Posted: May 19, 2012 8:55 pm
by Crocodile Gandhi
In summing up his arguments, Lion confidently concludes...

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

So, based on the arguments provided from both sides of this debate, should we allow same-sex marriage? Of course we should.