Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Dixon's argument against same gender marriage

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by SFJEFF, Jun 13, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I want to invite Dixon to clarify his position before we go on to discuss it

    Quote Originally Posted by dixon76710 View Post
    Same argument Ive stated 100 times. Encouraging heterosexual couples to marry REDUCES the number of single children on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Encouraging homosexuals to marry would not, as they cant produce children.

    Is this your definitive rational for a State to prohibit same gender marriage?

    I don't want to mischaracterize what your position is- you gave a clear statement in another thread and I am fine with dealing specifically and exclusively with that argument if that is what your argument is.

    So you would like to clarify- please do so before I proceed.
     
    SFJEFF, Jun 13, 2014
    #1
  2. /dev/null

    /dev/null Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If marriage was solely about procreation, his argument might have some small merit. But whether or not gays can get married has nothing to whatsoever whether someone who is single decides to procreate, or whether they decided to get married and have kids. Or not have kids.

    Marriage is not some precious resource that should be reserved for only people who the state feels is truly deserving of it (i.e those choosing to have kids). We don't have a marriage compatibility or suitability test that someone has to pass before they can get a marriage license. Plenty of really crappy marriages out there. Oftentimes with kids in the mix.
     
    /dev/null, Jun 13, 2014
    #2
  3. Pasithea

    Pasithea Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He won't ever clarify because he wants to make sure he can always shout, "I NEVER CLAIMED THAT!" or "STRAWMAN!" lol
     
    Pasithea, Jun 13, 2014
    #3
  4. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    what's a strawman?
     
    The Amazing Sam's Ego, Jun 13, 2014
    #4
  5. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's when one deliberately mis-characterizes someone else's position or argument,
    in order to turn it into something that is more easily argued against.

    They call it straw-man because one who does this, rather than attacking the opposition directly,
    essentially creates from nothing (or from straw), a new argument, which may resemble the opposition,
    but, being made of straw, is significantly weaker than the true opposition. One then attacks the weak
    straw-man and then proceeds to claim victory over the true opposition.

    For example:
    If you say that you believe a little time off every once in a while is good for people to have.
    And I reply by saying, you want everyone to become lazy slouches who don't work. If no one works, then thre wont be any food to eat.
    Then I've just constructed a straw-man.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Jun 13, 2014
    #5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page