Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

So I am hateful for supporting gay rights.

Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 10:36:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And I guess that also means that I support violence. I find it quite ironic when hateful people accuse me of hate. I stood up for Chicks On The Right when they were censored even though I am a radical liberal because I believe in freedom for everyone. I want to fight hate for love, and I am the bigot. I expect people to be respectful if the want my respect, yet I have the problem. I was falsely accused of supporting violence when I was really supporting fighting with ideals and education. You do not need to be violent to fight. You do not need to kill to fight, only to resist evil. A pacifist I am not. Evil triumphs when good men and women do nothing. Silence is acceptance, and apathy is a great evil. If you are going to attack my position, bring facts, reasons, proof, and such. If I am wrong tell me why and prove it. Ad hom attacks where you attack someone's character or traits have no place on a such a good debate site as Debate.org. If you want to ad hom attack, I know the perfect site for you.
A tu quoque is where you criticize to avoid having to present a logical case for your position. The fallacy fallacy is equating disagreement with a fallacy, and don't get me started on circular reasoning: I am right because I say i am right because I am right. And finally, Satan send his minions to attack true believers when God is about to bless the recipient, so thank you for being the canary in the mine so to speak. I just wanna say that i love you no matter what, even if you hate me. God bless.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 11:56:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What a rant. But let me point out that marriage is not a right and thus there is no right that gays are missing out on. What therefore are you supporting? Nothing? Cool. I support nothing too.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 2:00:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 11:56:53 PM, Smithereens wrote:
What a rant. But let me point out that marriage is not a right and thus there is no right that gays are missing out on. What therefore are you supporting? Nothing? Cool. I support nothing too.

How are you defining "right?"

I live in the United States, where marriage is considered a fundamental human right. It is a constitutionally protected right that has been specifically and repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:23:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 2:00:51 AM, Beverlee wrote:
At 10/11/2013 11:56:53 PM, Smithereens wrote:
What a rant. But let me point out that marriage is not a right and thus there is no right that gays are missing out on. What therefore are you supporting? Nothing? Cool. I support nothing too.

How are you defining "right?"

I live in the United States, where marriage is considered a fundamental human right. It is a constitutionally protected right that has been specifically and repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

I had no idea any country considered marriage a fundamental human right. Equating marriage with the necessities of air, water, food and sanitation strikes me as strange. As for the definition, the UN declaration: "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being," is pretty accurate. Marriage is not something we are inherently entitled to because we are human. Marriage is simply a Culture of celebrating the union between a man and a women.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:29:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyone think you could make a half-decent argument against gay marriage with reference to the glass ceiling? Only lesbians and black men should be allowed get married. For equality!!
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:53:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:27:48 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Well, it's also state-subsidised...

Well, now we know where the recession came from.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:55:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:53:53 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:27:48 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Well, it's also state-subsidised...

Well, now we know where the recession came from.

Awesome.

Sorry homosexuals, not today.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 5:04:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Seriously though, I'm for equality. Marriage is just a stupid institution. If, however, homosexuality would degrade that institution, as is suggested by retarded Christians, then great!!
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 5:18:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 5:04:17 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Seriously though, I'm for equality. Marriage is just a stupid institution. If, however, homosexuality would degrade that institution, as is suggested by retarded Christians, then great!!

I'm for keeping equality too. Good to see we are on the same side :)
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 3:32:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:23:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:00:51 AM, Beverlee wrote:
At 10/11/2013 11:56:53 PM, Smithereens wrote:
What a rant. But let me point out that marriage is not a right and thus there is no right that gays are missing out on. What therefore are you supporting? Nothing? Cool. I support nothing too.

How are you defining "right?"

I live in the United States, where marriage is considered a fundamental human right. It is a constitutionally protected right that has been specifically and repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

I had no idea any country considered marriage a fundamental human right. Equating marriage with the necessities of air, water, food and sanitation strikes me as strange. As for the definition, the UN declaration: "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being," is pretty accurate. Marriage is not something we are inherently entitled to because we are human. Marriage is simply a Culture of celebrating the union between a man and a women.

Ok, you are conflating things here.

First, you are right when you say that people have a right to "air and water and food." Depriving people of these things tends to kill them, and killing people does violate their human rights. So we agree there.

Then, you get on shaky ground. I'm glad that you admit that you didn't know that America considers marriage to be a very fundamental right of humans - because it is. In the US marriage agreements are relevant to contract law, privacy rights, free association rights, family institutions, 10th Amendment rights and many, many other areas of concern.

Where you are conflating is when you start comparing human rights, such as rights to due process, the right to use the roadways, the right of self-determination, the rights of individual liberty, with things like air and water. Air and water are NOT examples of rights... ACCESS to these things is a right.

The UN also considers marriage to be a fundamental right, and has set up many, many international agreements that are designed to protect this right. It is recognized under Articles 12 and 16 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State"

http://www.un.org...
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:16:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 11:56:53 PM, Smithereens wrote:
What a rant. But let me point out that marriage is not a right and thus there is no right that gays are missing out on. What therefore are you supporting? Nothing? Cool. I support nothing too.

Marriage is a right for consenting adult couples. You have no right to force your beliefs on other people. We the LGBT people will be heard.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:18:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 10:36:42 PM, Sitara wrote:
And I guess that also means that I support violence. I find it quite ironic when hateful people accuse me of hate. I stood up for Chicks On The Right when they were censored even though I am a radical liberal because I believe in freedom for everyone. I want to fight hate for love, and I am the bigot. I expect people to be respectful if the want my respect, yet I have the problem. I was falsely accused of supporting violence when I was really supporting fighting with ideals and education. You do not need to be violent to fight. You do not need to kill to fight, only to resist evil. A pacifist I am not. Evil triumphs when good men and women do nothing. Silence is acceptance, and apathy is a great evil. If you are going to attack my position, bring facts, reasons, proof, and such. If I am wrong tell me why and prove it. Ad hom attacks where you attack someone's character or traits have no place on a such a good debate site as Debate.org. If you want to ad hom attack, I know the perfect site for you.
A tu quoque is where you criticize to avoid having to present a logical case for your position. The fallacy fallacy is equating disagreement with a fallacy, and don't get me started on circular reasoning: I am right because I say i am right because I am right. And finally, Satan send his minions to attack true believers when God is about to bless the recipient, so thank you for being the canary in the mine so to speak. I just wanna say that i love you no matter what, even if you hate me. God bless.

The fool just pointed out that your source was laughable and gay rights propaganda, which is true, Huffington Post is flaming liberal..
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:23:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:18:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/11/2013 10:36:42 PM, Sitara wrote:
And I guess that also means that I support violence. I find it quite ironic when hateful people accuse me of hate. I stood up for Chicks On The Right when they were censored even though I am a radical liberal because I believe in freedom for everyone. I want to fight hate for love, and I am the bigot. I expect people to be respectful if the want my respect, yet I have the problem. I was falsely accused of supporting violence when I was really supporting fighting with ideals and education. You do not need to be violent to fight. You do not need to kill to fight, only to resist evil. A pacifist I am not. Evil triumphs when good men and women do nothing. Silence is acceptance, and apathy is a great evil. If you are going to attack my position, bring facts, reasons, proof, and such. If I am wrong tell me why and prove it. Ad hom attacks where you attack someone's character or traits have no place on a such a good debate site as Debate.org. If you want to ad hom attack, I know the perfect site for you.
A tu quoque is where you criticize to avoid having to present a logical case for your position. The fallacy fallacy is equating disagreement with a fallacy, and don't get me started on circular reasoning: I am right because I say i am right because I am right. And finally, Satan send his minions to attack true believers when God is about to bless the recipient, so thank you for being the canary in the mine so to speak. I just wanna say that i love you no matter what, even if you hate me. God bless.

The fool just pointed out that your source was laughable and gay rights propaganda, which is true, Huffington Post is flaming liberal..
Whether it is liberal or not does not matter. It is not propaganda to support equal protection under the law, and it is not propaganda to support love between two consenting adults. Marriage is about love, not chromasomes. Face it, gays have rights. The blatant lies that were told on that thread against me are inexcusable. I do not support violence save for life or essential liberty, so the people saying that are disgusting. I guess it is okay to lie when you disagree, huh?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:28:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:23:37 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:18:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/11/2013 10:36:42 PM, Sitara wrote:
And I guess that also means that I support violence. I find it quite ironic when hateful people accuse me of hate. I stood up for Chicks On The Right when they were censored even though I am a radical liberal because I believe in freedom for everyone. I want to fight hate for love, and I am the bigot. I expect people to be respectful if the want my respect, yet I have the problem. I was falsely accused of supporting violence when I was really supporting fighting with ideals and education. You do not need to be violent to fight. You do not need to kill to fight, only to resist evil. A pacifist I am not. Evil triumphs when good men and women do nothing. Silence is acceptance, and apathy is a great evil. If you are going to attack my position, bring facts, reasons, proof, and such. If I am wrong tell me why and prove it. Ad hom attacks where you attack someone's character or traits have no place on a such a good debate site as Debate.org. If you want to ad hom attack, I know the perfect site for you.
A tu quoque is where you criticize to avoid having to present a logical case for your position. The fallacy fallacy is equating disagreement with a fallacy, and don't get me started on circular reasoning: I am right because I say i am right because I am right. And finally, Satan send his minions to attack true believers when God is about to bless the recipient, so thank you for being the canary in the mine so to speak. I just wanna say that i love you no matter what, even if you hate me. God bless.

The fool just pointed out that your source was laughable and gay rights propaganda, which is true, Huffington Post is flaming liberal..
Whether it is liberal or not does not matter. It is not propaganda to support equal protection under the law, and it is not propaganda to support love between two consenting adults. Marriage is about love, not chromasomes. Face it, gays have rights. The blatant lies that were told on that thread against me are inexcusable. I do not support violence save for life or essential liberty, so the people saying that are disgusting. I guess it is okay to lie when you disagree, huh?

Sitara, I am going to be nice about this even though your seem belligerent. I don't doubt your intentions, but I think your debate style is rather poor and you still have a lot to learn, you made a lot of assumptions in that brief response. It doesn't matter if your opinion of gay marriage is widely accepted and common sense to you, it is still an opinion and not even attempting to honestly report the other side is propaganda. Like Fool, I didn't even say I was against gay marriage, I am against it because I am against the government marrying people period, there should only be civil unions that are available to everyone. I feel as if you think I was trying to demean you or patronize you when I was just telling you that The Fool had a valid point and you sort of incited the altercation by your inappropriate response.
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:42:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:28:48 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:23:37 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:18:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/11/2013 10:36:42 PM, Sitara wrote:
And I guess that also means that I support violence. I find it quite ironic when hateful people accuse me of hate. I stood up for Chicks On The Right when they were censored even though I am a radical liberal because I believe in freedom for everyone. I want to fight hate for love, and I am the bigot. I expect people to be respectful if the want my respect, yet I have the problem. I was falsely accused of supporting violence when I was really supporting fighting with ideals and education. You do not need to be violent to fight. You do not need to kill to fight, only to resist evil. A pacifist I am not. Evil triumphs when good men and women do nothing. Silence is acceptance, and apathy is a great evil. If you are going to attack my position, bring facts, reasons, proof, and such. If I am wrong tell me why and prove it. Ad hom attacks where you attack someone's character or traits have no place on a such a good debate site as Debate.org. If you want to ad hom attack, I know the perfect site for you.
A tu quoque is where you criticize to avoid having to present a logical case for your position. The fallacy fallacy is equating disagreement with a fallacy, and don't get me started on circular reasoning: I am right because I say i am right because I am right. And finally, Satan send his minions to attack true believers when God is about to bless the recipient, so thank you for being the canary in the mine so to speak. I just wanna say that i love you no matter what, even if you hate me. God bless.

The fool just pointed out that your source was laughable and gay rights propaganda, which is true, Huffington Post is flaming liberal..
Whether it is liberal or not does not matter. It is not propaganda to support equal protection under the law, and it is not propaganda to support love between two consenting adults. Marriage is about love, not chromasomes. Face it, gays have rights. The blatant lies that were told on that thread against me are inexcusable. I do not support violence save for life or essential liberty, so the people saying that are disgusting. I guess it is okay to lie when you disagree, huh?

Sitara, I am going to be nice about this even though your seem belligerent. I don't doubt your intentions, but I think your debate style is rather poor and you still have a lot to learn, you made a lot of assumptions in that brief response. It doesn't matter if your opinion of gay marriage is widely accepted and common sense to you, it is still an opinion and not even attempting to honestly report the other side is propaganda. Like Fool, I didn't even say I was against gay marriage, I am against it because I am against the government marrying people period, there should only be civil unions that are available to everyone. I feel as if you think I was trying to demean you or patronize you when I was just telling you that The Fool had a valid point and you sort of incited the altercation by your inappropriate response.

No i did not deserve the way I was treated. I was attacked just for not being a conservative, antigay, bigot. Classic tu quoque: you criticize rather than attempt to present a logical case.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:46:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:42:58 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:28:48 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:23:37 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:18:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/11/2013 10:36:42 PM, Sitara wrote:
And I guess that also means that I support violence. I find it quite ironic when hateful people accuse me of hate. I stood up for Chicks On The Right when they were censored even though I am a radical liberal because I believe in freedom for everyone. I want to fight hate for love, and I am the bigot. I expect people to be respectful if the want my respect, yet I have the problem. I was falsely accused of supporting violence when I was really supporting fighting with ideals and education. You do not need to be violent to fight. You do not need to kill to fight, only to resist evil. A pacifist I am not. Evil triumphs when good men and women do nothing. Silence is acceptance, and apathy is a great evil. If you are going to attack my position, bring facts, reasons, proof, and such. If I am wrong tell me why and prove it. Ad hom attacks where you attack someone's character or traits have no place on a such a good debate site as Debate.org. If you want to ad hom attack, I know the perfect site for you.
A tu quoque is where you criticize to avoid having to present a logical case for your position. The fallacy fallacy is equating disagreement with a fallacy, and don't get me started on circular reasoning: I am right because I say i am right because I am right. And finally, Satan send his minions to attack true believers when God is about to bless the recipient, so thank you for being the canary in the mine so to speak. I just wanna say that i love you no matter what, even if you hate me. God bless.

The fool just pointed out that your source was laughable and gay rights propaganda, which is true, Huffington Post is flaming liberal..
Whether it is liberal or not does not matter. It is not propaganda to support equal protection under the law, and it is not propaganda to support love between two consenting adults. Marriage is about love, not chromasomes. Face it, gays have rights. The blatant lies that were told on that thread against me are inexcusable. I do not support violence save for life or essential liberty, so the people saying that are disgusting. I guess it is okay to lie when you disagree, huh?

Sitara, I am going to be nice about this even though your seem belligerent. I don't doubt your intentions, but I think your debate style is rather poor and you still have a lot to learn, you made a lot of assumptions in that brief response. It doesn't matter if your opinion of gay marriage is widely accepted and common sense to you, it is still an opinion and not even attempting to honestly report the other side is propaganda. Like Fool, I didn't even say I was against gay marriage, I am against it because I am against the government marrying people period, there should only be civil unions that are available to everyone. I feel as if you think I was trying to demean you or patronize you when I was just telling you that The Fool had a valid point and you sort of incited the altercation by your inappropriate response.

No i did not deserve the way I was treated. I was attacked just for not being a conservative, antigay, bigot. Classic tu quoque: you criticize rather than attempt to present a logical case.

.. The Fool and myself are both for equal rights regarding marriage, that is what you are failing to understand. Huffington Post is just a really poor source to cite for almost anything because they cherry pick articles that will prop up liberal ideals.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 5:37:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To be fair, Sitara, you were commending someone for disowning their child for being against gay rights. One could argue that's being hateful. Further, you weren't "attacked" to the extent you believe you were. Unless I'm thinking you'r referencing a different thread than you are.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 5:48:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 5:37:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
To be fair, Sitara, you were commending someone for disowning their child for being against gay rights. One could argue that's being hateful.

I'm not interested in whether or not it's hateful. Moreover, I don't think acceptance of love is or should be universal and unconditional. The issue relates to the specific context by which these feelings erupt. In the story in the OP, one instance was hateful *and* unacceptable, the other was possibly hateful (but not in such a way that it wouldn't be understandable).

Further, you weren't "attacked" to the extent you believe you were. Unless I'm thinking you'r referencing a different thread than you are.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 5:53:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 5:48:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/12/2013 5:37:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
To be fair, Sitara, you were commending someone for disowning their child for being against gay rights. One could argue that's being hateful.

I'm not interested in whether or not it's hateful. Moreover, I don't think acceptance of love is or should be universal and unconditional. The issue relates to the specific context by which these feelings erupt. In the story in the OP, one instance was hateful *and* unacceptable, the other was possibly hateful (but not in such a way that it wouldn't be understandable).

I actually agree--and I agree with the grandfather's actions wholly, and would commend him myself. However, Sitara is claiming she was hateful "for supporting gay rights", without reference to the context in which she was doing that "supporting", which is a bit disingenuous, no?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 5:59:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 5:53:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 5:48:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/12/2013 5:37:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
To be fair, Sitara, you were commending someone for disowning their child for being against gay rights. One could argue that's being hateful.

I'm not interested in whether or not it's hateful. Moreover, I don't think acceptance of love is or should be universal and unconditional. The issue relates to the specific context by which these feelings erupt. In the story in the OP, one instance was hateful *and* unacceptable, the other was possibly hateful (but not in such a way that it wouldn't be understandable).

I actually agree--and I agree with the grandfather's actions wholly, and would commend him myself. However, Sitara is claiming she was hateful "for supporting gay rights", without reference to the context in which she was doing that "supporting", which is a bit disingenuous, no?

Are you referring to the idea someone floated that the grandather's disowning of the mother was "hateful" as well?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 6:06:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 5:59:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/12/2013 5:53:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 5:48:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/12/2013 5:37:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
To be fair, Sitara, you were commending someone for disowning their child for being against gay rights. One could argue that's being hateful.

I'm not interested in whether or not it's hateful. Moreover, I don't think acceptance of love is or should be universal and unconditional. The issue relates to the specific context by which these feelings erupt. In the story in the OP, one instance was hateful *and* unacceptable, the other was possibly hateful (but not in such a way that it wouldn't be understandable).

I actually agree--and I agree with the grandfather's actions wholly, and would commend him myself. However, Sitara is claiming she was hateful "for supporting gay rights", without reference to the context in which she was doing that "supporting", which is a bit disingenuous, no?

Are you referring to the idea someone floated that the grandather's disowning of the mother was "hateful" as well?

I am. The argument was that the actions and/or personality of the son were being disowned by the mother, and the grandfather was disowning the mother for roughly the same thing. I do not agree (I think the situations re: son and re: mother are different enough that it should not be called "hateful" to disown) but I think it's disingenuous to pretend the only thing that she was called hateful for was "supporting gay rights".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 6:22:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 6:06:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 5:59:26 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/12/2013 5:53:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 5:48:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/12/2013 5:37:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
To be fair, Sitara, you were commending someone for disowning their child for being against gay rights. One could argue that's being hateful.

I'm not interested in whether or not it's hateful. Moreover, I don't think acceptance of love is or should be universal and unconditional. The issue relates to the specific context by which these feelings erupt. In the story in the OP, one instance was hateful *and* unacceptable, the other was possibly hateful (but not in such a way that it wouldn't be understandable).

I actually agree--and I agree with the grandfather's actions wholly, and would commend him myself. However, Sitara is claiming she was hateful "for supporting gay rights", without reference to the context in which she was doing that "supporting", which is a bit disingenuous, no?

Are you referring to the idea someone floated that the grandather's disowning of the mother was "hateful" as well?

I am. The argument was that the actions and/or personality of the son were being disowned by the mother, and the grandfather was disowning the mother for roughly the same thing. I do not agree (I think the situations re: son and re: mother are different enough that it should not be called "hateful" to disown) but I think it's disingenuous to pretend the only thing that she was called hateful for was "supporting gay rights".

I think that situation is indicative of a broader problem in a lot of LGBTQ rights discussions I see. That is, affirmation of universal disdain for hate (though given the way the word is tied up in moral language, I understand it). Even if what the grandfather did was hateful, I wouldn't particularly care. But to someone who disowns the concept entirely (even if this serves as a tool for promoting general acceptance of LGBTQ people), it just becomes an unnecessary handicap.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 8:45:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:46:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:42:58 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:28:48 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:23:37 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:18:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 10/11/2013 10:36:42 PM, Sitara wrote:
And I guess that also means that I support violence. I find it quite ironic when hateful people accuse me of hate. I stood up for Chicks On The Right when they were censored even though I am a radical liberal because I believe in freedom for everyone. I want to fight hate for love, and I am the bigot. I expect people to be respectful if the want my respect, yet I have the problem. I was falsely accused of supporting violence when I was really supporting fighting with ideals and education. You do not need to be violent to fight. You do not need to kill to fight, only to resist evil. A pacifist I am not. Evil triumphs when good men and women do nothing. Silence is acceptance, and apathy is a great evil. If you are going to attack my position, bring facts, reasons, proof, and such. If I am wrong tell me why and prove it. Ad hom attacks where you attack someone's character or traits have no place on a such a good debate site as Debate.org. If you want to ad hom attack, I know the perfect site for you.
A tu quoque is where you criticize to avoid having to present a logical case for your position. The fallacy fallacy is equating disagreement with a fallacy, and don't get me started on circular reasoning: I am right because I say i am right because I am right. And finally, Satan send his minions to attack true believers when God is about to bless the recipient, so thank you for being the canary in the mine so to speak. I just wanna say that i love you no matter what, even if you hate me. God bless.

The fool just pointed out that your source was laughable and gay rights propaganda, which is true, Huffington Post is flaming liberal..
Whether it is liberal or not does not matter. It is not propaganda to support equal protection under the law, and it is not propaganda to support love between two consenting adults. Marriage is about love, not chromasomes. Face it, gays have rights. The blatant lies that were told on that thread against me are inexcusable. I do not support violence save for life or essential liberty, so the people saying that are disgusting. I guess it is okay to lie when you disagree, huh?

Sitara, I am going to be nice about this even though your seem belligerent. I don't doubt your intentions, but I think your debate style is rather poor and you still have a lot to learn, you made a lot of assumptions in that brief response. It doesn't matter if your opinion of gay marriage is widely accepted and common sense to you, it is still an opinion and not even attempting to honestly report the other side is propaganda. Like Fool, I didn't even say I was against gay marriage, I am against it because I am against the government marrying people period, there should only be civil unions that are available to everyone. I feel as if you think I was trying to demean you or patronize you when I was just telling you that The Fool had a valid point and you sort of incited the altercation by your inappropriate response.

No i did not deserve the way I was treated. I was attacked just for not being a conservative, antigay, bigot. Classic tu quoque: you criticize rather than attempt to present a logical case.

.. The Fool and myself are both for equal rights regarding marriage, that is what you are failing to understand. Huffington Post is just a really poor source to cite for almost anything because they cherry pick articles that will prop up liberal ideals.

You have more respect and class than this fool person, for THAT I thank you. In the future, I ask that you be more clear with me. Tell me in detail why you think my source is wrong, and please tell your friend that I do not support violence save for life or essential liberty. Have a nice day, and I mean that.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:12:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
ugghhhh!!!!!!! *anger starts to spill over* nope not worth it just not worth it
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 10:23:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am against it because I am against the government marrying people period, there should only be civil unions that are available to everyone. I feel as if you think I was trying to demean you or patronize you when I was just telling you that The Fool had a valid point and you sort of incited the altercation by your inappropriate response.

We can work on this. Check it out: we need the government to recognize marriages for the same reasons we need the government to arbitrate disagreements, enforce contracts, and bundle laws. That is more or less what marriage is to the courts. Marriage lets the courts bundle up dozens of state and federal laws that pertain to survivor rights, child custody questions, parental responsibilities, tax issues, trespassing and estate laws and so forth into one easy to monitor waterhose of legal.

The state really doesn't "marry" people as much as simply recognize that the contract has been entered into.

So, can we at least talk about marriage in its constituent parts? Like, do you agree that gays and lesbians should be able to enter into binding contracts? (We could start there.) Do you think that they should be allowed to enter into binding contracts WITH EACH OTHER? If so, then we can move on to questions like - should LGBT people be recognized as living in, and owning the same piece of private property? And so forth.

If the answer to most of the constituent parts of marriage (in your opinion) is "yes," then we can start asking why you still oppose it.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 10:59:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 3:32:23 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:23:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:00:51 AM, Beverlee wrote:
At 10/11/2013 11:56:53 PM, Smithereens wrote:
What a rant. But let me point out that marriage is not a right and thus there is no right that gays are missing out on. What therefore are you supporting? Nothing? Cool. I support nothing too.

How are you defining "right?"

I live in the United States, where marriage is considered a fundamental human right. It is a constitutionally protected right that has been specifically and repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

I had no idea any country considered marriage a fundamental human right. Equating marriage with the necessities of air, water, food and sanitation strikes me as strange. As for the definition, the UN declaration: "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being," is pretty accurate. Marriage is not something we are inherently entitled to because we are human. Marriage is simply a Culture of celebrating the union between a man and a women.

Ok, you are conflating things here.

First, you are right when you say that people have a right to "air and water and food." Depriving people of these things tends to kill them, and killing people does violate their human rights. So we agree there.

Then, you get on shaky ground. I'm glad that you admit that you didn't know that America considers marriage to be a very fundamental right of humans - because it is. In the US marriage agreements are relevant to contract law, privacy rights, free association rights, family institutions, 10th Amendment rights and many, many other areas of concern.

Where you are conflating is when you start comparing human rights, such as rights to due process, the right to use the roadways, the right of self-determination, the rights of individual liberty, with things like air and water. Air and water are NOT examples of rights... ACCESS to these things is a right.

The UN also considers marriage to be a fundamental right, and has set up many, many international agreements that are designed to protect this right. It is recognized under Articles 12 and 16 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State"

http://www.un.org...

I believe you are mistaken in the sense that the US considers marriage a fundamental human right for no other reason than because marriage in the USA is a legally binding union and cannot be revoked without state permission. Thus marriage is something which 'belongs' to the state and this is the reason why so many people mistakenly believe only the government of the USA has the right to declare what the definition of marriage is.

Marriage has long pre-dated governments and has been Universal in cultures. There is nothing more to marriage than a celebration of a couple joining together. So why is it such a big deal all of a sudden that gays also be married? A giant inconsistency of the 'gay rights' activists is that they believe they are suddenly entitled to something they have never had. Neither do they bring any substantial reason as to why we should abandon thousands of years of traditions for the petty wants of a few people.

"If gays can get married, then I should be allowed to marry as many women as I want. Because it is my right to be allowed to have as many relationships as I want without anyone telling me what to do." "But if that person can marry as many women as he wants, then I should be allowed to marry my dog." "If that guy can marry his dog, I should be allowed to marry my car, or my house, or my pet rock."

Marriage is not something that belongs to gays, to people who want to mate rocks, etc. Not only is it attempting to undermine the point of marriage, but it essentially turns the word 'marriage' into an empty term.

As for marriage as a right, it is not fundamental. The UN declaration which you cited proves this when it fails to use any word stronger than 'entitlement.' Marriage is an entitlement then according to the UN declaration.

You also seem to think that I class actual objects as rights. What I mean is the right to air, water and food. You should be able to pick this up.

Furthermore, it is difficult speaking across cultures. In Australia, certain individuals may be sterilised and prevented from having children without their consent. This is to stop genetic problems from spreading through the country. I would be surprised if the United States doesn't have similar laws.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 11:13:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 10:59:51 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Furthermore, it is difficult speaking across cultures. In Australia, certain individuals may be sterilised and prevented from having children without their consent. This is to stop genetic problems from spreading through the country. I would be surprised if the United States doesn't have similar laws.

This is interesting and the only thing I feel compelled to reply to.

The US has used compulsory sterilization in the past and many states had laws specifically allowing/encouraging it. But currently it's focus has been on giving compensation to those victims of it. The idea of compulsory sterilization and eugenics in general, is now a very controversial thing here, and makes many US citizens uncomfortable. So due to relatively recent legal changes, any sterilization must be done with the consent of the individual.
Debate.org Moderator
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 11:22:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 11:13:05 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 10:59:51 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Furthermore, it is difficult speaking across cultures. In Australia, certain individuals may be sterilised and prevented from having children without their consent. This is to stop genetic problems from spreading through the country. I would be surprised if the United States doesn't have similar laws.

This is interesting and the only thing I feel compelled to reply to.

The US has used compulsory sterilization in the past and many states had laws specifically allowing/encouraging it. But currently it's focus has been on giving compensation to those victims of it. The idea of compulsory sterilization and eugenics in general, is now a very controversial thing here, and makes many US citizens uncomfortable. So due to relatively recent legal changes, any sterilization must be done with the consent of the individual.

Sterilisation was abandoned? Do you happen to know of the argument(s) that caused this?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...