Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[Gatium]

Y is it that every time im on the front page of the forum theres an article about homosexual marrige?? I mean seriously ..im sorry to all those who actually have an opinion..but the rest of you are all hipocrites! so do us all a favor and stop tryin to get a argument started..let me tell you there are many other ways you can get attention in nationstates..for one go make yourself a resolution for the WA and make yourself usefull! (pardon my spelling.)

[Buffett and Colbert]

He said no people opposed to gay marriage were for civil unions. ABSOLUTLY NONE. What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Because you know perfectly well that he was referring to people in general and that you presenting strawman argument doesn't really serve your purpose?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Y is it that every time im on the front page of the forum theres an article about homosexual marrige?? I mean seriously ..im sorry to all those who actually have an opinion..but the rest of you are all hipocrites! so do us all a favor and stop tryin to get a argument started..let me tell you there are many other ways you can get attention in nationstates..for one go make yourself a resolution for the WA and make yourself usefull! (pardon my spelling.)

I have...

[Grave_n_idle]

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law...

You're big on rhetoric, and insignificant on evidence.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Y is it that every time im on the front page of the forum theres an article about homosexual marrige?? I mean seriously ..im sorry to all those who actually have an opinion..but the rest of you are all hipocrites! so do us all a favor and stop tryin to get a argument started..let me tell you there are many other ways you can get attention in nationstates..for one go make yourself a resolution for the WA and make yourself usefull! (pardon my spelling.)

Maybe some of us like debating and aren't interested in being the big man on the site. Maybe some of us are interested in being the big man on the site and also happen to like debating at the same time.

[Blouman Empire]

Y is it that every time im on the front page of the forum theres an article about homosexual marrige??

Because this is NSG.

The same reason we must always shave a thread about why Christianity is wrong, evolution is true and one on abortion.

Yes I too get irritated by it.

[Omnicracy]

...I have already done 2 to death, so I'll go strait to

You haven't 'done 2 to death'. You haven't touched it.

Or - are you arguing that civil union legislation will alway pass?

3&4) If you would vote against a civil union law, how does that not show more people than you give credit to would vote for one? Does your vote not count?

If the alternatives are civil union or marriage equality.

Show me an occassion on which that WAS the choice, and we'll examine the voting and see if my vote would have made a difference, eh?

1) WE both already went over that! It was like, one post ago! do you have memory problems or something?

2) So you would vote for civil unions if marriage-for-all wasn't on the ballot?

[Omnicracy]

In real terms - do you honestly believe it's likely... even possible that anyone could pass the sort of legislation you're talking about?

Why do we have to be realistic here? Can't we just discuss the proposal on its pros and cons.

You keep saying marriage is already a civil union, when you get a marriage licence you have a civil union, what Ominocacy has proposed is that we change it to a civil union license for all people regardless of the genders of the two people. Now you say people will still call it marriage, which is fine but it won't be a 'marriage' as known by the government despite other people saying they are married and the gays really aren't. It means naught because even if gays could get marriage license people would still be rejecting it, not to mention that when gays do get a civil union they will still call it marriage despite it not being the fact.

Thankyou. I don't think it will acctualy help, but thankyou none the less. You have summerised my points better than I could have.

[Omnicracy]

What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Anecdotes prove nothing.

So what could prove you wrong then? I doubt divine intervention would.

[Grave_n_idle]

In real terms - do you honestly believe it's likely... even possible that anyone could pass the sort of legislation you're talking about?

Why do we have to be realistic here? Can't we just discuss the proposal on its pros and cons.

You keep saying marriage is already a civil union, when you get a marriage licence you have a civil union, what Ominocacy has proposed is that we change it to a civil union license for all people regardless of the genders of the two people. Now you say people will still call it marriage, which is fine but it won't be a 'marriage' as known by the government despite other people saying they are married and the gays really aren't. It means naught because even if gays could get marriage license people would still be rejecting it, not to mention that when gays do get a civil union they will still call it marriage despite it not being the fact.

We have to be realistic because people are having very real rights denied to them - or, perhaps even worse - revoked - and that makes it real.

If Omni has an 'argument' that can't work in reality, then it's useless.


Addressing the other part of the question - even if you COULD get all marriage licenses re-written to read 'civil union', as you admit - it won't do anything constructive to the debate. People will still call their civil unions 'marriages'. Some people will still tell other people that THEIR civil unions are inferior. Indeed, without explicit legislation alongside, it probably wouldn't even change anything in REAL terms for homosexual couples - they wouldn't gain equality in rights just because you changed the wording.

And we're still assuming that the people who oppose marriage equality now, would stop fighting against equality if we just change the name.

[Omnicracy]

He said no people opposed to gay marriage were for civil unions. ABSOLUTLY NONE. What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Because you know perfectly well that he was referring to people in general and that you presenting strawman argument doesn't really serve your purpose?

No, I honestly believ he ment anyone, anywhere. If that is not the case he should tell me.

[Buffett and Colbert]

What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Anecdotes prove nothing.

So what could prove you wrong then? I doubt divine intervention would.

Actual sources? I.e. articles, reports, etc. about the subject that prove your point.

[Buffett and Colbert]

He said no people opposed to gay marriage were for civil unions. ABSOLUTLY NONE. What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Because you know perfectly well that he was referring to people in general and that you presenting strawman argument doesn't really serve your purpose?

No, I honestly believ he ment anyone, anywhere. If that is not the case he should tell me.

That'd be idiotic and GnL is not idiotic.

[Omnicracy]

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law...

You're big on rhetoric, and insignificant on evidence.

Has anyone tried what I proposed?

[Grave_n_idle]

What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Anecdotes prove nothing.

So what could prove you wrong then? I doubt divine intervention would.

You're saying I'm so good, even 'god' can't touch me?

Thanks, I guess.

Anecdotes are not good evidence - because they are an unverifiable source. You say your buddies say x, y, and z - I can say your buddies lied to you. Both of us have exactly the same amount of verifiable evidence.

[Buffett and Colbert]

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law...

You're big on rhetoric, and insignificant on evidence.

Has anyone tried what I proposed?

a) that makes no sense
b) you haven't provided any sources to prove that it'd work

[Grave_n_idle]

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law...

You're big on rhetoric, and insignificant on evidence.

Has anyone tried what I proposed?

They'd better have, really - or you're just making big claims, no?

You said it has enough support - prove it.

[Grave_n_idle]

He said no people opposed to gay marriage were for civil unions. ABSOLUTLY NONE. What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Because you know perfectly well that he was referring to people in general and that you presenting strawman argument doesn't really serve your purpose?

No, I honestly believ he ment anyone, anywhere. If that is not the case he should tell me.

How do you reconcile that absolutist interpretation with my mention of statistical significance?

Or - do you just ignore the parts that don't work for your argument?

[Omnicracy]

In real terms - do you honestly believe it's likely... even possible that anyone could pass the sort of legislation you're talking about?

Why do we have to be realistic here? Can't we just discuss the proposal on its pros and cons.

You keep saying marriage is already a civil union, when you get a marriage licence you have a civil union, what Ominocacy has proposed is that we change it to a civil union license for all people regardless of the genders of the two people. Now you say people will still call it marriage, which is fine but it won't be a 'marriage' as known by the government despite other people saying they are married and the gays really aren't. It means naught because even if gays could get marriage license people would still be rejecting it, not to mention that when gays do get a civil union they will still call it marriage despite it not being the fact.

We have to be realistic because people are having very real rights denied to them - or, perhaps even worse - revoked - and that makes it real.

If Omni has an 'argument' that can't work in reality, then it's useless.


Addressing the other part of the question - even if you COULD get all marriage licenses re-written to read 'civil union', as you admit - it won't do anything constructive to the debate. People will still call their civil unions 'marriages'. Some people will still tell other people that THEIR civil unions are inferior. Indeed, without explicit legislation alongside, it probably wouldn't even change anything in REAL terms for homosexual couples - they wouldn't gain equality in rights just because you changed the wording.

And we're still assuming that the people who oppose marriage equality now, would stop fighting against equality if we just change the name.

Now do you see what I've been dealing with? How the middle part just compleatly ignores what it tries toadress?

[Omnicracy]

He said no people opposed to gay marriage were for civil unions. ABSOLUTLY NONE. What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Because you know perfectly well that he was referring to people in general and that you presenting strawman argument doesn't really serve your purpose?

No, I honestly believ he ment anyone, anywhere. If that is not the case he should tell me.

That'd be idiotic and GnL is not idiotic.

Look up afew posts befor what I'm quoting and say that again.

[Blouman Empire]

Addressing the other part of the question - even if you COULD get all marriage licenses re-written to read 'civil union', as you admit - it won't do anything constructive to the debate. People will still call their civil unions 'marriages'. Some people will still tell other people that THEIR civil unions are inferior. Indeed, without explicit legislation alongside, it probably wouldn't even change anything in REAL terms for homosexual couples - they wouldn't gain equality in rights just because you changed the wording.

Well people will say that some marriages are inferior and wrong as well anyway. As for rights till be denied you keep saying this I fail to see how it is more then simply changing the wording it is granting gays the right to 'marry' just like any other heterosexual couple so no rights denied and both types will have theirs known by legislation as civil partnerships so there is no separation.

And we're still assuming that the people who oppose marriage equality now, would stop fighting against equality if we just change the name.

And people won't stop fighting if gay marriage is allowed?

[Grave_n_idle]

In real terms - do you honestly believe it's likely... even possible that anyone could pass the sort of legislation you're talking about?

Why do we have to be realistic here? Can't we just discuss the proposal on its pros and cons.

You keep saying marriage is already a civil union, when you get a marriage licence you have a civil union, what Ominocacy has proposed is that we change it to a civil union license for all people regardless of the genders of the two people. Now you say people will still call it marriage, which is fine but it won't be a 'marriage' as known by the government despite other people saying they are married and the gays really aren't. It means naught because even if gays could get marriage license people would still be rejecting it, not to mention that when gays do get a civil union they will still call it marriage despite it not being the fact.

We have to be realistic because people are having very real rights denied to them - or, perhaps even worse - revoked - and that makes it real.

If Omni has an 'argument' that can't work in reality, then it's useless.


Addressing the other part of the question - even if you COULD get all marriage licenses re-written to read 'civil union', as you admit - it won't do anything constructive to the debate. People will still call their civil unions 'marriages'. Some people will still tell other people that THEIR civil unions are inferior. Indeed, without explicit legislation alongside, it probably wouldn't even change anything in REAL terms for homosexual couples - they wouldn't gain equality in rights just because you changed the wording.

And we're still assuming that the people who oppose marriage equality now, would stop fighting against equality if we just change the name.

Now do you see what I've been dealing with? How the middle part just compleatly ignores what it tries toadress?

There is no middle.

If you oppose equality, you're on one side. If you don't oppose it, you're on the other side.

The fact that you're trying to create a middle is irrelevant. And illogical - opponents of equality are not going to meet you halfway just because you change the names.

[Omnicracy]

What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Anecdotes prove nothing.

So what could prove you wrong then? I doubt divine intervention would.

You're saying I'm so good, even 'god' can't touch me?

Thanks, I guess.

Anecdotes are not good evidence - because they are an unverifiable source. You say your buddies say x, y, and z - I can say your buddies lied to you. Both of us have exactly the same amount of verifiable evidence.

lol. I have to admite, nice responce. I ment you probably don't believ in god so it wouldn't matter if he told you something. I know, but you are still wrong if you ment everyone.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

There is no middle.

If you oppose equality, you're on one side. If you don't oppose it, you're on the other side.

The fact that you're trying to create a middle is irrelevant. And illogical - opponents of equality are not going to meet you halfway just because you change the names.

What, there's a golden mean fallacy AND a middle ground fallacy? Fuck!

[Omnicracy]

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law...

You're big on rhetoric, and insignificant on evidence.

Has anyone tried what I proposed?

a) that makes no sense
b) you haven't provided any sources to prove that it'd work

It makes perfect sence. Unless it is atempted, any "proof" would be supposition.