Debate : Gay marriage should not be legalised in society

Lion IRC vs Crocodile Gandhi

Only designated debaters should post in the active debates.

Moderators: Calilasseia, The_Metatron

Re: Debate : Gay marriage should not be legalised in society

#21  Postby Lion IRC » May 09, 2012 3:13 am

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:
Q. Hypothetically, if the majority of the world's population did support gay marriage, should it then be legalised?

Just Yes or No please Lion.


Hypothetically”, if the majority of the world’s population wanted legal gay marriage and everything which “hypothetically” comes with that, guess what they would have already “hypothetically” done and “hypothetically” there would be simply
no need therefore to legislate it into “hypothetical” existence.

I would be happy to give single, unqualified, one word answers but your question was based on words like “should” and “hypothetically”. It’s a question open to wide interpretation by me and any answer open misinterpretation by you.
(Let's be fair to the readers!) :cheers:

Hypothetically, the world’s population in the future might consist of people whose definition of “marriage” is radically different to both yours and mine and we might BOTH oppose their intentions. Lion IRC and Crocodile Gandhi teaming up to fight against the forces of….you get the idea.

In the spirit of amicable dialogue and so that you don’t feel your question was a waste of time, let me also answer a simpler form of the question…in one word.

”Would Lion IRC still think same-sex marriage should be illegal even if a majority of jurisdictions around the world, democratic or otherwise, already permitted it?”

Yes.
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
User avatar
Lion IRC
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 4077

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debate : Gay marriage should not be legalised in society

#22  Postby Lion IRC » May 09, 2012 3:15 am

Q & A Round

Q. 4

My next question relates to the definition of marriage and why the State specifically decides to formally regulate
the function of a concept called “marriage,” (because of its ostensible connection to the stability of the family unit,)
but it does not EQUALLY do so for ordinary platonic or romantic friendships.

From the point of view of the State, I can’t think of any secular or civil difference between;

A) The same-sex marriage you envisage as being equally worthy of legalization and regulation by the State.

and

B) An ordinary, romantic association or friendship which the secular State effectively ignores as inconsequential to the otherwise vested interests of the State.

Could you please list a few perhaps? Two or three substantial differences would be enough. If they are rationally objective rather than subjective - based on anecdotes from your gay “friends and acquaintances” - that would be even better! :cheers:
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
User avatar
Lion IRC
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 4077

Print view this post

Re: Debate : Gay marriage should not be legalised in society

#23  Postby stijndeloose » May 11, 2012 9:23 am


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
Croc has no access to a computer at the moment and has asked me to post his next contribution, which you can find below.


Crocodile Gandhi wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:Q & A Round

Q. 4

My next question relates to the definition of marriage and why the State specifically decides to formally regulate
the function of a concept called “marriage,” (because of its ostensible connection to the stability of the family unit,)
but it does not EQUALLY do so for ordinary platonic or romantic friendships.

From the point of view of the State, I can’t think of any secular or civil difference between;

A) The same-sex marriage you envisage as being equally worthy of legalization and regulation by the State.

and

B) An ordinary, romantic association or friendship which the secular State effectively ignores as inconsequential to the otherwise vested interests of the State.

Could you please list a few perhaps? Two or three substantial differences would be enough. If they are rationally objective rather than subjective - based on anecdotes from your gay “friends and acquaintances” - that would be even better! :cheers:


A.
I don't know if Lion is married or intends to be married one day, but if so I pity his wife because she will have married a man who admits he "cannot think of any difference" between the special relationship enjoyed by married couples and their families, and that of an "ordinary" friendship or romance such as you might have with a flatmate or a drunken work colleague at the staff Christmas do!

Poor Mrs Lion! She might as well just meet him down the pub for a drink and a quick grope every Friday night as waste her effort on formally declaring her commitment to him before friends, family and the law, as Lion can apparently see no difference between these arrangements!

Does Lion really need me to provide him with a list differences between marriage and a simple friendship?

If he insists I do, then perhaps he is not qualified to debate the merits of prohibiting marriage for those who do desire it, when he admits he can not think what marriage is actually for!

---------------------------------------------------

Q.
The Australian Marriage Act unequivocally defines marriage as "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life".

Despite the complete lack of the mention of the word "children", Lion has convinced himself for some reason that the legal definition of marriage (which is, after all, what this debate is about) means "having children".

Lion is obsessed with enforcing this imagined requirement of his onto all couples who wish to marry...
A new biological family. We are starting the process over again. We repeat as necessary to avoid species extinction. How does it “work” asks the biologist? How do the biological/anatomical jigsaw pieces fittogether?


He opines that the state regulates marriage...
because of its ostensible connection to the stability of the family unit


So, my question to Lion is this...

Can Lion explain precisely how opposite-sex couples' ability to raise their own children will be affected if some gay people get married?
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 39
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Debate : Gay marriage should not be legalised in society

#24  Postby Lion IRC » May 14, 2012 8:21 am

stijndeloose Crocodile Gandhi wrote:
So, my question to Lion is this...

Can Lion explain precisely how opposite-sex couples' ability to raise their own children will be affected if some gay people get married?



Thats pretty rich. You’re asking me a question about “gay marriage” and you couldn’t even explain gay marriage in answer to my last question.

You couldn’t explain what secular interest The State has in formally legalising “gay marriage” when it has no interest in doing so with ordinary platonic friendships and romantic liaisons elsewhere in society? You couldn’t give an answer to that simple question – a secular question - asking how The State could distinguish between “A” and “B” (Not even one example of the difference.) Eg. The State has an interest in legally differentiating between gay married couples and gay unmarried couples because……? :dunno:

Now, I’ll give you a half a dozen reasons in answer to your question.

And I’ll be a heterosexual spokesperson on behalf of the basic social unit – the family – consisting of opposite gender parents procreating and raising their OWN biologically related offspring in the context of a gender-balanced relationship commitment traditionally known as marriage.

Your question is premised on the unsupported, unproven notion that…"our gay marriage doesn’t affect you."

1. If that really were true, you wouldn’t need to ask The State for permission to get “married”. Nobody would need to ask. The State, the tax payers, the voters wouldn’t care. If marriage and divorce had absolutely no impact on society now or in the future, there would be no matrimonial law at all. But marriage does affect society and there are very strong moral landscape reasons for its status as an institution.

2. SSM necessitates a change in the functional definition of marriage. And the dubious “mind your own business” claim that “my personal style of marriage doesn’t affect you” is a claim which could just as easily be made by an incestuous father wanting to marry his own daughter, or supporters of polygamy, or someone who wants a unique “arrangement” with a goat, (you said it not me,) or someone who wants to lower the marriageable age to 12 years. Your gay marriage will affect me and my society when it acts as a thin-edge of the wedge, logical and legal precedent for others who also want access to that benefits package called “Marriage Equality”. Remember, a key element of the “Gay Marriage” debate is the lack of clear understanding about who exactly is claiming to be discriminated against on a vast spectrum of psycho-sexual diversity – bisexuality? transvestites? pre-Op/post-Op transgenderism?

3. Your gay marriage affects me and my society because, by your own admission, one of its primary objectives differs markedly from heterosexual marriage. Namely, it seeks to validate homosexual behavior in the face of a perceived stigma. Heterosexuals aren’t motivated to enter into marriage in order to validate their preference for heterosexual sex. And to that extent, your gay marriage isn’t just an adults only, privacy of your own home, mind your own business affair at all. It’s about kids TV shows like Glee (produced by adults) which push a none-too-subtle agenda to children like the 7 year old mentioned earlier in the debate. It’s about politically correct (sexualizing) agendas being pushed on children who watch Sesame Street to have Bert and Ernie scripted into a “gay marriage” to normalize something in the minds of children – most of whom are at the age where elementary concepts like where babies come from are still asexual.

4. Your gay marriage affects me and my society because “we the people” recognise (as you do) that homosexuals have a statistically higher incidence mental illness, personality disorder and self-harm. We (the people) find persuasive evidence that same-sex partnerships are statistically prone to higher rates of infidelity, domestic violence and historically higher rates of HIV/AIDS than the heterosexual population. Now, The State in many jurisdictions allows lawful discrimination and screening driver’s license applicants for less significant factors than these. Therefore society has a stake in guarding against the potential consequences - social pathologies - of changing the law. It is a plain reality that the interests of “the many” prevail over the wishes of “the few”.

5. There is ample (statistically persuasive) evidence that childhood development outcomes are much more favorable for children raised by (their) two biologically related, opposite gender, sufficiently committed to remain with one another for the period from conception to adult maturity. Every arrangement deficient in one or more of these elements is sub-optimal to the welfare of the child. Your same-sex marriage which seeks validation of homosexuality as one motivation, affects me to the same extent ALSO as does the same-sex adoption of children which likewise seeks to validate and alleviate a perceived homosexual social stigma! The welfare of children and their entitlement to a gender-balanced upbringing, for which their TWO biological parents are responsible, is regarded by society as a right which, in increasing numbers of jurisdictions, children are deemed to have FROM CONCEPTION. And The State – rightly concerned about the long term moral landscape – is correct to put short term, hedonistic libertarianism well down the list of social priorities and instead, give greater due diligence to holistic social welfare. The democratic State is NOT an ignorant frog sitting in a pot of gradually heating water – we have elections. We have choices. And if New York and Norway want to act as gay marriage “ghetto” jurisdictions then guess what opponents of SSM say to that?

6. Your gay marriage affects me because I am one of the billions of your fellow human beings who make up the broader culture of religion which, in large part (Abrahamic Monotheism) collectively exercises the cultural prerogative to view certain behavior, (in this case yours) as something contrary to our religious convictions. And we don’t accept your unsupported, faith-based assertion regarding the non-existence of divine higher beings, extra-terrestrial realms of existence (afterlife/parallel universes) and the absence of a transcendent, objective Moral Law. So when you presume to displace our Ten Commandment family values, such as honoring ones mother (singular) AND father (singular) and our biblical disdain for adultery and instead try to elevate a “Dan Savage” moral law code of your own, which permits and promotes homosexuality, you must surely know therefore that there will be an affect in both directions and an effect on both sides.
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
User avatar
Lion IRC
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 4077

Print view this post

Re: Debate : Gay marriage should not be legalised in society

#25  Postby Lion IRC » May 14, 2012 8:25 am

Q & A ROUND

Q. 5

My last question of the round is about bigotry. And it’s a question arising from my despair at how people, who take the position I do in debates like these, are so quickly and so frequently dismissed as nothing but homophobes and in the case of same sex marriage proponents who are atheists, the additional charge labeled against me is that my opposition to same sex marriage (and adoption) is solely based on religion.

Now I don’t regard myself as homophobic. And although the Moderators, thankfully, have allowed my posts to proceed (presumably in compliance with this forum’s strict policy and rigorous Moderation to preventing homophobic content,) I would like to ask if you could give a personal opinion about the degree to which my posts thus far have been or otherwise NOT been overtly “homophobic” in nature.

Perhaps you could let me know if you thought I was camouflaging some hidden hatred too well for you to identify any specific examples or maybe you think I was accidentally saying stuff you think reflects homophobia or maybe you actually wish to come out and make a formal accusation with an example.

That’s my invitation and my question.
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
User avatar
Lion IRC
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 4077

Print view this post

Re: Debate : Gay marriage should not be legalised in society

#26  Postby Crocodile Gandhi » May 15, 2012 2:24 am

Lion IRC wrote:Q & A ROUND

Q. 5

My last question of the round is about bigotry. And it’s a question arising from my despair at how people, who take the position I do in debates like these, are so quickly and so frequently dismissed as nothing but homophobes and in the case of same sex marriage proponents who are atheists, the additional charge labeled against me is that my opposition to same sex marriage (and adoption) is solely based on religion.

Now I don’t regard myself as homophobic. And although the Moderators, thankfully, have allowed my posts to proceed (presumably in compliance with this forum’s strict policy and rigorous Moderation to preventing homophobic content,) I would like to ask if you could give a personal opinion about the degree to which my posts thus far have been or otherwise NOT been overtly “homophobic” in nature.

Perhaps you could let me know if you thought I was camouflaging some hidden hatred too well for you to identify any specific examples or maybe you think I was accidentally saying stuff you think reflects homophobia or maybe you actually wish to come out and make a formal accusation with an example.

That’s my invitation and my question.


Well that depends on what you mean by homophobia. Usually when I see it thrown around this discussion board it is used to mean a hatred of gay people or homosexuality. I don't think you hate gay people. And I'm none too pleased that you apparently assume that I do.

What I think your posts in this debate have made very clear is that you feel threatened by gay people. That you feel threatened by gay marriage. Frankly, I think it scares the shit out of you.

What does two blokes or two chicks getting married seem to mean to you? It apparently means that folks will also be marrying 12 year olds. It means that disease and dysfunction will be rampant. It means that Glee will be flamboyant. It means that your lawyers friends will be run off their feet. It means that everyone will stop having children and the human species will cease to exist!

These are all your words, Lion (not your exact words; settle down). And I think the thing that must really scare you, the thing that must keep you awake at night, is that it is going to be legal in Australia in your lifetime. And you're going to have to deal with it. So perhaps a couple of dudes getting hitched will affect you. But it won't be their fault. It will be entirely yours.

-------------------------------------------

For my final question, I would like to draw your attention to something that you said to another member in a PM.

Lion, you once said...

Lion IRC wrote:Hi CookieJon,

Scripture affords me the understanding that some people are born gay - made that way by God.

It does not however afford me - as far as I can prayerfully discern - the ability to see gay marriage as something God approves of. I'm sorry we dont agree on that. Maybe thats because I dont as yet understand His Word as well as I ought to and for that reason I wont ever stop asking Him.

Peace be with you.

Lion (IRC)


(my underline)

So my question is this...

Q. If He was to answer you and say that gay marriage is ok, would you support same-sex marriage in spite of all of the arguments that you have presented? Yes or no please.

-------------------------------------

Edit: Lion has asked that I reproduce the entirety of his PM. In case you can't spot the additions, I have added the salutation "Hi Cookiejon," and the farewell "Peace be with you. Lion (IRC)".
If I believe in heaven I deny myself a death. Dying keeps me conscious of the way I waste my breath - Cosmo Jarvis
User avatar
Crocodile Gandhi
RS Donator
 
Name: Dave
Posts: 4142
Age: 29
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Debate : Gay marriage should not be legalised in society

#27  Postby Lion IRC » May 17, 2012 6:46 am

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:Q. If He was to answer you and say that gay marriage is ok, would you support same-sex marriage in spite of all of the arguments that you have presented? Yes or no please.


Come on Crocodile Gandhi.

If you want a yes or no answer, don’t ask loaded, ambiguous, hypothetical, Euthyphro dilemma questions. I’m happy to give a one word answer but you’re an atheist and your question implies the actual existence of God.

God can’t say gay marriage is OK unless He exists.

Am I supposed to accept that God has changed His mind? Would I be allowed to haggle with God? Should I be cautious in case it should happen to be satan saying that rather than God? What if hearing God say that altered my entire theology leading me to think that God had abdicated His moral leadership and was no longer the sort of God anyone should take seriously?)

I mean come on…let's be fair to the readers! :cheers:

Besides, you’re not playing fair against me either. In my opening post I said “…I am a biblical theist and regard God as ultimate law-giver, in this debate I will NOT be using...”because God” as an Argumentum ad Baculum.”

Now you are doing EXACTLY that - using a commandment from God as an argumentum ad baculum against ME!

But in the spirit of amicable dialogue and so that you don’t feel your question was a waste of time, let me again answer a less ambiguous form of the question…in one word.

If I genuinely believed that I was hearing the authoritative voice of the God of Abraham instructing me that (irrespective of what He had previously said,) I was to trust Him as Lord and henceforth publicly support gay marriage for the simple reason that I had been told to, then in one word – YES - I would obey God.
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
User avatar
Lion IRC
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 4077

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Closing comments - Lion IRC

#28  Postby Lion IRC » May 17, 2012 6:48 am

For someone acting as a spokesperson asserting gay rights, my opponent sure seems to lack awareness of his constituency.

Let’s review his authority on the topic.

(Q5) Homophobia?
“...depends on what you mean by homophobia...”

[Oh NOW definitions matter? “pros hen legomenon”]


(Q4) What differentiates marriages (regulated by the State) from (gay) romantic associations which the secular State effectively ignores as inconsequential to the otherwise vested interests of the State?
“.............................”
[I can hear crickets chirping in the background.] :whistle:


(Q3) Unbalanced gender SSM from a child’s point of view. Any biological difference, long term developmental/welfare outcomes?
“...Not necessarily...”

[was that a yes or a no?]


(Q2) Estimate how many or how few gay people feel so stigmatized that they’d give anything to be “straight” if they thought they could change. [SSM as a palliative for depression/mental illness?]
“...I truthfully do not have a clue what percentage of gay individuals may wish to be straight...”


(Q1) Any good reason to discriminate against bisexual/transgender/polygamous marriage (MMF/MMM/FFM/MFFF) and not monogamous (couples only) gay marriage?
“No.”

[LOL What slippery slope?]


Arguments in favour of SSM? (Other than...permit everything if you can’t decide whether or not it’s bad)
“...I will limit the number of arguments I make in favour of legalising gay marriage...”
“...the information that I have long been searching for - could there possibly be a worthwhile reason not to allow gay marriage?”


Even the area he seemed to know most about was detrimental to his own case :scratch:

The problem is that people LGBT community are more likely to have mental health issues, ranging from depression to suicide. The National survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that homosexual/bisexual people are:

•more likely to have had a chronic condition in the last 12 months (51.3% v. 46.9%)
•twice as likely to have a high/very high level of psychological distress (18.2% v. 9.2%)
•almost 3 times as likely to have had suicidal thoughts (34.7% v. 12.9%)
•5 times as likely to have had suicidal plans (17.1% v. 3.7%)
•4 times as likely to have attempted suicide (12.6% v. 3.1%) .


The only thing presented in terms of evidence from SSM jurisdictions was an ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE.
(Come back in 50 years and show how these gay marriage ghetto jurisdictions have fared.)

Sorry Croc, I didn’t find you a very articulate/authoritative spokesperson for the cause you are representing.

But you did your best and I thank you for stepping up to this debate – unlike some other forum members who declined the invitation. Thank also to rationalskepticism.org (LIFE) and Durro for agreeing to host and Moderate such a contentious albeit worthwhile debate.

In this debate I have challenged Croc’s notion of discrimination. Homosexuality/bisexuality/bi-curious is not a gender. And matrimonial laws exist to regulate the gender balance of that institution for a very specific reason. It’s the same reason why matrimonial law also regulates identity, consanguinity, age and committed monogamous intent.

I presented a well-evidenced example of short-sighted governments in the 60/70’s changing marriage laws, (redefining commitment,) and the related link to social dysfunction - domestic violence, poverty, child abuse, crime, drug abuse, mental illness, etc. as marriage breakdown increases. No religious/morality arguments. Just reminding readers that State (and private sector) funding pays for these social pathologies when the definition of marriage isn’t taken seriously
– especially by MEN.

The children of all those broken marriages, growing up amid that social dysfunction (go back and look at the stats) are now, in their adulthood, answering surveys about the definition of marriage.

Growing up in contentious, sub-minimal, single-parent, divorcing households - in a gender-imbalanced family, lacking familiar role models – they are now the very people whose views on the value/definition of marriage amount to…“I cant think of any good reason…”

And I didn’t play the “God-card” once. (Shame on me.)

The UN concept of religious “rights” isn’t about the existence of God(s) – it’s about the very real existence of HUMAN RELIGIOUS CULTURE and there’s an obvious head-on collision when competing forces are mutually exclusive
...in logic, in biology and at law.

:)
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
User avatar
Lion IRC
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 4077

Print view this post

Re: Debate : Gay marriage should not be legalised in society

#29  Postby Crocodile Gandhi » May 19, 2012 8:55 pm

In summing up his arguments, Lion confidently concludes...

Lion IRC wrote:And I didn’t play the “God-card” once.


It seems that his confidence is misplaced, because when all his other arguments are discarded, the "God-card" remains as Lion's only consistent argument against same-sex marriage whether he thinks he made it or not.

Lion argued that previous changes to marriage law with regard to divorce created unintended consequences. I demonstrated that this is irrelevant to whether we should allow same-sex couple to marry. Lion argued that changing the definition of marriage would lead to an increased workload on lawyers and lawmakers. I demonstrated that his logic should lead him to not want any laws changed - a clearly absurd position. Lion argued that it is alright to discriminate against some individuals. I demonstrated that the discrimination he seeks is unfair discrimination. Lion argued that allowing same-sex marriage could lead to all sorts of people (and animals) marrying eachother. I explained that he failed to demonstrate how allowing opposite-sex marriage doesn't also create that slippery slope. Lion argued that homosexuality leads to all sorts of social, mental and physical dysfunction. I used his own statistics to demonstrate that allowing same-sex marriage could alleviate such problems. Lion argued I was arguing for a change to the definition of marriage. I explained that lawmakers are constantly changing definitions, even where the object of the definition is steeped in tradition.

At the start of the debate I claimed that Lion would not be able to produce a single good reason not to allow same-sex marriage. The above summary (which excludes many of the wholly irrelevant arguments Lion made) clearly demonstrates this to be the case. As I have stated a few times throughout the debate, I believe this to be enough to allow same-sex marriage; however, I also provided arguments for the benefits of same-sex marriage the negatives of not allowing it. I argued that denial of same-sex marriage represents unfair discrimination and feeds into a stigma against gay people that can be harmful. I also argued that allowing same0sex marraige could have psychological and economic benefits.

Lion's position is so untenable, even to himself, that his response to a "yes or no" question involved writing 169 words, followed by completely re-wording the question! The only other question he actually answered also required that he re-word the question.

Lion's parting gift was to happily undermine every argument he made...

Lion IRC wrote:If I genuinely believed that I was hearing the authoritative voice of the God of Abraham instructing me that (irrespective of what He had previously said,) I was to trust Him as Lord and henceforth publicly support gay marriage for the simple reason that I had been told to, then in one word – YES - I would obey God.


Lion admitted that all of the arguments that he presented are completely subject to his subjective belief of what God wants. So while Lion may not have explicitly played the "God card", he has shown that none of his arguments matter, as all he depends on is the answer he believes he is receiving when he asks God the pertinent question.

So, based on the arguments provided from both sides of this debate, should we allow same-sex marriage? Of course we should.
If I believe in heaven I deny myself a death. Dying keeps me conscious of the way I waste my breath - Cosmo Jarvis
User avatar
Crocodile Gandhi
RS Donator
 
Name: Dave
Posts: 4142
Age: 29
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Debate : Gay marriage should not be legalised in society

#30  Postby Durro » May 20, 2012 1:15 am

and with that,

Debate ends

:cheers:

Please click here to view the comments thread and to vote on who won the debate and if the participants managed to sway your opinion.
I'll start believing in Astrology the day that all Sagittarians get hit by a bus, as predicted.
User avatar
Durro
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 16736
Age: 52
Male

Country: Brisbane, Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Debate : Gay marriage should not be legalised in society

#31  Postby Lion IRC » May 25, 2012 7:37 pm

Thanks again for hosting the debate.
Time to lock the thread?
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
User avatar
Lion IRC
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 4077

Print view this post

Re: Debate : Gay marriage should not be legalised in society

#32  Postby Durro » May 25, 2012 11:07 pm

Yes.

Thread locked.
I'll start believing in Astrology the day that all Sagittarians get hit by a bus, as predicted.
User avatar
Durro
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 16736
Age: 52
Male

Country: Brisbane, Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron