Posted: Apr 27, 2012 6:12 am
by Lion IRC

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 (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. :cheers:
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.

:nono: 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? :scratch:
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.

:nono: 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.'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. :cheers:
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. :nono:

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. :clap:

…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. :clap:
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 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. :nono:


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? :scratch:

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? :scratch:

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. :nono:
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. :scratch:

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.


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 might feel stigmatized too and threaten self-harm because of the depressing stuff they hear nasty atheists saying.
Does that “argument” persuade you? :o

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



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”


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