Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The logical argument
Comments
-
-
-
-
The original post is so far removed from "logic" it's mind boggling
I can't believe anyone is still trying to use appeal to tradition
not to mention the obsession with children
I agree. This piece from crossfire made me laugh because the gay guy understands perfectly that you can't argue with a bigot or someone with a closed mind who thinks bigotry is ok because he has decided jesus says its ok. So rather than trying to argue logically, or appeal to his sense of fairness, he just makes his opponent seem ridiculous and it made us laugh!
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
What we plan to underline...
Before I start, I gotta ask, we who? This looks like some awful propaganda piece lifted from NOM or other conservative think tank.Marriage is a social institution almost as old as first human civilisation. It has existed in many forms, in many different cultures, some group, some polygamous, and very rarely same sex, but the overwhelming majority in all cultures is the "traditional" marriage of one man to one woman.
No, not even close. This is a graph of the breakdown of societies by family structure.
The nuclear family as other posters have pointed out is a relatively modern concept and one which is in the minority if you're looking at human civilisation in its entirety.Originally marriage between a man and a woman was a contract of sexual exclusivity in order to ensure paternity of any offspring.
Wrong again. You are confusing the idea of a biological pair bond and the social construct that is marriage.
The evolutionary path that humans have taken since we diverged from other apes has been a Red Queen game of advantages and resets. Human children unlike other animals are precocious, meaning that they require parental care for a significant period of their early lives. In humans, this meant that females responded to this by evolving a concealed oestrus such that males would not know when females were in heat and thus had to remain in proximity to fend off other males and ensure paternity. Thus females who evolved a concealed oestrus benefited from having a male around to look after offspring.
Marriage on the other hand was rarely concerned with the needs or interests of individuals. In fact, very often the married parties had no say in the marriage at all. Marriage was an alliance of clans and tribes, a method of gaining in-laws.
In any event, even if your point was valid, so what? It doesn't bode well for your argument if you're going to kick it off with a logical fallacy.Homosexuality has also existed for a very long time, also somewhere around the beginning of civilisation, however this was considered, until recently, as an activity rather then a lifestyle or predisposition.
Close, but wrong. Homosexuality is at least as old as our species and given the available evidence from our closest relatives, probably quite a bit older, 5-7 million years at least.Tax deductions and incentives for "traditional" married couples were introduced as a way to encourage couples to marry and make a stable base for raising their biological children. However if this is applied to a same-sex couple, discounting the possibility of adoption, the tax deduction or investment is fruitless. All tax payers would then be effected by the act of same-sex marriage. They must have the right to object, just as any taxpayer can object to any governmental tax reduction or spending initiative.
There are two problems here.
Firstly, tax deductions are incentives for couples to raise children, not necessarily their biological children. Adoptive couples share the same benefits:
"Where a child becomes adopted under any Act providing for the adoption of children (whether passed before or after the passing of this Act), the child shall thereafter be treated for the purposes of the Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Acts, 1944 to 1952, as if he were the child of the adopter or adopters born to him, her or them in lawful wedlock and were not the child of any other person."
Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Act, 1952.
Secondly, your argument presumes that a same-sex married couple lack the intent or possibility of raising children which is untrue. Same-sex couples can raise children either by adoption or IVF (in the case of a lesbian couple). The same incentive to raise children applies. In fact, since same-sex couples are not prone to having accidental children, one could argue that there should be increased incentives for such couples to raise children.
If you're really going to take this line, then you really should be arguing against single parents receiving incentives because this is a far more direct attack on the notion of incentivising marriage for raising children.Furthermore social acceptance is no something any amount of legislation or lobbying can change. It is the collective opinion of a populous on a subject, which must be left to the individuals free will. Should a governmental body act in any way to influence the opinions of its people, positively or negatively, it would be an offence to the free judgement of it's citizens and unbiased nature of any constitution.
You're right, social acceptance is not the business of the government but then neither is government enabled ostracism. It is the business of government to ensure that rights are applied equally to all its citizens. The idea of equality under the law is a core principle of our constitution.Therefore only by referendum can any legislation on the union of same-sex couples be accepted as valid and lawful.
You're straying dangerously close to another logical fallacy here. The only requirement for a referendum is if there is something written in the constitution which needs to be changed. However, it is not the constitution which poses an obstacle to same-sex marriage but rather case history and legal interpretation of the relevant articles. This is a matter for the judicial system to decide but there is is nothing in gay marriage that would be repugnant to the constitution.and here are the ways that gay marriage affects me or anyone else that is an objector.
precedent (incest, object sexuality, and any other weird stuff)
Tax deductions, I'm not going to repeat myself on this.
no possibility of future workforce
increased risk from sham marriages
{not that gay couples are more prone to it, just that it removes some criteria}
psychological affect on children {I don't know if it will be good or bad, but it will be different.}
Precedent: Yet another logical fallacy.
Tax deductions: Dealt with above
No possibility of future workforce: Also discussed above.
Increased risk from sham marriages: The ability or lack thereof of the government to identify such marriages should not be an impediment to gay people getting married.
Psychological effect on children: I don't suppose you have any evidence of this? It's just that the established body of research has demonstrated that the children of married gay parents suffer no adverse psychological effects. Well, except one, the increased incidence of homophobic abuse levelled at them by bigoted individuals.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement