Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay Marriage Solution

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 2:15:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm pretty sure I've brought this up before...

I was thinking that gay men and lesbians should marry each other.

This would solve the problem of homosexuals not receiving the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. More importantly, it would highlight how absurd it is to base marriage benefits on something as frivolous as sexual orientation, and negate the silly premise of the "sanctity" of marriage as being based on sex.
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 2:25:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
can't they just civil union (so the christians wont have a problem with it) and then pass a law giving them benefits. Than people are for it, then they still get benefits. I like my compromise.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 2:30:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
no
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 2:33:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 2:30:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
no

lol
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 2:41:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 2:25:08 PM, 16kadams wrote:
can't they just civil union (so the christians wont have a problem with it) and then pass a law giving them benefits. Than people are for it, then they still get benefits. I like my compromise.

No, because civil unions do not offer the same benefits as marriage. That's a myth. If CU's were equivalent to marriage in terms of legal benefits, there would be no issue.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 2:42:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 2:30:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
no

I see you put every ounce of brain power you have into that riveting response - good job! :)
President of DDO
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 2:43:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Only if you marry me, and promise not to divorce to get half my sh1t. We might have to make a baby to avoid suspicion, but other than the first week of wild nasty and totally just for procreation type sex, we'd basically just be business partners who rarely talk to each other or even see each other unless dealing with the child... which should probably just be given up for adoption anyway lest it develops attachment issues from largely absent parents and an emotionally detached home life.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 2:49:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 2:42:09 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/17/2011 2:30:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
no

I see you put every ounce of brain power you have into that riveting response - good job! :)

The premise of the legalization of gay marriage forces the state to recognize marriage simply because of love. This case can be virtually applied to every single thing. If you love 20 women, then you should be allowed to marry them. If you love a pen, then you should be allowed to marry it. This premise of "love" falls short on all accounts.

Also, marriage isn't a right, it is a privilege. Heterosexual couples create something for society (children), and therefore receive more privileges. It is absurd to think that something not useful and something useful should be given the same privileges.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
cameronl35
Posts: 149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 3:46:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 2:15:39 PM, Danielle wrote:
I'm pretty sure I've brought this up before...

I was thinking that gay men and lesbians should marry each other.

This would solve the problem of homosexuals not receiving the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. More importantly, it would highlight how absurd it is to base marriage benefits on something as frivolous as sexual orientation, and negate the silly premise of the "sanctity" of marriage as being based on sex.

I don't know about your compromise; I don't think it well solve anything really. And what is so "frivolous" about sexual orientation?
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
-George Carlin (R.I.P.)

"MLK day is simply racism against whites."
-Lordknukle, only a nuance away from Stalin
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 3:49:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 2:41:26 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/17/2011 2:25:08 PM, 16kadams wrote:
can't they just civil union (so the christians wont have a problem with it) and then pass a law giving them benefits. Than people are for it, then they still get benefits. I like my compromise.

No, because civil unions do not offer the same benefits as marriage. That's a myth. If CU's were equivalent to marriage in terms of legal benefits, there would be no issue.

I know but I said they could change/modify those laws to make a compromise to give the = benefits, and not piss of the Christians. Sorry for the misunderstanding. You can modify that law so everyone would be happy, once modified then there is a good compromise. That's my solution. Modify the civil union to give = benefits.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 3:52:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 2:15:39 PM, Danielle wrote:
I'm pretty sure I've brought this up before...

I was thinking that gay men and lesbians should marry each other.

This would solve the problem of homosexuals not receiving the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. More importantly, it would highlight how absurd it is to base marriage benefits on something as frivolous as sexual orientation, and negate the silly premise of the "sanctity" of marriage as being based on sex.

question, how is this a compromise, it just legalizes it, so its not a compromise. Mine actually makes more people agree with it.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 3:53:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This a good idea based solely on its ability to produce a potentially amazing sitcom.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 3:59:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 3:52:05 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/17/2011 2:15:39 PM, Danielle wrote:
I'm pretty sure I've brought this up before...

I was thinking that gay men and lesbians should marry each other.

This would solve the problem of homosexuals not receiving the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. More importantly, it would highlight how absurd it is to base marriage benefits on something as frivolous as sexual orientation, and negate the silly premise of the "sanctity" of marriage as being based on sex.

question, how is this a compromise, it just legalizes it, so its not a compromise. Mine actually makes more people agree with it.
I think you're confused, she's proposing that gay men marry lesbians, not gay men marry gay men and lesbians marry lesbians. I.e. it compromises with the whole "marriage is between a man and a woman" thing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 4:03:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 2:15:39 PM, Danielle wrote:
I'm pretty sure I've brought this up before...

I was thinking that gay men and lesbians should marry each other.

This would solve the problem of homosexuals not receiving the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. More importantly, it would highlight how absurd it is to base marriage benefits on something as frivolous as sexual orientation, and negate the silly premise of the "sanctity" of marriage as being based on sex.

I'm not sure paradoxes work the same way in politics as they do in physics. ^_^
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 4:16:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why can't I get marry a salamander and get the same state sanctioned benefits as heterosexual couples?

And, I agree. Why should we base marriage on sexual orientation?

If two people can get married, why can't a person get married to a salamander?

Who are you to judge our love?
President of DDO
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 4:37:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This case can be virtually applied to every single thing. If you love 20 women, then you should be allowed to marry them.

I agree that polygamy should ideally be allowed. There are practical concerns that make me worried about endorsing it, however. If a disproportionate number of men marry a disproportionate amount of women, a whole lot of heterosexual people are going to be out of luck.

If you love a pen, then you should be allowed to marry it. This premise of "love" falls short on all accounts.

Pens cannot consent to marriage. Marriage is a two-way partnership.

Also, marriage isn't a right, it is a privilege. Heterosexual couples create something for society (children), and therefore receive more privileges. It is absurd to think that something not useful and something useful should be given the same privileges.

1. This entails that infertile couples should be denied marriage, which is absurd.
2. Since when is the justification of marriage that it 'produces more children'? Not only is it dubious that this is even good in a world headed for overpopulation, but grounding life partnerships in love and mutual consent is a far more enlightened approach than just endorsing it because married couple are baby factories.

My own reason for endorsing gay marriage: allowing gays to be married would make a lot of gay people happy. All things held equal, actions that make more people happy should be endorsed. There are no sound objections to gay marriage, therefore it should be endorsed.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 4:43:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 4:37:40 PM, Kinesis wrote:
This case can be virtually applied to every single thing. If you love 20 women, then you should be allowed to marry them.

I agree that polygamy should ideally be allowed. There are practical concerns that make me worried about endorsing it, however. If a disproportionate number of men marry a disproportionate amount of women, a whole lot of heterosexual people are going to be out of luck.

If you love a pen, then you should be allowed to marry it. This premise of "love" falls short on all accounts.

Pens cannot consent to marriage. Marriage is a two-way partnership.
According to whom is it a two way partnership?
If the state forces a couple to marry, then they are legally married, despite not being consenting.
Also, marriage isn't a right, it is a privilege. Heterosexual couples create something for society (children), and therefore receive more privileges. It is absurd to think that something not useful and something useful should be given the same privileges.

1. This entails that infertile couples should be denied marriage, which is absurd.
They can adopt.
Same sex households cause problems for children (backed up by numerous studies).
2. Since when is the justification of marriage that it 'produces more children'? Not only is it dubious that this is even good in a world headed for overpopulation, but grounding life partnerships in love and mutual consent is a far more enlightened approach than just endorsing it because married couple are baby factories.
Then what is the justification for marriage, if not to produce more children?
BTW, the world is not headed for overpopulation.
We can all fit in an area twice as big as Texas. Not to mention that we can create "floating cities" (structurally supported to the ground) and cities underwater.
My own reason for endorsing gay marriage: allowing gays to be married would make a lot of gay people happy. All things held equal, actions that make more people happy should be endorsed. There are no sound objections to gay marriage, therefore it should be endorsed.

If legalizing murder makes a lot of people happy, will you do it?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 5:10:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 4:26:58 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Last time I checked, salamanders are not sentient persons with the ability to make informed consent.

So, that is where you draw the line.
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 5:12:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 3:59:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/17/2011 3:52:05 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/17/2011 2:15:39 PM, Danielle wrote:
I'm pretty sure I've brought this up before...

I was thinking that gay men and lesbians should marry each other.

This would solve the problem of homosexuals not receiving the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. More importantly, it would highlight how absurd it is to base marriage benefits on something as frivolous as sexual orientation, and negate the silly premise of the "sanctity" of marriage as being based on sex.

question, how is this a compromise, it just legalizes it, so its not a compromise. Mine actually makes more people agree with it.
I think you're confused, she's proposing that gay men marry lesbians, not gay men marry gay men and lesbians marry lesbians. I.e. it compromises with the whole "marriage is between a man and a woman" thing.

that's dumb because then they aren't marrying for love
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 5:15:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 5:12:58 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/17/2011 3:59:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/17/2011 3:52:05 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/17/2011 2:15:39 PM, Danielle wrote:
I'm pretty sure I've brought this up before...

I was thinking that gay men and lesbians should marry each other.

This would solve the problem of homosexuals not receiving the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. More importantly, it would highlight how absurd it is to base marriage benefits on something as frivolous as sexual orientation, and negate the silly premise of the "sanctity" of marriage as being based on sex.

question, how is this a compromise, it just legalizes it, so its not a compromise. Mine actually makes more people agree with it.
I think you're confused, she's proposing that gay men marry lesbians, not gay men marry gay men and lesbians marry lesbians. I.e. it compromises with the whole "marriage is between a man and a woman" thing.

that's dumb because then they aren't marrying for love

they aren't marrying for love or attraction. Heck even money is a better reason to marry someone than someone you dont even like. So I hate that compromise...for now.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 6:06:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, marriage isn't a right, it is a privilege.

This disturbs me.

http://www.un.org... and Article 2 state, together, that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." "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."

Or, anyone, regardless of anything, is entitled to marry, regardless of political system in place. Also, looking at Article 30 : "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." and In the report on the issue (http://www2.ohchr.org...), Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, calls on countries to repeal laws that criminalize homosexuality, abolish the death penalty for offences involving consensual sexual relations, harmonize the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual conduct, and enact comprehensive anti-discrimination laws.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 7:36:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 6:06:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Also, marriage isn't a right, it is a privilege.

This disturbs me.

http://www.un.org... and Article 2 state, together, that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." "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."

Or, anyone, regardless of anything, is entitled to marry, regardless of political system in place. Also, looking at Article 30 : "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." and In the report on the issue (http://www2.ohchr.org...), Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, calls on countries to repeal laws that criminalize homosexuality, abolish the death penalty for offences involving consensual sexual relations, harmonize the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual conduct, and enact comprehensive anti-discrimination laws.

Not only did you mix articles to prove a point, but the articles don't mention sexual orientation.

That being said,
Gays marriage is not illegal, it's just not recognized.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 8:39:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd marry you Danielle.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 8:42:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 5:10:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/17/2011 4:26:58 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Last time I checked, salamanders are not sentient persons with the ability to make informed consent.

So, that is where you draw the line.

It's the only rational place to draw the line. Marriages for all they're said to be are fundamentally mere contracts. Just like a salamander can't buy a house, a salamander can't get married. Simple.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 8:58:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 8:39:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I'd marry you Danielle.

You'd have to grapple with other legal issues for that to happen.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 9:03:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 8:58:27 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 12/17/2011 8:39:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I'd marry you Danielle.

You'd have to grapple with other legal issues for that to happen.

Wait for me Danielle!
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 9:09:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 8:42:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/17/2011 5:10:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/17/2011 4:26:58 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Last time I checked, salamanders are not sentient persons with the ability to make informed consent.

So, that is where you draw the line.

It's the only rational place to draw the line. Marriages for all they're said to be are fundamentally mere contracts. Just like a salamander can't buy a house, a salamander can't get married. Simple.

For me, the only rational place to draw the line is one man and one woman. That is the way I was raised and that is what I continue to believe culture should be.

Some cultures may want to have gay marriage, I don't think that would be good for American culture.
President of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 9:14:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 9:09:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

For me, the only rational place to draw the line is one man and one woman. That is the way I was raised and that is what I continue to believe culture should be.

I was technically raised Christian but that alone doesn't prove that God exists. You'll have to do better than that.

Some cultures may want to have gay marriage, I don't think that would be good for American culture.

Why not? Why is contracting yourself to be connected socially and financially to a member of the same sex so inherently detrimental to the health of society?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 9:38:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 9:14:53 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/17/2011 9:09:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

For me, the only rational place to draw the line is one man and one woman. That is the way I was raised and that is what I continue to believe culture should be.

I was technically raised Christian but that alone doesn't prove that God exists. You'll have to do better than that.

Some cultures may want to have gay marriage, I don't think that would be good for American culture.

Why not? Why is contracting yourself to be connected socially and financially to a member of the same sex so inherently detrimental to the health of society?

Your not gonna convince me here.

I believe that cultures have a right to preserve themselves in most cases. I think we have a fairly good culture right now, and I think that heterosexual marriage is an important part of that.

For that reason, I oppose gay marriage.
President of DDO