Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

Those are cursory argument devoid of proper details.  Which would you like to argue?

Happy to debate either. . .but just for fun:

In terms of societal. . .you bring up an awesome point!  Resources are limited, and our population is exploding.  The last thing we need is a higher proportion of straight people having too many kids and using up even more of our dwindling resources.  So we should probably make marriage only for homosexuals in order to incentivize more people to be homosexual!!!

---

Your post is kind of hard to follow, but I think I got the gist. There are, I am sure, people who were abused as children and later consent as adults, who fit your description. There are also people who married their first cousin and went on to have children and happy marriages/families. What I am looking for is evidence that supports the claim that consensual incestuous relationships cause psychological damage especially to the resultant children. I don't believe that is true without other circumstances and I have yet to see any verifiable evidence that supports the claim.

how many sources do you need

[Losty]

Your post is kind of hard to follow, but I think I got the gist. There are, I am sure, people who were abused as children and later consent as adults, who fit your description. There are also people who married their first cousin and went on to have children and happy marriages/families. What I am looking for is evidence that supports the claim that consensual incestuous relationships cause psychological damage especially to the resultant children. I don't believe that is true without other circumstances and I have yet to see any verifiable evidence that supports the claim.

how many sources do you need

Well, firstly, I did not ask you for any sources. I was responding to someone else's assertion and asking him to back it up. I would settle for 1 credible source that proves that consensual incestuous relationships cause psychological damage especially to the resultant children. That was the claim. I do not believe it. I asked for proof or evidence to back up the claim. I haven't gotten any.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Ok, Anima...look...

We could go back and forth like this forever, but the bottom line is this:

Your whole argument stems from the fact that we don't really know what will happen now that gay marriage is legal in the U.S. This is an argument from ignorance. In this case, it takes the forms of the Slippery Slope fallacy and the Special Pleading fallacy.

"Oh, well now that this is legal, some other, obviously reprehensible form of marriage (or worse) will definitely become legal." = Slippery Slope

"Oh, but Jurisdictional Precedence was designed to actually be a slippery slope, so this doesn't count as a Slippery Slope fallacy." = Special Pleading.

No matter how many words you stuff into a post, that's all you've got. Nothing you've said particularly amounts to anything else, except desperately trying to convince everyone that the whole reason gay marriage is legal now is that a bunch of evil judges managed to force it on us using what you purport to be logical fallacy. Really, though, fear-mongering is at the heart of what you're doing, and the reasonable-minded can easily see there is no reason to be scared.

Oh, and by the way, the Netherlands was the first country in the world where same-sex couples could apply for limited rights, and that was in 1979. Denmark became the first country in the world to actually legalize same-sex unions in 1989. Both of those happened before 1990. Many European countries have had legally recognized same-sex unions for over 20 years now, and we have yet to see any of the kind of backlash your'e describing. Why do you think that is?

[robvalue]

What exactly does he want us to do anyway, I wonder? All storm the high court demanding the discrimination be put back in place before random unconnected stuff starts happening?

[Ace]

What exactly does he want us to do anyway, I wonder? All storm the high court demanding the discrimination be put back in place before random unconnected stuff starts happening?

Hmm inserting idea (but not like). It would be very nice if the laws that were far more for equality were put back. This idea of segregation is only going to either get bigger of more relationships or added or will effect other aspects of domestic life. Either way segregation is not the were to achieve equality, we know that from out segregated history in the past.

[Pyrrho]

What exactly does he want us to do anyway, I wonder? All storm the high court demanding the discrimination be put back in place before random unconnected stuff starts happening?

I think he just wants agreement from us.  Not that it would change the law in any way.  Regardless, he is not going to get the agreement he wants.

I even donated money to the cause a couple of years back, so that should indicate the strength of my feelings on this topic.  Still, I was pleasantly surprised by the Supreme Court ruling.  But I do think that the ruling makes sense, for the same basic reasons that it made sense that bans on interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional many years ago.

[Losty]

O_o what?

[Aristocatt]

I am confused. I haven't read every single block of text in this thread, so maybe I missed it somewhere.

How does giving a group of people the right to legal marriage make equality worse?

[Iroscato]

Oh, and by the way, the Netherlands was the first country in the world where same-sex couples could apply for limited rights, and that was in 1979. Denmark became the first country in the world to actually legalize same-sex unions in 1989. Both of those happened before 1990. Many European countries have had legally recognized same-sex unions for over 20 years now, and we have yet to see any of the kind of backlash your'e describing. Why do you think that is?

Headshot. Rekt. Flawless victory.

[Pyrrho]

I am confused.  I haven't read every single block of text in this thread, so maybe I missed it somewhere.

How does giving a group of people the right to legal marriage make equality worse?

It doesn't.  Your reply tells us that you apparently have not wasted too much time reading a lot of bullshit nonsense that has been posted in this thread.  If you doubt it is bullshit nonsense, read it for yourself and then feel free to tell me that I am wrong, that some great pearl of wisdom was posted which shows that giving gay people the right to marry somehow ruins my heterosexual marriage.  I hope that is not the case, as I would hate to think that I must divorce my wife because of some nugget of wisdom you manage to find in this thread.