moment that children are considered unnecessary to the marital system its a pointless system. By Catholic logic and philosophy, it becomes a culture of death. It is pointless for the government to continue to support it, as it becomes nothing more than an elitist system. This is the claim by same sex marriage activist, that because a few people don't have children their group of people without children who want married should be allowed in. Of course there is an objective division and the groups are still not realistically homogeneous when they are put together.

Just yelling that I'm illogical does not make it so. I'd like to hear from a real philosopher who actually thinks that the groups are definitively the same. But, they don't exist, because the argument wouldn't even exist were that true. The fact that people do come in male and female, and that they do procreate, is at the center of this debate for people who are pro-marriage. Same sex advocates claim that these things are unnecessary.

It is those who are completely disposed to this issue that cannot see that contradicting logical claims do exist. It is the result of prejudice, or ignorance, or maybe they are intelligent enough to understand, or maybe they understand but conceal their understanding to continue in disagreement.

The shame arguments here are a sham to me here. All the 'I can't understand' and claims of illogical discrimination are worthless. I've actually read the philosophy and talked to people about this issue. It may be more usual to meet people here who haven't had this discussion with people.

If, say, your brother was straight with five children, and he said that the logic you were using was the result of using the least common denominator definition of marriage to make your claim, would you call him an idiot or a bigot or a person who is impossible to understand? No, you wouldn't. You'd understand him, understand that he loves you, and that you love his children. You might ultimately agree to disagree...

You don't have to be mean to me.

Pretend I'm your brother, pointing at your nieces and nephews and saying, "Marriage is not about me."

 

[nhisname]

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

*sigh*

And we've seen what kind of messes have been brought on by these artificial means...People are coming out of the woodwork trying to claim their sperm made Michael Jackson's kids. How do you think these kids feel? How do you even start to explain to a child that their father is a nameless, faceless sperm donor who really doesn't care whether they exist or not. Lawsuits by surrogates trying to take babies back who have been in adopted homes for over a year. When you go against the laws of God you reap the consequences.

 

[Chazemataz]

And we've seen what kind of messes have been brought on by these artificial means...People are coming out of the woodwork trying to claim their sperm made Michael Jackson's kids. How do you think these kids feel? How do you even start to explain to a child that their father is a nameless, faceless sperm donor who really doesn't care whether they exist or not. Lawsuits by surrogates trying to take babies back who have been in adopted homes for over a year. When you go against the laws of God you reap the consequences.

Not only would saying "your father is a nameless, faceless sperm donor who really doesn't care whether you exist or not" be an incredibly mean & cruel thing to say, artificial insemination has done wonders for those who otherwise have impotent partners or couples who cannot have children.

And what about people who are married and have no children? Well, good deal for them. Who give a crap, they highlight the fact that the system is based on heterosexual sex having. If they can't or don't get pregnant, then perhaps we can take their civil marriage away. But, again, they are a man and a woman, so we can clearly make this judgment, even though I'm not I sure I agree with it.

Really? You would take away the marriage of two people who cannot have babies together and who love each other over a stupid definition? I thought you were a Christian, isn't marriage supposed to be about the joining of two souls in love?

I don't want kids. I think they are annoying and a waste of money & time to be honest. Cute until they reach the age of 7 or so then they just become irritating. However, I may want to get married one day, and the nerve of somebody to suggest my marriage would suddenly become invalid simply because I don't support "family values" *rolls eyes*

 

[LittleNipper]

The path of liberty has been paved by judges overruling the the will of the majority.

and elitist? that's trashy conservative talk. If you tip your hand like this it lets me see your cards.

It is true. Judges have no place making rulings that are contrary to the majority. What they can do is encourage Congress to pass a law, but the majoity is not stupid --- though some in the minority would love to think so...

 

[JGG]

I never claimed that contrary arguments are all illogical. Indeed, I did just the opposite, I attempted to assist you in seeing what line of logic your argument was on. Then, I told you were you could find more.

I said that full natural equality is not logical, and is only presented as such rhetorically for the sake of making an argument.

Indeed, simply attacking logic and saying it's been definitively defeated is something like fear mongering tactics often favored by the GOP, or maybe its more like Democrat alarmism... I'll have to think about which fear tactic its more like...

The moment that children are considered unnecessary to the marital system its a pointless system. By Catholic logic and philosophy, it becomes a culture of death. It is pointless for the government to continue to support it, as it becomes nothing more than an elitist system. This is the claim by same sex marriage activist, that because a few people don't have children their group of people without children who want married should be allowed in. Of course there is an objective division and the groups are still not realistically homogeneous when they are put together.

Just yelling that I'm illogical does not make it so. I'd like to hear from a real philosopher who actually thinks that the groups are definitively the same. But, they don't exist, because the argument wouldn't even exist were that true. The fact that people do come in male and female, and that they do procreate, is at the center of this debate for people who are pro-marriage. Same sex advocates claim that these things are unnecessary.

It is those who are completely disposed to this issue that cannot see that contradicting logical claims do exist. It is the result of prejudice, or ignorance, or maybe they are intelligent enough to understand, or maybe they understand but conceal their understanding to continue in disagreement.

The shame arguments here are a sham to me here. All the 'I can't understand' and claims of illogical discrimination are worthless. I've actually read the philosophy and talked to people about this issue. It may be more usual to meet people here who haven't had this discussion with people.

If, say, your brother was straight with five children, and he said that the logic you were using was the result of using the least common denominator definition of marriage to make your claim, would you call him an idiot or a bigot or a person who is impossible to understand? No, you wouldn't. You'd understand him, understand that he loves you, and that you love his children. You might ultimately agree to disagree...

You don't have to be mean to me.

1. You understand that I more or less have rejected Catholic logic and philosophy, right?

2. If I may say so, it is more the case that you are simply shouting "I'm logical" rather than the other way around. Many people, including myself, have challenged your logic, which you have not yet countered, explained, or even acknowledged.

3. To be fair, you keep calling it the least common denominator, but where I come from, marrying someone because you want to have children with them has proven to be the least common denominator. At the same time, I have not called you an idiot, nor a bigot. You are difficult to understand however, because you seem to not want to acknowledge counters to your theory as logical, and have not adquately explained or defined your perspective.

If I had a brother, and he was making the same argument, it would be unlikely that I'd understand him either. Whether said brother has children seems irrelevant to his argument.

However, as I know people who are in happy marriages, who either cannot reproduce, or have no desire to, does suggest that procreation is not necessary in a marriage, happy or otherwise. Your argument seems based on the premise of the contrary, so I reject the premise.

I just don't see how I can make my objection any clearer.

 

[nhisname]

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

I fully agree. God made men different from women, not only to reproduce but because men think differently than women. A child needs the nurturing of the mother and the strength and discipline of the father. The child needs both. If we open doors to redefining marriage whats to stop polygamy and incestuous marriages?

 

[JGG]

I fully agree. God made men different from women, not only to reproduce but because men think differently than women. A child needs the nurturing of the mother and the strength and discipline of the father. The child needs both. If we open doors to redefining marriage whats to stop polygamy and incestuous marriages?

Okay, once again, I am both a widower, and the son of a widow. Please explain what the consequences are toward a child who either lacks the "nurturing of a mother," or the "strength and discipline of a father" and we'll see how it applies to my little family.

 

[Chazemataz]

I fully agree. God made men different from women, not only to reproduce but because men think differently than women. A child needs the nurturing of the mother and the strength and discipline of the father. The child needs both. If we open doors to redefining marriage whats to stop polygamy and incestuous marriages?

There is nowhere near, nor will there ever be, the demand for polygamous or incestuous marriages as there is the demand for gay marriages. Maybe a few hundred people are in a polygamous relationship at tops; maybe the same for an incestuous marriage. However, there are 1.2 million people in America in a gay relationship at the moment, not counting the estimated million married gay couples.

Oh, and you forget that there are so many countless types of families in America, many of which are widowed, single parents, children in care of grandparents, ect. If a child grows up to be "bad" then that is their own fault and they should be disciplined accordingly, or in jail if they end up being lawbreakers. The nuclear family is a lie, and if you want evidence of that look at everything it has lead to that is rebelling against it.

 

[MoonLancer]

Here, I've been inundated with people saying that I'm evading, or illogical. I'm not trying to.

then can you please start by presenting your definition of marriage. You actually have not done this. you have stated the properties of this definition but not the definition itself.

Also, its disingenuous to claim I'm illogical. I've explained the logic in terms of court rulings and philosophy itself.

You are wrong about the court rulings and have have not referenced any philosophers yet, or philosophical arguments.

If authentic equivalence is not proven, and it isn't even true(!), then there is no necessity to let same sex persons into the marriage system. That is the point.

please try explaining again. I think you may be thinking ahead of what your writing.

The division is perfectly reasonable. There is an obvious difference between two men and a man and a woman and two women. If there wasn't, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

this is a fallacious augment. let me illustrate.

"The division is perfectly reasonable. There is an obvious difference between blacks and whites. If there wasn't, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all."

The theory of discrimination is based not on something objective like a person's sex, which is objectively legally knowable in all but the rarest cases, but by a preference... innate or not, that is mutable... because its a desire to partake in an action.

homosexuality is not a choice.

If this was the determinate of what marriage is, then the law is bad jurisprudence, that is to say, it makes no sense to have the law. It simply discriminates on the basis of nothing. Roommates should have full protection, caregivers should have full protection.

It surly would be nice having the power to designate a individual who shares property, tax credit, and visitation rights with me.

Therefore, it is clearly the case that the law is on the basis of heterosexuals having sex and staying together.

what about heterosexual couples that don't have sex

And the argument is that some homosexuals live together too. Society has much less interest in their behavior than those who produce children.

I don't produce children. I am heterosexual and married. your argument fails.

And what about people who are married and have no children? Well, good deal for them. Who give a crap, they highlight the fact that the system is based on heterosexual sex having.

what if they don't have sex? Like good friends who get married to share health insurgence or something.

If they can't or don't get pregnant, then perhaps we can take their civil marriage away. But, again, they are a man and a woman, so we can clearly make this judgment, even though I'm not I sure I agree with it.

your a scary guy. We should pass laws to take away your extra un needed kids. After all we are already entering bizarro world.

 

[LittleNipper]

There is nowhere near, nor will there ever be, the demand for polygamous or incestuous marriages as there is the demand for gay marriages. Maybe a few hundred people are in a polygamous relationship at tops; maybe the same for an incestuous marriage. However, there are 1.2 million people in America in a gay relationship at the moment, not counting the estimated million married gay couples.

Oh, and you forget that there are so many countless types of families in America, many of which are widowed, single parents, children in care of grandparents, ect. If a child grows up to be "bad" then that is their own fault and they should be disciplined accordingly, or in jail if they end up being lawbreakers. The nuclear family is a lie, and if you want evidence of that look at everything it has lead to that is rebelling against it.

There are families who are different through no fault of their own, and then there are just wierd people who choose to make bad choices because it means fun for them... That in itself would be a poor reason to encourage such relationships to prosper.

 

[fated]

then can you please start by presenting your definition of marriage. You actually have not done this. you have stated the properties of this definition but not the definition itself.
You are wrong about the court rulings and have have not referenced any philosophers yet, or philosophical arguments.

please try explaining again. I think you may be thinking ahead of what your writing.

this is a fallacious augment. let me illustrate.

"The division is perfectly reasonable. There is an obvious difference between blacks and whites. If there wasn't, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all."
homosexuality is not a choice.
It surly would be nice having the power to designate a individual who shares property, tax credit, and visitation rights with me.

what about heterosexual couples that don't have sex

I don't produce children. I am heterosexual and married. your argument fails.

what if they don't have sex? Like good friends who get married to share health insurgence or something.
your a scary guy. We should pass laws to take away your extra un needed kids. After all we are already entering bizarro world.

Ah, so I'm supposed to change my position because marriage is not about children, its about you? No, its not.

 

[MoonLancer]

It is true. Judges have no place making rulings that are contrary to the majority. What they can do is encourage Congress to pass a law, but the majoity is not stupid --- though some in the minority would love to think so...

This in of itself is a fallacy. The majority has no place voting to oppress the civil liberties of a minority. NEVER.

As far as i know all major has resisted all major civil rights movements in the country since after its founding. Its the courts job to interpret the laws and at times judge if they are fair and right. Its apart of the that checks and balances thing.

 

[Chazemataz]

There are families who are different through no fault of their own, and then there are just wierd people who choose to make bad choices because it means fun for them... That in itself would be a poor reason to encourage such relationships to prosper.

I agree, but our definitions of weird are probably different.

 

[FlamingFemme]

There are families who are different through no fault of their own, and then there are just wierd people who choose to make bad choices because it means fun for them... That in itself would be a poor reason to encourage such relationships to prosper.

Did you marry your wife for FUN? Or did you marry her because you loved her, wanted to make a life with her, wanted to share your every moment with her, or maybe because your heart pounded whenever you saw her? Did you EVER stop to think that maybe those of us who are married to our same-sex partner married for the EXACT SAME REASONS you did? Just once, could you maybe just imagine that we love the same way you do? I married my wife because I fell in love with her. Very little (if any) of that had to do with sex. If you married for sex, I feel very sorry for you. However, I'm sure that you realize that most people marry for love, not sex. Just because we are not attracted to the opposite sex, doesn't mean that we are all a bunch of sex fiends. Did it ever occur to you that promiscuous people - straight, bi, gay, whatever - probably don't WANT to get married? And that maybe those of us who are fighting for that right are doing so because we are already in monogamous, committed, loving relationships? Relationships that are hard work, but are worth it because we love each other? Relationships that deserve legal recognition?
Just once, I would like for you to imagine what it would be like if you weren't allowed to marry your wife simply because of who she was.

 

[MoonLancer]

Ah, so I'm supposed to change my position because marriage is not about children, its about you? No, its not.

oh so its about you? Its about people who love each other. I surmise that your definition discriminates against people like me and homosexuals.

One doesn't give wedding vows to the hypothetical children that may or may not come about through the marriage. Its about the love two individuals share.

In the old days though, marriage was about property, now its about love. only recently marriage has been taken over by religion mucking it up for everyone.

 

[fated]

oh so its about you? Its about people who love each other. I surmise that your definition discriminates against people like me and homosexuals.

One doesn't give wedding vows to the hypothetical children that may or may not come about through the marriage. Its about the love two individuals share.

In the old days though, marriage was about property, now its about love. only recently marriage has been taken over by religion mucking it up for everyone.

No, a major part of it is about protecting children.

If it is merely an elitist group of rights for people who love each other, then we should get rid of it, not just add more people, who are even more diverse, to the system.

 

[FlamingFemme]

No, a major part of it is about protecting children.

If it is merely an elitist group of rights for people who love each other, then we should get rid of it, not just add more people, who are even more diverse, to the system.

You have the right to marry the woman you love and make her your immediate family, regardless of whether children come into the marriage or not.
Why should we not have that same right?? You have yet to give any of us a good, solid, logical reason why we should be denied the right to marry the person we love.

 

[fated]

You have the right to marry the woman you love and make her your immediate family, regardless of whether children come into the marriage or not.
Why should we not have that same right?? You have yet to give any of us a good, solid, logical reason why we should be denied the right to marry the person we love.

That isn't true. It is not surprising, I suppose that I have failed to convince you. But it isn't fair for you to say I have not been reasonable and logical.