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

13»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭Nebit


    smegmar wrote: »

    ----To rebuff Nebit, while marriage was also used to stabilized families and the financial side of it, traditionally life expectancy was so short it was important to have children to take over the business/wealth. Therefore children were a very important aspect of marriage.

    Children were not the main reason for nor of marriage they were often a biproduct due to financial stability and I might add after introduction of religion it was frowned upon to have children outside marriage for this reason ( of finance). Keeping money in the religious families meant more worthy donations. it had very little to do with keeping a father figure as babies look like their fathers in the first couple of years working on a subconscious level to keep them nearby for support and not abandonment. Children would keep the wealth in the family yes but again not the reason for marriage as a bastard still had rights to inheritance if male. I think the only exception to this was Henry VIII


  • Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Chana Proud Cheek


    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
    :confused::confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭Silvics




    :eek:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 62 ✭✭BettyM


    bluewolf wrote: »
    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
    :confused::confused:

    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!



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 62 ✭✭BettyM


    I also was a great fan of the West Wing and love President Bartletts speech here, it always makes me laugh and makes a very good point.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭smegmar


    Please stop being condescending to everyone who has taken the time to reply to you.

    I've got nothing but condescending messages from everyone here.
    And I have actually refuted this point above. If there are safeguards in place to ensure that their childrens rights are respected, gay couples who are married would help increase the birthrate. These children would be concieved in various ways.
    Yes with surrogacy and other procedures, but that's will cause problems when in some cases the surrogate mother changes her mind, or miscarries. It's a lot of trouble just to make you happy.
    Please reference these tax breaks. I am unaware of the specific tax breaks you mention.
    Talking in a global context, various government subsidise child baring couples in many ways. Here are just some examples; Child allowance, Paternity leave, Tax deductible child credits and I'm sure anyone involved in governmental tax can find dozens more.
    It is not remotely the same thing. You seem to have ignored the points I made in my post above. Marriage, whether open to same sex couples or not, depends on the participants being of age, unrelated and having the capacity to consent to marriage. Children is not the only reason incest is illegal.
    Sorry it's exactly the same thing. If you want to redefine marriage, based on your criteria then incestuous relationships have to be included, after all they are two consenting adults having capacity to consent to marriage. If we remove "of opposite gender" there's no reason why we shoudn't remove "unrelated". That's just an example, this opens the gates for everything, polygamy, bestigamy , necrogamy, etc etc. My point is if we don't find a solid definition and stick to it will destroy the original concept.
    [/QUOTE]
    But why are you not protesting straight marriages if you are so concerned about the sham ones?
    facepalm. If you're so against drunk driving why aren't you against cars. Yea as I said we have to have hetero- marriage, and yes there will always be scams. I'm just saying that you're really loosening the criteria.

    I'm sorry to have to say this, but your logical argument is completely illogical. Your facts are either wrong or unsupported, which makes them opinions. You are of course entitled to your opinions, but don't try and dress it up as a logical, coherant argument. As far as I can see, your points have been refuted one by one by many individuals here, ye you persist.
    Please stop being condescending to everyone who has taken the time to reply to you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,635 ✭✭✭xsiborg


    smgear with all due respect, at this stage you are not using logic to argue your point at all, you are merely deflecting, speculating, assuming.

    you are arguing your own closed point of view against people that actually HAVE done their research and know the facts better than you or i ever will.

    at least though im willing to listen and learn, whereas you made an OP in a forum where you knew the subject matter was controversial, and you've made no attempt to listen or engage with other posters. you're worse than a frog hopping around in a lake of sinking rocks- "cant catch me, cant catch me...", nobody is trying to catch you out, but sooner or later you are going to get stuck in the mud when all your deflective points have been answered.

    you've stuck with your "logic" since your OP and have shown no willingness to be any way open to actual discussion, and quite frankly speaking for myself, i have learned nothing from your "but but" deflective posts. its not smart, its not clever, and its a far cry from anything intelligent or intellectual that you tried to make out in your OP.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    bluewolf wrote: »

    not to mention the obsession with children
    :confused::confused:

    Ah come on! Would someone please think of the children though?:(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    smegmar wrote: »
    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.

    smegmar wrote: »
    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.

    600px-POLYGYNY.JPG

    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.

    smegmar wrote: »
    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.

    smegmar wrote: »
    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.

    smegmar wrote: »
    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.

    smegmar wrote: »
    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.

    smegmar wrote: »
    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.

    smegmar wrote: »
    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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement