Dank n Edgy

The dorkest, edgist forums known to puny hoomans

You are not logged in.


Welcome to DnE, the online psych facility. (Run by the inmates, for the inmates.)

#1 2012-07-26 22:36:15

Registered: 2012-06-11
Posts: 12

I'd like to play devil's advocate on a argument. Here's the argument

Starting point- Whether there is arguments against gay marriage
Ending point-Whether there is an actual valid reason to object to one of the two identical things.

=Jeysie 3 days ago  Hobbyist Writer
There really isn't any secular argument. Study after study, not to mention just plain old common sense and observation, has proved that gay couples are no different than straight couples.

Note- The starting topic in hand is whether there is a different argument against gay marriage that does not involves religious viewpoint meaning we're referring to secular version of it.

~ReptillianSP2011 1 day ago  Student General Artist
Now you just claimed there isn't any secular version of it? Why don't you go google "secular arguments against gay marriage" to actually see that there is a secular version of the viewpoint of not supporting same-sex marriage? Then again, I swear that some folks in pro-gays and anti-gays needs to get a damn sense.

-Note, I don't see a difference between gay couples and straight couples. Just take in account of that.

=Jeysie 1 day ago  Hobbyist Writer
Because there is no secular argument for banning one thing while allowing a completely identical thing.

Or to put it another way, I'm aware of all the not-strictly-religious arguments against gay marriage, and they apply just as equally to many straight marriages. There literally is nothing that is true of gay marriages that isn't also true of straight marriages. In fact, whatever it is, it's probably true of more straight marriages than gay ones, just due to there being far more straight marriages to begin with.

~ReptillianSP2011 1 day ago  Student General Artist
Ok, so you're stating that those secular arguments aren't valid as they can be equally as applicable as to straight marriages? But, those reasons are secular arguments against gay marriage though regardless of whether it's valid or not (Just to be clear, I am indifferent to whether thinking it's valid or not).

=Jeysie 1 day ago  Hobbyist Writer
Yes, basically. You can't have a valid argument for disallowing a type of marriage which applies equally to a type of marriage you allow. Has to kind of be both or none.

And, well, IMHO invalid secular arguments are kind of irrelevant.

Note-It appears that Jeysie admits that the invalid argument is still an argument. Moving on.

~ReptillianSP2011 1 day ago  Student General Artist
And where is the rule that it has to be both or none? I don't see that one has to accept that rule.. I can see on one side that the arguments can be easily be applicable to straight marriage, but I also see the viewpoint that there is no rule stating it has to be both or none.

Hmm ok.

=Jeysie 1 day ago  Hobbyist Writer
Um. Because if two things are identical, it makes no fucking sense to allow one but disallow the other. You have to either allow both identical things, or disallow both identical things.

~ReptillianSP2011 16 hours ago  Student General Artist
And where in the invisible book of rules in life that you absolutely have to allow both or disallow both? All I'm seeing is an argument that states how preposterous of the secular argument against gay marriage, but nothing more. Basically, all I'm reading from the two opposing secular sides of the boat is all comes down to how they prefer to see things running. If I wanted to argue from your side, I'd consider arguing about the long-term effects of allowing both identical things or disallowing both identical thing using economical and sociological argument (This isn't really my field of interest, but I think I got this right. Am I missing something here?).

=Jeysie 13 hours ago  Hobbyist Writer
Uhm, logic says it?

I'll allow that religion illogically and arbitrarily calls one thing bad while the identical thing is OK, but secular arguments have no such excuse.

You'll certainly have to explain to me how one thing can be bad, while the 100% identical thing isn't.

Now, what am I suppose to respond to play devil's advocate here?

Last edited by Reptorian (2012-07-26 22:36:43)


#2 2012-07-27 05:57:21

Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 16,809

Re: I'd like to play devil's advocate on a argument. Here's the argument

Have you already both agreed that they are definitely 100% identical? If so, you're kind of stuck unless you could find a way to say that two identical things can have different attributes. Which seems illogical to me, too.

For  example, if 1 = 1, and one of the 1's is gay marriage, and the other of the 1's is straight marriage, they clearly equal the same thing. Anything that applies to the first, has to apply to the second, because they are more or less the same thing.

In order to get out of this, you'd have to argue that they are not the same thing, and that gay marriage has differences from straight marriage, and ineffect, aren't identical. Which, obviously, they aren't 100% in all ways. But which ways are realevant is still to be decided in your argument.

Also, very interesting stuff.



#3 2012-07-28 02:03:16

Jewing Intensifies
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 7,029

Re: I'd like to play devil's advocate on a argument. Here's the argument

I hate dem faggots thats all the reason I need.
Also fun fact more states allow you to marry your cousin than to marry a gay lover.


#4 2012-07-28 02:41:50

Illuminatus Sacerdos
From: Yankee-Occupied South
Registered: 2012-06-09
Posts: 8,272

Re: I'd like to play devil's advocate on a argument. Here's the argument

SaintVicious wrote:

I hate dem faggots thats all the reason I need.
Also fun fact more states allow you to marry your cousin than to marry a gay lover.

Both should be legal, although both are gross.

The Grasshopper Lies Heavy



Board footer

Powered by FluxBB