• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Logical argument against Gay Marriage

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
At the request of another poster, I have started a new thread, similar in scope to this one: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Here is the argument against allowing gay marriage to be recognized by law. Feel free to argue against the truth of the premises or the validity of the logic.

Premise 1: No kind of marriage license should be recognized by the law
------Sub argument for Premise 1------
-SubPremise 1: The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone.
-SubPremise 2: Any kind of marriage license is legal recognition of privileges that are only available to married individuals.
-SubPremise 3: Not everyone is a married individual

-.'. No kind of marriage licenses should be recognized by the law

Premise 2: Gay marriage licenses are a kind of marriage license

.'. Gay marriage licenses should not be recognized by the law.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am inclined to agree with idea that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely and purely offer civil contracts for cohabitation and other domestic arrangements. However, the first step to that would be dismantling the current marriage institution. As long as marriage does exist, it must be consistent and allow homosexual couples.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I am inclined to agree with idea that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely and purely offer civil contracts for cohabitation and other domestic arrangements. However, the first step to that would be dismantling the current marriage institution. As long as marriage does exist, it must be consistent and allow homosexual couples.

Agree, the gay marriage debate isn't about deconstructing the institution of marriage. It's about marriage equality, and if someone has a problem with the institution of marriage, they should be attacking the institution as a whole, not trying to stop gay marriage.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Marriage is a vital social institution that the government should act to uphold and protect. The legal benefits of marriage are a part of that, and obviously should not be extended to people who are not participating in marriage.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Marriage is a vital social institution that the government should act to uphold and protect. The legal benefits of marriage are a part of that, and obviously should not be extended to people who are not participating in marriage.

Vital how? In what way does society benefit from giving benefits to married folk that are not available to single folk?

Even if it does, why should society as a whole be allowed to benefit itself at the expense of the individual? Just because it can? Is this a "might makes right" thing?
 
Last edited:

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Marriage contributes to social stability and provides the most stable domestic environment for raising children. Families are the foundation of society and marriage is the glue that holds them together.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Vital how? In what way does society benefit from giving benefits to married folk that are not available to single folk?

Even if it does, why should society as a whole be allowed to benefit itself at the expense of the individual? Just because it can? Is this a "might makes right" thing?

Everything that Kori said is correct... and more. Research shows that folks who are married are more healthy both physically and emotionally, do better at the rearing of children than non-marrieds, create more stability in the areas in which they live, leading to greater wealth and prosperity, etc... all things that benefit society and the country as a whole.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Everything that Kori said is correct... and more. Research shows that folks who are married are more healthy both physically and emotionally, do better at the rearing of children than non-marrieds, create more stability in the areas in which they live, leading to greater wealth and prosperity, etc... all things that benefit society and the country as a whole.

I agree with this, which makes me puzzled as to why people would want to deny the ability to marry to gays. It would be for the betterment of society.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree with this, which makes me puzzled as to why people would want to deny the ability to marry to gays. It would be for the betterment of society.

This is consistently my argument for gay marriage, highlighted by the fact that children benefit the most. Panache has made the argument against marraige lots of times before. It's a good argument, and the only one that I find to be logical against gay marriage. However, just because it has logic, doesn't mean it cannot be defeated through superior logic.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Marriage contributes to social stability and provides the most stable domestic environment for raising children. Families are the foundation of society and marriage is the glue that holds them together.

I don't value stability. Its boring. It reeks of stagnation. Stability incentivizes complacency, whereas instability incentivizes change, which is the harbinger of progress.

Also, there are plenty of people on the planet already, so I see no need to encourage the raising of children. I think families are a poor foundation for society and marriage has so far not done a very good job of holding most of them together at any rate, so I see little benefit to rewarding such behavior.

More to the point, what right does society have to compel me to finance their values? The fact that they have the firepower necessary to do so?
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Everything that Kori said is correct... and more. Research shows that folks who are married are more healthy both physically and emotionally, do better at the rearing of children than non-marrieds, create more stability in the areas in which they live, leading to greater wealth and prosperity, etc... all things that benefit society and the country as a whole.

Sounds like marriage should be its own reward for those involved then. Why should it be further incentivized at my expense?
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't value stability. Its boring. It reeks of stagnation. Stability incentivizes complacency, whereas instability incentivizes change, which is the harbinger of progress.

Also, there are plenty of people on the planet already, so I see no need to encourage the raising of children. I think families are a poor foundation for society and marriage has so far not done a very good job of holding most of them together at any rate, so I see little benefit to rewarding such behavior.

This is where your position starts to melt down. "I think" and "IMO" are just opinions and are not based on facts. I already posted facts, easily verifiable, proving your "I thinks" wrong.

More to the point, what right does society have to compel me to finance their values? The fact that they have the firepower necessary to do so?

The fact that you live in a society that benefits, as a whole from what this institution provides. Sorry, you do not live in a vacuum and what you do has an impact on others and what others do has an impact on you. An unhealthy society affects the individual far greater than the impact one unhealthy individual has on society. This is why the health of society is so beneficial to individuals.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sounds like marriage should be its own reward for those involved then. Why should it be further incentivized at my expense?

You benefit from others being married by living in a stable, healthy society things that benefit individuals. If that is not your cup of tea, there are other places to live.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is where your position starts to melt down. "I think" and "IMO" are just opinions and are not based on facts. I already posted facts, easily verifiable, proving your "I thinks" wrong

How do the facts prove my opinions wrong? My opinions did not contradict any facts you presented. You say marriage makes for a more stable society. Fine. I'll defer to your knowledge of the subject. Why should I want a more stable society?

The fact that you live in a society that benefits, as a whole from what this institution provides

And who determines that stability is a benefit? As long as we are going to dictate arbitrarily what is "good for society" then the bible thumpers are just as justified in their "society benefits from not being immersed in 'sinful' practices" BS as you are in your "society benefits from being more stable" rhetoric.

Sorry, you do not live in a vacuum and what you do has an impact on others and what others do has an impact on you.

Your apology is accepted.

An unhealthy society affects the individual far greater than the impact one unhealthy individual has on society. This is why the health of society is so beneficial to individuals.

An society in which the individual has the most liberty possible is healthier than a stable or prosperous one.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You benefit from others being married by living in a stable, healthy society things that benefit individuals. If that is not your cup of tea, there are other places to live.

That's ok, I prefer to help liberate the one I am in instead.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How do the facts prove my opinions wrong? My opinions did not contradict any facts you presented. You say marriage makes for a more stable society. Fine. I'll defer to your knowledge of the subject. Why should I want a more stable society?

I think I explained that to you, also. A more stable society benefits the individuals that live there. When others are healthier, your health costs go down. Now, you may WANT to live in a society where the individual only impacts that individual, but since this is not possible, we must deal with reality. If you would prefer to live in a less stable society, I'm sure there are places to accomodate you.



And who determines that stability is a benefit?

Society and societal norms of the time.

As long as we are going to dictate arbitrarily what is "good for society" then the bible thumpers are just as justified in their "society benefits from not being immersed in 'sinful' practices" BS as you are in your "society benefits from being more stable" rhetoric.

Since this is not arbitrary, but research based as I indicated, everything you say above is irrelevant, negated, and hyperbole. Try again.

Your apology is accepted.

Since I didn't, your consession is accepted.



An society in which the individual has the most liberty possible is healthier than a stable or prosperous one.

Nothing but your opinion.

A healthy and stable society leads to an individual having more liberty.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's ok, I prefer to help liberate the one I am in instead.

Liberating a society from being healthy is an "interesting" goal. Sounds more like attacking society.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,167
Reaction score
21,572
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
outlawing gay marriage is sexist, why should a woman be able to marry a man, but a man can't?
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
outlawing gay marriage is sexist, why should a woman be able to marry a man, but a man can't?

I think you're on the wrong thread, spud. This one is about the institution of marriage as a whole.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think I explained that to you, also. A more stable society benefits the individuals that live there. When others are healthier, your health costs go down. Now, you may WANT to live in a society where the individual only impacts that individual, but since this is not possible, we must deal with reality. If you would prefer to live in a less stable society, I'm sure there are places to accomodate you.

Or I could work to destabilize the one I live in. Actually, that sounds too much like work. I think I will just talk big about destabilizing society on internet forums instead.

Anyway, my point is that "good" is a relative term, and as such should not be determined and incentivized by mob rule. Otherwise, by your standards, if enough ignorant bible thumpers get their way, then they are justified in disallowing gay marriage because "sinful practices" are not "good" for society.

Society and societal norms of the time.

So if "society and social norms" decide that homosexuality is sinful, then they are justified in discriminating against the minority for the "good of society"?

Since this is not arbitrary, but research based as I indicated, everything you say above is irrelevant, negated, and hyperbole. Try again.

No. "Stable" is research based. "Good for society" is an arbitrary assignment of value. The term "good" by its very nature is a relative assignment of value and there is no way to make it objective. You consider gay marriage "good." religious nuts consider gay marriage "bad." Proving that gay marriage is stabilizing, or that it is healthy or that it reduces some sort of costs does not prove that it is "good" because "good" is inescapably a relative term.

Since I didn't, your consession is accepted.
No, no, I'm pretty sure you just apologized for my not living in a vacuum. I was holding you personally accountable for that, but since you apologized, I forgive you.

Nothing but your opinion.

Right, just like your assertion that a stable society is healthier than one in which the individual is not forced to subsidize everything that society considers "good for society."

A healthy and stable society leads to an individual having more liberty.

Forcing the individual to subsidize everything that society considers "good for society" is in and of itself an affront to liberty.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Or I could work to destabilize the one I live in. Actually, that sounds too much like work. I think I will just talk big about destabilizing society on internet forums instead.

Sounds like a MUCH better choice. ;)

Anyway, my point is that "good" is a relative term, and as such should not be determined and incentivized by mob rule. Otherwise, by your standards, if enough ignorant bible thumpers get their way, then they are justified in disallowing gay marriage because "sinful practices" are not "good" for society.

I didn't use the word good. Components that create a stable society can easily be determined through research and examination. It's not about mob rule. It's about information.

However, your term "mob rule" is nothing but a talking point for the people who vote for a decision that others do not like. Societies base their laws on the norms of that particular society. Your "ignorant bible thumper" example is hyperbole and does not apply, since that is not where societal norms are at this time.

So if "society and social norms" decide that homosexuality is sinful, then they are justified in discriminating against the minority for the "good of society"?

We've seen this happen plenty of times in history. Your comment "are they justified" is relative. Of course they are justified, based on those societies norms. However, this is why research and information are important tools to be used in the discussion of policy in order to affect those norms with accurate information.



No. "Stable" is research based. "Good for society" is an arbitrary assignment of value. The term "good" by its very nature is a relative assignment of value and there is no way to make it objective. You consider gay marriage "good." religious nuts consider gay marriage "bad." Proving that gay marriage is stabilizing, or that it is healthy or that it reduces some sort of costs does not prove that it is "good" because "good" is inescapably a relative term.

No, since I didn't say good, I was not placing value. I was identifying research that demonstrates stability and benefits. And I do not consider gay marriage "good". Based on research, I see it as beneficial to society, both on a societal and individual basis. Research supports this.

No, no, I'm pretty sure you just apologized for my not living in a vacuum. I was holding you personally accountable for that, but since you apologized, I forgive you.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not what was implied by my statement since I said it. Your non-answer implied a concession, so I thank you for that.



Right, just like your assertion that a stable society is healthier than one in which the individual is not forced to subsidize everything that society considers "good for society."

In bold. Absolutes. They really get you no where in debate, since they are easily refuted. Demonstrate where I said "everything".

But to the point, yes, you and I are both just stating opinions.



Forcing the individual to subsidize everything that society considers "good for society" is in and of itself an affront to liberty.

There's that word in bold, again. You really shouldn't do that.

And no, an individual contributing to the health of the society in which they live, provides them more liberty, as a healthy society would.
 
Last edited:

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I see nothing in the Constitution of the United States that allows for special interest groups to reap benefits at the expense of others. This is evidenced in Article IV Section II Clause I and Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment. Given that the federal government lacks the authority to enact laws dealing with marriage under the Tenth Amendment. However, the most damning of all is that 'general welfare' of society means that it has to benefit everyone equally. Now under the clauses I've cited every person is entitled to the same rights, privileges, and immunities under the law. Yes, this includes gay marriage, polygamy, etc... If you don't like it then get the government out of handing out welfare to married couples.

Article IV Section II Clause I

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Fourteenth Amendment Section I

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Neither of those sections contains a single word of language that would preclude government from recognizing marriages and from placing whatever conditions they saw fit upon their recognition of marriage.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Neither of those sections contains a single word of language that would preclude government from recognizing marriages and from placing whatever conditions they saw fit upon their recognition of marriage.

Actually, it does since it has the words 'all' in front of privileges and immunities in Article IV Section II Clause I and 'any' in Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment even goes as far as stating that no state deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. Liberty is defined as civil, natural, personal, and political. For this discussion personal liberty fits best, so this is the legal definition of liberty. Personal liberty is the independence of our actions of all other will than our own. Wolff, Ins. Nat. §77. It consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. 1 Bl. Com. 134.

Thus, under the Constitution of the United States you cannot deny gays from marrying and enjoying the benefits of government welfare for married couples.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Marriage is neither a privilege nor an immunity of being a citizen of the United States. The government's recognition of marriage is a privilege of being married. Nor is marriage a form of life, liberty, or property.

I have my reasons why I believe that the American should not discriminate against homosexuals in marriage, but I see absolutely no reason why they can not.
 
Top Bottom