73 replies to this topic

[Annie12]

How can I defend traditional marriage to atheists who basically think I'm a nut? I am debating people on Facebook right now and would appreciate any help!
They claimed that to be for traditional marriage is discriminatory! That is such an outrageous statement. Please help!

[cmotherofpirl]

How can I defend traditional marriage to atheists who basically think I'm a nut? I am debating people on Facebook right now and would appreciate any help!
They claimed that to be for traditional marriage is discriminatory! That is such an outrageous statement. Please help!

Its usually best to marshal your arguments before he discussions begin, not after. Did you go to the defense directory?

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

1. i really don't like facebook and 2. Obviously there pro choice which is really pro anything goes and chaos, lead them into that direction and than say how bout i lock you in a dark room with only a bible and a book light and feed you only bread and water to keep you alive,being my choice to do so of course, than say how would you like that? Or how about if i just get my boyfriend to knock you out cold because i'm upset and it's my choice, where is your choice than buddy ?

That is what i do, i'm not so couthe with these so called pro choices which are really pro chaos whic is pro anything goes. And what i have revealed is only borderline pro caos stuff, it gets a hell of alot worse. And after saying all that let them know that jesus' is also pro choice he just isn't pro chaos, chaos dictates i can walk into one of there houses and shoot them in the head dead, like dog eat dog. I'm sure they really don't wan;t that but than again maybe they don't care one bit. But thats the approach i take and can get even colder with pro choice options.

Edited by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye, 27 April 2012 - 09:37 PM.

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

also after all that tell them true freedom has rules, and that without rules freedom is actually chaos and not freedom at all, of course the other end of the hell scale is obey the rules or die like in saudi arabia. Ask them would they prefer to be in saudi arabia,which is what will happen if chaos reigns ,the world will be put under an iron fist which is wrong as well and the way the devil is trying to trap us all,to make us weak with anything goes than smash us with an oppresive iron fist. Anyway take what you will from what i have said, i probably in some respects and way off the mark and also as per usual never say enough or say to much lol but at least am giving my best race for victory. As you should too annie

Edited by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye, 27 April 2012 - 09:42 PM.

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

If i had all my choices validated it would be a terrible day for all humanity, thank god god is god, that can be another approach which i have kind of used before. Like i said once to apro choicer that i really wan't to grab a gun and blow his brains our but thank God that is not a viable choice and that i would end up with life in jail and that he should be gratefull to. Least to say he got my point, direct and full effect.

Edited by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye, 27 April 2012 - 09:54 PM.

[Norseman82]

How can I defend traditional marriage to atheists who basically think I'm a nut? I am debating people on Facebook right now and would appreciate any help!
They claimed that to be for traditional marriage is discriminatory! That is such an outrageous statement. Please help!

Try the "it's against nature" route. Give the example of electrical outlets, how plugs do not fit together with other plugs nor do outlets fit together with outlets, but rather plugs go with outlets. Avoid the phrase "how we are designed", since that opens you up to charges of advocating "intelligent design". Another possible piece of ammunition is that the scientific term for our genital organs is the "reproductive system", not "recreational system".

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

Try the "it's against nature" route. Give the example of electrical outlets, how plugs do not fit together with other plugs nor do outlets fit together with outlets, but rather plugs go with outlets. Avoid the phrase "how we are designed", since that opens you up to charges of advocating "intelligent design". Another possible piece of ammunition is that the scientific term for our genital organs is the "reproductive system", not "recreational system".

yes wonderful, 1+1=3 anything else is lust and not love, make sure you let them understand that you think all lust is contrary to the greater good of all people because it reduces our ability for true charity which is more than just giving money. and tell them you are also against condoms,contaception and abortion because it goes against this natural law, there basic people usually even if they have a uni degree and you have to play a basic game to have them realise there wrong.

Edited by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye, 27 April 2012 - 10:06 PM.

[brianthephysicist]

This is something I've been having a lot of trouble with recently. Most of my arguments come off as very reactionary and they aren't pretty and generally don't work.

The best thing is to start from the beginning. Love and the two primary reasons for marriage in the first place.

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

feed them milk so to speak or they will react aggresively. Supprisingly the id i pull the trigger and pop your brains out because i choose to and i wan't to be able to choose to blow your brains out, is milk some seem to be able digest.

[Hasan]

How can I defend traditional marriage to atheists who basically think I'm a nut? I am debating people on Facebook right now and would appreciate any help!
They claimed that to be for traditional marriage is discriminatory! That is such an outrageous statement. Please help!

It is ridiculous to say that you being for for traditional marriage is discriminatory. I am for traditional marriage. I think it's a fine thing. You problem is that you support traditional marriage to the exclusion of other forms.

If you are for traditional marriage and support using the force of the state to preclude other couples who do not fit your cookie cutter idea of what is an appropriate relationship then that, by definition, is discriminatory.

[Hasan]

Try the "it's against nature" route. Give the example of electrical outlets, how plugs do not fit together with other plugs nor do outlets fit together with outlets, but rather plugs go with outlets. Avoid the phrase "how we are designed", since that opens you up to charges of advocating "intelligent design". Another possible piece of ammunition is that the scientific term for our genital organs is the "reproductive system", not "recreational system".

There are gay people. Something that occurs naturally cannot be against nature. What you really mean is that it is against your understanding of what is normative.

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

This is something I've been having a lot of trouble with recently. Most of my arguments come off as very reactionary and they aren't pretty and generally don't work.

The best thing is to start from the beginning. Love and the two primary reasons for marriage in the first place.

wonderful, that is probably a better approach than my two smoking barrels, but if the conversation starts doing circles like adog chasing it's tail your gonna have to put that rabbied Dawg down with my two smokin barrels lol

[Papist]

Ask them if they are ok to legaize a marriage you know they would be not for. Such as marriage between a man and a fish. When they say no, asked them why they get to define marriage and not the people who disagree with them.

Changing the traditional definition of marriage to include only the addition of same-sex couples is discriminatory in and of itself, and will not stand alone. They will ask: “How will this affect your marriage?” It is not necessary to have one’s own marriage threatened to recognize that gay marriage is bad for society. Following the liberal’s logic, if you were well fed, why should you be concerned about poverty elsewhere? The is a big ref herring.

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

There are gay people. Something that occurs naturally cannot be against nature. What you really mean is that it is against your understanding of what is normative.

Hasan, there is a difference between lifestyle choice and natural. Some people are born with interlectual disabilities and mental illnesses but i flat out refuse to believe some are born homosexual. Than with the mental illnesses drug use and alcohol abuse can excentuate the mental illness and cause many a grave disorder paticularily it seems in the level of lust. And even than without the drug or alcohol abuse or even one use of a drug (a bad trip can send you off the rails for many a year.) post traumatic stress sydrome can cause alot of grave disorders too.

[Hasan]

Ask them if they are ok to legaize a marriage you know they would be not for. Such as marriage between a man and a fish. When they say no, asked them why they get to define marriage and not the people who disagree with them.

Changing the traditional definition of marriage to include only the addition of same-sex couples is discriminatory in and of itself, and will not stand alone. They will ask: “How will this affect your marriage?” It is not necessary to have one’s own marriage threatened to recognize that gay marriage is bad for society. Following the liberal’s logic, if you were well fed, why should you be concerned about poverty elsewhere? The is a big ref herring.

Gay marriage does not in any way logically imply beastile marriages. A fish cannot consent to anything. it cannot in any meaningful sense enter into a contractual relationship and participate in what makes a marriage relationship and marriage. It cannot become legally entangled with a person. A fish cannot hold property. It is legitimate to ask what relationships between CONSENTING ADULTS would be excluded. I don't know. Maybe polygamy. That would require more investigation. But the fact that recognizing a legal right will make things slightly complicated for the courts doesn't justify denying a citizen equality under the law.

[Winchester]

stupid feature. stupid stupid.

Edited by Winchester, 27 April 2012 - 10:45 PM.

[Hasan]

Some fish are just asking for it, though.

Hit it and quit it.

[Luigi]

There are gay people. Something that occurs naturally cannot be against nature. What you really mean is that it is against your understanding of what is normative.

Traditional marriage is normative because it has been the norm - not just culturally, but numerically - in virtually every culture on the face of the earth for virtually all time. There are and have been cultures which allowed one-man-multiple-wives or one-woman-multiple-husbands, but that was never the norm for the vast majority of the people within the culture. Additionally, the very vast majority of all marriages in all cultures have have been heterosexual.

That's a pretty strong statistical preponderance.

The current rage to redefine marriage is just that - the current rage. It's no different than those stupid new shoes with individual toes, in very loud colors. The current rage to redefine marriage is an ad campaign, a hip trend, a mindless group-think exercise.

[Winchester]

A fish cannot consent to anything. it cannot in any meaningful sense enter into a contractual relationship and participate in what makes a marriage relationship and marriage. It cannot become legally entangled with a person. A fish cannot hold property.

Some fish are just asking for it, though.

[Papist]

Gay marriage does not in any way logically imply beastile marriages. A fish cannot consent to anything. it cannot in any meaningful sense enter into a contractual relationship and participate in what makes a marriage relationship and marriage. It cannot become legally entangled with a person. A fish cannot hold property. It is legitimate to ask what relationships between CONSENTING ADULTS would be excluded. I don't know. Maybe polygamy. That would require more investigation. But the fact that recognizing a legal right will make things slightly complicated for the courts doesn't justify denying a citizen equality under the law.

So you support marriage discrimination.