Total Posts:124|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Give a GOOD argument against gay rights.

GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 3:31:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

They can't. I have been asking this same exact question for years with no valid response. The people who oppose do not have any reasons worth considering. They use the same debunked and logically flawed arguments over and over and expect you to take them seriously. Like comparing same sex unions to adults sexually abusing children and animals who they know are not capable of giving consent. They resort to faulty comparisons because they aren't able to attack the issue itself, so they use the "ick" factor to support their blatant use of logical fallacy. They are too out of touch with reality and see logic where there is none.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 5:39:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

P1: The state regulates marriage.
P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.
P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.
P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal family structure, which is only present in heterosexual unions.
P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.
P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 5:39:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No argument needed. It is illegal to discriminate due to sexual orientation. Gays have the same rights as everyone else.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 5:42:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 5:39:44 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

P1: The state regulates marriage.
P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.
P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.
P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal family structure, which is only present in heterosexual unions.

^^^
And this is the premise which has been shredded in every court case over the last few years.

P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.
P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 5:43:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 3:31:42 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

They can't. I have been asking this same exact question for years with no valid response. The people who oppose do not have any reasons worth considering. They use the same debunked and logically flawed arguments over and over and expect you to take them seriously. Like comparing same sex unions to adults sexually abusing children and animals who they know are not capable of giving consent. They resort to faulty comparisons because they aren't able to attack the issue itself, so they use the "ick" factor to support their blatant use of logical fallacy. They are too out of touch with reality and see logic where there is none.

Pretty sure I have never used those arguments but ok.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 5:43:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 5:42:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:39:44 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

P1: The state regulates marriage.
P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.
P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.
P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal family structure, which is only present in heterosexual unions.

^^^
And this is the premise which has been shredded in every court case over the last few years.

Please explain what is wrong with this premise.

P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.
P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 5:45:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 5:42:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:39:44 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

P1: The state regulates marriage.
P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.
P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.
P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal family structure, which is only present in heterosexual unions.

^^^
And this is the premise which has been shredded in every court case over the last few years.

Just because the government says it is so does not make it so.


P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.
P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 5:46:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

Because, government should treat each person as an individual, regardless of bed partner or co-parent. Since, government providing additional benefits to a person based on civil marriage status is discrimination. Therefore, all civil marriage must be ended to stop discrimination of single persons.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 5:55:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 5:45:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:42:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:39:44 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

P1: The state regulates marriage.
P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.
P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.
P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal family structure, which is only present in heterosexual unions.

^^^
And this is the premise which has been shredded in every court case over the last few years.

Just because the government says it is so does not make it so.

No, it's not the authority of the governments but the soundness of the rebuttals which undermines the premise. 'Ideal structure' is ill defined, and there's no valid reason to restrict that to heterosexual couples, because there's no absolute distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples when it comes to child rearing to justify it. And to which degree ought government to support 'ideal structure'?

And procreation isn't even an issue, as that doesn't require marriage, and marriage assists in the raising of a child, not the creation of one. And there's no valid justification for denying gay people the right to raise a child, as adoption laws already distinguish between prospective adopting couples on a basis of suitability which separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, in a way which is far more accurate than loose generalizations based on gender.

P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.
P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 5:59:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 5:55:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:45:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:42:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:39:44 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

P1: The state regulates marriage.
P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.
P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.
P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal family structure, which is only present in heterosexual unions.

^^^
And this is the premise which has been shredded in every court case over the last few years.

Just because the government says it is so does not make it so.

No, it's not the authority of the governments but the soundness of the rebuttals which undermines the premise. 'Ideal structure' is ill defined, and there's no valid reason to restrict that to heterosexual couples, because there's no absolute distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples when it comes to child rearing to justify it. And to which degree ought government to support 'ideal structure'?

And procreation isn't even an issue, as that doesn't require marriage, and marriage assists in the raising of a child, not the creation of one. And there's no valid justification for denying gay people the right to raise a child, as adoption laws already distinguish between prospective adopting couples on a basis of suitability which separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, in a way which is far more accurate than loose generalizations based on gender.

Varrack didn't really phrase the premise right. Marriage is a comprehensive union which promotes responsible procreation and child rearing. It is not solely about the end (child production), but also stresses connecting children to their mothers and fathers. Sex creates babies, yes, but babies need mothers and fathers. Marriage is the best way in order to promote both of these. Otherwise, the government is forcing people to get married etc. If you're interested, here is the argument I think Varrack is alluding to: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...


P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.
P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 6:07:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 5:59:28 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:55:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:45:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:42:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:39:44 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

P1: The state regulates marriage.
P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.
P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.
P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal family structure, which is only present in heterosexual unions.

^^^
And this is the premise which has been shredded in every court case over the last few years.

Just because the government says it is so does not make it so.

No, it's not the authority of the governments but the soundness of the rebuttals which undermines the premise. 'Ideal structure' is ill defined, and there's no valid reason to restrict that to heterosexual couples, because there's no absolute distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples when it comes to child rearing to justify it. And to which degree ought government to support 'ideal structure'?

And procreation isn't even an issue, as that doesn't require marriage, and marriage assists in the raising of a child, not the creation of one. And there's no valid justification for denying gay people the right to raise a child, as adoption laws already distinguish between prospective adopting couples on a basis of suitability which separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, in a way which is far more accurate than loose generalizations based on gender.

Varrack didn't really phrase the premise right. Marriage is a comprehensive union which promotes responsible procreation and child rearing. It is not solely about the end (child production), but also stresses connecting children to their mothers and fathers. Sex creates babies, yes, but babies need mothers and fathers. Marriage is the best way in order to promote both of these. Otherwise, the government is forcing people to get married etc. If you're interested, here is the argument I think Varrack is alluding to: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

What's wrong with the premise, and how could it be worded better?

P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.
P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 6:24:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 5:59:28 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:55:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:45:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:42:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:39:44 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

P1: The state regulates marriage.
P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.
P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.
P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal family structure, which is only present in heterosexual unions.

^^^
And this is the premise which has been shredded in every court case over the last few years.

Just because the government says it is so does not make it so.

No, it's not the authority of the governments but the soundness of the rebuttals which undermines the premise. 'Ideal structure' is ill defined, and there's no valid reason to restrict that to heterosexual couples, because there's no absolute distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples when it comes to child rearing to justify it. And to which degree ought government to support 'ideal structure'?

And procreation isn't even an issue, as that doesn't require marriage, and marriage assists in the raising of a child, not the creation of one. And there's no valid justification for denying gay people the right to raise a child, as adoption laws already distinguish between prospective adopting couples on a basis of suitability which separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, in a way which is far more accurate than loose generalizations based on gender.

Varrack didn't really phrase the premise right. Marriage is a comprehensive union which promotes responsible procreation and child rearing. It is not solely about the end (child production), but also stresses connecting children to their mothers and fathers. Sex creates babies, yes, but babies need mothers and fathers.
^^^
And that really is where the argument fails, because the research used to support this point just... doesn't. It proves that one parent is worse than two parents, or points to small differences between gay parents and straight parents. None of them prove that straight parents are a necessity, or that gay parents cannot raise children better than straight parents, or even the birth parents, in certain situations. This is what would be required for that argument to hold; the fact remains that many gay parents are a suitable option when it comes to adoption, and that excluding them from parenthood based on gender when we have more specific information which directly relates to merit isn't justified at all. If excluding them from parenthood cannot be justified, then excluding them from marriage cannot be.

Marriage is the best way in order to promote both of these.
I agree; that's why I think that gay people should have access to it. I, personally, don't really plan to raise children. If I did change my mind on that down the road, however, I think that a marriage would be pretty critical to providing stability and legitimacy to the child to whom I have become responsible, and to whom I owe such things. Then there's the fact that because marriage is so widespread it has been incorporated into laws across the country when it comes to identifying to another person to whom one is linked not by blood but by love, so that even if children aren't being raised it has become important for the legal recognition of relationships when it comes to things like visitation and estate law.

Though I think that you no longer hold the view that you're defending, correct?

Otherwise, the government is forcing people to get married etc. If you're interested, here is the argument I think Varrack is alluding to: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I don't believe in the conjugal theory of marriage at all, so the entire premise of that article is pretty null to me. I see marriage as a pretty plastic stabilizing factor when it comes to both family and legacy, which has taken many forms throughout history.


P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.
P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 7:04:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 6:24:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:59:28 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:55:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:45:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:42:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:39:44 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

P1: The state regulates marriage.
P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.
P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.
P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal family structure, which is only present in heterosexual unions.

^^^
And this is the premise which has been shredded in every court case over the last few years.

Just because the government says it is so does not make it so.

No, it's not the authority of the governments but the soundness of the rebuttals which undermines the premise. 'Ideal structure' is ill defined, and there's no valid reason to restrict that to heterosexual couples, because there's no absolute distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples when it comes to child rearing to justify it. And to which degree ought government to support 'ideal structure'?

And procreation isn't even an issue, as that doesn't require marriage, and marriage assists in the raising of a child, not the creation of one. And there's no valid justification for denying gay people the right to raise a child, as adoption laws already distinguish between prospective adopting couples on a basis of suitability which separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, in a way which is far more accurate than loose generalizations based on gender.

Varrack didn't really phrase the premise right. Marriage is a comprehensive union which promotes responsible procreation and child rearing. It is not solely about the end (child production), but also stresses connecting children to their mothers and fathers. Sex creates babies, yes, but babies need mothers and fathers.
^^^
And that really is where the argument fails, because the research used to support this point just... doesn't. It proves that one parent is worse than two parents, or points to small differences between gay parents and straight parents. None of them prove that straight parents are a necessity, or that gay parents cannot raise children better than straight parents, or even the birth parents, in certain situations. This is what would be required for that argument to hold; the fact remains that many gay parents are a suitable option when it comes to adoption, and that excluding them from parenthood based on gender when we have more specific information which directly relates to merit isn't justified at all. If excluding them from parenthood cannot be justified, then excluding them from marriage cannot be.

Well, the best study to date actually finds some pretty extreme differences between straight and gay parents. http://papers.ssrn.com...

Marriage is the best way in order to promote both of these.
I agree; that's why I think that gay people should have access to it. I, personally, don't really plan to raise children. If I did change my mind on that down the road, however, I think that a marriage would be pretty critical to providing stability and legitimacy to the child to whom I have become responsible, and to whom I owe such things. Then there's the fact that because marriage is so widespread it has been incorporated into laws across the country when it comes to identifying to another person to whom one is linked not by blood but by love, so that even if children aren't being raised it has become important for the legal recognition of relationships when it comes to things like visitation and estate law.

Though I think that you no longer hold the view that you're defending, correct?

I do but I don't really care about the issue, lol.


Otherwise, the government is forcing people to get married etc. If you're interested, here is the argument I think Varrack is alluding to: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

I don't believe in the conjugal theory of marriage at all, so the entire premise of that article is pretty null to me. I see marriage as a pretty plastic stabilizing factor when it comes to both family and legacy, which has taken many forms throughout history.

The competing theories are worse :P



P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.
P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 7:06:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

I did a thread like this a while ago. Not a single good argument was had that day.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 7:06:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 6:07:20 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:59:28 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:55:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:45:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:42:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:39:44 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

P1: The state regulates marriage.
P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.
P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.
P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal family structure, which is only present in heterosexual unions.

^^^
And this is the premise which has been shredded in every court case over the last few years.

Just because the government says it is so does not make it so.

No, it's not the authority of the governments but the soundness of the rebuttals which undermines the premise. 'Ideal structure' is ill defined, and there's no valid reason to restrict that to heterosexual couples, because there's no absolute distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples when it comes to child rearing to justify it. And to which degree ought government to support 'ideal structure'?

And procreation isn't even an issue, as that doesn't require marriage, and marriage assists in the raising of a child, not the creation of one. And there's no valid justification for denying gay people the right to raise a child, as adoption laws already distinguish between prospective adopting couples on a basis of suitability which separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, in a way which is far more accurate than loose generalizations based on gender.

Varrack didn't really phrase the premise right. Marriage is a comprehensive union which promotes responsible procreation and child rearing. It is not solely about the end (child production), but also stresses connecting children to their mothers and fathers. Sex creates babies, yes, but babies need mothers and fathers. Marriage is the best way in order to promote both of these. Otherwise, the government is forcing people to get married etc. If you're interested, here is the argument I think Varrack is alluding to: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

What's wrong with the premise, and how could it be worded better?

You seem to be stressing parenting and not procreation. You also seem to stress actually creating children. This is the goal, yes, but heterosexual union in and of itself is good.


P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.
P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 7:15:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 7:06:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:07:20 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:59:28 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:55:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:45:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:42:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:39:44 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

P1: The state regulates marriage.
P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.
P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.
P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal family structure, which is only present in heterosexual unions.

^^^
And this is the premise which has been shredded in every court case over the last few years.

Just because the government says it is so does not make it so.

No, it's not the authority of the governments but the soundness of the rebuttals which undermines the premise. 'Ideal structure' is ill defined, and there's no valid reason to restrict that to heterosexual couples, because there's no absolute distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples when it comes to child rearing to justify it. And to which degree ought government to support 'ideal structure'?

And procreation isn't even an issue, as that doesn't require marriage, and marriage assists in the raising of a child, not the creation of one. And there's no valid justification for denying gay people the right to raise a child, as adoption laws already distinguish between prospective adopting couples on a basis of suitability which separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, in a way which is far more accurate than loose generalizations based on gender.

Varrack didn't really phrase the premise right. Marriage is a comprehensive union which promotes responsible procreation and child rearing. It is not solely about the end (child production), but also stresses connecting children to their mothers and fathers. Sex creates babies, yes, but babies need mothers and fathers. Marriage is the best way in order to promote both of these. Otherwise, the government is forcing people to get married etc. If you're interested, here is the argument I think Varrack is alluding to: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

What's wrong with the premise, and how could it be worded better?

You seem to be stressing parenting and not procreation. You also seem to stress actually creating children. This is the goal, yes, but heterosexual union in and of itself is good.

The heterosexual union can only be properly explained to be unique through procreation/parenting.

P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.
P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.
ConceptEagle
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 7:33:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The only arguments against gay marriage originate from biblical principles or other religious things, hence, no practical arguments.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 7:35:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

You aren't born with any rights. Everything is just a privilege. Boom.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 7:38:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 3:31:42 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

They can't. I have been asking this same exact question for years with no valid response. The people who oppose do not have any reasons worth considering. They use the same debunked and logically flawed arguments over and over and expect you to take them seriously. Like comparing same sex unions to adults sexually abusing children and animals who they know are not capable of giving consent. They resort to faulty comparisons because they aren't able to attack the issue itself, so they use the "ick" factor to support their blatant use of logical fallacy. They are too out of touch with reality and see logic where there is none.

lol
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 7:52:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 5:43:45 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 3:31:42 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

They can't. I have been asking this same exact question for years with no valid response. The people who oppose do not have any reasons worth considering. They use the same debunked and logically flawed arguments over and over and expect you to take them seriously. Like comparing same sex unions to adults sexually abusing children and animals who they know are not capable of giving consent. They resort to faulty comparisons because they aren't able to attack the issue itself, so they use the "ick" factor to support their blatant use of logical fallacy. They are too out of touch with reality and see logic where there is none.

Pretty sure I have never used those arguments but ok.

But did you present an logical argument? Probably not, or at least not that I am aware of. You can try telling me what your view on the issue is, but it's probably no different than any other argument I have heard regarding the topic.
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:04:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Seems like many people have said that the purpose of marriage is solely procreation and child rearing, and that marriage - as an institution - ensures the children are raised 'right.'

I would challenge that by saying the parents don't need to be married to raise their child. They just need to be there. Ergo, marriage is not an 'end,' but a process and a commitment which should be available to every sexual orientation.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:17:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 8:04:57 PM, Praesentya wrote:
Seems like many people have said that the purpose of marriage is solely procreation and child rearing, and that marriage - as an institution - ensures the children are raised 'right.'

I would challenge that by saying the parents don't need to be married to raise their child. They just need to be there. Ergo, marriage is not an 'end,' but a process and a commitment which should be available to every sexual orientation.

Also, no where in the constitution does it promote marriage as a "procreation pact". Heterosexuals who cannot or do not want to procreate can and do get marriage all the time so that argument isn't exactly valid, yet opponents of same-sex marriage still think this is valid argument.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:18:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 7:38:35 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/23/2015 3:31:42 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

They can't. I have been asking this same exact question for years with no valid response. The people who oppose do not have any reasons worth considering. They use the same debunked and logically flawed arguments over and over and expect you to take them seriously. Like comparing same sex unions to adults sexually abusing children and animals who they know are not capable of giving consent. They resort to faulty comparisons because they aren't able to attack the issue itself, so they use the "ick" factor to support their blatant use of logical fallacy. They are too out of touch with reality and see logic where there is none.

lol

I know right, opponents of same-sex marriage are so laughable lol
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:20:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 8:17:33 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:04:57 PM, Praesentya wrote:
Seems like many people have said that the purpose of marriage is solely procreation and child rearing, and that marriage - as an institution - ensures the children are raised 'right.'

I would challenge that by saying the parents don't need to be married to raise their child. They just need to be there. Ergo, marriage is not an 'end,' but a process and a commitment which should be available to every sexual orientation.

Also, no where in the constitution does it promote marriage as a "procreation pact". Heterosexuals who cannot or do not want to procreate can and do get marriage all the time so that argument isn't exactly valid, yet opponents of same-sex marriage still think this is valid argument.

Now where in the constitution does it support all of our laws, either.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:21:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 7:52:15 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:43:45 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 3:31:42 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

They can't. I have been asking this same exact question for years with no valid response. The people who oppose do not have any reasons worth considering. They use the same debunked and logically flawed arguments over and over and expect you to take them seriously. Like comparing same sex unions to adults sexually abusing children and animals who they know are not capable of giving consent. They resort to faulty comparisons because they aren't able to attack the issue itself, so they use the "ick" factor to support their blatant use of logical fallacy. They are too out of touch with reality and see logic where there is none.

Pretty sure I have never used those arguments but ok.

But did you present an logical argument? Probably not, or at least not that I am aware of. You can try telling me what your view on the issue is, but it's probably no different than any other argument I have heard regarding the topic.

I prefer expressing opinions in debate rather than forums. But I don't care about the issue, really
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:23:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 8:20:28 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:17:33 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:04:57 PM, Praesentya wrote:
Seems like many people have said that the purpose of marriage is solely procreation and child rearing, and that marriage - as an institution - ensures the children are raised 'right.'

I would challenge that by saying the parents don't need to be married to raise their child. They just need to be there. Ergo, marriage is not an 'end,' but a process and a commitment which should be available to every sexual orientation.

Also, no where in the constitution does it promote marriage as a "procreation pact". Heterosexuals who cannot or do not want to procreate can and do get marriage all the time so that argument isn't exactly valid, yet opponents of same-sex marriage still think this is valid argument.

Now where in the constitution does it support all of our laws, either.

And none of our laws outside of the Constitution state that marriage is a "procreation pact" either, because it never was, still is not and most likely will never be. That is the point.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:24:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 8:21:38 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 7:52:15 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 5:43:45 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 3:31:42 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 2:55:31 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
A lot of arguments I've seen against gay marriage are highly illogical. I would like to hear one logical reason why we should outlaw gay marriage. I don't care if the argument is religious or not as long as it's good.

Remember: a GOOD reason, not BS.

They can't. I have been asking this same exact question for years with no valid response. The people who oppose do not have any reasons worth considering. They use the same debunked and logically flawed arguments over and over and expect you to take them seriously. Like comparing same sex unions to adults sexually abusing children and animals who they know are not capable of giving consent. They resort to faulty comparisons because they aren't able to attack the issue itself, so they use the "ick" factor to support their blatant use of logical fallacy. They are too out of touch with reality and see logic where there is none.

Pretty sure I have never used those arguments but ok.

But did you present an logical argument? Probably not, or at least not that I am aware of. You can try telling me what your view on the issue is, but it's probably no different than any other argument I have heard regarding the topic.

I prefer expressing opinions in debate rather than forums. But I don't care about the issue, really

Everyone cares, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:25:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Debate me on Gay Marriage? I have yet to do a Pro-Gay Marriage debate..... I have done a bunch of anti-gay marriage debates but my actual position is pro, lol.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:35:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 8:23:38 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:20:28 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:17:33 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:04:57 PM, Praesentya wrote:
Seems like many people have said that the purpose of marriage is solely procreation and child rearing, and that marriage - as an institution - ensures the children are raised 'right.'

I would challenge that by saying the parents don't need to be married to raise their child. They just need to be there. Ergo, marriage is not an 'end,' but a process and a commitment which should be available to every sexual orientation.

Also, no where in the constitution does it promote marriage as a "procreation pact". Heterosexuals who cannot or do not want to procreate can and do get marriage all the time so that argument isn't exactly valid, yet opponents of same-sex marriage still think this is valid argument.

Now where in the constitution does it support all of our laws, either.

And none of our laws outside of the Constitution state that marriage is a "procreation pact" either, because it never was, still is not and most likely will never be. That is the point.

Just because the government doesn't say it is true does not mean it isn't true, lol
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross