Total Posts:180|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Contradiction's Anti-SSM Arguments = DUMB

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 11:42:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Many people on this site refer to Contradiction as the go-to person to provide an articulate, rational argument against same-sex marriage (SSM). I'm fairly certain that he has beaten everyone he's debated on the subject. At first glance, his ideas may seem legitimate because he is articulate and attempts to provide rational contentions as opposed to emotional, religious rhetoric. However, when subject to scrutiny, it's obvious to see that his argument(s) are really bad.

I've begged him to debate me on the subject a dozen times, and each time he has denied me - claiming that he would need months (and then more months) despite the fact that he's debated this many times before, and all he had to do was copy and paste his argument. The fact is, he knew that debating anyone competent on this matter would be an inevitable loss. For future reference, any time people say that Contradiction had a "good argument" against gay marriage, direct them to this thread considering I highly doubt he'll come back and EVER debate me on this... with good reason.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His Syllogism

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

>> False. First, people reproduce without heterosexual activity all the time via in vitro fertilization. Gay and straight people both conceive this way. Further, heterosexual sex nor the promise to bear children is a prerequisite to getting married. Plenty of people get married who can't have kids, who don't want to have kids, and/or who are beyond child-rearing age - especially those getting married for the second, third or fourth time. In short, this contention is completely null and thereby nullifies the entire rest of the argument. Sex is irrelevant to marriage. Sexual relationships - even those that yield children - are not exclusive or specific to marriage.

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.


>> You can recognize something spiritually, personally or "specially" in other ways without LEGAL recognition. To suggest that there is a legitimate need to recognize heterosexual marriage legally means you can easily argue that homosexual relationships also have special value, and thus deserve legal recognition for similar reasons. In fact, considering more and more gay people are having children either a) naturally with a heterosexual partner before their gay partner; b) via in vitro or surrogacy; or c) due to increasing gay adoption, then EVEN IF you use "But what about the children?!" as an argument, that's only an argument IN FAVOR of recognizing gay marriage in order to legitimize and protect families in same-sex parenting situations. I forgot the exact statistic, but something like 1/4 gay people have kids (and that stat is much higher for lesbians).

http://www.nytimes.com...

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

>> No they don't. Recognizing gay marriage does not in any way whatsoever undermine the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. It suggests that they are equal in value. The only argument he's given for the value of heterosexual marriage is that "heterosexual union" yields children. I've proven gay/bisexual people have kids either through heterosexual sex or otherwise. To suggest that these families need legal protection (especially in cases of adoption) completely dismantles his entire case. Kids with gay parents need legal protection too.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

>> The argument for SSM does NOT deny the special social value of marriage. In fact, it celebrates and acknowledges the value of marriage - hence why they want to get married.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

>> Therefore, um, no. I have dismantled his entire syllogism. I only needed to negate one premise and I've negated several.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More of his bad arguments:

"The difference between a marriage and say, a boyfriend/girlfriend having sex is that the former is a contractual agreement to the welfare of both partners and any children that may arise as a result of the relationship. The state does not regard the latter as a marriage because there are no contractual obligations involved."

>> False. Parents have a LEGAL (contractual) obligation to their children regardless of marriage. It's called child support, and the ability for the State to punish you for child negligence.

"Since traditional marriage provides the environment necessary for both the production and raising of the state's future citizens, it should be afforded protection under the law."

>> False. Traditional marriage is NOT necessary for "producing" children, nor for raising children. Moreover, affording heterosexual marriage protection under the law does NOT mean that protection is inhibited in recognizing gay marriage.

These are really obviously stupid arguments; the fact that he is so celebrated on DDO is pretty sad.

"However, since gender is relevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is justified in limiting marriages to only between members of the opposite sex."

First, gender is not equivalent to sex. That's psychology/ women's studies/ science 101. That's why people who identify as a man have gotten pregnant before. I've also proven this false...

But wait! He responds to the in vitro argument (though not the others: surrogacy, adoption and bisexual "natural" reproduction). Let's see it...

"As such, the child that results from these artificial means of reproduction is not actually that of the homosexual couple. Rather, he was produced by means of heterosexual union via a third party... artificial means of reproduction are inherently heterosexual in nature."

>> No, IVF is not sexual in nature at all. Joining X and Y chromosomes in a petri dish has nothing to do with sexuality - either hetero or homo. All it proves is that DNA specificities are required to create a zygote. That is undeniable and irrelevant to the argument.

"Marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with."

>> This is a bare assertion based on nothing but his hypocritical opinion. If the ability to procreate is not relevant, then whether or not the relationship makes reproduction "inherently possible" is also not relevant. A couple over 45 could not have a sexual relationship that inherently produces children if the woman has gone through menopause, yet older people marry all the time. He is picking and choosing when the "ability" to procreate is relevant and generalizing based on sexuality. That is not an argument in his favor supported with facts; just a very convenient broad generalization.

"If marriage is a social construction, then there cannot be said that there are rights associated with it."

>> Exactly. The qualifications and parameters of marriage have changed throughout history. This isn't an argument in his favor but against it.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 11:46:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And finally...

"If we divorce marriage from procreation, then what nonarbitrary reason does one have to limit marriage to being between two parties? Why not one person who loves himself, or three cohabiating roommates who love each other and want insurance benefits, or a business partner and his client, or three men and two women? Why even think that marriage must involve consent or must be between persons? Bereft of a solid foundation on which to base marriage, there are no limits to who can be married."

- Limiting marriage between 2 parties is not something I feel strongly about. It is nothing but a contractual agreement with legal protections for the people who enter in. These kind of agreements exist ALL the time. Multiple business partners, for example.

- Marrying yourself doesn't require a legal contract. You wouldn't get any tax benefits or protections such as power of attorney over yourself, which is inherent.

- Conscious people who can legally consent are required for marriage, because animals, humans in vegetative states, and other people who can't enter contracts don't usually have legal rights to begin with.

Like, are you fvcking kidding me? These are the "smartest" arguments against SSM that people can come up with outside of religious preferences which can/should have nothing to do with the law? L... O... L. Just shut up about Contradiction's STUPID case, people. Seriously.
President of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 11:53:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nice analysis :) Hopefully your post draws him out of hiding. I definitely want to see you debate him. I don't think he's debated anybody since last May, when he lost to WriterDave.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 1:11:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
One of my favorite things about his procreation argument is the idea that the government is somehow protecting our future civilizations by maintaining that procreation is essential to marriage. As if we wouldn't procreate without the government telling us it's ok.

The other thing that mesmerizes me is when supporters of this argument claim that their definition of marriage is about being procreative in type but not effect. Firstly this is nothing more then an excuse to hand waive away everything which makes their position completely contradictory, but even more astonishing is that since type would be defined as "between a man and a women", they are literally using their position as an argument for their position.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 1:12:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
FYI, he debated WriterDave on it and lost, albeit, barely amongst much votebombing in his favor. Though I think it was on the morality of homosexual acts, not same sex marriage.

I'd love to see you debate him. I'd also love to debate him myself, but there's too long a line I think.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 7:39:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Contradicktion's anti-SSM arguments are DUMB!? I need to go cry in a corner now!
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 7:41:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I also note that you used a George Carlin quote in your signature without crediting him. Perhaps you assumed people would think you witty?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 11:56:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
While I agree with Contradiction, I'm not satisfied with his (seemingly) failure to refute the handstand argument.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 1:01:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 7:41:34 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I also note that you used a George Carlin quote in your signature without crediting him. Perhaps you assumed people would think you witty?

I don't think we can assume that. Maybe she felt the quote was so popular she didn't have to source it. That doesn't make it right, as you should always source it, but the ethical thing to do is to give someone the benefit of the doubt unless you know better.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 1:43:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fail is strong in you, Danielle.

I wish I had the patience to write out just how immature, shallow and point-missing the objections you presented are.

Instead, I'll just present a modified version of my logical wedge argument contra same-sex "marriage".

P1) If you accept the proposal, as support of same-sex marriage entails, that marriage, instead of being an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, is actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity, then logic demands that you also accept a "marriage" between 4 men and 4 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 16 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and a sister who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and his father who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or indeed anything whatsoever that one may want to call "marriage," for someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is.

P2) Polyamorous "marriages," polygamist "marriages," incestuous "marriages," father/child & mother/child "marriages," and intra-familial "marriages" are increasingly immoral and unacceptable.

C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

As a rule of thumb, by the way, it cannot ever be wise to throw around accusations of something being "dumb," especially when it is coupled with hugely undeserved confidence in immature, weak and point-missing objections as well as with undeserved pats on the back and all-capitalized words.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 1:47:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 1:43:50 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
The fail is strong in you, Danielle.

I wish I had the patience to write out just how immature, shallow and point-missing the objections you presented are.

Instead, I'll just present a modified version of my logical wedge argument contra same-sex "marriage".

P1) If you accept the proposal, as support of same-sex marriage entails, that marriage, instead of being an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, is actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity, then logic demands that you also accept a "marriage" between 4 men and 4 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 16 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and a sister who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and his father who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or indeed anything whatsoever that one may want to call "marriage," for someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is.

P2) Polyamorous "marriages," polygamist "marriages," incestuous "marriages," father/child & mother/child "marriages," and intra-familial "marriages" are increasingly immoral and unacceptable.

C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".



As a rule of thumb, by the way, it cannot ever be wise to throw around accusations of something being "dumb," especially when it is coupled with hugely undeserved confidence in immature, weak and point-missing objections as well as with undeserved pats on the back and all-capitalized words.

I was going to point out how her analysis is severely flawed, but I didn't feel right just pointing it out without going into detail, and I really wasn't in the mood to go into detail.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 1:52:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 1:43:50 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
The fail is strong in you, Danielle.

I wish I had the patience to write out just how immature, shallow and point-missing the objections you presented are.

Instead, I'll just present a modified version of my logical wedge argument contra same-sex "marriage".

P1) If you accept the proposal, as support of same-sex marriage entails, that marriage, instead of being an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, is actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity, then logic demands that you also accept a "marriage" between 4 men and 4 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 16 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and a sister who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and his father who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or indeed anything whatsoever that one may want to call "marriage," for someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is.

P2) Polyamorous "marriages," polygamist "marriages," incestuous "marriages," father/child & mother/child "marriages," and intra-familial "marriages" are increasingly immoral and unacceptable.

C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".



As a rule of thumb, by the way, it cannot ever be wise to throw around accusations of something being "dumb," especially when it is coupled with hugely undeserved confidence in immature, weak and point-missing objections as well as with undeserved pats on the back and all-capitalized words.

Your argument depends on one accepting that gay marriage should be allowed for the reasons you highlight. What if it isn't?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 1:52:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 1:43:50 PM, SovereignDream wrote:

P1) If you accept the proposal, as support of same-sex marriage entails, that marriage, instead of being an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, is actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity, then logic demands that you also accept a "marriage" between 4 men and 4 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 16 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and a sister who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and his father who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or indeed anything whatsoever that one may want to call "marriage," for someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is.

I fail to see who this is supposed to be a reductio.

P2) Polyamorous "marriages," polygamist "marriages," incestuous "marriages," father/child & mother/child "marriages," and intra-familial "marriages" are increasingly immoral and unacceptable.

Oh really.

C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:24:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 1:47:42 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I was going to point out how her analysis is severely flawed, but I didn't feel right just pointing it out without going into detail, and I really wasn't in the mood to go into detail.

You and me both. She wrote a book, for Pete's sake! The problem, I suspect, is that her undeserved self-congratulatory tone seems to indicate that even if one were to respond with the most eloquently crafted and concise defense, she'd simply dig her heels in deeper and attempt any measure to reject such a defense to salvage her own ego. That would, of course, entail writing pages upon pages of responses, each one trying to explain with great patience where the misunderstanding has taken place. Only to be straw-manned or ridiculed further, of course. And I know most of this from experience, I'd like to add.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:25:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 1:52:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
Your argument depends on one accepting that gay marriage should be allowed for the reasons you highlight. What if it isn't?

Then I'd be interested in hearing those other reasons you'd feel free to provide.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:29:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:25:47 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 1:52:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
Your argument depends on one accepting that gay marriage should be allowed for the reasons you highlight. What if it isn't?

Then I'd be interested in hearing those other reasons you'd feel free to provide.

I'd be interested in hearing your response to my question.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:31:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:29:59 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:25:47 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 1:52:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
Your argument depends on one accepting that gay marriage should be allowed for the reasons you highlight. What if it isn't?

Then I'd be interested in hearing those other reasons you'd feel free to provide.

I'd be interested in hearing your response to my question.

I'd be interested in an interesting interest which is of interest to our best interests.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:33:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:24:08 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 1:47:42 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I was going to point out how her analysis is severely flawed, but I didn't feel right just pointing it out without going into detail, and I really wasn't in the mood to go into detail.

You and me both. She wrote a book, for Pete's sake! The problem, I suspect, is that her undeserved self-congratulatory tone seems to indicate that even if one were to respond with the most eloquently crafted and concise defense, she'd simply dig her heels in deeper and attempt any measure to reject such a defense to salvage her own ego. That would, of course, entail writing pages upon pages of responses, each one trying to explain with great patience where the misunderstanding has taken place. Only to be straw-manned or ridiculed further, of course. And I know most of this from experience, I'd like to add.

She wrote a book? I'd like to see that.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:34:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:31:39 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:29:59 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:25:47 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 1:52:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
Your argument depends on one accepting that gay marriage should be allowed for the reasons you highlight. What if it isn't?

Then I'd be interested in hearing those other reasons you'd feel free to provide.

I'd be interested in hearing your response to my question.

I'd be interested in an interesting interest which is of interest to our best interests.

Awesome. So, you post an argument, and when I question the premises you troll in return. Glad to have a gauge of your sincerity.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:34:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 1:52:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/25/2013 1:43:50 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
The fail is strong in you, Danielle.

I wish I had the patience to write out just how immature, shallow and point-missing the objections you presented are.

Instead, I'll just present a modified version of my logical wedge argument contra same-sex "marriage".

P1) If you accept the proposal, as support of same-sex marriage entails, that marriage, instead of being an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, is actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another

I know from speaking with Danielle previously that this is not what she thinks the institution of marriage is for.

regardless of that love's fecundity, then logic demands that you also accept a "marriage" between 4 men and 4 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 16 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and a sister who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and his father who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or indeed anything whatsoever that one may want to call "marriage," for someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is.

P2) Polyamorous "marriages," polygamist "marriages," incestuous "marriages," father/child & mother/child "marriages," and intra-familial "marriages" are increasingly immoral and unacceptable.

C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".



As a rule of thumb, by the way, it cannot ever be wise to throw around accusations of something being "dumb," especially when it is coupled with hugely undeserved confidence in immature, weak and point-missing objections as well as with undeserved pats on the back and all-capitalized words.

Your argument depends on one accepting that gay marriage should be allowed for the reasons you highlight. What if it isn't?
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:35:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:33:22 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:24:08 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 1:47:42 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I was going to point out how her analysis is severely flawed, but I didn't feel right just pointing it out without going into detail, and I really wasn't in the mood to go into detail.

You and me both. She wrote a book, for Pete's sake! The problem, I suspect, is that her undeserved self-congratulatory tone seems to indicate that even if one were to respond with the most eloquently crafted and concise defense, she'd simply dig her heels in deeper and attempt any measure to reject such a defense to salvage her own ego. That would, of course, entail writing pages upon pages of responses, each one trying to explain with great patience where the misunderstanding has taken place. Only to be straw-manned or ridiculed further, of course. And I know most of this from experience, I'd like to add.

She wrote a book? I'd like to see that.

That was merely meant to convey that her posts were quite...er...long.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:39:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:34:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:31:39 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:29:59 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:25:47 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 1:52:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
Your argument depends on one accepting that gay marriage should be allowed for the reasons you highlight. What if it isn't?

Then I'd be interested in hearing those other reasons you'd feel free to provide.

I'd be interested in hearing your response to my question.

I'd be interested in an interesting interest which is of interest to our best interests.

Awesome. So, you post an argument, and when I question the premises you troll in return. Glad to have a gauge of your sincerity.

Huh? And here I thought you were trolling me. To your response:

"Your argument depends on one accepting that gay marriage should be allowed for the reasons you highlight. What if it isn't?"

I replied:

"Then I'd be interested in hearing those other reasons you'd feel free to provide."

That translates roughly into "such as?" or "what other reasons?"
I just thought it sounded more cordial.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:40:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:34:24 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I know from speaking with Danielle previously that this is not what she thinks the institution of marriage is for.

Then (this an open question, by the way) what is marriage for?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:41:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:39:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:34:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:31:39 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:29:59 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:25:47 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 1:52:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
Your argument depends on one accepting that gay marriage should be allowed for the reasons you highlight. What if it isn't?

Then I'd be interested in hearing those other reasons you'd feel free to provide.

I'd be interested in hearing your response to my question.

I'd be interested in an interesting interest which is of interest to our best interests.

Awesome. So, you post an argument, and when I question the premises you troll in return. Glad to have a gauge of your sincerity.

Huh? And here I thought you were trolling me. To your response:

"Your argument depends on one accepting that gay marriage should be allowed for the reasons you highlight. What if it isn't?"

I replied:

"Then I'd be interested in hearing those other reasons you'd feel free to provide."

That translates roughly into "such as?" or "what other reasons?"
I just thought it sounded more cordial.

Yes, you replied by avoiding my question and posing your own.

You presented an argument. Whoopedee do. I at least give you credit for eliminating the references to bestiality and pedophilia that were previously present. But presenting a valid argument is nothing special. It really doesn't carry any weight unless we accept the premises. That's the real crux here: whether or not we should accept your premises.

Why should we?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:43:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If marriage is an institution created to bring together love that IS reproductive in nature, incestual marriage should be allowed.

Unless we allow exceptions based on the frequency of genetic disorders - but then your argument falls apart Sovereign because P1 is false.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:43:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:35:56 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:33:22 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:24:08 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 1:47:42 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I was going to point out how her analysis is severely flawed, but I didn't feel right just pointing it out without going into detail, and I really wasn't in the mood to go into detail.

You and me both. She wrote a book, for Pete's sake! The problem, I suspect, is that her undeserved self-congratulatory tone seems to indicate that even if one were to respond with the most eloquently crafted and concise defense, she'd simply dig her heels in deeper and attempt any measure to reject such a defense to salvage her own ego. That would, of course, entail writing pages upon pages of responses, each one trying to explain with great patience where the misunderstanding has taken place. Only to be straw-manned or ridiculed further, of course. And I know most of this from experience, I'd like to add.

She wrote a book? I'd like to see that.

That was merely meant to convey that her posts were quite...er...long.

Nah bro. I wrote a book: [http://www.debate.org...]
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:45:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:43:32 PM, Kinesis wrote:
If marriage is an institution created to bring together love that IS reproductive in nature, incestual marriage should be allowed.

Unless we allow exceptions based on the frequency of genetic disorders - but then your argument falls apart Sovereign because P1 is false.

Or exceptions based on population dynamics, in the case of polygamous marriage.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:50:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:40:11 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/25/2013 2:34:24 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I know from speaking with Danielle previously that this is not what she thinks the institution of marriage is for.

Then (this an open question, by the way) what is marriage for?

I don't remember what she said completely, and it would be a massive hassle finding the thread again. One reason was for society to recognise the legitimacy of the relationship in question - i.e. by legalising gay marriage the government recognises that gay love is just as legitimate as straight love.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 2:50:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 2:41:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes, you replied by avoiding my question and posing your own.

I didn't respond in that manner with the intent of being disingenuous. I simply wanted more information before I began to make any hasty conclusions.

You presented an argument. Whoopedee do.

Thanks

I at least give you credit for eliminating the references to bestiality and pedophilia that were previously present. But presenting a valid argument is nothing special. It really doesn't carry any weight unless we accept the premises. That's the real crux here: whether or not we should accept your premises.

Why should we?

Do you have any particular objection in mind? I'd rather save some time and address objections rather than explaining an already very much so self-explanatory argument. That way I can save time and clarify premises only if I needed, rather than commit myself to sitting on this computer screen for hours on end this fine, snowy winter eve.