FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.Moderator - DurroNow Showing HERE. To begin, I would like to thank Lion for agreeing to have this debate with me.I particularly like the way that the topic of this debate has been phrased, as it perfectly encapsulates the information that I have long been searching for - could there possibly be a worthwhile reason not to allow gay marriage? SECOND POST - LION IRCReactionary Judges in the past have argued the need for a strident line in the sand against liberalised marriage laws.
GENERAL MODNOTECrocodile Gandhi submitted his post for approval well before the 72 hour deadline, but he will not be available to actually post it himself, as he is away from computer access for several hours today.
August 19, 2011 by Alison Wright Like Tweet +1 Pin Share StumbleUpon Tumblr Reddit After the semi morbid posts of lasts weeks Quotes about Death, I decided I should go back to some Inspirational Quotes. I am gonna have my daughter teach me some tricks to stay involved with sites on the internet.
Thank you also Crocodile Gandhi, and you who are reading, for your tacit acknowledgement that there are TWO sides to this debate. And, wherever there are benefits for allowing something to happen, in the absence of any good reason not to let it happen, it should be made legal. The debate will consist of :- * Introduction of no more than 500 words each * 3 main debate posts of up to 1500 words each excluding diagrams, tables, images, etc. I hope I am mistaken that Lion may have tried to paint me as a bigot under the incorrect belief that I have judged his position as wrong without even knowing the reasons for why he holds that position. Leaving aside for a moment his lengthy posting history on this very topic, I will simply say to him that I have yet to come across a worthwhile argument against gay marriage, yet I'm open to the possibility that he will knock my socks off with some stunning, persuasive reason for why I should change my position. It was in a jurisdiction which legalised gay marriage in 2005 and the judgement was against the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. To the day I die I will fight for [REDACTED].The four redacted sections (those playing at home will notice that I have correctly identified the number of redacted sections, unlike my opponent) were Pineapple, Wakeboards, Richard Dean Anderson, and Ham Sandwiches.
Throughout the debate I will limit the number of arguments I make in favour of legalising gay marriage. And the function (or dysfunction) of the family unit is inseparable from The Law in its entirety. My role will be to demonstrate that all of the arguments made against it are insufficient so as to prevent it from occurring. Now, my own version of debate MADlibs is obviously utter nonsense, but it is probably just about as relevant to the debate as what Lion had written. Dysfunctional families and the consequences thereof, cannot be ignored by the society which defines dysfunction. So it shouldn’t be surprising that the concept of matrimonial law, as a pre-existing social institution, be explored in detail as a prelude to the specific consideration of one single (allegedly) unique “type” of marriage and the supposed “entitlement” claims of its proponents. The basic premise of my argumentum ad legem is that no matter where a line in the sand is drawn, it has to be complied with - irrespective of the fact that it (necessarily) discriminates against certain behaviour and enforces that line in the sand.
One of the biggest problems that I find with those who argue against gay marriage is that their arguments are often irrelevant with respect to marriage.
In my opening post I stated that I would be arguing that there is no good reason not to allow gay marriage.
Furthermore, it must surely be acknowledged that when society judges (discriminates) between contesting claimants, all seeking to amend and vary in some way, the pre-existing definition of marriage…Eg.
Lion has already foreshadowed that he plans to argue with respect to family and procreation.
I also stated that the arguments that my opponent proposed were likely to be largely irrelevant with respect to the debate topic.


Lower the age, lower the no-fault divorce threshold, allow incestuous marriage, allow polygamous marriage, allow inter-species marriage, allow same-sex marriage, allow pre-arranged marriages of financial convenience, etc. Should he decide to continue with this line of argument, I will demonstrate exactly why it is irrelevant and why it can be appropriately dismissed. When supporters of gay marriage malign the word “discriminate” and use it as if it were a pejorative, one wonders if they forget its primary definition.
Where Lion poses arguments that are relevant (of which I suspect there will be few), my goal will be to demonstrate that what he is arguing for or against is not sufficient to deny gay people from marrying.
Should I have time (or words, as it will be), I will look to other possible arguments against gay marriage and demonstrate how they are insufficient or irrelevant. It is almost certainly true that legalising gay marriage will increase the overall workload of legislators, public servants, marriage celebrants and lawyers.
Lastly, I would like to reveal a point of agreement and two points of contention between myself and Lion. I agree that a line in the sand must be drawn but I believe that such a line should always be re-drawn whenever it is appropriate to do so and in the absence of any reason not to. In the area of social change, the workload of legislators and lawyers were vastly increased by changes in Australian law in 1967.
I would be interested to know if Lion believes this change should not have been made due to the immensely increased workload resulting from the Commonwealth being able to make laws for aboriginal people and no longer consider them animals. Something that I'm sure they will deeply hate.Lion then moved onto talking about divorce, which is entirely irrelevant to the proposition of allowing marriage. Whether there were detrimental effects from making divorce easier does not relate to whether we should allow gay people to marry eachother. Furthermore, Lion completely failed to show how the supposed negative effects of making divorce easier (single parent families, children born out of wedlock, multiple marriages, divorce rates etc) are actually negatives. Merely stating that there were children born out of wedlock does nothing to show how children being born out of wedlock is a bad thing. It is unsurprising that divorce rates increased as a result of relaxing the laws with regard to divorce. Yet Lion has failed to demonstrate or even state that this is a bad thing, let alone explain how it is in any way relevant to the notion of legalising gay marriage. Neither does Lion use any reasoning to show that allowing gay marriage would increase single parent families, children being born out of wedlock or multiple marriages. If Lion believes that the presentation of random and irrelevant statistics are a worthy debating tactic, I may as well start producing charts showing the average wage in Zimbabwe or the most commonly bought dishwashing detergent in Poland.
The sentence from Genesis describes a biological process which cannot be ignored in this debate.* Finally, we come to Religious Culture.
If Lion wants the courts to be freed up, I would suggest that he contact those looking to appeal Judge Walker's decision and ask them to cease this action immediately, lest the courts be overburdened.Lion argues that the concept of marriage will become unrecognisable to anyone other than lawyers. The concept of marriage will be no more or less confusing than the concept of a voting citizen was when women were included within that concept. In fact, my opening post clearly emphasizes the necessity and magisterial superiority of The Law – its imprimatur.
However, seeing as Lion appears to be slow to grasp these things, I'll break it down for him: At the moment it's one man and one woman (aside from where gay marriage is legal). And pursuit of gay marriage does challenge many segments of religious culture, especially people who hold that we don’t have the right to re-word Genesis 2:24. So hard to grasp.All of the above arguments from Lion seem to stem from the legality arm of his irrelevant (if you're getting sick of seeing this word, get used to it) Bible verse.


This can’t and won’t be ignored in our debate either.So anyway, a Lawyer, a Philosopher, a Biologist and a Rabbi are all sitting in a bar one day arguing about whose profession is the most important and the Lawyer says to the Rabbi….What does the lawyer say? Some lawyers are sufficiently motivated (for various reasons) that they are sometimes willing to work for free. One of the “gay marriage” considerations in the mind of constitutional lawyers, family law specialists, human rights lawyers, etc. Of course, I wonder how Lion feels about those who work on Sundays re-wording the Ten Commandments.
Don’t tell me that’s not activism.E) Litigants themselves are primary activists in the legal process as well and homosexual marriage is not the only thing on the agenda.
In jurisdictions which changed marriage law during the 60’s and 70’s giving effect to so-called “no fault divorce” the work load went through the roof. I should hope that Lion moves onto the other professions (philosopher, biologist, and Rabbi) soon. After seeing how miserable his attempt at arguing the only relevant angle (the law), I expect some very interesting arguments, particularly in the biology section.I stated in my opening post that I planned to limit the positive arguments for legalising gay marriage. This is because I believe that the paucity of value in the negative arguments is one of the greatest positive arguments. Allowing one group to engage in an activity or hold a privilege, while denying another group from doing so without reason for this denial is discrimination. There are some areas in which we discriminate, yet that is because there is good reason to do so. However, when there is no good reason to deny a group of people from engaging in an activity based on a particular trait, this is unfair discrimination. While Lion likely believes that he has good reasons to deny gay people from entering a marriage with the partner of their choice, I hope that those reading will be able to notice that what he has offered to date has either been irrelevant, or merely assertions that have not been followed with the necessary reasoning to substantiate why legalising gay marriage would actually cause problems. In 2008 that number had reached 34.4% Which Australian political party, when in Government, made this phenomenal change to marriage law?
While I understand that the outcome of the debate rests solely on the merits of the arguments held within, it displeases me that he appears to be arguing at odds with the positions that we know he holds.
Namely, that while he obviously holds marriage as necessary institution that should be honoured and respected, he has argued in a manner thus far that can easily lead one to the conclusion that all marriage is bad for society (or at least asserted and implied it without following through on any of his disjointed thoughts).
For this reason, my future posts will include more positive arguments for gay marriage, as I can see that knocking over Lion's irrelevancies is simply child's play.
Custody battles became the ugly opposite of “mutual commitment”.In 1974 a modest 12% of marriages consisted of at least one person who had previously been married.
ORIENTATIONA person can assert their own preference for homosexual behaviour at anytime they like. What will the lawyers do with social policy legislation which further widens and relaxes the legal definition of matrimony? They will also earn a living, from the Bench or the Bar, taking part in what is called judicial activism, arguing and adjudicating disputes which arise entirely because The Law is open to further interpretation. We pay them to argue about… -whether The Law allows Cyber marriage - Statutory waiting periods for when applying for permission to marry.



Code promo emirates 2015
List of free european dating sites
Free dating in los angeles ca
Free singles site australia




Comments to «What makes a man want a baby»

  1. YagmurGozlum writes:
    Worst nevertheless, a lot of us ladies have lost our organic womanly??intuition you.
  2. pause writes:
    Ever skilled a man going hot and.


2015 Make video presentation adobe premiere pro | Powered by WordPress