The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

MoonLancer · Aug 18, 2009

Show us your supposed discrimination free definition of marriage. Your entire augment is resting on this definition. No pressure.

This is the same tactic creationists use. They don't actually have a theory that is formally written down that can be properly criticized, as you don't actually have a definition. however as the duality of this means your augment is weak and without structure.

ToddNotTodd · Aug 18, 2009

fated said:
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've failed to logically tie procreation and child rearing (since child rearing can happen regardless of where the child comes from). You've failed to logically tie child rearing with marriage (since "traditional" marriage can exclude child rearing). You arbitrarily invent terms like "lowest common denominator definition" which mean nothing.

So yeah... yeah I can say you haven't been logical...

Freodin · Aug 18, 2009

FlamingFemme said:
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.

Interestingly, there is not even a mention of children in all the bible verses that the opponents of same gender unions like to cite.

fated · Aug 18, 2009

Anyway, the reductive reasoning argument is exactly what the gay philosophers use against the Catholic one.

Can you believe that? I might be under attack personally by the gay rights establishment, choosing to accuses me of being illogical.

You need to use reductive reasoning on marriage, because to see it objectively is to see a clear difference involving procreation.

You move it also to a near purely personal perspective, rather than something more for reproduction.

I just did a refresher, see, and this how gay marriage philosophy starts now, with a definition including reproduction, but then, again just going saying that gays care about the same things inside their relationship and that the state obviously doesn't care about reproduction or it would kick out the non-reproductive. That reductive of the rights of the state to exclude people from social programs.

The whole of gay philosophy I can now find at this supposed objective source is now reductive. The whole thing is lowest common denomination.

Now, the government is in the middle of this, and its marriage law is too. Now, just because that's were the law is, there are several reductive differences that the state can use. One is children. We can use that one, but we don't. Instead, we are currently using the sexual makeup one.

I'm sure that it would make more sense from a jurisprudence perspective to use children measure, except that newly weds often have children.

Anyway, the government has the right to make the law as it is now.

The people behind the arguments on both sides do not like the system as it is, but the use of sexual makeup, reductive or not, is logical. And if you reject that, then you're illogical.

You might not agree with that logic. BUT, logic is like that, there are a whole bunch of different logical arguments you can make.

That is why I refer you back to the cases at the California Supreme Court, which ultimately agreed that sufficient difference exists between same sex marriage and marriage that the racism argument ultimately illogical (that's my interpretation).

yasic · Aug 18, 2009

Could you at least state for the record that you do not have any intention of giving us your definition of marriage? At the very least?

pgp_protector · Aug 18, 2009

I don't think they're going to post their definition.

FlamingFemme · Aug 18, 2009

I believe we are all still waiting on your definition of marriage. We can't possibly know exactly what you are arguing in support of unless you define it. You've been asked for this definition at least a dozen times.

Please?

DeathMagus · Aug 18, 2009

fated said:
Why don't you draw yourself a Venn,

I can't. Your use of sets is quite befuddling. I'm not sure that such a Venn could exist accurately within 2D space.

and give up this pretext.

Pretext? I've been as blunt as I possibly can.

Even if we assume that your first premise is true:

"Marriage is for the raising of children"

...and even if we assume that your second premise is true:

"Homosexual couples cannot raise children"

...your conclusion still wouldn't follow:

"Therefore, straight couples that want children, straight couples that don't, infertile straight couples, and elderly straight couples can all marry, but homosexuals can't."

Never mind that both premises are trivial to disprove - even if I grant them to you, your conclusion still fails.

nhisname · Aug 18, 2009

Chazemataz said:
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.
What is cruel are people who can't see beyond their own needs to care how this child might be treated in the future. This is a cruel world and children can be doubly cruel when it comes to making rude comments to the child about how he was fathered. Michael Jackson dealt with it by insulating his children from the world and cruel people. Who is at fault here?

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?
The definition was and is defined by our creator, who created man for woman. If it is so stupid how did you get here?

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*

You have the free will to support anything you like. I do like children and I just don't like seeing them hurt by choices their parents.

CoderHead · Aug 18, 2009

fated said:
Anyway, the reductive reasoning argument is exactly what the gay philosophers use against the Catholic one.

Anyway, post the definition of marriage.

fated said:
Can you believe that? I might be under attack personally by the gay rights establishment, choosing to accuses me of being illogical.

How arrogant of you to think that the "gay rights establishment" (if there were such a thing) would even care enough to attack you? You're one bigoted voice among many.

fated said:
You need to use reductive reasoning on marriage, because to see it objectively is to see a clear difference involving procreation.

But you just told us that using reductive reasoning in this issue resulted in factoring the lowest common denominator...whatever that means.

fated said:
You move it also to a near purely personal perspective, rather than something more for reproduction.

Marriages are personal. Do you view them as public domain?

fated said:
I just did a refresher, see, and this how gay marriage philosophy starts now [...]

I can't even begin to understand what you're talking about.

fated said:
The whole of gay philosophy I can now find at this supposed objective source is now reductive. The whole thing is lowest common denomination.

So now reductive is bad? Up above, it was good. I'm confused by your rhetoric.

fated said:
Now, just because that's were the law is, there are several reductive differences that the state can use. One is children.

Wait, wait, wait. Now reductive is good again?

fated said:
I'm sure that it would make more sense from a jurisprudence perspective to use children measure, except that newly weds often have children.

You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

fated said:
The people behind the arguments on both sides do not like the system as it is, but the use of sexual makeup, reductive or not, is logical. And if you reject that, then you're illogical.

So then it's illogical to allow marriage between sterile, heterosexual couples? Since the use of sexual makeup - specifically in the context of children, as you've shown - is logical?

fated said:
BUT, logic is like that

No, logic is like this: post the definition of marriage.

fated said:
That is why I refer you back to the cases at the California Supreme Court, which ultimately agreed that sufficient difference exists between same sex marriage and marriage that the racism argument ultimately illogical (that's my interpretation).

Can we get this in English?

Oh, and since I haven't mentioned it before...

...post the definition of marriage.

Freodin · Aug 18, 2009

nhisname said:
You have the free will to support anything you like. I do like children and I just don't like seeing them hurt by choices their parents.

Don´t you think that it would be a better way to remove the source of the hurting - that is, the people´s hurting of others - than the assumed cause for their actions.

Just today I read an interesting newspaper article about "mixed" children in Germany after WW2. Children of black soldiers with german women that is... and the harm and "cruel remarks" they had to suffer.

Do you think it would thus be better to prohibit marriages between different ethniticies, or instead change society so that even these unions and their offspring get accepted, or at least not subjected to persecution?

FlamingFemme · Aug 18, 2009

nhisname said:
You have the free will to support anything you like. I do like children and I just don't like seeing them hurt by choices their parents.

Choices? Exactly what 'choices' would these be? The 'choice' to be attracted to someone? The choice to marry the person you love? The choice to raise children with that person? What?

I can assure you, the only choices my wife and I make in respect to our daughter are ones that are in her best interest. Part of what is in her best interest is to be raised by the only two parents she has ever known. To insinuate that gay people don't like children, or make selfish 'choices' to their childrens' detriment is what's cruel, and it's completely unfair of you to do so.

fated · Aug 18, 2009

Why don't you post the definition of marriage. We've been discussing it long enough, you should have a valid definition. Right?

All I get from gay marriage advocates is that its for two people who love each other, which is clearly a pointless legal endeavor. Why would I be so interested in roommates? I'd much rather support people with children!

The argument AGAIN, goes to some don't have children.

Fine, but we don't have to add the MM and FF all of which are nevers to the MF which are sometimes. We don't have to. We simply do not, and not doing so is bigotry.

Our culture is still one that prefers people to be either celibate or married with children. More and more it is with less children, but that still does not destroy this as a reasonable guide to what marriage is.

JustMeSee · Aug 18, 2009

FlamingFemme said:
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.

VERY powerful!

Good food for thought.

cantata · Aug 18, 2009

fated said:
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.

Im not the one whose argument rests on the assumption that marriage is beneficial to children.

Please post links or admit that your argument is baseless.

pgp_protector · Aug 18, 2009

fated said:
Why don't you post the definition of marriage. We've been discussing it long enough, you should have a valid definition. Right?

All I get from gay marriage advocates is that its for two people who love each other, which is clearly a pointless legal endeavor. Why would I be so interested in roommates? I'd much rather support people with children!

The argument AGAIN, goes to some don't have children.

Fine, but we don't have to add the MM and FF all of which are nevers to the MF which are sometimes. We don't have to. We simply do not, and not doing so is bigotry.

Our culture is still one that prefers people to be either celibate or married with children. More and more it is with less children, but that still does not destroy this as a reasonable guide to what marriage is.

anyone see a definition of marriage in this ?

cantata · Aug 18, 2009

p.s. Fated: Why don’t we just change marriage altogether, and award marriages only to couples who are raising children or who are in the process of producing or adopting children with the intent to raise them?

If marriage were really for the benefit of children and children alone, why should it be awarded on the basis of the sexes of the couple rather than, y’know, whether or not they have children…?

yasic · Aug 18, 2009

fated said:
Why don't you post the definition of marriage. We've been discussing it long enough, you should have a valid definition. Right?

All I get from gay marriage advocates is that its for two people who love each other, which is clearly a pointless legal endeavor. Why would I be so interested in roommates? I'd much rather support people with children!

The argument AGAIN, goes to some don't have children.

Fine, but we don't have to add the MM and FF all of which are nevers to the MF which are sometimes. We don't have to. We simply do not, and not doing so is bigotry.

Our culture is still one that prefers people to be either celibate or married with children. More and more it is with less children, but that still does not destroy this as a reasonable guide to what marriage is.

So are you saying that if we post our definitions of marriage, you will post yours?

nhisname · Aug 18, 2009

RevSJamison said:
Interesting. Though marriages are more about relationships than procreation.

Everyone we come in contact with we have some sort of a relation ship with. Marriage was ordained for the purpose of a family. In the O.T. if something happened to a man's brother it was his duty to take the brothers widow as his wife so he could give her children in the name of the brother.

DeathMagus · Aug 18, 2009

fated said:
Why don't you post the definition of marriage. We've been discussing it long enough, you should have a valid definition. Right?

All I get from gay marriage advocates is that its for two people who love each other, which is clearly a pointless legal endeavor. Why would I be so interested in roommates? I'd much rather support people with children!

The argument AGAIN, goes to some don't have children.

Fine, but we don't have to add the MM and FF all of which are nevers to the MF which are sometimes. We don't have to. We simply do not, and not doing so is bigotry.

Our culture is still one that prefers people to be either celibate or married with children. More and more it is with less children, but that still does not destroy this as a reasonable guide to what marriage is.

Wait...I actually think I have it!

You do support only people who will have children getting married, but you don't want to be bothered with the paperwork of checking up on all of them to make sure they will. So, you'll just restrict it to people who might naturally have children and call it a day.

Is that correct?

The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Iconoclast

Devout believer in a theologically different God

The White Hart

Part time poster, Full time lurker

Noted strange person

The Flaming One

Stater of the Obvious

nhisname

Guest

Knee Dragger