Welcome to the formal debate on the subject, "Gay marriage should not be legalised in society".

Lion IRC will be arguing in the affirmative.
Crocodile Gandhi will be arguing in the negative.

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.
(Videos specifically excluded from debate)
* 5 question Q&A interrogatory prior to concluding remarks :
* Conclusion of no more than 500 words each

The participants will have a 3 day post turnaround (72 hours to submission deadline) from their opponent's last post. The Debate Mod will review and approve/address submitted posts within 24 hours of their submission.

Moderation will be by Durro.

A post-debate poll will be conducted to gauge the quality and persuasiveness of the debate. A separate comments thread is located here. This thread is only for the participants to post in and any other posts submitted will not be approved.

I wish both participants well and I look forward to a productive, mature debate on the issues.

Lion IRC has been invited to make the opening for the affirmative side.

Thank you very much to rationalskepticism.org for this formal debate opportunity. Thank you also Crocodile Gandhi, and you who are reading, for your tacit acknowledgement that there are TWO sides to this debate.

There’s a word which describes the judging of someone’s position as wrong without even knowing the REASONS why
they hold that position.

...it’s called bigotry.

I will be presenting arguments which fall within 4 main categories :

* Legal
* Philosophical
* Biological
* Religious culture

All of these can be encapsulated in one sentence.

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife:
and they shall be one flesh.”
(Genesis 2:24)

I will be arguing from the legal notion that marriage (mat•ri•mo•ny From Latin mātrimōnium/māter mother,) is a foundation institution in society and that the weight of legal authority – imprimatur – for its existence in a legally-defined form, is variously backed by either;

- A mandate of the masses (ie. Democracy,)

- The military power of prevailing totalitarian rule (ie. Kingdom/Empire/Soviet,)

- And/or ultimately, the unimpeachable law of nature (aka Mother Nature/Celestial Dictator/God.)

Marriage is inseparable from family law.

And the function (or dysfunction) of the family unit is inseparable from The Law in its entirety.

Dysfunctional families and the consequences thereof, cannot be ignored by the society which defines dysfunction.

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.

I will be exploring the 3 P’s function of law - Prohibits, Permits, Promotes - and offering examples of judicial activism and emerging case law.

In the area of general philosophy, I will be exploring the defective logic used by proponents of same-sex marriage (SSM) and inspecting every word of Crocodile Gandhi’s debate posting to expose any such logical fallacies.

For example....the Argumentum ad Misericordiam (poor homosexuals.) Or The Presumption Fallacy (it’s inevitable..why bother opposing it?) “…Some day, same-sex couples in Australia will have the legal right to marry. That is inevitable…”

Or the Special Pleading ”... It must be open to all Australians, regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Logic and reason are the main drivers of philosophy and I want readers to please understand that, whilst 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.

Is the divine Creator obligated to justify His laws with a well-reasoned, (pleading,) explanation in the hope that we will be more obedient? Nope. But that doesn’t mean there is NO good reasoning for the naturally selected laws we see governing human anatomy and behaviour.

I will wait to see if my opponent concedes to the logic that, as a species, We – capital “W” - are “born that way”. We procreate “that way”. We structure our social institutions “that way”.

...and We THINK “that way”.

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? I submit that there is no good reason not to legalise gay marriage. 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.

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.

Throughout the debate I will limit the number of arguments I make in favour of legalising gay marriage. My role will be to demonstrate that all of the arguments made against it are insufficient so as to prevent it from occurring. I believe that through his arguments, my opponent will be unable to demonstrate that legalising gay marriage will have any material and/or relevant effect on anyone other than the individuals getting married.

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. Lion has already foreshadowed that he plans to argue with respect to family and procreation. This is one of the most common and least relevant arguments. 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. 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.

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. I don't believe that any "We" Lion is referring to (royal or otherwise) includes myself, many members of the forum, and many people outside of it.

SECOND POST - LION IRC

Reactionary Judges in the past have argued the need for a strident line in the sand against liberalised marriage laws.

See this example of a Supreme Court Judge who, in his (conservative) judgment, gave a spirited defence of the virtues of [ [ REDACTED ] ] as being a fundamental principle of western civilisation.

He said that "the preservation of [ [ REDACTED ] ] marriage"...“represents a pressing and substantial objective for all of the reasons that have seen the ascendance of [ [ REDACTED ] ] marriage as a norm in the West,” and that “the law seeks to advance the institution of [ [ REDACTED ] ] marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times.”

He also launched an all-out attack on the concept of [ [ REDACTED ] ] , which he said “has been condemned throughout history because of the harms consistently associated with its practice”. “There is no such thing as so-called ‘good [ [ REDACTED ] ] ’", he added.

Before you question His Honour’s thinking as out-dated, last century, bigoted, homophobic, etc. I point out that the judgment was from November 2011 not 1911. 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.

The five redacted words, in order, are;



Chief Justice Bauman British Columbia supreme court.


I mentioned 4 thematic categories - Legal, Philosophical, Biological and Religious culture - which can be encapsulated into the one convenient sentence which I am going to cover in as much detail as 4,500 words will allow.

Read it without the Chapter and Verse reference.

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”


* This sentence connotes Legality in the sense that it quite obviously appears as a declaration of what shall be. That is a function of what Governments, (with or without mandates) do. They declare what shall be or shall not be. Let’s debate before we legislate rather than litigate after it’s too late.


* The Philosophy is invited, from the very first word – “therefore”. We are talking about a proposition which arises...
from REASON – from the thinking Mind. Note how the philosophers are also drawn, almost immediately, to whats called “pros hen legomenon” that are embedded in the sentence and which, in a (Platonic) sense, need to be grasped epistemologically and individually. What really ARE the “things” we are debating? What do these words – man/wife/father/mother – actually mean? Is there a “category” in there somewhere? Man/mother/father/family? Man now leaves his childhood family and does what? Joins as one with his wife and she with her husband as “one”. One what?


* Enter Biology One “what” asks the philosopher? 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? Is there a gene for heterosexuality? The sentence from Genesis describes a biological process which cannot be ignored in this debate.


* Finally, we come to Religious Culture. What’s got to do with religion? Not much apart from our apparently innate (born that way) habit of asking “what ought we to do” questions and trying to derive “moral landscape” answers. Religion is ubiquitous. Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man”) has a culture of religion. So much so that the human right to religion is enshrined. 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. 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?

One of the “gay marriage” considerations in the mind of constitutional lawyers, family law specialists, human rights lawyers, etc. will be the increased workload.

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.



Why?

Because a simple change in marriage law didn’t make things simpler at all.

No fault divorce didn’t result in less legal conflict.

Making it easier to get divorced didn’t cost one lawyer their job.

On the contrary.

In Australia the proportion of single-parent families with children sky-rocketed.

12% in 1980;

15% in 1990;

20% in 1997

21% in 2008.

The more “tolerant” marriage rules worked.

Men were finding it MUCH easier to marry whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted
.....and to leave the marriage whenever they wanted.

In 1960, approximately 4.8% of Australian babies were born outside of marriage.

In 2008 that number had reached 34.4%


Which Australian political party, when in Government, made this phenomenal change to marriage law?

The Australian Labor Party. - The one which in its amended (pro-gay marriage) platform now ironically calls marriage…
“a mutual commitment to a shared life…”

In these charts and stats we see commitment going down and divorce rates [b]going up.

Assets were being divided up – not shared.

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.

In 2004, that number had more than doubled.


An ominous warning.




A widely cited Brookings Institute study found that $229 billion in US Government welfare expenditure between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture.

The Oracle of Delphi wrote: : “Almost all cultures that recognize marriage, also recognize adultery as a violation of the terms of marriage.

Aren’t we simply making marriage more complex, more amorphous, less recognisable by anyone other than A LAWYER?




Civil marriage law litigation is more complex today – not less.

We are fighting now more than ever over custody, fighting in courts over anonymous sperm donations, arguing about the rights of unknown parents/absent parents/single parents, arguing over discrimination in favour of or against de facto marriage, challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples…

As social dysfunction - domestic violence, poverty, child abuse, crime, drug abuse, mental illness – related to marriage breakdown increases, State (and private sector) spending on these social pathologies must increase.

As it turned out, politicians and judges, (who are effectively also lawyers), who naively thought that legal restrictions on getting married, (and similar legal hurdles on getting unmarried) made people think more carefully before actually getting married, were right. Social experiments are expensive.

What will the lawyers do with social policy legislation which further widens and relaxes the legal definition of matrimony?

Make a living. ....arguing about whatever we pay them to argue about.

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.

This is how case law works and these are “ought” questions” – political science.

We pay them to argue about…
-whether The Law allows Cyber marriage


- Statutory waiting periods for when applying for permission to marry.

- Statutory waiting periods of legal separation prior to Decree Nisi. (A Decree Nisi is a provisional decree used in many “Magna Carta” jurisdictions, when a court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to file for a divorce.

-Whether someone is or is not a legally authorized marriage celebrant.

- The legal definition of cohabitation.

- One Judge versus seven million Californians

- Dysfunctional families pay family law solicitors to argue about custody - of the furniture, the fridge, the TV, of the dogs and the cats in the cradle and the silver spoons.

- the requirement to be physically present at your marriage *cough* ceremony?

- the requirement to prove your identity in order to get married?

- The person wanting (the State’s) permission to marry who can’t or chooses not to disclose the identity of their parents?

- the States right to demand proof that a person isn’t already legally married in another jurisdiction before it grants a (second?) marriage certificate?

- the United States right to prevent a visiting 14 year old girl, legally married in South Africa (by the State) from having consensual sex with her 50 year old South African husband while in America?
Is the answer… “why not?” or “of course not” ?

Call a lawyer. But first read…

Article 13.
“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

This is a debate about the legal definition of matrimony.

Does anyone seriously think things will get BETTER if we multiply matrimonial complexity X sexual orientation X polygamy X gay adoption?

My opponent says “I will limit the number of arguments I make in favour of legalising gay marriage.”

It’s a remarkable offer.

But actually, it will be me limiting the number of Crocodile Gandhi’s pro-gay marriage arguments.


BTW…

Post # 2 Citations & Links

In The Supreme Court Of British Columbia In the Matter of: The Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1986, c 68
Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman Ratio Decidendi November 23, 2011.
Viewable online at http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC1588.htm (Last visited 3/4/2012)

Genesis 2:24 The Holy Bible King James Version: 1611 Edition (Readily accessible online)
Eg. http://bibledatabase.net/html/kjv/index.html)

WHAT IS MARRIAGE? 2010 Sherif Girgis, (Co –authored - Robert P. George, & Ryan T. Anderson) Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 34 Viewable on-line at http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/archive/ (last visited 19/4/2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage (Last visited 19/4/2012)

http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/1999/snp2000.aspx (Last visited 19/4/2012)

Perry V. Schwarzenegger. 704 F. United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit. Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Michael Daly Hawkins, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/ ... icus12.pdf (Last visited 25/3/2012)

!	GENERAL MODNOTE Crocodile 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. Therefore, I shall submit his approved post on his behalf. Durro

I recently heard a man in the street make a spirited defense of gay marriage.

He said, "All people in society should be [REDACTED]. When this does not occur, society inevitably declines toward [REDACTED]. It is only in the absence of [REDACTED] that we will faulter as a species. 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. And the man speaking those words was, of course, homeless and stark raving mad.

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. Aside from the fact that we not debating the merits of monagamy/polygamy, the words spoken by Chief Justice Bauman only serve to support same-sex marriage, which is a monogamous union.

In my opening post I stated that I would be arguing that there is no good reason not to allow gay marriage. I also stated that the arguments that my opponent proposed were likely to be largely irrelevant with respect to the debate topic. It looks like I was not far wrong with this prediction.

So, let's take a look at some of Lion's arguments. The main thrust of Lion's post seems to be an agrument from increased workload. It is almost certainly true that legalising gay marriage will increase the overall workload of legislators, public servants, marriage celebrants and lawyers. So fucking what? It is necessarliy true that workplace saftey laws vastly increase the workload of companies to ensure the safety of their workers, yet such laws have also have the beneficial effect of vastly decreasing the number of deaths and injuries in the workplace (http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/history/index.htm). In the area of social change, the workload of legislators and lawyers were vastly increased by changes in Australian law in 1967. The effect of this change was that the Commonwealth was able to know make laws with respect to aboriginal people, as well as counting them in the census, whereas previously they were "counted" under the Flora and Fauna Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian ... boriginals)). 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. I stated previously that gay marriage does not materially affect anyone. It appears that Lion has proved me wrong. Gay marriage, it seems, may make lawyers some more money. 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.

Lion argues that allowing gay marriage will tie up the courts. He also cites the case of Judge Walker's decision ("one judge versus 7 million Californians"). 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. This is clearly nonsense. 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. 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). If changed, it would be also be for two men or two women. So confusing. 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. The verse for which I apparently cannot ignore the consequences of trying to re-word. Of course, I wonder how Lion feels about those who work on Sundays re-wording the Ten Commandments. Unless he wants that to be illegal too. 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. Why is this? 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. It is what I would call 'unfair discrimination'. There are some areas in which we discriminate, yet that is because there is good reason to do so. For example, not allowing convicted murderers to become policemen. Of course, we don't often refer to this as dscrimination. 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. And, if Lion thinks that such unfair discrimination is negated by the existence of civil unions (even those which carry with them all of the rights of marriage), I would ask Lion to explain whether or not he is supportive of this image: http://www.sistasthemusical.com/images/ ... -equal.jpg

Lion's disingenuous position so far throughout this debate has saddened me greatly. 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.

Someone is changing his stand-still “chess” strategy in this formal debate.

But he only announces this in the very last sentence of a 1300 word post.

“… For this reason, my future posts will include more positive arguments for gay marriage…”

Positive arguments. Future posts

…and THEN Lion IRC will offer rebuttals in reply.

Topic - Gay Marriage Should NOT Be Legalized in Society

I have three substantive posts (4,500 words) to make in this debate.

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.

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. 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.
…then one of society’s self-interest considerations will be the reasoning or lack thereof, to allow one “type” and not another.

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.

dis•crim•i•nate v.
1. a. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
1. b. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.

dis•crim•i•nate v.tr.
1. To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: discriminate right from wrong.

Some in the peanut gallery audience seem surprised that I didn’t come out with any “STOP THE GAYS NOW!” placards, guns blazing, firing off a barrage of anti-homosexuality points in my first post.

Tough! This debate is too important to get lost in the mire of persecution complexes and straw argument agenda-whoring - an off-topic, paranoid and ignorant polemic divide.

…you’re a homophobe, am not, are too, am not…



Besides, we haven’t even gotten to the part of the debate where we must try to define ideas like tri-gender, androgyne, intersexuality, third gender, third sex, fourth gender, androphilia, eunuch, transsexual, pangender, trigenderism etc. (And whether any of these qualify as personality disorders rather than the sort of orientation or self-expression which people “born that way” might claim demands equal tolerance from society.




It's not a… “them and us”, gay versus straight dichotomy.

And those who say the law discriminates against “gay people” can’t even objectively (or legally) explain where exactly on the spectrum of psycho-sexual preference/behavior, the word heterosexual ceases to apply and the word “gay” commences.




This debate is about the definition of a foundational institution in society – marriage - and the critical importance of
“The Law,” in how that institution is upheld, interpreted and/or changed.

Note the reference here in which legal observers point out a US District Court Judge’s statement of the bleeding obvious that...
"...same-sex marriage will not exist in this state unless and until the Minnesota Supreme Court overrules its own decision…”

Let’s continue with the theme of legal turmoil (and therefore social instability) which certainly resulted from prior changes to matrimonial law in the 60’s and 70’s, and the potential now, for even greater legal complexity arising from gender and sexual preference issues if “gay marriage” is legalised.

Note – At no point have I complained about the legal profession making a living. Nor have I any issue with party politics. The Law and Government are necessary social institutions that I would also defend. In fact, my opening post clearly emphasizes the necessity and magisterial superiority of The Law – its imprimatur.

To summarize my arguments thus far;

A) Changes to matrimonial law can and do affect social pathologies negatively and unexpectedly.

B) Increased legal complexity opens the door to increased litigation.

C) Legislators of change in marriage law (reacting, for example, to short-term 1970’s zeitgeist and working within short term political/electoral cycles) seldom foresee all the consequences of what might “seem like a good idea at the time”

D) Increased litigation arising from contested [url=“ought questions” in society, plainly invites the legal profession to argue and consider matters for judgment on the basis of their own personal opinions and subjective bias. An activist judge is ENTITLED to exercise a prerogative where ambiguity in the law permits and/or where opposing counsel isn’t sufficiently vigorous in their respective ACTIVISM. Some lawyers are sufficiently motivated (for various reasons) that they are sometimes willing to work for free. 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. Changing heterosexual marriage law might be a cause célèbre for gay people whether prominent in the media or otherwise, but only the grossest hypocrite among them could deny that they are the only ones wanting to change matrimonial law.


Gay marriage activists, almost without waiting for the sentence to finish, screech on cue – “Slippery Slope Fallacy”

…oh don’t be ridiculous, that will never happen…everyone knows marriage is only between two people...everyone agrees you have to be over 14 years old to do THAT….”

My argument isn’t a slippery slope fallacy in logic. Here’s why.

To be such, it would have to suggest that;

“A” (change the marriage law),

…leading to

“B” (same-sex marriage)

…leads to

“C” (a specific thing which is arguably/morally undesirable.)

But “C” has not even been introduced into the argument yet.


Nor have I presupposed the grounds on which a hypothetical “C” is morally objectionable.

It might well be a perfectly "moral" thing to change the marriage laws and allow 13 year old girls to get married.

This legal change would certainly "tick all the boxes" according to the sweeping philosophical idea of “Marriage Equality for All” that the gay marriage lobby has taken as its mantra.




1. It’s a biological fact that some people can give birth at ages well below the statutory minimum. Born that way.

2. These are a statistical minority legally discriminated against.

3. An appeal to natural justice (if they can do it why can’t we?)

4. NOYB. (None of your business who I marry or why.)

And there’s plenty of lawyers willing to build their careers on ground-breaking legal cases which set precedents and facilitate judicial activism.




It isn’t what’s at the end of a slippery slope if marriage laws are legislatively widened or judicially re-interpreted that should concern us most.

It’s the fact that the slope itself really does exist.

Quite apart from what might be at the end, are we making it, with our legal tinkering, steeper, faster, shorter, more slippery than it already is?

Philosophical considerations.

Crocodile Gandhi says “…I have yet to come across a worthwhile argument against gay marriage.”

Logically, how then can he “demonstrate that all of the arguments made against it are insufficient…” if by his own acknowledgement he hasn't come across all of them?

As Adam Kolasinski quite rightly points out in The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

“...The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve...”

(I think he was talking to you Crocodile Gandhi!)

One of the first philosophical hurdles when “they” talk about “their” rights to gay marriage is the question...
who are “they”?

What is “gay”? Is this a discrete, clearly identifiable group?

No. it is not.

ORIENTATION


A person can assert their own preference for homosexual behaviour at anytime they like. All people? No. But that merely enforces my point still further.

Philosophically, the very existence of the word bisexual logically demonstrates that a person can have a homosexual orientation on Monday and a heterosexual orientation on Friday.

…oh come on Lion IRC, that’s not how bisexuals (they/them) think!

Really?

NOW who is stereotypically presuming to tell others how individual sexuality MUST be defined.

In formal logic, if a person can “discover” they are gay, the inference is [b]that same person might well later “discover” that they were not. [/b]

It’s perfectly understandable that a person might “discover” a previously unknown preference for homosexual behaviour
later in life...after having a heterosexual relationship, having intercourse, having children, getting divorced and then....





When a Judge asserts that there’s no evidence that an individual can change his or her sexual orientation through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method,. (See FF 46)

I ask, really?

The opponents of gender stereotyping /gender conditioning of young people argue that you CAN certainly imprint gender bias on a tabula rasa.

Sexual preference logically connotes voluntarily electing ones orientation.

The person who is voluntarily abstinent also exercises a sexual preference.

Rape trauma/sexual abuse victims frequently find they have a gender-based aversions which manifest as homosexual behaviour. In some cases, especially with young people, a cycle of repetition can develop in which they repeat the initial abnormal sexual behaviour or sexual violence themselves.
(See rape trauma pathology for more detail than can be covered here.)

And then there’s this….




Chris Birch suffered a stroke and awoke to discover he's gay. Picture: BBC Source:

The vast spectrum of sexual behaviour, orientation and proclivity has no clear line where "choice" stops and “born that way” compulsion begins.



This undermines the philosophical case for specifically "GAY" marriage.

Post # 3 Citations & Links

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discriminate
Last visited 23/4/2012

http://in.reuters.com/article/2009/12/2 ... BX20091223
“Pakistan's Supreme Court ordered authorities on Wednesday to allow transvestites and eunuchs to identify themselves as a distinct gender…” (Reuters - Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:36pm IST)
Last visited 23/4/2012

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... tation.png
Last visited 23/4/2012

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... -chart.png
Explanatory Gender/Orientation Matrix Infographic. (Commons.)
Last visited 21/4/2012

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/wp- ... Person.jpg
Explanatory Gender/Orientation Matrix Infographic. Last visited 21/4/2012
Reproduced with thanks to : http://www.itsponouncedmetrosexual.com (Great pic!)

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy ... age-ruling
Last visited 21/4/2012

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/worl ... 6331093461 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17703018 Last visited 21/4/2012
Chris Birch suffered a stroke and awoke to discover he was gay. Picture: from BBC Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay_movement Last visited 21/4/2012
"Ex-gay" is a term used to describe persons who once considered themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual, but who no longer assert that identity.

http://www.stayingnegative.net.au/previ ... story/jim/ Last visited 23/4/2012
Gay social media site. Jims story…”…I was pretty homophobic..”

http://www.pastposters.com/details.php? ... &keywords=
“The Birdcage” 1996 Remake of La Cage Aux Folles
Original Quad Poster - Film Poster - Movie Poster - Cinema Poster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birdcage
A night club owner who tries to play it straight when his son's fiancee brings her unsuspecting parents to meet him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa Last visited 23/4/2012
Tabula rasa - an epistemological theory. (Blank slate)

http://www.baldwins.com.au/a_passoff.php Last visited 23/4/2012
Passing off. The legal tort of deceptive and misleading trading. Attempting to pass off product B as it were the same “thing” as “A”.

!	GENERAL MODNOTE Crocodile Gandhi's next post

If Lion' s previous post was a trainwreck, then his most recent effort could only be described as the Challenger disaster. Aside from being quite difficult to read or comprehend, it ignores much of what I wrote in my previous post and continues to dwindle its way down a merry path of irrelevancy. I didn't think it could get worse than Argumentum ad Overtime-um.

Lion takes pain to remind us all of the definition of discrimination. Yet this completely ignores that I have already stated that laws can, do and should discriminate. I went on to talk about what I define as unfair discrimination and explained why I view the illegality of same-sex marriage as being unfair.

Lion investigated what 'gay' and 'hetero' really mean, whether there is a specturm, and whether we can classify anyone into any category. I merely wonder whether any of that really matters. And I'm pretty darn sure that it doesn't. Gay could be a term so amorphous as to mean literally nothing, and that still wouldn't change a damn thing. As it currently stands in many nations, a marriage is between a man and a woman. What I and other proponents would like to see is for the law to be changed to allow one woman to marry another woman, or one man to marry another man. Whether those men and women are full-blown homosexual, bisexual, or even heterosexual doesn't matter. The fact is that not allowing them to marry the person of their choice is discriminatory (unfairly discriminatory, if Lion needs me to spell it out again).

Lion also investigated the idea of homosexuality being a choice. He cites examples of people choosing to be or becoming gay. This is a red herring. Whether people are "born that way" is irrelevant. While I personally do not believe being gay is a choice, even if it was, that's no reason not to allow two people of the same sex to marry. That is, unless you can come up with a reason for why two people of the same sex choosing to be attracted to each other is wrong.

Lion explored the slippery slope fallacy. I couldn't give two figs whether Lion's argument amounts to a slippery slope fallacy. What bothers me is his profound misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the hypothetical slope. What Lion has failed to do is show how allowing gay marriage to occur opens the door to all these other types of marriage, yet allowing straight marriage to occur does not. Allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't opens the door to 14 year-olds marrying any more than allowing two people of opposite gender.

Lion's argument doesn't express why marriage law should not be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. It merely suggests that no laws should ever be changed. Lion hasn't presented any evidence to suggest that there will be a flood of extra claimants wanting to tweak the definition of marriage. Nor has he explained why there shouldn't be. There's no reason as to why anyone shouldn't be allowed to state their case for their desired definition of marriage, even if it were people wanting to marry goats. The test should be, as it should be in the case of gay marriage, whether there is good reason not to broaden the laws. If it's found that there is (such as the inability of the goat to consent to such an arrangement) then the law should not be broadened. If there isn't, then it should.

But that's enough of going over Lion's nonsense. I'll now further explore why gay marriage should be legalised.In many jurisdictions there are notable legal differences between civil unions and marriage. These range from tax benefits to hospital visitation rights and survivorship rights. These issues are compounded by the fact that a civil union that may be recognised by a particular jurisdiction may not be recognised by another jurisdiction within that same country. Unless those that argue against same-sex marriage can provide a decent reason for what makes a gay relationship less valid than a straight one, there should not be any differences in the legal benefits that are afforded to people in gay relationships. It's been clear that Lion has been unable to present any such reasons.

Lion and other opponents of gay marriage may argue that the correct remedy should be to grant civil unions all of the same rights as marriage. Yet such an arrangement would still not be equitable. By not allowing same-sex marriage, the idea that same-sex relationships are less than is created. That their love is less than heterosexual couples. That their bond is somehow less valid. Dividing the two groups based on nothing other than the gender of the people involved creates the stigma that there is something unusual or abnormal about gay relationships. Now, as I type this I can almost feel Lion jumping up and down saying "But they are abnormal! Most people are heterosexual." Leaving aside that by Lion's own admission it may be impossible to tell where straight ends and gay begins, it's rather clear that when people talk about homosexuality being unusual or abnormal, they are using the word as a perjorative. Particularly when those who argue against same-sex marriage and call homosexuals abnormal are likely to argue that it will open the door to beastiality (something that Lion has hinted at). This is a deeply offensive proposition. The idea that gay marriage is an open door to people fucking dogs, that gay relatonships are somehow an equivalent, base activity, only serves to highlight the disdain with which opponents of same-sex marriage view same-sex couples. It's easy to see how a stigma might be created when the proposition of gay marriage being made legal leads so many

So what's the problem with the stigma created by creating two classes of relationship - those who are worthy of marriage and those who aren't? 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%)

(http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/4326.0?OpenDocument)

Obviously this can not all be directly related to an absence of being allowed to get married to the person of their choice. However, by being seen as a seperate and unequal group in the eyes of the law, the stigma created feeds into such undesirable outcomes. It's not hard to imagine that a stigma exists when the mere idea of gay marriage possibly being legalised causes so many to state that it will be the very downfall of all civilisation.

The thing that perplexes me Lion's stance and argumentation, aside from the bizarre formatting and unusual use of logic, is why he wouldn't be overly supportive of same-sex marriage. It's clear that Lion holds marriage in high regard. Furthermore, it's clear that he believes that marriage is something that there should be more of, else he wouldn't have spent so long irrelevantly bemoaning the high rates and negative effects of divorce. And yet, among the gay community, there is a sub-set of people in committed relationships who desperately wish to be married and even more who desperately wish to be granted the right to get married to whoever they may become committed to. And despite this fact, Lion, a person who it appears wishes that more people were married than not, would deny them this. Even though there are people who wish to commit to eachother, celebrate their love and have it recognised as such by the law and the community, Lion would prefer that they remain seperate, remain unequal and remain stigmatised. Lion, if you love marriage so much, you should be wanting more people to do it, not less!

As I have stated throughout this debate, I do not believe there is a single good reason not to allow gay marriage to occur. This is, I believe, sufficient for it to be legalised, as not legalising it would represent unfair discrimination. Lion is worried that I have dismissed all arguments for gay marriage, even though I can't possibly have heard them all. This is true, I haven't heard all of the arguments. Yet one would think that given that Lion has only been afforded a few thousands words with which to plead his case, he would be utilising the best and most damning arguments. To which my only response would be - if this is the best you can come up with, how in the world do you expect me to believe that the all of the arguments you've chosen not to use would be in any way convincing?

In compliance with Croc’s request that we not talk “past one another”, I present this formal rebuttal of Crocodile Gandhi’s late-arriving (and well-camouflaged) arguments in the staccato style – I say / you say – commonly used here at rationalskepticism.org. (AKA “fisking”).

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.

This is self-refuting and circular.

Lion and other opponents of gay marriage may argue that the correct remedy should be to grant civil unions all of the same rights as marriage.

That’s a strawman fallacy. I don’t argue that. And I never have. You are either married or you’re not.

I submit that there is no good reason not to legalise gay marriage. 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.

I have presented reasons.

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.

My arguments go to the core of the debate topic.

* What does gay mean? Why allow that and not other types of marriage if equality matters?

* Matrimonial law. Reinvention of the wheel?

* The law – discrimination.

* Society – procreation/children/stability/religious culture.

I don't believe that any… This is because I believe that…I'm pretty darn sure that… While I personally do not believe… I believe that through his arguments … As I have stated throughout this debate, I do not believe there is… This is, I believe, sufficient for…

I don’t use the word “believe” in any of my arguments. Count how many times my opponent uses that word. … .

While Lion likely believes that…

Probability speculation…LOL. His own belief about what my belief is likely to be.

It appears that Lion has proved me wrong. Gay marriage, it seems, may make lawyers some more money.

Thanks.
Increased legal complexity increases litigation.

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.

Ad hominem inference (MADlibs)

“…heard a man in the street make a spirited defense of gay marriage.
…And the man speaking those words was, of course, homeless and stark raving mad.”

Set up a strawman, diagnose mental illness then knock it down.

…the arguments that my opponent proposed…likely to be largely irrelevant with respect to the debate topic….looks like I was not far wrong with this prediction…

Which is it?
Irrelevant or not?
Wrong or just not "far" wrong?

Lion then moved onto talking about divorce, which is entirely irrelevant to the proposition of allowing marriage...

Irrelevant to whom? Tax payers concerned with child welfare, alcoholism, depression, single parent families…?
Claiming that divorce is irrelevant to marriage law is ignorant.

…laws with respect to aboriginal people…

Yes. That was facilitated by a national referendum. (Plebiscite). Put gay marriage, bisexual polygamy, incestuous marriage, gay adoption, etc to a SECRET BALLOT referendum of the people.

Now, as I type this I can almost feel Lion jumping up and down saying "But they are abnormal! Most people are heterosexual.

Strawman fallacy. Projecting. Not my words.

Leaving aside that by Lion's own admission it may be impossible to tell where straight ends and gay begins,

Neither my admission nor assertion.

...it's rather clear that when people talk about homosexuality being unusual or abnormal, they are using the word as a perjorative [sic].

Strawman fallacy. Projecting. Not my words.

“…Lion's post seems to be an agrument [sic] from increased workload. It is almost certainly true that legalising gay marriage will increase the overall workload …”

Thanks.
Increased legal complexity increases litigation.

…So fucking what? It is necessarliy [sic] true that workplace saftey [sic] laws vastly increase the workload of companies…

This is not an argument for gay marriage...even with expletives.

The fact is that not allowing them to marry the person of their choice is discriminatory (unfairly discriminatory, if Lion needs me to spell it out again).

Got a spell checker?

…I believe that the paucity of value in the negative arguments is one of the greatest positive arguments”

A logically incoherent rationale. The perceived lack of argument against X is not the same as an actual argument in favor of X. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – unless you’re selling cigarettes or asbestos products. The SSM experiment has 9 years of evidence in jurisdictions which represent <1% of the worlds population.

As I said, even an argument he happens to think is “weak” is still AN argument.
And 100% better than no argument at all.

There are some areas in which we discriminate, yet that is because there is good reason to do so. For example, not allowing convicted murderers to become policemen.

Agreed.

…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…

Agreed.
And the corollary is that when the word “discriminate” is used in its primary context/meaning society has the right and the duty to do just THAT, (Discriminate - To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely. To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct)

Lion takes pain to remind us all of the definition of discrimination. Yet this completely ignores that I have already stated that laws can, do and should discriminate. I went on to talk about what I define as unfair discrimination and explained why I view the illegality of same-sex marriage as being unfair...

This is not an explanation. It’s circuitous special pleading – you simply said it was unfair because you couldn’t think of any reason not to think that it was unfair.

Lion's disingenuous position...it displeases me that he appears to be arguing at odds with the positions [that we know ?] he holds...he obviously holds marriage as necessary institution that should be honoured and respected…

It’s not disingenuous. Do I think it is a necessary institution? Yes.
“I do.”
I respect and honor the institution of marriage. If I didn’t think there was anything to respect and honor, I wouldn’t be in this debate. It’s the people who want to change the definition of marriage who have, ironically, mastered the double-think necessary to claim that the institution of marriage is so important to gays that its definition has to be watered down sufficiently to permit SSM........then locked in stone to prevent its further dilution.

…he has argued in a manner thus far that can easily lead one to the conclusion that all marriage is bad for society…

No. You’ve just self-contradicted the previous quote acknowledging my support for the long-standing institution of marriage. What isn’t long-standing is the notion that marriage is for everyone and anyone, anywhere, anytime for any duration or any imaginable combination of participants or species – at will - regardless of what their fellow members of human society (and their children) think.

...If Lion' s previous post was a trainwreck, then his most recent effort could only be described as the Challenger disaster...

I can take the sarcasm but that’s pretty insensitive.

Lion investigated what 'gay' and 'hetero' really mean, whether there is a specturm, [sic] and whether we can classify anyone into any category. I merely wonder whether any of that really matters.

This is a formal debate about whether it “matters” ....and you are still wondering what your position is?

What I and other proponents would like to see is for the law to be changed to allow one woman to marry another woman, or one man to marry another man. Whether those men and women are full-blown homosexual, bisexual, or even heterosexual doesn't matter.

Full-blown?

Lion also investigated the idea of homosexuality being a choice. He cites examples of people choosing to be or becoming gay. This is a red herring. Whether people are "born that way" is irrelevant.

Judge Walker in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger said it is entirely relevant to the case for SSM. (See FF 44 and FF 46)

Lion explored the slippery slope fallacy. I couldn't give two figs whether Lion's argument amounts to a slippery slope fallacy.

No, I explained the legal and logical mechanisms of how the slope itself functions using actual documented events from the past. A fallacy would have been if I had specifically asserted where the slope leads to in the future.

There's no reason as to why anyone shouldn't be allowed to state their case for their desired definition of marriage, even if it were people wanting to marry goats. The test should be, as it should be in the case of gay marriage, whether there is good reason not to broaden the laws.

You heard it here first.
Give people the opportunity to argue for inter-species marriage. Now THAT’S Marriage Equality

If it's found that there is (such as the inability of the goat to consent to such an arrangement) then the law should not be broadened. If there isn't, then it should.

The “arrangement” as you call it, is a warm bed, regular feeding times, lots of hugs, annual Vet check-ups, RSPCA verification that no animal suffering is involved, and a promise not to make Youtubes. Yuck factor for this “arrangement”? Mind your own BUSINESS you bigot!

In many jurisdictions there are notable legal differences between civil unions and marriage. These range from tax benefits to hospital visitation rights and survivorship rights.

Where’s the evidence? Countries? Statutes? Charts? Graphs? In .au there is NO taxation or social security disadvantage AT ALL. And here’s the proof to back MY assertion.

..Yet such an arrangement would still not be equitable. By not allowing same-sex marriage, the idea that same-sex relationships are less than is created. That their love is less than heterosexual couples. That their bond is somehow less valid.

Circular reasoning. ...don’t like being treated differently just because people think we are different.

Dividing the two groups based on nothing other than the gender of the people involved creates the stigma that there is something unusual or abnormal about gay relationships.

Gender isn’t trivial. Nor is it “just” something in the imagination of opponents of SSM. As a species we proceed by opposite gender mating / sexual selection.

Dividing the two groups based on nothing other than the gender of the people involved creates the stigma that there is something unusual or abnormal about gay relationships.

Stigma? Says who?

Particularly when those who argue against same-sex marriage and call homosexuals abnormal are likely to argue that it will open the door to beastiality (something that Lion has hinted at). This is a deeply offensive proposition...

Hang on! You’re contradicting yourself. You said…
There's no reason as to why anyone shouldn't be allowed to state their case for their desired definition of marriage, even if it were people wanting to marry goats.

You said…

If it's found that there is (such as the inability of the goat to consent to such an arrangement) then the law should not be broadened. If there isn't, then it should.

and....

So what's the problem with the stigma created by creating two classes of relationship - those who are worthy of marriage and those who aren't?

Strawman fallacy. Crocodile Gandhi is the one proposing the existence of a uniquely “gay” stigma. He is debating his own proposition.

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%) .

Yes. Mental illness. Social pathologies. Dysfunctional families.
How is this an argument for LBGT marriage?
People will self-harm if we don’t let them get married?
There’s an obvious ad baculum fallacy here.
By the way, you forgot the statistical evidence about gay-on-gay domestic violence, infidelity, STD’s and promiscuity.

…being seen as a seperate [sic] and unequal group in the eyes of the law, the stigma created feeds into such undesirable outcomes. It's not hard to imagine that a stigma exists when the mere idea of gay marriage possibly being legalised causes so many to state that it will be the very downfall of all civilisation…

The only thing imaginary is your strawman.
You are not debating imaginary stuff said by an imaginary opponent.
Ventriloquist hyperbole isn’t proof.
Biblical theists visiting rationalskepticism.org might feel stigmatized too and threaten self-harm because of the depressing stuff they hear nasty atheists saying.
Does that “argument” persuade you?

It's clear that Lion holds marriage in high regard.

Yes. And I have explained why.

Furthermore, it's clear that he believes that marriage is something that there should be more of, else he wouldn't have spent so long irrelevantly bemoaning the high rates and negative effects of divorce… if you love marriage so much, you should be wanting more people to do it.

That is an equivocation fallacy called switch-referencing. (Similar to Amphibology) Getting married and divorced and re-married and divorced is not “better than nothing”.


“Marriage equality for all” – means exactly that.

It's an argument for everyone.

And anyone

Anywhere.

Anytime.

For any duration.

For any imaginable combination of participants

The argument that only gay people are discriminated against fails philosophically because it rests on a vast spectrum of sexual orientation/proclivity where no clear line exists indicating where choice stops and “born that way” compulsion begins.

Add to that the very real scenarios in which people involuntarily change their sexual preference, like the example case of Chris Birch above, or incarcerated heterosexual people who are forced into a choice between no sex or homosexual sex, and we find that the (fairly recent) claim about “all gay people” being a distinct “born that way” class of people being denied marriage, now becomes philosophically as well as legally problematic.

“pros hen legomenon”



What exactly is being discriminated against?

Philosophers from Bertrand Russell back to Plato have asked…what actually is a thing?

What really is marriage? In what does marriage really consist?

What is real and what is fake?

What is really real and what is really not real?


A wig? A toupee?




A counterfeit $100 note?



Does a man dressed as a woman with breast implants and a Dolly Parton wig
have the universal “civil right” to be called a woman?




No matter how that person might honestly think of themself, I don’t regard them as being truly female?

And neither does a human sperm.



When did it become legally or philosophically “OK” to take something unreal and pass it off as if it were exactly the same “thing” as a “thing” we know (empirically) is REAL?





Bible skeptics fiercely challenge the biblical use of the word “bat” in the same category as “birds”


Bird? Bat? Fairy?




Rational skeptics rail against propositions which aren’t based in verifiable, empirical reality and literal TRUTH.

Now, consider the irony, the HYPOCRISY of a person who strictly says no, you can’t call atheism a “religion” now arguing a WIDER, more liberal definition of the word “marriage”. (Slippery as jelly fish on a floor covered in soap water.)

The tolerance of fake. What is actually going on here?

Can we call a spade a spade?

Is atheism a religion or not?

Human and Bonobo are not the same word. They don’t have the same meaning.

And “mother nature” says they can’t mate – produce fertile offspring.

Human homosexual behavior is biologically incompatible with the MEANING of heterosexual mating and the words used to describe it - partnering/matrimony/family.


What MEANING does the evidence tell us when we see a wedding ring?




"Keep your scumbag husband from venturing off with any other women...."






Watering down the definition of “marriage” is not a laughing matter.






We should oppose changing the definition of marriage for the same reason that we should oppose changing the definition of “under-age”

We should oppose changing the definition of marriage for the same reason that we should oppose anthropomorphically changing the definition of “consent”

Anthropomorphism?



We should oppose Lawrence Krauss’ attempt to change the definition of “something” for the same reason we should oppose changing the definition of “existence”. Nothing means “not a thing”.

Invent your own new word/taxonomy – but don’t revert to this lame, politically correct agenda where Words, Meaning, Clarity and Truth get butchered on the sacrificial altar of Tolerance Uber Alles.

Words, Meaning, Clarity and Truth? or Orwellian Newspeak.

If you cant change the meaning of the word religion to include atheism, how can you justify changing the meaning
...of the word marriage?


Biology. Mother nature/celestial dictator/God is a great teacher.

And it can spot a fake from a mile off and the evidence indicates that homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:

• relationship duration
• monogamy vs. promiscuity
• relationship commitment
• number of children being raised
• health risks
• rates of intimate partner violence

Post # 4 Citations & Links

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/te ... 6271137439 (Last visited 17/4/2012)
"Let me just define my terms here - I identify as gay myself," Szubanski said, adding; "Now when I say that, what that means is I am absolutely not straight. I wouldn't define myself as bisexual either. I would say I am gay, gay, gay, gay, gay ... a bit not gay, gay gay gay gay.”

http://www.baldwins.com.au/a_passoff.php (Last visited 20/4/2012)
Passing off. The legal tort of deceptive and misleading trading. Attempting to pass off product B as it were the same “thing” as “A”.

http://www.frc.org/content/comparing-th ... ed-couples
COMPARING THE LIFESTYLES OF HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES TO MARRIED COUPLES by: Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.
Available to view at Family Research Council website. (Last visited 7/4/2012)

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/0 ... ars_l.html

http://www.dollymania.net/fans03.html (Last visited 17/4/2012)
Online newsmagazine. Subject - Dolly Parton fans.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php? ... 5934;image

http://droidmill.com/spot-the-fake-mone ... 39057.html (Last visited 17/4/2012)
Fake 100 note graphic.

http://skysthelimitart.netfirms.com/ (Last visited 17/4/2012)
Tromp e L’oeil graphic. Commercial Wall Art website. Beautiful. & Thanks to Bea Wojcik.

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/derbyshire-fairy-hoax.shtml (Last visited 26/4/2012)
Bird? Bat? Fairy?

http://a57.foxnews.com/img.foxnews.com/ ... g_hand.jpg
(Last visited 26/4/2012)

http://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/anti-cheating-ring
Social media. Keep your scumbag husband from venturing off with any other women with the anti-cheating wedding band ring

http://ladyover25.files.wordpress.com/2 ... -bride.jpg
(Last visited 26/4/2012)
Original from Cartoon Sangrea.net

http://www.film4.com/minisite/films-for ... -apes-1968
Planet of The Apes. Academy Award winning 1968 film (Science fiction) Directed by : Franklin J. Schaffner

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/i ... storic.htm
(Last visited 26/4/2012)

http://www.lifeline.org.au/find-help/on ... pgodojNSFA
FREE help and support and solutions at organizations like Lifeline.org.au – an online and phone counselling service. Similar bodies in most countries.

http://www.befrienders.org/support/helplines.asp

http://suicidehotlines.com

References to self-harm and suicide on Internet discussion forums (fora) are not taken lightly.

When I requested that Lion address my arguments more directly, I had expected that this would lead to more of a debate, not less. And yet, what proceeded was a cavalcade of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and irrelevancies. I will comeback to look at some of Lion's problems with my posts, but first I will continue arguing my case.

Aside from removing (unfair) discrimination, allowing gay marriages would also have positive impacts on the economy. Numerous studies have been undertaken to estimate the amount of money that could enter the economy if same-sex marriages were to be legalised. A study conducted in Washington State estimated that up to $57.0 million USD would flow into the state and local economy in the first year if same-sex marriage were made legal (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/w ... -20121.pdf). this figure did not include any money coming in from out-of-state couples travelling to Washington to get married. The impact in Massachussets was estimated to be up to $111.0 million over a three year period (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/w ... e-2008.pdf).The impact in New Jersey was estimated at up to $102.5 million a year (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/w ... c-2006.pdf). Forbes Magazine estimated in 2009 that the windfall from legalising same-sex marriage across the United States could be close to $10.0 billion! (http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/15/same-s ... dfall.html). More money being spent means more jobs. More money being spent means more tax dollars going to the Government and that means that the Government can use this extra money in areas of health, education and welfare. By not allowing same-sex marriage, govermnents worldwide are depriving local economies from much needed funds and themselves from much needed tax dollars.

Thankfully, Lion has been kind enough to do a lot of the work for me in arguing for same-sex marriage to be legalised. The statistical evidence that he has presented, regardless of its extremely dubious source, falls into two categories - irrelevant or supportive of same-sex marriage marriage. The most damning of which being the chart which shows that intimate partner violence reduces in married couples. This is reason to allow same-sex marriage, not deny it. The other charts only serve to present factors which are not legal requirements of marriage.

Despite his obvious adoration of the institution of marriage, Lion appears to display a woeful lack of knowledge of what is required to get married. It's simple, one participant must be a man and the other a woman (aside from in those jurisdictions in which gay marriage is already legal). Even if we were to accept Lion's list of ways in which same-sex relationships are "radically different", none of the are a legal requirement of getting married and are therefore irrelevant.

- relationship duration - not a requirement of getting married.
- monogamy v promiscuity - not a requirement of marriage. It is currently perfectly legal for a person to get married and then go around shagging anyone they please.
- relationship commitment - see above.
- number of children being raised - finally we see Lion playing the children card. This is, of course, irrelevant. Having children is not required of opposite sex couples in order to get married. However many same-sex marriages were to occur, the number of children being raised in opposite sex marriage would not diminish. Much the same way as allowing women to vote hasn't reduced the number of men who can vote. And regardless of whether same-sex couples can get married, in many jurisdictions they are already allowed to adopt.
- health risks - not a requirement of marriage. And in the case of female same-sex relationships, one could argue that there are significantly fewer health risks than opposite sex relationships.For example, the CDC reported in 2005 that there were no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the US database (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/res ... ts/wsw.htm). Based on that, surely it should be lesbians that we should be allowing to get married, and not heterosexuals. However, being irrelevant, it doens't matter what the comparative health risks are.
- rates of intimate partner violence - aside from the aforementioned point that allowing same-sex marriage might reduce such behaviour, this is, of course (say it with me, people)...not a requirement of marriage.

If Lion cares about these factors so much, perhaps he should be arguing some kind of test prior to getting married to vet individuals who fail on any of metrics. However, seeing as no such test exists, and one can get married regardless of any of those factors as long as their fun bits are different, none of the factors should prevent same-sex couples from getting married.

I will now try to clarify some things for Lion which I believe he has misunderstood.

“…Lion's post seems to be an agrument [sic] from increased workload. It is almost certainly true that legalising gay marriage will increase the overall workload …”

Thanks.
Increased legal complexity increases litigation.

…So fucking what? It is necessarliy [sic] true that workplace saftey [sic] laws vastly increase the workload of companies…

This is not an argument for gay marriage...even with expletives.

I wasn't arguing for gay marriage with this point. I was arguing against your reasoning. If your argument is that same-sex marriage should not be allowed due to increased legal complexity, then you must also not be in favour of a myriad of other laws which have vastly increased legal complexity, despite having very favourable outcomes. An example of which is workplace safety laws, which depsite increasing legal complexity, has lead to a lot less people dying or getting injured in the workplace.

I respect and honor the institution of marriage. If I didn’t think there was anything to respect and honor, I wouldn’t be in this debate. It’s the people who want to change the definition of marriage who have, ironically, mastered the double-think necessary to claim that the institution of marriage is so important to gays that its definition has to be watered down sufficiently to permit SSM........then locked in stone to prevent its further dilution.

But I don't want it to be locked in stone to prevent its further dilution. I've been very clear on this. A line in the sand can be drawn and re-drawn wherever it is appropriate to do so. If other minority groups can similarly argue that there is insufficient reason not to allow them to marry, then they should also have marriage extended to them.

What isn’t long-standing is the notion that marriage is for everyone and anyone, anywhere, anytime for any duration or any imaginable combination of participants or species – at will - regardless of what their fellow members of human society (and their children) think.

I agree with you. which is why I haven't argued for marriage for everyone and anyone, anywhere, anytime etc etc.

There's no reason as to why anyone shouldn't be allowed to state their case for their desired definition of marriage, even if it were people wanting to marry goats. The test should be, as it should be in the case of gay marriage, whether there is good reason not to broaden the laws.

You heard it here first.
Give people the opportunity to argue for inter-species marriage. Now THAT’S Marriage Equality

What's the problem with this? Are you saying that minority groups should not be allowed to argue their case?

Stigma? Says who?

Do you honestly not believe that there is a stigma against homosexuality? The recent spate of suicides in the US by teens who were bullied about their homosexuality would suggest otherwise.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Gets_Better_Project)

Particularly when those who argue against same-sex marriage and call homosexuals abnormal are likely to argue that it will open the door to beastiality (something that Lion has hinted at). This is a deeply offensive proposition...

Hang on! You’re contradicting yourself. You said…
There's no reason as to why anyone shouldn't be allowed to state their case for their desired definition of marriage, even if it were people wanting to marry goats.

No I'm not. People should be able to state their case for their desired definition of marriage, but that's different to allowing them their desired definition of marriage. I don't think people should be able to marry goats and I think that the claim that homosexual marriage will lead to people marrying goats is deeply offensive.

Lion investigated what 'gay' and 'hetero' really mean, whether there is a specturm, [sic] and whether we can classify anyone into any category. I merely wonder whether any of that really matters.

This is a formal debate about whether it “matters” ....and you are still wondering what your position is?

But it doesn't matter. All that matters is the gender of the individuals involved. As it currently stands, a homosexual male and a homosexual female could get married to eachother with no legal barriers to them doing so. What 'gay' is is ireelevant.

Dividing the two groups based on nothing other than the gender of the people involved creates the stigma that there is something unusual or abnormal about gay relationships.

Gender isn’t trivial. Nor is it “just” something in the imagination of opponents of SSM. As a species we proceed by opposite gender mating / sexual selection.

And the species will continue to proceed by opposite gender mating regardless of how many same-sex marriage occur.

It's an argument for everyone.

And anyone

Anywhere.

Anytime.

For any duration.

For any imaginable combination of participants

Then it's a good thing that i haven't argued for marriage equality for all, isn't it?

The rest of Lion's post is a long-winded rant on changing the definition of marriage. Yet definitions are changed all the time in the legal context. If this debate were to be occuring in 1893, i could sit here and argue til I was blue in the face that you have no right to change the definition of a voting citizen. Yet New Zealand changed that definition to include all adult women and the rest of the world has since followed. What harm was caused by that definitional change? Who were the losers? Did it affect the ability of men to continue to vote? Did it diminish the value of a man's vote? No, of course it didn't. Furthermore, it didn't lead to a spate of making it legal for animals to vote, nor was it made legal for babies to vote. Lion says that you can't change the definition of marriage for the same reason that you can't change the definition of 'under-age'. This ignores the fact that the definition of under-age within many contexts has already been changed. The age at which people are allowed to drink, smoke, vote, drive, have sex, hire a car (etc etc) is always changing in different countries and within the different jurisdictions of those countries. These things are not set in stone. Why the heck should marriage be any different?

Lion is yet to provide a good reason for why marriage shouldn't be legalised. Almost everything that he has stated is irrelevant to the proposition, and anything that he's stated that is relevant is trivial or easily disregarded. As I've repeatedly said, that's enough for me to state the same-sex marriage should be legal. But I've also given reasons for why it should be legalised. The last of which I will simply state now. Legalising gay marriage will make a lot of people in a much maligned minority group (along with their families and those who support them) very happy. How often do we get the opportunity to make people happy whilst barely affecting anyone else in the community? Not nearly enough.

Q & A Round

Q.1

My first question to Crocodile Gandhi relates to the notion of “Marriage Equality”.
Does 21st century matrimonial law - in Australia or throughout human society in general - have any good reason or reasons, in your view, to discriminate against bisexual or transgender polygamous marriage (MMF, MMM, FFM, MFFF, etc.) in favor of monogamous marriage?
Yes or No.

Lion IRC wrote:Q & A Round

Q.1

My first question to Crocodile Gandhi relates to the notion of “Marriage Equality”.
Does 21st century matrimonial law - in Australia or throughout human society in general - have any good reason or reasons, in your view, to discriminate against bisexual or transgender polygamous marriage (MMF, MMM, FFM, MFFF, etc.) in favor of monogamous marriage?
Yes or No.

No.

My first question to Lion is:

Q.1
If, as you have argued, some individuals' freedoms should be restricted due to statistics pertaining to a group to which they belong, do you believe that it should be made illegal for any Catholic priest to work with children due to incidences of child-abuse which occur at the hands of the clergy as a whole? And If not, why not?

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:
My first question to Lion is:

Q.1
If, as you have argued, some individuals' freedoms should be restricted due to statistics pertaining to a group to which they belong, do you believe that it should be made illegal for any Catholic priest to work with children due to incidences of child-abuse which occur at the hands of the clergy as a whole? And If not, why not?

Where in this debate have I argued that what should be restricted are real/actual/tangible -“individual freedoms”?

It’s a complex question – statistics...if not...why not...individual freedoms.

Anyway, notwithstanding your efforts to convince me that discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual “orientation” amounts to bigotry, I will attempt to answer the question as best I can.

I’m challenged firstly to contemplate how one would know the difference between a member of the clergy (a biblical theist) and someone simply pretending to be. Should the actions of atheists hiding in the clergy also be similarly inspected? What about the non-ordained laity? Why limit only male Catholic clergy working with children? What about nuns? These issues make the question somewhat more difficult to answer with a simple yes or no. In talking about the restriction of so-called “individual freedoms,” there is an inference that those “freedoms” actually do exist. But do they really exist?

Example : I certainly don’t have the “individual” freedom to enter a females-only changing room – not even if I dress up as a woman, put on a Dolly Parton wig and demand something called “equality”. Likewise, it can hardly be said that a person in prison, (Eg. a pedophile who wants to escape from jail,) has a civil right to exercise something called “individual freedom”.

In that sense, there is no freedom being restricted because The Law has determined that, for a period of time, such individual freedom ceases to exist. There simply is no existing temporal “right” to exercise individual freedom for a person in prison therfore it doesn’t exist as a right that is being discriminated AGAINST!

The idea that a prisoner has a “right” to “individual” freedom they can exercise at will is logically incoherent because the claim that someone’s “right” is being restricted pre-supposes the existence of that right as an individual freedom.

Nobody has the “human right” to attempt child sexual abuse. Neither the clergy, the laity, the Church, nor religion, nor atheists. Everyone is covered by the exact same legal prohibition. Nobody is having their individual personal freedoms (human sexual orientation) discriminated against because The Law says there is no “right" to that behaviour.

Vocational work involving children, (education, clergy, adoption, etc.) is both lawful and VERY heavily-regulated as it should be. The Law quite RIGHTLY discriminates against numerous categories of people to control and define lawful and unlawful activity. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is entirely against The Law in those same jurisdictions - no matter what your sexual orientation is or your personal opinions about “individual freedoms.”

And this is a law I would ALSO argue should not be changed or re-defined for anyone.

Q & A Round
Q. 2

My next question relates to the alarming mental health statistics you posted in relation the homosexual minority and your argument about the degree to which so-called Marriage Equality may help to alleviate the enormous stigma which you and the SSM lobby frequently allude to.

It’s a simple multiple choice question

Much of the literature I have read indicates that many gay people feel so stigmatized that they would give anything to be “straight” if they thought they could change, so in your estimation, what percentage of people who define themselves as “gay” specifically (as opposed to bisexual) would rather be “straight”?

A. Less than 25%
B. Between 25% and 50%
C. Between 50% and 75%
D. Over 75%

NB. Readers should acknowledge that this question merely asks for Crocodile Gandhi’s estimate.

Lion IRC wrote:Q & A Round
Q. 2

My next question relates to the alarming mental health statistics you posted in relation the homosexual minority and your argument about the degree to which so-called Marriage Equality may help to alleviate the enormous stigma which you and the SSM lobby frequently allude to.

It’s a simple multiple choice question

Much of the literature I have read indicates that many gay people feel so stigmatized that they would give anything to be “straight” if they thought they could change, so in your estimation, what percentage of people who define themselves as “gay” specifically (as opposed to bisexual) would rather be “straight”?

A. Less than 25%
B. Between 25% and 50%
C. Between 50% and 75%
D. Over 75%

NB. Readers should acknowledge that this question merely asks for Crocodile Gandhi’s estimate.

I truthfully do not have a clue what percentage of gay individuals may wish to be straight. So, in order to answer this question, I asked a bunch of friends and acquaintances whether they would give anything to be straight if they thought they could change. All of them said no. So, based on my data, my answer is A.

Now for my next question...

Lion has agreed that some incidences of child-abuse amongst the group known as Catholic priests should not remove the freedom of all people known as Catholic priests to work with children.

The reason gay marriage is not comparable, he argues, is that unlike the freedom to work with children, there is no such thing as an "individual's freedom" to marry a partner of the same sex.

Lion IRC wrote:In talking about the restriction of so-called “individual [sic] freedoms,” there is an inference that those “freedoms” actually do exist. But do they really exist?

Do they?

Well, perhaps this debate has gone on for so long that Lion has forgotten he began by arguing vehemently for "the human right to religion enshrined" in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It unequivocally explains: "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to...manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Lion is now vehemently denying the freedom to manifest religion or belief in practice and observance by the sacrament of marriage as it is thought of in good conscience by Christians of The Metropolitan Community Church, United Church of Christ, United Church of Canada, Unitarian Universalists and Unitarians. Each of these churches see fit to marry people of the same sex, in accordance with the Universal Human Right to freedom of religion.

Q. Can Lion confirm that he now believes not everyone has the freedom to practise and observe their religion or belief?

If not, can Lion explain how making it illegal for people to practise and observe the sacrament of marriage according to their religion or belief gives them the freedom to practise and observe their religion or belief?

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:Q & A Round

Q. Can Lion confirm that he now believes not everyone has the freedom to practise and observe their religion or belief?

If not, can Lion explain how making it illegal for people to practise and observe the sacrament of marriage according to their religion or belief gives them the freedom to practise and observe their religion or belief?

Thanks for the question. In point of fact, I have NOT argued – vehemently or otherwise – for the right to exercise religion.

The Apostle Paul never pleaded for the "right" or asked "permission" from principalities or powers. (See Romans 8)

That right is asserted by and enshrined in constitutions, customs and declarations by man-made organisations because
homo sapiens has, for 50,000 years (+/-) had an innate human culture of religiosity. My observation of that plain fact does not amount to rights advocacy – unless of course atheists are willing to concede the existence of God as Creator who endows certain inalienable rights.

I raise it in the debate because the same-sex marriage lobby (a global minority) is in a head-on collision course with religious culture (a global majority) and that is a matter of fact which cannot be swept under the carpet. And it will CERTAINLY come before the courts in the form of…”my rights and customs should prevail over yours” litigation.

There will be jurisdictions consisting of entire countries which simply wont recognise the legitimacy of same sex marriage and whose (religious) population, in the majority, would find “homosexual marriage” an oxymoron. They would regard the claim to Marriage Equality as a “right,” a religious, biological and legal anathema. People claiming the right to religion, including that percentage of the world's population which adheres to Abrahamic monotheism (50% to 60% +) will claim the commensurate “right” to discriminate against homosexual marriages and they won’t recognise SSM as valid just because some Judge in California says it “ought” to be permitted (experimentally permitted to be more precise.) Nor will they accept so-called “marriage equality” as sufficient grounds for them to violate their own (religious) conscience in matters like adoption, surrogacy, commercial law, etc.
Such people are more likely to think of Marriage as a “rite” rather than a “right” and would use the political/legal processes of law and government to defend their own preferred position.

It’s a brute reality that the (religious) opponents of same sex marriage, as a constituent majority in many jurisdictions, would be glad to say..."hey, if you want gay marriage/adoption, move to California or Norway and don’t come back."

Is Julia Gillard really going to say to Indonesia (a predominantly Islamic jurisdiction,) “would you mind legalising same-sex marriage please.”

Q & A Round

Q. 3

I understand that you initially regarded the welfare of children as irrelevant to the specific and narrowly defined debate topic. But you did subsequently opt in with a reference to children and child abuse in Q.1 and expounded even further in Q. 2 on matters of individual rights, which courts are increasingly extending to children – even unborn children.

So I would like to ask you a question about the degree to which secular legal discrimination against same-sex
“parenthood” – which the gay marriage lobby certainly regards as something that stigmatizes the gay minority – might have some valid, purely secular ethical basis in terms of the child welfare or “rights of the child”.

Specifically, do you think children raised from (birth to adulthood) by their two direct biological (loving) parents in an opposite-gender, mating/matrimonial pairing lasting long enough to raise the child to adulthood, affords them any greater welfare benefit in terms of gender-balanced, mother/father role model education as against a same-sex adoptive parenting arrangement in which one or both (loving) parents are not the directly related and BOTH parents being of the same gender as the child being raised or NEITHER parent being the same gender as the child being raised?

(And no, I’m not talking about gay men who don’t have lactating breasts or their adopted female child asking them about menstruation, pregnancy, intrauterine devices. I’m asking more broadly about the ethics and long-term social outcomes of deliberately depriving one child from birth to puberty to adulthood of the opportunity to have the gender balanced upbringing and role-model education which BOTH a mother and a father can provide.)

Lion IRC wrote:Specifically, do you think children raised from (birth to adulthood) by their two direct biological (loving) parents in an opposite-gender, mating/matrimonial pairing lasting long enough to raise the child to adulthood, affords them any greater welfare benefit in terms of gender-balanced, mother/father role model education as against a same-sex adoptive parenting arrangement in which one or both (loving) parents are not the directly related and BOTH parents being of the same gender as the child being raised or NEITHER parent being the same gender as the child being raised?

Not necessarily.

As for my next question...

Lion has answered that he is not advocating a universal right to exercise religion.

Instead, he maintains that raising "freedom of religion" only demonstrates that gay marriage must not be legalised because it clashes with the beliefs of a religious majority...

Lion IRC wrote:I raise it in the debate because the same-sex marriage lobby (a global minority) is in a head-on collision course with religious culture (a global majority)
...
People claiming the right to religion, including that percentage of the world's population which adheres to Abrahamic monotheism (50% to 60% +) will claim the commensurate “right” to discriminate against homosexual marriage...

By indicating he believes rights are "commensurate" with the proportion of the population who claim them, Lion appears to be arguing that "might makes right".

So my questions is...

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.