DarthFerret;274949 said:
So basically, for anyone to hold any type of debate or argument with you, they should be as knowledgable as you? What if they are more knowledgable in another area? Does that put the burden on you to get up to their speed? I am confused with what you are trying to get across here.
First question: No, not necessarily.
Second question: Good for that person.
Third question: Yes, if I'm trying to make a point that deals with said area. If I'm trying to make a point about history and I'm talking with a history major, I can't plead ignorance about what s/he says in response and expect to be taken seriously when trying to make my own argument.
What I'm trying to get across is that if one wants to assert that another person has made use of a logical fallacy, one must specify what the fallacy is in order to be considered seriously. That's just how discourse works.
How about this (no need to quote anything). It is a well established possibility of a opposite-sex couple to naturally concieve a child. It is an impossibility for a same-sex couple to do the same. That is just one piece of fact (hopefully qualifies as evidence). I am sure there are others out there, but most of them would be viewed as opinion.
Yes, that is true. But it doesn't qualify as evidence that same-sex marriage is or would be a problem. It's often used as justification for banning same-sex marriage. The idea is usually that the purpose of marriage is children. But there are several problems with this argument...
1. Legally, there is nothing that says the purpose of marriage is children.
2. Same-sex couples can and do raise children. They can't "naturally conceive a child." But virtually anything else is a possibility.
3. We already have plenty of people. More than ever before in history, actually.
4. Same-sex marriage wouldn't do anything to decrease the number of children being born.
5. We don't ban infertile couples, elderly couples, or couples who simply don't want kids from getting married.
Ah, what made me respond in the first place. If you use the word "will initiate" that tends to lead the reader to an inevitable conclusion. Leaves no room for argument.
What? Did you see the word "suggests" before that? And there is a big difference between saying that something will happen and saying that it will inevitably happen.
If those proposals are allowed to stand or fall on their own merits, then why is there such a problem with the outcome of the vote in California? I would say that proposal stood on its own merit as well.
Well, that's what this whole discussion is about.
How is this considered a majority rules definition? If the majority rules on something, how can it be societally repressive? Individually, sure, but for a group of people as a whole, not so much. This also brings to mind the old adage, "You cannot please all of the people all of the time."
Since you were apparently on the Wikipedia page for "tyrant," try going near the bottom of the page in the "see also" section" and then click on "tyranny of the majority."
Personally, I think this is one of the things that is wrong with our society today. We are so worried about making every individual happy, that society as a whole is starting to degenerate. The thing that scares me the most is that on the surface, this appears to be to be leading toward an anarchy. I personally do not believe that would be a good thing for America.
Who's worried about making every individual happy? You say "we" are. But I'm not. It seems that you're not. So who's "we"?
Mooseman;274954 said:
Do you really believe that? Marriage is the family unit to foster the best environment for raising children (looking at it from a Macro-view point).
How do you know it's the best? And if it is the best, why not let same-sex couples have that same chance?
Just because there are exceptions to the role of children in a marriage, does not make that concept invalid. And since the goal of same-sex unions are not to produce children (mostly) then why bestow the mantle of marriage on them?
Same as above about marriage not legally being about producing children. And many same-sex couples do raise children. Either type of couple can choose to raise children or not as they see fit.
Why are civil unions so abhorrent if it serves the stated purpose?
In truth, I don't know. I mean, it's a principle. But what principle? Is it because only a decade ago, two men in Texas were arrested for having sex in private and the case had to go to the Supreme Court in order for the anti-sodomy statute to be struck down? Is it because of "don't ask, don't tell"? Is it because most states not only ban same-sex marriage, but (unconstitutionally) refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states? Is it because the majority of the states in this country don't even offer same-sex civil unions? I'd think that this is a part of it. I'd think that it has to do with progress from a system that was formerly quite harmful to homosexuals, especially those who were openly homosexual into complete equality. And civil unions are a double standard. Even if the only difference in the whole country becomes one word (marriage), that's still unequal. If it really does come down to one group wanting legal use of the same term another group has, and nothing else, I'd be on the side of letting things be equal. But there's a lot more involved here.
For instance:
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
That's a bit old, but it does break down the difference between marriages and civil unions.
Now then, what's so abhorrent about same-sex marriage?
