Do you think gays should be allowed to marry?

[Vandeervecken]

Yes. I know. And they're accurate. The legal definition of marriage is a contract between TWO PEOPLE. Show me a law that says that more or less than two people can be married, and you'll have an argument. I don't care how a word is open endedly defined, all that matters to me is the legal issues raised by the accepted defintion. (which is the original topic of the thread, I know how much you hate to get off topic )

You claimed that marriage could only be between two people. Nowhere did you say nor imply you meant only the LEGAL definition. When backed into a logical corner you have changed what you are claiming. It would be more honorable to admit you were wrong, but instead you will hope someone is fooled by your chainge in claims.

Which pertains to the legal definition of marriage now how, exactly? I'm arguing that the bible has no impact on the laws of our nation. Are you arguing that it does? That's a bit out of character for you...

I am not rebutting a claim on the legal definition. I am rebutting your claim that the word marriage can only be used in the context of 2 people. To do so I used a document that while largly fictional does contain a good snapshot of social mores at different time periods. It is also widley known. The fact it contains numbers of marriages of many more than two persons makes my point.

That's an entirely different claim?

Yes, it is. The claims "A marriage can only be between two people," and, "Marriage is legally defined as only between two people in the United States," are vastly different things. In fact there is a quantum difference between them.

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
A marriage is between two people.

Your claim in 898.

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
In our government, marriage is between two people.

Your claim after being proved wron in your initial claim/

You might be able to argue that the second one is more fully explained, but I fail to see how those are "entirely different claims."

Then all science and logic must be beyond you and any attempt to explain would be futile. I really fail to beleive that you cannot see the qunatitative differences between those two statements.

Oh, and per your request: "You smell. Penis." Happy?:lol: :2wave:

Exactly what I would expect. It is sad that the only major flaw here at Debate Politics is the bad behaviour of some members of the mod team.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Well, in our country, under our laws, marriage is between two people. I think that's all he was trying to say :mrgreen:

I can only go by what he actually says, not what he means to say. What he actually said was demonstrably false, as I demonstrated.

 

[RightinNYC]

You claimed that marriage could only be between two people. Nowhere did you say nor imply you meant only the LEGAL definition. When backed into a logical corner you have changed what you are claiming. It would be more honorable to admit you were wrong, but instead you will hope someone is fooled by your chainge in claims.
I am not rebutting a claim on the legal definition. I am rebutting your claim that the word marriage can only be used in the context of 2 people. To do so I used a document that while largly fictional does contain a good snapshot of social mores at different time periods. It is also widley known. The fact it contains numbers of marriages of many more than two persons makes my point.
Yes, it is. The claims "A marriage can only be between two people," and, "Marriage is legally defined as only between two people in the United States," are vastly different things. In fact there is a quantum difference between them.
Your claim in 898.
Your claim after being proved wron in your initial claim/
Then all science and logic must be beyond you and any attempt to explain would be futile. I really fail to beleive that you cannot see the qunatitative differences between those two statements.
Exactly what I would expect. It is sad that the only major flaw here at Debate Politics is the bad behaviour of some members of the mod team.

Listen, I really don't have the time or inclination to continue in your "who can nitpick better" contest. If you have nothing better to do than argue about things like this, then I'll leave you to it. Best of luck to you.

 

[MrFungus420]

Listen, I really don't have the time or inclination to continue in your "who can nitpick better" contest. If you have nothing better to do than argue about things like this, then I'll leave you to it. Best of luck to you.

What nitpicking? He has a valid point about you changing what you had said.

It went from:

No, it's not. A marriage is between two people. Period end of sentence.

to:

The legal definition of marriage is a contract between TWO PEOPLE.

immediately after being shown that there are definitions of marriage that are not restricted to only two people.

So, you made a claim, he showed that you were wrong, and you changed your claim. And you think that is just being nitpicky??

That's about equivalent to claiming that nobody exceeds the speed limit, and when told that people do, change your claim to nobody legally exceeds the speed limit.

 

[RightinNYC]

What nitpicking? He has a valid point about you changing what you had said.

It went from:

to:
immediately after being shown that there are definitions of marriage that are not restricted to only two people.

So, you made a claim, he showed that you were wrong, and you changed your claim. And you think that is just being nitpicky??

That's about equivalent to claiming that nobody exceeds the speed limit, and when told that people do, change your claim to nobody legally exceeds the speed limit.

Do you think I've never heard of polygamy? That I don't know what it is? When I said my first statement, I meant marriage as defined to the 99.9% of the people in this country who consider it something between two people. This thread is debating whether or not the definition should include two people of the same gender, not talking about whether or not 3 or more people should be considered a marriage under the traditional definition of the word.

If you want to debate whether or not I properly prefaced my original statement, feel free. It has nothing to do with the debate at hand, and I really couldn't care less.

 

[Vandeervecken]

I'll accept your abject, albeit pouty, surrender.

 

[jallman]

I'll accept your abject, albeit pouty, surrender.

I dont see a surrender. What I see is the typical and warranted frustration that comes from having to debate irrelevant definitions that have no place in the context of this debate. In the United States, when one mentions marriage, it is natural to work under the postulate that the marriage carries either a legal or a religious definition that involves only two people. This postulation arises from the fact that polygamy is explicitly outlawed along with incest and statutory rape. Thus, when one mentions marriage, especially in the context of the gay marriage debate, the natural assumption is that we are referencing a legal contract involving two human individuals who have both reached the age of majority, are non-related, and are consenting to the contract.

If you wish to be taken seriously, it would behoove you to keep your arguments within the context of the actual debate. You will find that most of us are not in the habit of arguing over the color of red herrings.

 

[Vandeervecken]

If you wish to be taken seriously, it would behoove you to keep your arguments within the context of the actual debate. You will find that most of us are not in the habit of arguing over the color of red herrings.

I disagree since the very purpose of this topic is to talk of changing what is the LEGAL definition of marriage it is absurd to demand that marriage mean only 2 people no matter what as he did.

The fact remains he made a demonstrably false claim, when I proved it so, he shifted claims (after defending first the erroneous one) and then claimed that OBVIOUSLY his second claim was what he meant.

We can only go by what people SAY here, not what they meant to say.

No feel free to impugn my intelligence some more. It harms your side far more than mine.

 

[jallman]

I disagree since the very purpose of this topic is to talk of changing what is the LEGAL definition of marriage it is absurd to demand that marriage mean only 2 people no matter what as he did.

The fact remains he made a demonstrably false claim, when I proved it so, he shifted claims (after defending first the erroneous one) and then claimed that OBVIOUSLY his second claim was what he meant.

We can only go by what people SAY here, not what they meant to say.

No feel free to impugn my intelligence some more. It harms your side far more than mine.

And I see that there was no rebuttal for the main point of my post. Typical rant but no substance. I am with RightatNYU...you have turned this into a pointless exercise in stroking your own intellectual ego.

 

[Vandeervecken]

And I see that there was no rebuttal for the main point of my post. Typical rant but no substance. I am with RightatNYU...you have turned this into a pointless exercise in stroking your own intellectual ego.

Sorry no, the main point of your post was to try and back his claim that in any discussion of what marriage is or should be in this nation that obviously it could only mean two people. Funny as even he has abandoned that claim by now.

In a topic whose very purpose is to discuss what marriage SHOULD be demanding that the defininition marriage can only be what it was in a legal sense in the past in one nation is patently absurd. Defend it all you want. Insult me all you want, the facts remain the facts.

 

[jallman]

Sorry no, the main point of your post was to try and back his claim that in any discussion of what marriage is or should be in this nation that obviously it could only mean two people. Funny as even he has abandoned that claim by now.

In a topic whose very purpose is to discuss what marriage SHOULD be demanding that the defininition marriage can only be what it was in a legal sense in the past in one nation is patently absurd. Defend it all you want. Insult me all you want, the facts remain the facts.

And you miss the point by a mile. The facts are this:

Currently in the United States (as in the present time in the country of interest) marriage is defined legally as being between a man and a woman of the age of majority who are not related by blood and who have the mental faculties to consent to the agreement. The change that most rational citizenry want to implement is the removal of the man and woman part of that definition. To even acknowledge this polygamy and so called clan marriage nonsense is to open a door for the opposition to claim the slippery slope argument.

But, as you said, facts remain facts so lets stick to the facts. We are talking about the potential for gays to get married under the current legal definition in the United States. Currently, incest and polygamy and statutory rape are explicitly banned and so are under no consideration within the context of this discussion.

 

[Vandeervecken]

And you miss the point by a mile. The facts are this:

No I know the point and all your attempts to distract it will not get me off target.

Currently in the United States (as in the present time in the country of interest) marriage is defined legally as being between a man and a woman of the age of majority who are not related by blood and who have the mental faculties to consent to the agreement. The change that most rational citizenry want to implement is the removal of the man and woman part of that definition. To even acknowledge this polygamy and so called clan marriage nonsense is to open a door for the opposition to claim the slippery slope argument.

As if the slippery slope is not alreayd their second most used argument after the religious one. The fact remeians in a discussion of what marriage should be in the United States is was patently absurd for him to claim that no matter what the case marriage can only mean the unhion of two people. I proved that to be wrong. He never stipulated nor implied he meant only the current legal definition which indeed would have been silly in the context of the discussion at hand. That discussion being hiow should we change the definition of marriage.

But, as you said, facts remain facts so lets stick to the facts. We are talking about the potential for gays to get married under the current legal definition in the United States. Currently, incest and polygamy and statutory rape are explicitly banned and so are under no consideration within the context of this discussion.

We are talking about chaingin the civil definition of marriage, as such everything is and should remain on the table. BTW never have I seen "statutory rape," defined as marriage before. On what do you base that? You might also note that several states still have on the books bans for interracial marriage, though not enforced.

 

[RightinNYC]

As if the slippery slope is not alreayd their second most used argument after the religious one.

Interesting, because I was using neither, because I was arguing in favor of gay marriage. Good try though.

The fact remeians in a discussion of what marriage should be in the United States is was patently absurd for him to claim that no matter what the case marriage can only mean the unhion of two people. I proved that to be wrong. He never stipulated nor implied he meant only the current legal definition which indeed would have been silly in the context of the discussion at hand. That discussion being hiow should we change the definition of marriage. We are talking about chaingin the civil definition of marriage, as such everything is and should remain on the table.

Look at it this way. Pretend we're discussing social security. Pretend someone says "the system is going to run out eventually at this rate. our only options are to privatize, either fully or partly, or slowly institute incremental reforms."

Are you going to be the person who jumps on their back, screaming "NO! YOU'RE WRONG. We could also end social security altogether, or turn ourselves into a completely socialist country, or institute mandatory euthanasia at 65. Therefore, those two things you proposed are not the ONLY options, and you're a liar and a doo doo head."

Yes, maybe you're technically right, and if you carry that argument out, you might win. Does that mean it's not irritating/pointless to harp on Ythe topic? No. This is such an overblown issue. I can't wait til we hit 1000 posts and this can be ended.

BTW never have I seen "statutory rape," defined as marriage before. On what do you base that?

Under some circumstances, statutory rape could result in a common law marriage.

You might also note that several states still have on the books bans for interracial marriage, though not enforced.

And the first time they're challenged, they'll be removed. Or you can feel free to go campaign to get them removed.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Interesting, because I was using neither, because I was arguing in favor of gay marriage. Good try though.

Feel free to go back and reread what I said. I did not say, "you," I said, "they," is in the people oipposed to gay marriage. Nice try to dedfelct it and make me look wrong though. Too bad you have to claim i said something I did not to do so.

Look at it this way. Pretend we're discussing social security. Pretend someone says "the system is going to run out eventually at this rate. our only options are to privatize, either fully or partly, or slowly institute incremental reforms."

They would clearly be wrong, there are more options than that. Yes i would call them on it.

Are you going to be the person who jumps on their back, screaming "NO! YOU'RE WRONG. We could also end social security altogether, or turn ourselves into a completely socialist country, or institute mandatory euthanasia at 65. Therefore, those two things you proposed are not the ONLY options, and you're a liar and a doo doo head."

I would most certainly correct them and offer more options than they have laid out to show the inncaccuarcy of their claims. No doubt about it. I would leave out the childish insults though. It is more than enough to point out how wrong they are.

Yes, maybe you're technically right, and if you carry that argument out, you might win. Does that mean it's not irritating/pointless to harp on Ythe topic? No. This is such an overblown issue. I can't wait til we hit 1000 posts and this can be ended.

Proper definitions of terms is esseintail in any debate, espoecially any debate on legal issues where indeed much might depend on what the definition of, "is," is. As to this being an overblown issue I disagree with that as well. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Under some circumstances, statutory rape could result in a common law marriage.

Really name them please, including state and statute if you please. I know of no state that forced rape victims to marry their rapists. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where this bizarre practice is the law.

And the first time they're challenged, they'll be removed. Or you can feel free to go campaign to get them removed.

None of the places I live or have lived has such a law anymore so I would have no standing before the courts. There are other battles I fight where I live.

 

[vergiss]

Really name them please, including state and statute if you please. I know of no state that forced rape victims to marry their rapists. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where this bizarre practice is the law.

Where'd you get this from? The way I understood it to mean was that if, say, a 20-year-old gets a 15-year-old pregnant, it can result in a legal or de facto marriage.

Statutory rape is not like regular rape, you realise?

 

[Vandeervecken]

Where'd you get this from? The way I understood it to mean was that if, say, a 20-year-old gets a 15-year-old pregnant, it can result in a legal or de facto marriage.

Statutory rape is not like regular rape, you realise?

So you have no problem with 50 year old men having sex with 12 year old girls?

 

[vergiss]

So you have no problem with 50 year old men having sex with 12 year old girls?

Where the HELL did I say that?! :roll:

 

[Kelzie]

Where the HELL did I say that?! :roll:

Well, you didn't not say it, see, so it was obviously what you meant. :roll:

 

[Vandeervecken]

Where the HELL did I say that?! :roll:

You most certainly strongly imply it about 4 posts previous to this one. You seem to think that Statutory rape is somehow okay and it is fine to make a victim of it marry the rapist.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Well, you didn't not say it, see, so it was obviously what you meant. :roll:

The strong implication from her post is that the victim of statutory rape is not really a victim as those who are raped in other ways are. Can you make it mean anything else?

 

[Kelzie]

The strong implication from her post is that the victim of statutory rape is not really a victim as those who are raped in other ways are. Can you make it mean anything else?

She never said they weren't victims. Only that they are different crimes. Which they are.

 

[Vandeervecken]

She never said they weren't victims. Only that they are different crimes. Which they are.

I asked her if she though rape victims should be forced to marry their rapists. Her response was that statutory rape is not like other rape. It is still rape. Some old geezer rapes and impregnates a 13 year old and you guys think that means they are married under common law? LOL Cracks me up. Or at least it would if it were not so tragic.

 

[Stace]

I asked her if she though rape victims should be forced to marry their rapists. Her response was that statutory rape is not like other rape. It is still rape. Some old geezer rapes and impregnates a 13 year old and you guys think that means they are married under common law? LOL Cracks me up. Or at least it would if it were not so tragic.

In some states, it does mean exactly that. Sad, but true.

 

[Vandeervecken]

In some states, it does mean exactly that. Sad, but true.

States and statutes please.

 

[RightinNYC]

annnnnnnnnd at over 1,000 posts, this thread has worn out its welcome.

Feel free to continue this debate in a new one.