The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

[Freodin]

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

Well, I almost agree with you. A major part of it is indeed about protecting children. But it is only a part. There are other parts, even at the exclusion of children.

It is this part that same-gender-unions want to fill - and hey, even at the INCLUSION of 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.

Exactly because it is NOT an elitist group of rights, we should grant them to more diverse people.

 

[CoderHead]

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.

OK, so marriage is defined as "two people of the opposite sex getting it on?"

The moment that children are considered unnecessary to the marital system its a pointless system.

OK, so marriage is now defined as "two people of the opposite sex who are capable of and intend to bear children?"

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

OK, so marriage is now defined as "an institution wherein children are raised?"

Do you actually even have a position?

Can you seriously do us all a favor and just post, once and for all, what your definition of marriage is?

 

[Freodin]

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.

I´m sorry to say, but you haven´t been logical. You have constantly claimed that you are, and that there are different logics... and, yes, you have even resorted to the evil emotional arguments that you accuse the other side of.

But not once have you logically defended your claims.

 

[fated]

OK, so marriage is defined as "two people of the opposite sex getting it on?"

OK, so marriage is now defined as "two people of the opposite sex who are capable of and intend to bear children?"

OK, so marriage is now defined as "an institution wherein children are raised?"

Do you actually even have a position?

Can you seriously do us all a favor and just post, once and for all, what your definition of marriage is?

I´m sorry to say, but you haven´t been logical. You have constantly claimed that you are, and that there are different logics... and, yes, you have even resorted to the evil emotional arguments that you accuse the other side of.

But not once have you logically defended your claims.

Look, just because you disagree doesn't make me illogical. When you responded to the first post you showed that you understood but disagreed, then, in the second you again go back to veiled insult.

Would you talk to you father or brother that way?

 

[FlamingFemme]

That isn't true.

Yes, it is.

It is not surprising, I suppose that I have failed to convince you.

Nope, not surprising at all, considering that you have failed to produce any convincing arguments. Also, considering that I am one half of a same-sex married couple raising our daughter, you'd probably have a hard time convincing me even if you DID have a logical argument, which you don't.

But it isn't fair for you to say I have not been reasonable and logical.

It most certainly IS fair. You arguments have been far from reasonable, and the only 'logic' you have used so far has been full of logical fallacies, which others have pointed out as well. You cannot call an argument 'reasonable' and 'logical' when all you have done is draw conclusions from premises that have been proven to be false.

 

[cantata]

It's the same evidence that gays use in actual cases like the one in California.

Great, so I’m sure you can provide links.

 

[Chazemataz]

Look, just because you disagree doesn't make me illogical. When you responded to the first post you showed that you understood but disagreed, then, in the second you again go back to veiled insult.

Would you talk to you father or brother that way?

How do you define marriage?

 

[CoderHead]

Look, just because you disagree doesn't make me illogical. When you responded to the first post you showed that you understood but disagreed, then, in the second you again go back to veiled insult.

No, you're illogical because you absolutely refuse (even through five pages of posts) to provide the definition of marriage upon which you're basing all of your "logical" arguments. Just come out with it, already.

Would you talk to you father or brother that way?

If they were holding onto a bigoted viewpoint without providing any reasonable basis, yes. But you are neither my father nor my brother. All I really want is the final missing piece of this "logic" puzzle you're putting together. The definition of marriage, if you please.

 

[Freodin]

Look, just because you disagree doesn't make me illogical. When you responded to the first post you showed that you understood but disagreed, then, in the second you again go back to veiled insult.

Would you talk to you father or brother that way?

What makes you illogical is your general unwilligness to defend your claims or to draw any logical conclusions from your premises.

Our initial conversation looked like that: "Did I understand you correct?" "Yes." "So how do you defend conclusion X from that position." "I don´t have to."

Would you talk like that to your teacher in logic?

This is not an insult, just an observation: you are not debating logically here.

 

[fated]

No, you resort to reductive rationalization, in order to call me illogical.

 

[fated]

Great, so I’m sure you can provide links.

I'm sure its public domain, why don't you Google it. I read and heard several responses to it. There was one in Time that said it insinuated equality, but it didn't that was a misconception... Instead it used the equality between civil unions and marriage in the state as a premise.

 

[MoonLancer]

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.

yeah, voting is for white people only. why add diversity to the sanctity of voting. So far thats the logic you have shown. Its NOT logical. Its tired and old.

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.

You have not been reasonable and logical. You haven't even officially declared a definition of marriage. A definition which you try to defend. That's crazy. Define it like a dictionary would. Then tell me your not discriminating.

 

[MoonLancer]

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

dear heaven think of the children!!! really?

 

[fated]

Removing children and one's sex from as well as all the differences these things entail from marriage is very reductive, and I do not have to accept you position to be logical. I can logically assert that you are using a reductive definition of marriage and a reductive definition of sex and a strong assertion that sexual orientation is something that is not scientifically proven to make your assertion and as your premise.

When I choose to center the argument around procreation it simply highlights just how reductive your position is.

 

[MoonLancer]

I'm sure its public domain, why don't you Google it. I read and heard several responses to it. There was one in Time that said it insinuated equality, but it didn't that was a misconception... Instead it used the equality between civil unions and marriage in the state as a premise.

LOL just post the bloody links guy, or fess up they don't exist. like 50% of your augment is from sources you refuse to source. are you embarrassed were you got these sources from? Would you write a paper, source it with "search google" then call it logical?

 

[FlamingFemme]

Removing children and one's sex from as well as all the differences these things entail from marriage is very reductive, and I do not have to accept you position to be logical. I can logically assert that you are using a reductive definition of marriage and a reductive definition of sex and a strong assertion that sexual orientation is something that is not scientifically proven to make your assertion and as your premise.

When I choose to center the argument around procreation it simply highlights just how reductive your position is.

Here's the problem (well, part of it, anyway):

1. There is no mention of procreation or children in any marriage license that I have ever seen.

2. There is no mention of procreation or children in any marriage ceremony that I have ever seen.

3. There is no legal (or non-secular, for that matter) requirement to agree to have children before being permitted to get married in any state in this union.

So, what basis, exactly, do you have for 'center[ing] the argument around procreation'?

And several of us are still waiting for your actual definition of marriage.

 

[CoderHead]

No, you resort to reductive rationalization, in order to call me illogical.

Post the definition of marriage.

I'm sure its public domain, why don't you Google it.

Please post the definition of marriage.

When I choose to center the argument around procreation it simply highlights just how reductive your position is.

Pretty please, with sugar on top, post the definition of marriage. Or would that be illogical - to first define the thing you're arguing?

 

[MoonLancer]

Removing children and one's sex from as well as all the differences these things entail from marriage is very reductive, and I do not have to accept you position to be logical.

I can logically assert that you are using a reductive definition of marriage and a reductive definition of sex and a strong assertion that sexual orientation is something that is not scientifically proven to make your assertion and as your premise.

You loose due to Occam's Razor. Your idea of marriage are is needlessly complex and full of unneeded excess

When I choose to center the argument around procreation it simply highlights just how reductive your position is.

whats wrong with reductive? you say that i like i should care. well in that case by choosing to center the argument around procreation your simply highlighting how illogical and additive it is.

the one who is being additive is you. (whatever that means)

 

[yasic]

I'm just going to jump in and say that I read every post on this entire thread... and the thing I want most from all of this is Fated's definition of marriage... though I am sure it's not going to happen.

 

[Freodin]

Removing children and one's sex from as well as all the differences these things entail from marriage is very reductive, and I do not have to accept you position to be logical. I can logically assert that you are using a reductive definition of marriage and a reductive definition of sex and a strong assertion that sexual orientation is something that is not scientifically proven to make your assertion and as your premise.

When I choose to center the argument around procreation it simply highlights just how reductive your position is.

Quite the contrary!

You "center" your argument around procreation. This is countered not by removing children, but removing the exclusitivity of having children from the definition of marriage.

Marriage is not exclusively about children. Marriage does exist without children. This is an existing fact, as provided by the example of infertile or elderly couples.

So it is not "us" who use a reductive position, but you. You reduce marriage to children. "We" broaden it to encompass various unions, with or without children.

And you constantly ignore that. You ignore the obvious conclusion from your "logic"... that if marriage is exclusively about children, then anyone who does not can have, does have or want to have children must not marry.

This is not logical. Call that "reductive rationalism" if you want.