California, Prop 8

[LordoftheMorning]

I can't believe you just said ''a gay guy hitting on me would be so uncomfortable'' and expect it to float as an argument.

1. It happens frequently
2. That's not really the important part of my argument. Why do some people love to argue small little language problems instead of arguing the real argument?

And no, gay marriage is not and will never be the same as animals or children or paedophiles getting to marry what they want. It's called CONSENT. You shouldn't need a basic concept like that being spelt out to you...

Consent is implied in marriage. -.- I can't believe that you can't believe I don't know this, mostly because I do know.

 

[SuperBowser]

1. It happens frequently
2. That's not really the important part of my argument. Why do some people love to argue small little language problems instead of arguing the real argument?

And comments like that belong in the pool room. I don't care if you feel uncomfortable around gay people.

Consent is implied in marriage. -.- I can't believe that you can't believe I don't know this, mostly because I do know.

Maybe you should look up the legal definition of consent. An animal can't give consent.

 

[arrowhead]

-.- You're missing the point. The logic you are using can be used to justify a union between any number of any age of any gender people. I told you why polygamy is bad (check earlier post and refute if you wish), underage marriage can lead to bad decisions and an unhappy generation, other species..... well, come on really? I can tell you that homosexual marriage is immoral (depending on religious beliefs) and has the potential to overturn our entire social system (not depending on religious beliefs, and you still have to refute this). Apparently you didn't see it the first two times so I'll try again.

no YOU are the one who's completely lost. the logic CANNOT be used to justify the union between any persons of any age. the same thing could've been said about the union between two people of different races. and you have not sufficiently explained to me why polygamy is bad. check my post after yours for a refutation.

religious beliefs are not enough to change laws (or they shouldn't be enough to. especially since church and state are supposed to separate). anybody can start a religion that sees non-aryans as demons, but that's not going to legalize a holocaust.

See what I said thar? You just strawmanned me by telling me that the only reason I said it's wrong is because "It's not what I think is normal so others can't do it", when in fact I offered a very credible disadvantage to gay marriage.

you have not offered ANYTHING. you said "i don't want guys dating guys and girls dating girls" and the only reason you gave was "cause i don't want it." that is not credible nor logical in the least bit.

I'm trying to explain to you why straight people will sometimes hit on strangers without finding out what their orientation is.
1. It's not very common
2. Most people you see walking down the street are straight.
3. Of the few people that do decide to hit on other people, most of the people they hit on are straight.
And that is why this assumption is made by so many people. It's an explanation. It does not explain why gay guys will just assume I am gay and start hitting on me, even if they have evidence that I am straight (haz girlfriend), and cause me a great deal of discomfort. And now AGAIN you misquote me and tell me that I'm advocating "throwing minorities out the window"? You're blowing this way out of proportion.

just because you have a girlfriend doesn't mean you can't be interested in guys. and you ARE disregarding the minority. you are complaining about gay people hitting on straight people. i tell you that straight people hit on gay people, but you don't say anything about that being "wrong" too.

Which is why we have no right to say they can't! The government can't tell me that I'm not ready to get married because they're too buried in their bureaucracy to look at anyone specific! It's discrimination! I won't stand for it! This "We know what's best for you, even though we've never even met you" stance the government takes makes me sick!

These are the same type of arguments you might hear for gay marriage ain't they? Thus.... if you legalize gay marriage based on this argument, you have to legalize underage marriage as well. And polygamy, don't forget that. You can't walk on both sides of the street. It's contradictory to support gay marriage but not the other types of illegal marriages as well.

i have no idea how you jump to such ret@rded conclusions such as these. the first paragraph is not what pro-rights people say AT ALL. it's not even a logical argument.

Look at these arguments again...... I told you why you're slipper slope WAS a fallacy, and then you tried to apply it to my slippery slope. There's no link between not creating equality for blacks because then you'd need equality for criminals, and not legalizing gay marriage because then you'd have to legalize all marriages. You gave me an example, and then you tried to tell me that the reason that example is a fallacy is the reason my slippery slope is a fallacy? It's like you were waiting for me to argue against a slippery slope so you could steal my argument and use it on my own slippery slope. I don't think you would do that, though. This is a serious twisting of logic either way.

wow, can you at least TRY to fix your grammar? this paragraph is mostly incoherent.

what i said was an analogy between civil rights 50 years ago and civil rights now. black people were treated unfairly, so i pretended to be you back then, saying that if we give black people rights, we have to give EVERYONE the same rights. this is exactly what you're saying about gay marriage, and it doesn't make any sense.

My example of a child being punished has nothing to do with gay marriage. It's an example. I'm trying to explain to you that slippery slopes are not always fallacies. If a child is not punished, parents fear that he will not learn the immorality of the action in question and will repeat it until it forms a habit. This is a slippery slope that is assumed by parents everywhere, and it's not illogical. Please stop trying to bend my arguments and put words in my mouth.

and i'm saying it's not a slippery slope since if the parents do not do anything, the child won't know what he did was wrong. the punishment is NECESSARY for the child to know.

Technical point. How about If a man owns a gopher and he loves it very much, (and he's not mistreating the gopher, then who are you to tell him that the two can or cannot marry? You didn't refute the argument. -.-

i have already. there's no way for the gopher to give consent. just because it's "his" gopher doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants to it.

Or, all gophers aside, Who are you to tell two children that love each other very much that they can or cannot get married?

children do not know the consequences of marriage, and they have no use for it anyways. plus, EVERYONE has to go through the stage where they do not have the rights of an adult. homosexuals are the only people that cannot get married.

Or maybe Who are you to tell three consenting people that they can or cannot get married?

who ARE we to tell three consenting adults they cannot marry?

All three of these are stupid statements. There are good reasons why we can say that they can or cannot, just like gay marriage. The statements above use the very same logic that gay marriage advocates use, and I pointed out the fallacy by showing you what else you can do with it. You are being contradictory by not agreeing with the bold statements above.

you have not given me ONE good reason why gay marriage shouln't be allowed. all you've said is "it'll lead to bad things." well i can do that too: gay marriage will lead to everyone being happy forever. it's a "slippery slope."

This is getting stupid. You can't argue that Christians think homosexual acts are moral. Stop trying to. -.- It's not a debate, which is why these are not arguments, which is why I will not be responding to anything else based on this quoteblock above unless it's actually relevant and actually makes a point.

I really couldn't let those go. I'll most to say later about some other posts (like aeghrur, who had some valid points I will need to address), but I'm tired and hungry and it's time for me to chill and play some smash. More tomorrow or this evening.

yeah, this IS getting stupid. i should just give up since i'm not going to get a substantial response from you. your brainwashed and miniscule thought process won't allow it.

 

[Aesir]

no YOU are the one who's completely lost. the logic CANNOT be used to justify the union between any persons of any age. the same thing could've been said about the union between two people of different races. and you have not sufficiently explained to me why polygamy is bad. check my post after yours for a refutation.

You should probably drop the point about polygamy cause it's a poor point. Polygamy is less advantageous then monogamy for many ways.

Polygamy while good for population growth, is bad over all for society. When we allow multiple partners it becomes a problem. For instance jealousy is a huge problem, which may often lead to murder. It wasn't unheard of for kings to be slay by their lovers because of jealousy.

Also monogamous relationships have a much higher rate of stability.

 

[arrowhead]

is there any information to show that polygamy is dangerous enough to be banned?

and if monogamy caused the same murder rates and jealousy as polygamy does now, would you want it banned? stability shouldn't be one of the issues. monogamy has a horrible stability rate in the US.

 

[Aesir]

Did you not read my post or something?

is there any information to show that polygamy is dangerous enough to be banned?

History... Read it sometime.

and if monogamy caused the same murder rates and jealousy as polygamy does now, would you want it banned? stability shouldn't be one of the issues. monogamy has a horrible stability rate in the US.

It doesn't, you don't realize the obvious flaws of polygamy or you're just playing devils advocate. Whatever the case it's counter productive but okay.


In monogamous relationships the odds of murdering your spouse because of jealousy is far less then in a polygamous relationship.

The emotion of love is anything but logical. If you're in a polygamous relationship, and you're in love with the person. And you see them affectionate with another it's going to make you jealous. And as history has shown the jealous lover will do something rash. Either killing the person stealing the affection or killing the spouse.

edit: also we should always favor the stable system over the unstable system. Why? because the stable system will work with the most favorable results. That's the responcible thing to do.

 

[arrowhead]

History... Read it sometime.

no large statistical analysis? the information you gave me about kings killing their wives may not be applicable now.

The emotion of love is anything but logical. If you're in a polygamous relationship, and you're in love with the person. And you see them affectionate with another it's going to make you jealous.

if i CHOSE to get married with two other people i know love each other, i wouldn't blame anybody if my spouse was affectionate to the other spouse too. it's expected.

edit: also we should always favor the stable system over the unstable system. Why? because the stable system will work with the most favorable results. That's the responcible thing to do.

this is only if we HAD to pick between one or the other

 

[Aesir]

no large statistical analysis? the information you gave me about kings killing their wives may not be applicable now.

Wow, okay first off you don't know what you're talking about.

Alexander the Great's father was murdered either By, a disgruntled lover, his son paying off the lover, or his first wife.

In a monogamous relationship the likely hood of this happening would have been far less.

Also, all you need to do is look at the crimes of jealousy to realize how bad polygamy would be. How many spouses murder their lovers because of jealousy? it's a lot actually. Certain polygamy relationships might survive, but you're treading on irrational emotions when you allow this.

Love is irrational, coupled with jealously you have a trigger waiting to pulled.

if i CHOSE to get married with two other people i know love each other, i wouldn't blame anybody if my spouse was affectionate to the other spouse too. it's expected.

Then you have no idea what love is, you're rationalizing an irrational emotion. You should really stop that.

this is only if we HAD to pick between one or the other

It's not like polygamy has any real advantages, it's a less stable practice.

 

[arrowhead]

i need to see some stats before i'm going to be convinced. your speculation makes sense, but i still don't know how much more harmful polygamy can be than monogamy. if it's a significant amount, then i'll reverse my position. we can speculate all day, but its the results that's going to change anyone's minds

It's not like polygamy has any real advantages

tell that to the people who want it.

 

[aeghrur]

Give me stats of how Polygamy is for the better, or how people are losing rights from polygamy not being legal.

 

[arrowhead]

i don't need to show that it's good, you need to show me that it's bad enough to not be allowed. we don't ban things just because they're not beneficial to us, we ban things because they're harmful.

 

[aeghrur]

No, people who change the status quot need to have the burden of proof. The current status quot is that gay marriage isn't allowed and neither is polygamy.
We've given you the proof of why gay marriage should be allowed.
You have yet to prove why polygamy should be allowed, how it would be good, how the slippery slope would work, or why it would be harmful if we don't allow it.
This isn't a game where un-banned is always the status quot.

 

[arrowhead]

no, it's the person making the claim that has the burden of proof. i'm not making a claim. you are.

 

[aeghrur]

Your making the claim that polygamy should be allowed which is against the current status quot.
The ideal that polygamy should not be allowed would be the current status quot. Your trying to change it, thus you are making the claim that the status quot should be changed. You now have the burden of proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
"the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." Your complaining about how polygamy should be allowed. We're saying it's already not allowed. You need the burden of proof. -_-"

 

[arrowhead]

my "claim" is that it is neither good nor bad when compared to monogamy, which is already allowed. if you cannot show me that is it much worse than monogamy, it should be allowed, because monogamy is.

the status quo has nothing to do with burden of proof. burden of proof should ALWAYS be on the person making the claim

 

[aeghrur]

Where's Adumbrodeus... >_>
You made a claim, see. Burden of proof considering we made no claim saying polygamy shouldn't be allowed since it ALREADY ISN'T ALLOWED. We're just saying, okay, so you claim so it should be allowed since it's "the same" as monogamy, but... it's not.
Status quot does have something to do with the burden of proof because it has already won the burden of proof. "Polygamy is bad" has already won the burden of proof considering it is a prima facie.
Look, for example, in trials in America, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the plaintiff. Why? Because the status quot is that the defense is always innocent until proven guilty. It works.
let's say we use your example. Well, defense is claiming innocence, while plaintiff is claiming they're not. Which side has the burden of proof? Both sides are claiming something. A claim will always be there. Your way does not work. The burden of proof lies upon the side trying to change the status quot.

Now, Prove to me polygamy isn't bad first since you have the burden of proof.

 

[arrowhead]

ugh, you have no idea what you're saying.

i am NOT making any claim. since monogamy is allowed, i'm using that as my base. all my arguments about polygamy will be relative to that. you are saying polygamy is significantly more harmful than monogamy. i'm saying it is NOT significantly more harmful. see how my position is the one not making a claim? i'm not saying its good or bad. but until you prove your claim that it's bad, it should be allowed because our justice system doesn't go "ban everything until it's shown to be beneficial."

again, the status quo has nothing to do with burden of proof, because it can be picked arbitrarily.

 

[aeghrur]

Claim can thus be picked arbitrarily too then. Watch:
I'm saying since polygamy isn't allowed already. I'm using that as my base. I'm saying it SHOULDN'T be changed.
Your claiming it should be changed and that polygamy should be allowed.
See how my position is not making a claim, but rather simply saying your claim shouldn't be proven?
Our justice system at the moment also says don't change a law until there's a reason for it. Is there a reason for changing the law on gay marriage? Yes. Is there a reason for changing the law on polygamy? Well... I'm waiting for it.
I'm not proving that polygamy is good or bad either, I'm saying the law on polygamy won't be changed until you prove that it should be changed.

 

[arrowhead]

your base is baseless. you cannot use nothing as your base. my base is monogamy, so i can compare polygamy to it. everything that is okay about monogamy should be okay with polygamy too. if you declare monogamy unconstitutional, then i would not have an argument to convince you with.

the reason for changing the law would be because there is no reason to disallow it. you cannot arbitrarily ban things and then say "i won't be allowed until you convince me it's beneficial." or waving your arms randomly could be illegal

 

[aeghrur]

your base is baseless. you cannot use nothing as your base.

My base is the law that's already established saying Polygamy is illegal.

my base is monogamy, so i can compare polygamy to it. everything that is okay about monogamy should be okay with polygamy too.

Claim here. Prove it. Otherwise, not true.
Meanwhile, allow me to introduce some things:
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/21819.html
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/dec2006/mono_poly.html - note on the proside, adulter would become a social norm and, lol, that's quite a bit against the Bible. xD
http://isp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/52/3/214

if you declare monogamy unconstitutional, then i would not have an argument to convince you with.

You must first convince how monogamy and polygamy are alike in the first place. How are they alike?

the reason for changing the law would be because there is no reason to disallow it. you cannot arbitrarily ban things and then say "i won't be allowed until you convince me it's beneficial." or waving your arms randomly could be illegal

Then why don't we allow marijuana? There's nothing wrong with marijuana as you can't arbitrarily ban things. >_> Why do we ban murder? Why do we ban stealing? Because of prima facie. Reason why Polygamy is banned.

 

[arrowhead]

My base is the law that's already established saying Polygamy is illegal.

and what do you have to support your base?

Claim here. Prove it. Otherwise, not true.

...
seriously? really, would you like to re-read what you quoted? there is nothing for me to "prove"

Meanwhile, allow me to introduce some things:
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/21819.html
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/dec2006/mono_poly.html - note on the proside, adulter would become a social norm and, lol, that's quite a bit against the Bible. xD
http://isp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/52/3/214

first link: children of divorced parents also experience a less stable family, but divorce before the child turns 18 isn't illegal. and if problems with children turn out to be big, polygamists can be disallowed from having kids. it also says how the women don't feel like they're getting enough attention, but that's their problem. they agreed to the marriage and they should know beforehand that the husband is not going to treat her like she's his only wife.

second link: seems to be supporting what i'm arguing for at the moment. and i don't care what christians think about adultry

third link: it doesn't tell us where the stress comes from, although i'll assume it's from lack of attention. if that is so, i'll repeat that the wives should've known the husband has other wives he needs to give his attention to

You must first convince how monogamy and polygamy are alike in the first place. How are they alike?

because they are both marriages, only polygamy has more than one person in the marriage.

Then why don't we allow marijuana? There's nothing wrong with marijuana as you can't arbitrarily ban things.

i don't know and i would like to see a good answer to that question.

>_> Why do we ban murder? Why do we ban stealing? Because of prima facie. Reason why Polygamy is banned.

we ban murder and stealing because it goes against our constitution. it goes against our constitution because it hurts other people without their consent

 

[LordoftheMorning]

@ arrowhead: You're last post disregarded half of my points and misinterpreted the rest. You're not seeing that legalizing gay marriage must come with the rights of any two intelligent beings to be married, otherwise it's discriminatory. I'm not going to go quote-to-quote with you anymore because you just don't want to understand my side.

@ anyone: The logic that argues for gay marriage is basically this: "We do not have the right to tell other human beings that they cannot marry if they want to." This argument does not exclude polygamy, incest, and, to some extent, underage marriages.

The thing that separates heterosexual monogamous marriage from all the other marriages that the logic would allow, is that heterosexual monogamous marriage produces healthy offspring. Polygamy has too much drama, Incest won't produce healthy offspring, and Gay marriage won't produce any at all. I'll drop gophers if you really want me to, because you're right. Animals don't give consent. If it's to be "marriage isn't sacred", then I guess my stance is that marriage is "a commitment to a mate, usually made with the intent to have kids." This argument is absolutely secular, and it's getting on my nerves how discriminatory arrowhead is of my religion.

 

[Aesir]

@ anyone: The logic that argues for gay marriage is basically this: "We do not have the right to tell other human beings that they cannot marry if they want to." This argument does not exclude polygamy, incest, and, to some extent, underage marriages.

Is this strawman? I think it might be.

Okay here and simple advocating for gay rights does not open the door for polygamists, heres why.

Heterosexuals have the right to marry a single spouse of the opposite sex. What we're advocating a broadening of the term. "If two people wish to marry, they should be able to marry." Now the only reason we use marriage is an issue of equality. If we allow to seperate words, then that creates a whole slew of problems.

So it's either this. We re-write all the laws replacing marriage with civil unions. Or we give homosexuals the right to use marriage.

If you're going to argue that you can't use the term marriage because of it's religious undertones then it shouldn't be in the laws. We're a secular nation, religion shouldn't be anywhere near our laws.

The thing that separates heterosexual monogamous marriage from all the other marriages that the logic would allow, is that heterosexual monogamous marriage produces healthy offspring. Polygamy has too much drama, Incest won't produce healthy offspring, and Gay marriage won't produce any at all. I'll drop gophers if you really want me to, because you're right. Animals don't give consent. If it's to be "marriage isn't sacred", then I guess my stance is that marriage is "a commitment to a mate, usually made with the intent to have kids." This argument is absolutely secular, and it's getting on my nerves how discriminatory arrowhead is of my religion.[/COLOR]

For what evidence do you have that it's for that purpose? Secondly if that is the case I would argue the meaning has changed definitions since then. Many couples marry without ever having kids.

Furthermore, gay married couples are a gold mine, the amount of kids left in adoption agencies is horrendous.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Arrowhead's argument: Oh yeah, I'm pretty much ignoring everything anybody says, because I can. Also, polygamy should be allowed because its not bad even though I've been proved wrong on that already.

LordoftheMornings argument: Despite that it's been disproved many times in this thread already, I'm still going to talk about how allowing gay marriage also allows polygamy and pedophilia. I also don't like learning about the legal definition of consent, so I'll just ignore that word.

Seriously, you both sound stupid.

Gay marriage is alright because it's not fair to deny two consenting adults the right to marry and all the rights that come along with marriage because it's either: A) Against your religion, a personal standard, or B) could allow pedophilia/polygamy/whatever

I have yet to see a good argument against Gay Marriage.

 

[arrowhead]

no, you don't want to go quote on quote because you realize you can't refute what i said

how does changing the definition of marriage to "between any two adults" legalize it for everyone else? it doesn't? really that's funny. i could've sworn "between any two adults" means "between any two or more people including children"

@ anyone: the logic behind banning gay marriage is because if we allow gay marriage, polygamy, incest, ****, and murder will have to be allowed too. it's only logical

ohh NOO! no offspring! because we all know the supreme court decided marriage is for making offspring. sorry old folks and sterile people, but you can't get married. oh what? you can? i guess they missed a spot in the legislation.

ohh NOO! i think your religion is absolutely stupid? and it's getting on your nerves?? i should probably stop. because, you know, it's not offensive at all when people like you lie about my position and then go on to discriminate against people like me over something i can't control and something that does not hurt you in the slightest!

Arrowhead's argument: Oh yeah, I'm pretty much ignoring everything anybody says, because I can. Also, polygamy should be allowed because its not bad even though I've been proved wrong on that already.

really? show me where i've ignored valid points and show me evidence pointing toward polygamy being significantly more harmful than marriage

 

[SuperBowser]

@ anyone: The logic that argues for gay marriage is basically this: "We do not have the right to tell other human beings that they cannot marry if they want to." This argument does not exclude polygamy, incest, and, to some extent, underage marriages.

Nice to see you understand consent now.

Now tell me, what separates a heterosexual marriage from the things you just listed? Why do you get to draw the arbitrary line?

 

[RDK]

Because his Holy Book tells him to.

 

[Deleted member]

but wut if i just haet teh gayz??11?//

 

[arrowhead]

thats ok cause homosexuals kiled the dinasors. their dangerous people

 

[aeghrur]

thats ok cause homosexuals kiled the dinasors. their dangerous people

Oh mah Gawd.
let's ban dat.