rationalskepticism.org

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”.