Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Rational Case against Gay Marriage

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 5:13:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm going to be starting a blog soon and this is going to be my first post in it. I'm not so much looking for an argument (although I wouldn't object), but for feedback. Here it is:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Those are the words that appear on the recent Proposition 8 in California, which aims to let gay marriage remain unrecognized in the State of California. Despite the massive protest and controversy from both sides of the issues found in all media outlets, the constitutional amendment was passed with a 52% to 47% vote.
This constitutional amendment in California begs the greater question: How valid is gay marriage on a rational basis? In this entry, I wish to explore this validity, while only using secular arguments. This question will be divided into thee main sub-questions:
1. On what basis should/should not gay marriage be recognized? Is the basis similar to that of heterosexual marriage?
2. What are the societal and economic detriments/benefits of gay marriage?
3. Is gay marriage constitutionally valid?

1.On what basis should/should not gay marriage be recognized? Is the basis similar to that of heterosexual marriage?

This question begs the question of the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage is simply:
"A mutual and legal contract between various parties".
This definition obviously allows for the validation of gay marriage. After all, there are two consenting partners that are willing to enter into a contract. The definition of marriage, however, does not imply or make us able to derive anything as it simply serves as a title.
The next question that has to be asked is: What are the purposes of marriage?
These two main principles and functions of marriage are:
1. To officially validate the love between various parties by the state.
2. To produce off springs for the next societal generation.

The first point is obviously true for both homosexual and heterosexual marriage. However, it is a weak argument. The human emotion does not account for any societal benefit. Also, to validate gay marriage because of love would signify that you must validate other "marriages". For example, to accept the "love" argument, related marriages and polygamy must be recognized because the parties love each other. This argument might seem prima facie correct, but when further divulged in, it falls apart.

The second point is what ultimately demolishes the pro-gay case. Gay couples cannot naturally reproduce off springs for society. Artificial methods are not as effective and could lead to problems. The main point that is crucial to the anti-gay marriage case is that marriage is not a right, but instead an institution. The government has no obligation to recognize in law, an institution.

Homosexuals couples are not able to reproduce, and therefore cannot contribute to society with off springs. That is the main reason why the state should not recognize gay marriage as an institution. Heterosexual couples are doing society a favor by producing the next generation of workers and laborers. Homosexual couples, not so much.

2. What are the societal and economic detriments/benefits of gay marriage?

Economic effects
Many pro-gay marriage arguments are derived from the fact that it will be an economic benefit. This is mainly because it will bring in money from wedding licenses. This is true, however they are missing a whole other side of the issue. When people get married, they receive federal benefits. Some of benefits can include supplemental social security, Medicaid, and tax exemptions.
For a full list, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
From this, we can clearly see that the federal costs for maintain and recognizing marriage would be far greater than the revenue from one-time marriage licenses.

Societal Effects
A forensics journal article by the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology was published in 1996 called "Homicide in homosexual victims: a study of 67 cases from the Broward County, Florida, Medical Examiner's office (1982-1992), with special emphasis on "overkill"
In the article it clearly stated (1):

"Forensic pathologists often state that homosexual homicides are more violent than those with heterosexual victims. Overkill or wounding far beyond that required to cause death is a frequently used descriptor of these deaths. We quantified the number and extent of injuries between homosexual and heterosexual homicide victims to determine whether one group suffered more violence than the other...Homosexual homicides are more violent than heterosexual homicides when one compares the mean number of injuries (fatal sharp, blunt, and total)/case and the extent of injuries on the body"

Also, to conclude this premise, the American College of Paediatrics states that (2):
"Violence between homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples."

Now, you, might be asking, "Why does this matter? People are going to be gay anyways. Perhaps if we legalize gay marriage, this will stop "

However, the opposite is in fact true. Lets use this logic and replace it for a murder metaphor: "Why does this matter? People are going to murder anyways. Perhaps if we legalize murder, it will stop."

If we were to legalize gay marriage, then we would be, in essence, promoting these activities of increased violence. We, as the people of the United States and as the federal government would be saying that it is O.K. to promote domestic violence and murders within the gay community and society at large.

Gay relationships won't stop. However, not recognizing them will make the government not affiliated with increased violence.

3. Is gay marriage constitutionally valid?

The short answer is, yes. Nowhere in the American constitution does it state that everybody has a right to marriage. It does state that everybody is equal, but that applies to equal rights, which homosexuals already have. Marriage is a social institution, in which the government has no obligation to participate or be affiliated within.

(1)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(2) http://www.acpeds.org...
"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."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 5:24:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is simply my position and I wish no offence to anybody.
"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."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 5:58:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I suggest you decide whether this blog is going to be driven by facts or opinions. It seems like you'd prefer the former, but its brevity and the lack of supporting evidence makes this unsuccessful. You may want to devote an entire entry to each of your arguments so that you may better source your claims and elaborate on key points.

This says nothing of the actual strength of your points, which I suspect will be torn apart relatively easily by anyone with any experience with the topic. Posting this as is may be a good exercise in better understanding the weaknesses of your case.

Some grammatical issues:

This constitutional amendment in California begs the greater question: How valid is gay marriage on a rational basis? In this entry, I wish to explore this validity, while only using secular arguments. This question will be divided into three main sub-questions:

3. Is gay marriage constitutionally valid?

The short answer is, no. Nowhere in the American constitution does it state that everybody has a right to marriage.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 6:23:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The very notion of this subject is extremely subjective. Facts, for these typed of issues are hard to find. What kind of distinctions are u proposing?
"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."
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 11:01:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's not that subjective. Maikuru is being pretty generous when he says anyone would "tear apart" these arguments. I'd prefer to use words like "massacre," "annihilate," or "sh-t all over."

If you want to be anything more than a random blogger with subpar writing skills who repeats the same tired and stupid arguments and blends into the internet without ever being of interest to anyone I suggest you rethink your process and/or stance.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 3:02:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So...because gays are supposedly a little more violent in their relationships, you want to ban them from getting married..? What if Rednecks have more domestic violence than the national average? Should we ban Rednecks from getting married too?

The same argument could be applied to almost any group of people - blacks, Christians, whatever.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 11:23:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lordknuckle, when should we debate gay marriage?
: 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.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 1:59:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
After my 2 current tournaments.
"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."
jm_notguilty
Posts: 683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 5:49:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A good read, though some flaws and questionable statements. Here's my feedback:

At 12/23/2011 5:13:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Those are the words that appear on the recent Proposition 8 in California, which aims to let gay marriage remain unrecognized in the State of California. Despite the massive protest and controversy from both sides of the issues found in all media outlets, the constitutional amendment was passed with a 52% to 47% vote.

Just a note that Preposition 8 was amended in the Californian Constitution shortly after its State Supreme Court ruled on permitting gay marriage.

The next question that has to be asked is: What are the purposes of marriage?

The 2 principles you cited are highly questionable:

The first point is obviously true for both homosexual and heterosexual marriage. However, it is a weak argument. The human emotion does not account for any societal benefit. Also, to validate gay marriage because of love would signify that you must validate other "marriages". For example, to accept the "love" argument, related marriages and polygamy must be recognized because the parties love each other. This argument might seem prima facie correct, but when further divulged in, it falls apart.

I think your quite missing or misinterpreting the 'love' argument. I agree that this 'love' argument isn't enough, but it's weak either. You say that this argument may open the door to things like polygamy or other marriages like 'love' for inanimate objects, animals, minors etc.

But marriage is defined by common law (atleast in the US) between a social union between two consenting adults. Homosexuals marrying are between 2 consenting adults too, how does polygamy affect marriages? And this 'love' on other things issue is clearly ambiguous, because these said things have no capacity to consent or interact with a response to marriage. I don't think that these issues will take place once legalization will take effect. This are one of the fallacies anti-Gay marriage peeps argue, it's a ludicrous rebuttal IMHO.

The second point is what ultimately demolishes the pro-gay case. Gay couples cannot naturally reproduce off springs for society. Artificial methods are not as effective and could lead to problems. The main point that is crucial to the anti-gay marriage case is that marriage is not a right, but instead an institution. The government has no obligation to recognize in law, an institution.

This point is clearly subjective, which is questionable. But one thing, there are donors who donate their sperm to women, so technically, lesbian couples can reproduce offsprings naturally. Adoption has its benefits too, I don't know why you think artificial methods like these are bad.

If the government has no obligation to meddle with marriages, then why do we have marriage law?

2. What are the societal and economic detriments/benefits of gay marriage?
Economic effects
From this, we can clearly see that the federal costs for maintain and recognizing marriage would be far greater than the revenue from one-time marriage licenses.

So we should make gay marriages unlawful because once it passes people will marry more? No offense, but bigoted much?

Societal Effects
If we were to legalize gay marriage, then we would be, in essence, promoting these activities of increased violence. We, as the people of the United States and as the federal government would be saying that it is O.K. to promote domestic violence and murders within the gay community and society at large.

Did it occur to you that once gay marriage be legalized, LGBT couples would have the same protection as heterosexual couples do once married? The issue here is more protection, equal protection. And these statistics can be unreliable due to its 15 year age.

Gay relationships won't stop. However, not recognizing them will make the government not affiliated with increased violence.

Gay relationships won't stop, I agree.
So do we just leave them unprotected with violence and such around them or do we do something about it. What makes gay marriage increase the violence toward gay couples?

3. Is gay marriage constitutionally valid?

The short answer is, no. Nowhere in the American constitution does it state that everybody has a right to marriage. It does state that everybody is equal, but that applies to equal rights, which homosexuals already have. Marriage is a social institution, in which the government has no obligation to participate or be affiliated within.

This disturbs me, LGBT people do not have equal rights/privileges, they are discriminated against, abused and frowned upon. Homosexuality in Texas before 2003 was illegal, that was bad, thank God for Lawrence v. Texas.

6 confirmed states currently prohibit gay adoption, employment discrimination occurs statewide, hate crimes happening all around. LGBT peeps are far from equal protection.

As for marriage, it is constitutionally valid: (Section 1 of 14th amendment)

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Banning SSM abridges this privileges, it denies LGBT people equal protection, which makes it anticonstitutional IMO.

In Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that marriage is a fundamental freedom and that it has been recognized as "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men".

He further said that denying citizens this right is unconstitutional since marriage resides with the individual as it is a freedom of choice and cannot be infringed by the state.

Add to that, it is a right, according to the UN. In the UDHR Article 16, which states that 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.

You might argue that it says nothing about sexual orientation, but that's not the case, because gay men are still considered men and lesbians are still considered women.

Overall, I respect your opinion on this issue, and I'm not that surprised seeing your a conservative. Just giving my two cents. Good luck on your blog.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 7:53:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The next question that has to be asked is: What are the purposes of marriage?

The 2 principles you cited are highly questionable:

The first point is obviously true for both homosexual and heterosexual marriage. However, it is a weak argument. The human emotion does not account for any societal benefit. Also, to validate gay marriage because of love would signify that you must validate other "marriages". For example, to accept the "love" argument, related marriages and polygamy must be recognized because the parties love each other. This argument might seem prima facie correct, but when further divulged in, it falls apart.

I think your quite missing or misinterpreting the 'love' argument. I agree that this 'love' argument isn't enough, but it's weak either. You say that this argument may open the door to things like polygamy or other marriages like 'love' for inanimate objects, animals, minors etc.

But marriage is defined by common law (atleast in the US) between a social union between two consenting adults.
DOMA disagrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Homosexuals marrying are between 2 consenting adults too, how does polygamy affect marriages? And this 'love' on other things issue is clearly ambiguous, because these said things have no capacity to consent or interact with a response to marriage. I don't think that these issues will take place once legalization will take effect. This are one of the fallacies anti-Gay marriage peeps argue, it's a ludicrous rebuttal IMHO.
I never mentioned anything about inanimate objects. I mentioned that if recognized because of the "love" arguments, other human relationships such as polygamy and incest will have to be recognized. These relationships pose societal problems.
The second point is what ultimately demolishes the pro-gay case. Gay couples cannot naturally reproduce off springs for society. Artificial methods are not as effective and could lead to problems. The main point that is crucial to the anti-gay marriage case is that marriage is not a right, but instead an institution. The government has no obligation to recognize in law, an institution.

This point is clearly subjective, which is questionable. But one thing, there are donors who donate their sperm to women, so technically, lesbian couples can reproduce offsprings naturally. Adoption has its benefits too, I don't know why you think artificial methods like these are bad.
Gay couples cannot raise children as effectively as traditional couples.
http://www.ankerberg.com...

If the government has no obligation to meddle with marriages, then why do we have marriage law?
I never said that the government has no obligation to meddle with marriages. I stated that the government can deny the marriage institution to separate groups because it is not a right.
2. What are the societal and economic detriments/benefits of gay marriage?
Economic effects
From this, we can clearly see that the federal costs for maintain and recognizing marriage would be far greater than the revenue from one-time marriage licenses.

So we should make gay marriages unlawful because once it passes people will marry more? No offense, but bigoted much?
Expand please. I don't understand your point.
Societal Effects
If we were to legalize gay marriage, then we would be, in essence, promoting these activities of increased violence. We, as the people of the United States and as the federal government would be saying that it is O.K. to promote domestic violence and murders within the gay community and society at large.

Did it occur to you that once gay marriage be legalized, LGBT couples would have the same protection as heterosexual couples do once married? The issue here is more protection, equal protection. And these statistics can be unreliable due to its 15 year age.
A type of this kind of thinking which led to failure was the black de-segregation. It was thought that blacks would perform better and etc.... However, that turned out not to be true. I support the desegregation, but it didn't turn out as planned. Blacks, still, on average have lower IQ and socio-economic status compared to whites/asians. If you don't agree, ask Jimmytimmy.
Gay relationships won't stop. However, not recognizing them will make the government not affiliated with increased violence.

Gay relationships won't stop, I agree.
So do we just leave them unprotected with violence and such around them or do we do something about it. What makes gay marriage increase the violence toward gay couples?
We don't know, nor care.
3. Is gay marriage constitutionally valid?

The short answer is, no. Nowhere in the American constitution does it state that everybody has a right to marriage. It does state that everybody is equal, but that applies to equal rights, which homosexuals already have. Marriage is a social institution, in which the government has no obligation to participate or be affiliated within.

This disturbs me, LGBT people do not have equal rights/privileges, they are discriminated against, abused and frowned upon. Homosexuality in Texas before 2003 was illegal, that was bad, thank God for Lawrence v. Texas.
Legally, they are not discriminated upon. They have all the RIGHTS as regular citizens.
6 confirmed states currently prohibit gay adoption, employment discrimination occurs statewide, hate crimes happening all around. LGBT peeps are far from equal protection.
1. Gay adoption harms the children.
2. Give evidence of employment discrimination. Perhaps that cause of that is not in the employer, but instead in the employee.
3. Hate crimes occur against everybody. Deal with it.
As for marriage, it is constitutionally valid: (Section 1 of 14th amendment)

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
After my argument with Spinko (he destroyed me with this clause), I realized that marriage is not a privilege, but instead an institution.
Banning SSM abridges this privileges, it denies LGBT people equal protection, which makes it anticonstitutional IMO.
Institution.
In Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that marriage is a fundamental freedom and that it has been recognized as "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men".
Simply because one justice states something, doesn't mean that it is correct. Many other justices probably disagree.
He further said that denying citizens this right is unconstitutional since marriage resides with the individual as it is a freedom of choice and cannot be infringed by the state.

Add to that, it is a right, according to the UN. In the UDHR Article 16, which states that 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.
The UN is the most useless piece of crap to ever be on this earth. It needs to be abolished. As far as I know, none of those UN clauses are binding to the countries.
You might argue that it says nothing about sexual orientation, but that's not the case, because gay men are still considered men and lesbians are still considered women.
This would be almost impossible to argue against but check this out:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Overall, I respect your opinion on this issue, and I'm not that surprised seeing your a conservati
"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."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 9:23:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 8:27:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
Sorry, but how does marriage produce offspring?

Marriage as a physical entity does not.

Marriage produces a cause-causaility effect which makes the couple more likely to produce offsprings.
"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."
Rasheed
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 9:28:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am as religious as they come, but I find the bigotry of people of faith amazing. I can talk about my opposition to the homosexual lifestyle until I pass out but when it is all said and done my opinion should not carry the weight of law. As a Muslim I believe in a faith that some people find abhorrent, and if their opinions invaded my home I would be highly offended.

Governments should never discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, it should protect it's citizens equally. I am all for a vigorous discussion about any topic but if people of faith really believe in a Higher Power then they should let Him monitor what adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and mind our own business.

There is no rational case for denying two gay adults for having the same legal protections afforded by marriage as heterosexuals. There are straight marriages that produce no children so this is not a valid excuse for not allowing them to marry. Let me stress again that I am personally opposed to homosexuality but I am not so arrogant to think that they care what I think and I am not self righteous enough to try to get the government to enforce my worldview on other adults who do not hold my beliefs.
Say; He Allah (S.W.T.) is One God, He Begets not, nor is He begotten, and there is none like unto Him."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 9:28:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 9:23:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/24/2011 8:27:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
Sorry, but how does marriage produce offspring?

Marriage as a physical entity does not.

Marriage produces a cause-causaility effect which makes the couple more likely to produce offsprings.

That's exactly the sort of comment that would benefit greatly from some evidence. If you can demonstrate that pregnancies or birth rates increase significantly after marriage, you'll have some legs to stand on. Again, this says nothing about the strength or relevance of this argument.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:19:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 9:28:12 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/24/2011 9:23:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/24/2011 8:27:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
Sorry, but how does marriage produce offspring?

Marriage as a physical entity does not.

Marriage produces a cause-causaility effect which makes the couple more likely to produce offsprings.

That's exactly the sort of comment that would benefit greatly from some evidence. If you can demonstrate that pregnancies or birth rates increase significantly after marriage, you'll have some legs to stand on. Again, this says nothing about the strength or relevance of this argument.

Heterosexual attraction is the basis for the production of children.
Heterosexual marriage is based on heterosexual attraction.
Therefore, heterosexual marriage produces children.

What else do u want?
"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."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:53:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:19:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/24/2011 9:28:12 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/24/2011 9:23:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/24/2011 8:27:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
Sorry, but how does marriage produce offspring?

Marriage as a physical entity does not.

Marriage produces a cause-causaility effect which makes the couple more likely to produce offsprings.

That's exactly the sort of comment that would benefit greatly from some evidence. If you can demonstrate that pregnancies or birth rates increase significantly after marriage, you'll have some legs to stand on. Again, this says nothing about the strength or relevance of this argument.

Heterosexual attraction is the basis for the production of children.
Heterosexual marriage is based on heterosexual attraction.
Therefore, heterosexual marriage produces children.

What else do u want?

Your initial claim was that producing offspring is a primary purpose of marriage. When it was pointed out that marriage is not necessary for this process whatsoever, you asserted that procreation is more likely after marriage. Such a statement needs proof. Pointing out that attraction is involved does nothing (it's involved with dating, too).

Also, this isn't what I want. It's what your case currently requires.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
jm_notguilty
Posts: 683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 3:29:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 7:53:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Gay couples cannot raise children as effectively as traditional couples.
http://www.ankerberg.com...

I'm not gonna respond to a doc link, too lazy. But if this is a statistic, it isn't enough. What's the difference between a divorced/widowed single mom who has 3 children and a lesbian couple with a child that they produced naturally?

I never said that the government has no obligation to meddle with marriages. I stated that the government can deny the marriage institution to separate groups because it is not a right.

But it is a privilege, protected by the constitution, what's the difference? Are both things different? Based on your opinion or fact?

Expand please. I don't understand your point.

Is your point here that we should ban SSM because once it passes, people will marry more, which hurts the economy?

A type of this kind of thinking which led to failure was the black de-segregation. It was thought that blacks would perform better and etc.... However, that turned out not to be true. I support the desegregation, but it didn't turn out as planned. Blacks, still, on average have lower IQ and socio-economic status compared to whites/asians. If you don't agree, ask Jimmytimmy.

What?

We don't know, nor care.

Nice.

Legally, they are not discriminated upon. They have all the RIGHTS as regular citizens.

People have no right to be discriminated against, but sadly, LGBT peeps are still facing discrimination.

1. Gay adoption harms the children.

How so? And based on what, statistics?

2. Give evidence of employment discrimination. Perhaps that cause of that is not in the employer, but instead in the employee.

Really, you think employers have no biased towards homosexuals? Only a few states have these 'anti-employment-discrimination laws', and there aren't federal laws that prohibits employers discriminating against employees on the basis of sex.

3. Hate crimes occur against everybody. Deal with it.

Again, nice.

After my argument with Spinko (he destroyed me with this clause), I realized that marriage is not a privilege, but instead an institution.

Is marriage a contract, right, privilege, institution, ceremony, game, party, what?

Simply because one justice states something, doesn't mean that it is correct. Many other justices probably disagree.

I know, but Loving v. Virginia was a landmark SC case law, and Earl Warren was famous for it, it must be taken into consideration. And the other justices agreed, since the decision was unanimous.

The UN is the most useless piece of crap to ever be on this earth. It needs to be abolished. As far as I know, none of those UN clauses are binding to the countries.

UN being useless is another issue, I'll debate you on that sometime. As for its bindingness, the US has signed and ratified and agreed to the UN ICCPR which made the UDHR.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 4:27:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/25/2011 3:29:55 PM, jm_notguilty wrote:
At 12/24/2011 7:53:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Gay couples cannot raise children as effectively as traditional couples.
http://www.ankerberg.com...

I'm not gonna respond to a doc link, too lazy. But if this is a statistic, it isn't enough. What's the difference between a divorced/widowed single mom who has 3 children and a lesbian couple with a child that they produced naturally?
My point is mostly directed towards adoption, not "natural" production. I agree that the state should not interfere for societal reasons if the child is produced more or less naturally, but the state should interfere in matters of adoption.
I never said that the government has no obligation to meddle with marriages. I stated that the government can deny the marriage institution to separate groups because it is not a right.

But it is a privilege, protected by the constitution, what's the difference? Are both things different? Based on your opinion or fact?
By your theory, every thing that isn't a right, is a privilege. Therefore, everything ought to be recognized and treated fairly by the government. Communism much?
Expand please. I don't understand your point.

Is your point here that we should ban SSM because once it passes, people will marry more, which hurts the economy?
A homosexual marriage with no offsprings hurts the economy, yes.
A type of this kind of thinking which led to failure was the black de-segregation. It was thought that blacks would perform better and etc.... However, that turned out not to be true. I support the desegregation, but it didn't turn out as planned. Blacks, still, on average have lower IQ and socio-economic status compared to whites/asians. If you don't agree, ask Jimmytimmy.

What?
You stated that desegregation would massively help the homosexual community. Blacks say otherwise.
We don't know, nor care.

Nice.

Legally, they are not discriminated upon. They have all the RIGHTS as regular citizens.

People have no right to be discriminated against, but sadly, LGBT peeps are still facing discrimination.
Where does it say that people cannot be discriminated against in the constitution.
1. Gay adoption harms the children.

How so? And based on what, statistics?
Homosexual couples cannot effectively raise children. I provided a link above and am too lazy to search for more.
2. Give evidence of employment discrimination. Perhaps that cause of that is not in the employer, but instead in the employee.

Really, you think employers have no biased towards homosexuals? Only a few states have these 'anti-employment-discrimination laws', and there aren't federal laws that prohibits employers discriminating against employees on the basis of sex.
There are laws prohibiting discrimination against employees based on sex. Perhaps you meant sexual orientation.
3. Hate crimes occur against everybody. Deal with it.

Again, nice.

After my argument with Spinko (he destroyed me with this clause), I realized that marriage is not a privilege, but instead an institution.

Is marriage a contract, right, privilege, institution, ceremony, game, party, what?
Institution.
Simply because one justice states something, doesn't mean that it is correct. Many other justices probably disagree.

I know, but Loving v. Virginia was a landmark SC case law, and Earl Warren was famous for it, it must be taken into consideration. And the other justices agreed, since the decision was unanimous.
All of Hitler's advisors agreed that all Jews needed to be killed. Authority agreeing doesn't mean anything.
The UN is the most useless piece of crap to ever be on this earth. It needs to be abolished. As far as I know, none of those UN clauses are binding to the countries.

UN being useless is another issue, I'll debate you on that sometime. As for its bindingness, the US has signed and ratified and agreed to the UN ICCPR which made the UDHR.

Says nothing about sexual orientation:
http://www2.ohchr.org...
"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."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2011 9:34:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 5:13:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I'm going to be starting a blog soon and this is going to be my first post in it. I'm not so much looking for an argument (although I wouldn't object), but for feedback. Here it is:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Those are the words that appear on the recent Proposition 8 in California, which aims to let gay marriage remain unrecognized in the State of California. Despite the massive protest and controversy from both sides of the issues found in all media outlets, the constitutional amendment was passed with a 52% to 47% vote.
This constitutional amendment in California begs the greater question: How valid is gay marriage on a rational basis? In this entry, I wish to explore this validity, while only using secular arguments. This question will be divided into thee main sub-questions:
1. On what basis should/should not gay marriage be recognized? Is the basis similar to that of heterosexual marriage?
2. What are the societal and economic detriments/benefits of gay marriage?
3. Is gay marriage constitutionally valid?

1.On what basis should/should not gay marriage be recognized? Is the basis similar to that of heterosexual marriage?

This question begs the question of the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage is simply:
"A mutual and legal contract between various parties".
This definition obviously allows for the validation of gay marriage. After all, there are two consenting partners that are willing to enter into a contract. The definition of marriage, however, does not imply or make us able to derive anything as it simply serves as a title.
The next question that has to be asked is: What are the purposes of marriage?
These two main principles and functions of marriage are:
1. To officially validate the love between various parties by the state.
2. To produce off springs for the next societal generation.

The first point is obviously true for both homosexual and heterosexual marriage. However, it is a weak argument. The human emotion does not account for any societal benefit. Also, to validate gay marriage because of love would signify that you must validate other "marriages". For example, to accept the "love" argument, related marriages and polygamy must be recognized because the parties love each other. This argument might seem prima facie correct, but when further divulged in, it falls apart.

The second point is what ultimately demolishes the pro-gay case. Gay couples cannot naturally reproduce off springs for society. Artificial methods are not as effective and could lead to problems. The main point that is crucial to the anti-gay marriage case is that marriage is not a right, but instead an institution. The government has no obligation to recognize in law, an institution.

Homosexuals couples are not able to reproduce, and therefore cannot contribute to society with off springs. That is the main reason why the state should not recognize gay marriage as an institution. Heterosexual couples are doing society a favor by producing the next generation of workers and laborers. Homosexual couples, not so much.

2. What are the societal and economic detriments/benefits of gay marriage?

Economic effects
Many pro-gay marriage arguments are derived from the fact that it will be an economic benefit. This is mainly because it will bring in money from wedding licenses. This is true, however they are missing a whole other side of the issue. When people get married, they receive federal benefits. Some of benefits can include supplemental social security, Medicaid, and tax exemptions.
For a full list, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
From this, we can clearly see that the federal costs for maintain and recognizing marriage would be far greater than the revenue from one-time marriage licenses.

Societal Effects
A forensics journal article by the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology was published in 1996 called "Homicide in homosexual victims: a study of 67 cases from the Broward County, Florida, Medical Examiner's office (1982-1992), with special emphasis on "overkill"
In the article it clearly stated (1):

"Forensic pathologists often state that homosexual homicides are more violent than those with heterosexual victims. Overkill or wounding far beyond that required to cause death is a frequently used descriptor of these deaths. We quantified the number and extent of injuries between homosexual and heterosexual homicide victims to determine whether one group suffered more violence than the other...Homosexual homicides are more violent than heterosexual homicides when one compares the mean number of injuries (fatal sharp, blunt, and total)/case and the extent of injuries on the body"


Also, to conclude this premise, the American College of Paediatrics states that (2):
"Violence between homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples."

Now, you, might be asking, "Why does this matter? People are going to be gay anyways. Perhaps if we legalize gay marriage, this will stop "

However, the opposite is in fact true. Lets use this logic and replace it for a murder metaphor: "Why does this matter? People are going to murder anyways. Perhaps if we legalize murder, it will stop."

If we were to legalize gay marriage, then we would be, in essence, promoting these activities of increased violence. We, as the people of the United States and as the federal government would be saying that it is O.K. to promote domestic violence and murders within the gay community and society at large.

Gay relationships won't stop. However, not recognizing them will make the government not affiliated with increased violence.

3. Is gay marriage constitutionally valid?

The short answer is, yes. Nowhere in the American constitution does it state that everybody has a right to marriage. It does state that everybody is equal, but that applies to equal rights, which homosexuals already have. Marriage is a social institution, in which the government has no obligation to participate or be affiliated within.



(1)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(2) http://www.acpeds.org...

Alright, let's clear something up about forensics.

When a homicide victim is identified as being a subject of "overkill" it suggests the subject previously knew the victim or had some personal attachment or transferred attachment.

The fact that heterosexuals have less overkill homicides suggests that heterosexual homicides more prominently feature deaths of people you don't directly know, such as the case of serial killers, hitmen, and sociopaths (not mutually exclusive categories).

If homosexual homicides were more heavily concentrated in acts of passion against a lover or similar factors, we would expect relatively more instances of overkill.

All you are saying is that heteros are more likely to kill people they are not emotionally or psychologically attached to.

Also, overkill deaths (like a "slap" or "blunt object") are more indicative of second degree murder with prior fantasies that lack actual intent. A cold-blooded murder is more likely to involve pre-meditated (first degree) deaths.

Think of O.J. Simpson versus Son of Sam and other serial killers whose signature does not include pre-mortem torture (and even in this case, it can be argued that a consistent signature should not be classified as overkill). OJ used overkill
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 1:23:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 11:23:35 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Lordknuckle, when should we debate gay marriage?

Lol, this. I literally lol'd while reading his arguments to be perfectly honest.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 1:50:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lord has 2 points - that gay marriage should not be recognized because gay couples cannot naturally reproduce children, and that legalizing gay marriage would be promoting violence or associating the government with violence. These two arguments are so easy to annihilate it's not even funny.
President of DDO
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 8:45:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 5:13:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
1.On what basis should/should not gay marriage be recognized? Is the basis similar to that of heterosexual marriage?

This question begs the question of the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage is simply:
"A mutual and legal contract between various parties".
This definition obviously allows for the validation of gay marriage. After all, there are two consenting partners that are willing to enter into a contract. The definition of marriage, however, does not imply or make us able to derive anything as it simply serves as a title.
The next question that has to be asked is: What are the purposes of marriage?
These two main principles and functions of marriage are:
1. To officially validate the love between various parties by the state.
2. To produce off springs for the next societal generation.

This is not a function of marriage. This is what correlates with marriage, but that is where it stops.
This is the first problem with your argument...


The first point is obviously true for both homosexual and heterosexual marriage. However, it is a weak argument. The human emotion does not account for any societal benefit. Also, to validate gay marriage because of love would signify that you must validate other "marriages". For example, to accept the "love" argument, related marriages and polygamy must be recognized because the parties love each other. This argument might seem prima facie correct, but when further divulged in, it falls apart.

The second point is what ultimately demolishes the pro-gay case. Gay couples cannot naturally reproduce off springs for society. Artificial methods are not as effective and could lead to problems. The main point that is crucial to the anti-gay marriage case is that marriage is not a right, but instead an institution. The government has no obligation to recognize in law, an institution.


But, your second point is based on opinion. An argument based on opinion is often spurious at best. This is one...

Homosexuals couples are not able to reproduce,

How do you define reproduce?
If they adopt, it may not be under the definition of reproduction, but it is in the spirit of the word.

and therefore cannot contribute to society with off springs.

But can contribute by adopting kids that people with reproductive qualities neglect and do not contribute to society by said neglect.

That is the main reason why the state should not recognize gay marriage as an institution. Heterosexual couples are doing society a favor by producing the next generation of workers and laborers. Homosexual couples, not so much.


This reason is spurious...

2. What are the societal and economic detriments/benefits of gay marriage?

Economic effects
Many pro-gay marriage arguments are derived from the fact that it will be an economic benefit.

Where is your evidence that gives you the right to use the word "many."
If I am using it like you are I could say,
-Many white people hate black people
-Many conservatives only care bout the rich
-Many Christians are killers
-Many Cubans are better educated than people from New York
-Many New Yorkers are killers.

Using it like you do, if I could find one then I could use the word many...
If you did not know, many gives way to a majority, not some or few... You are sounding ridiculous when you claim something so utterly false.

This is mainly because it will bring in money from wedding licenses. This is true, however they are missing a whole other side of the issue. When people get married, they receive federal benefits.

If you think that Gay people get married just for that benefit, than you do not have any rational debating this topic. You are showing yourself out of touch with facts.

Some of benefits can include supplemental social security, Medicaid, and tax exemptions.
For a full list, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
From this, we can clearly see that the federal costs for maintain and recognizing marriage would be far greater than the revenue from one-time marriage licenses.


No, it is not so clear... Maybe to an ideologue like yourself, but no one with reason enough to logically come at this with facts will ever agree with your claims.


Now, you, might be asking, "Why does this matter? People are going to be gay anyways. Perhaps if we legalize gay marriage, this will stop "

However, the opposite is in fact true. Lets use this logic and replace it for a murder metaphor: "Why does this matter? People are going to murder anyways. Perhaps if we legalize murder, it will stop."


Ha, you are making an equivocation error in your logic, as well as a reductio ad absurdum claim. Your logic is crazy false! Look I could do the same thing...

Claim- people without religion are ultimately without morals. (And yes, this is as ridiculous as any claim you have made)
Now, you, might be asking, "Why does this matter? People are going to be agnostic anyway. Perhaps if we legalize being agnostic, this will stop "

However, the opposite is in fact true. Lets use this logic and replace it for a murder metaphor: "Why does this matter? People are going to murder anyways. Perhaps if we legalize murder, it will stop."

So we should take the religious rights for agnostics or atheists... Yes you do sound this ridiculous.

If we were to legalize gay marriage, then we would be, in essence, promoting these activities of increased violence. We, as the people of the United States and as the federal government would be saying that it is O.K. to promote domestic violence and murders within the gay community and society at large.


No, we will in essence be promoting equality, freedom, and justice.

Gay relationships won't stop. However, not recognizing them will make the government not affiliated with increased violence.


Not recognizing then could bring about more violence. Violence against the government through protest, etc. Violence against Gays because people will think it ok to ignore a particular issue. When you are ignored, do not you get upset? Someone will get upset and could lash out.

3. Is gay marriage constitutionally valid?

The short answer is, yes. Nowhere in the American constitution does it state that everybody has a right to marriage. It does state that everybody is equal, but that applies to equal rights, which homosexuals already have. Marriage is a social institution, in which the government has no obligation to participate or be affiliated within.

And the long answer is, yes. If a sect of humans have a right to marriage, than all should have a right to marriage.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 10:02:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Gay marriage should not be recognized because gay couples cannot naturally reproduce children.

1. The State does not recognize one's marriage specifically on whether or not they can conceive. We know this because plenty of people who either can't or don't have children are allowed to marry, and plenty of people who can are also not allowed to marry (such as 14 y/o's). In no way, shape or form is "having kids" a marriage eligibility requirement or expectation.

This point has already therefore been negated.

2. Gay and bisexual people can and do have children all the time. They either naturally conceive with one partner and then choose a same-sex partner, adopt, or far more commonly use in vitro fertilization (as many straight couples do) to get pregnant. Every gay person I know either has kids or plans on having kids someday.

3. Parenting is not limited to a child's biological mother and father. In fact, 1/3 of children in America are not raised in two-parent households. The 2000 U. S. Census reports that over 1/3 of lesbian couples and more than 1/5 of gay male couples have at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home - so Lord's point that gays don't have kids is yet again negated, and doing it "naturally" has no bearing as it's irrelevant since these children will also grow up to be functioning members of society who contribute to the workforce.

Dr. Ellen Perrin notes, "The vast consensus of all the studies show that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way -- In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

Legalizing gay marriage would suggest the government promotes violence.

This point is so dumb that Lord himself acknowledged how silly it was when typing it. As he pointed out, the alleged violence can and will occur even without the title of marriage. The government recognizing gay marriage in no way whatsoever even remotely insinuates that the government endorses abuse. That's like saying because the government keeps alcohol legal that it promotes alcoholism. Clearly that is not true and there are innumerable other examples and analogies I can use to prove how absurd and faulty this logic is.

It would be expensive for the federal government to recognize marriage.

First of all, we don't base civil rights on a cost/benefit analysis. It may be economically beneficial to employ slavery, but we don't because it's immoral. Lord is basically saying that it's okay to trample on people's civil liberties and endorse unjustifiable and discriminatory legislation because it'd be cheaper. This is problematic for so many reasons. In addition to the moral aspect, consider the fact that gays are still expected to pay taxes, yet do not receive the same legal protections and benefits as their heterosexual counterparts. This is patently unfair.

Second, it's not necessarily true that it would cost the federal government more money. Interestingly enough, if you and your partner make the same amount there is actually no tax benefit (and instead a tax penalty) to being married. This means the State would actually make money if they allowed gay people to marry, because two people would not be filing Head of Household status on their tax forms (only one could). The facts are simply not on your side. Sorry.

But technically gays have the same rights as heterosexuals...

Ah, semantics. Well it's true that a gay man could marry a woman and vice versa. In fact, this just proves how absurd basing marriage requirements on sex is. A gay man and lesbian woman could marry each other and never have children, thereby throwing the first (and Lord's seemingly most important contention) right out the window.

Further, gender identity is complex. A person whose sex is male may identify as female. In that case, a woman might be marrying another woman and the State wouldn't know or care. The whole idea that gay marriage is wrong or useless is absurd and rooted in secular bigotry. Fact. Lord's attempt to prove otherwise has completely fallen flat on its face.

A straight person is allowed to marry the person they love if that person is a consenting adult and agrees. A gay person is not allowed to marry the person they love even if that person consents and agrees. This means their rights are not entirely equal. Bringing up ridiculous arguments like, "Well what if someone wanted to marry their toaster or a dog or a child" is retarded because none of those things are consenting adults and citizens who can legally agree.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anything else, Lord? No, probably not.
President of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 10:26:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/26/2011 10:02:55 AM, Danielle wrote:
Gay marriage should not be recognized because gay couples cannot naturally reproduce children.

1. The State does not recognize one's marriage specifically on whether or not they can conceive. We know this because plenty of people who either can't or don't have children are allowed to marry, and plenty of people who can are also not allowed to marry (such as 14 y/o's). In no way, shape or form is "having kids" a marriage eligibility requirement or expectation.
Ideally, the State should not recognize any marriages that do not plan in conceiving new children.


2. Gay and bisexual people can and do have children all the time. They either naturally conceive with one partner and then choose a same-sex partner, adopt, or far more commonly use in vitro fertilization (as many straight couples do) to get pregnant. Every gay person I know either has kids or plans on having kids someday.
I would hardly call in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination natural. Also, processes such as in vitro fertilization lead to a greater increase in possible child defects, which is very unhealthily to the economy and the societal structure of the state.
http://scienceblogs.com...
3. Parenting is not limited to a child's biological mother and father. In fact, 1/3 of children in America are not raised in two-parent households. The 2000 U. S. Census reports that over 1/3 of lesbian couples and more than 1/5 of gay male couples have at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home - so Lord's point that gays don't have kids is yet again negated, and doing it "naturally" has no bearing as it's irrelevant since these children will also grow up to be functioning members of society who contribute to the workforce.
Most of the children who are raised not in two parent households are raised by single mothers or fathers. They have been, most of the time, naturally created. Also there have been numerous studies that show that raising children in SS households is detrimental to them.
Dr. Ellen Perrin notes, "The vast consensus of all the studies show that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way -- In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."
If you want... I'll link the studies next time.
Legalizing gay marriage would suggest the government promotes violence.

This point is so dumb that Lord himself acknowledged how silly it was when typing it. As he pointed out, the alleged violence can and will occur even without the title of marriage.
Homosexual couples are much more violent than heterosexual couples.
The government recognizing gay marriage in no way whatsoever even remotely insinuates that the government endorses abuse.
If the government, were to legalize murder, wouldn't you think that it is insinuating abuse? The same logic can be applied in reverse. The fact that the government is not recognized a potential murder threat proves that it is not condoning it.
That's like saying because the government keeps alcohol legal that it promotes alcoholism.
It does.
Clearly that is not true and there are innumerable other examples and analogies I can use to prove how absurd and faulty this logic is.

It would be expensive for the federal government to recognize marriage.

First of all, we don't base civil rights on a cost/benefit analysis. It may be economically beneficial to employ slavery, but we don't because it's immoral. Lord is basically saying that it's okay to trample on people's civil liberties and endorse unjustifiable and discriminatory legislation because it'd be cheaper.
Unjustifiable is debatable.
This is problematic for so many reasons. In addition to the moral aspect, consider the fact that gays are still expected to pay taxes, yet do not receive the same legal protections and benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.
Because they don't produce children.
This is patently unfair.
Rule #1:
http://urbanlegends.about.com...

Second, it's not necessarily true that it would cost the federal government more money. Interestingly enough, if you and your partner make the same amount there is actually no tax benefit (and instead a tax penalty) to being married. This means the State would actually make money if they allowed gay people to marry, because two people would not be filing Head of Household status on their tax forms (only one could). The facts are simply not on your side. Sorry.
Tax benefits are among one of the hundreds of federal benefits given to recognized couples.
But technically gays have the same rights as heterosexuals...

Ah, semantics. Well it's true that a gay man could marry a woman and vice versa. In fact, this just proves how absurd basing marriage requirements on sex is. A gay man and lesbian woman could marry each other and never have children, thereby throwing the first (and Lord's seemingly most important contention) right out the window.

Further, gender identity is complex. A person whose sex is male may identify as female. In that case, a woman might be marrying another woman and the State wouldn't know or care. The whole idea that gay marriage is wrong or useless is absurd and rooted in secular bigotry. Fact. Lord's attempt to prove otherwise has completely fallen flat on its face.

A straight person is allowed to marry the person they love if that person is a consenting adult and agrees. A gay person is not allowed to marry the person they love even if that person consents and agrees. This means their rights are not entirely equal.
Right to love? Right to marry? Right to be happy? Please give the "rights" argument a rest.

Bringing up ridiculous arguments like, "Well what if someone wanted to marry their toaster or a dog or a child" is retarded because none of those things are consenting adults and citizens who can legally agree.
Incest? Polygamy? All those can be consented and prove great societal problems.
"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."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 10:54:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/26/2011 10:26:30 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Ideally, the State should not recognize any marriages that do not plan in conceiving new children.

Ideally the State should not recognize any marriages in which one partner has blonde hair. See how absurd that is? You can't just make a blanket statement and declare it without backing it up. Once you attempt to do so, I will attack your premises for such an assertion. Go for it.

I would hardly call in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination natural. Also, processes such as in vitro fertilization lead to a greater increase in possible child defects, which is very unhealthily to the economy and the societal structure of the state.

A) Anything that occurs in nature is natural. We're in nature. Technically it's natural.

B) Heterosexuals use in vitro fertilization all the time.

C) It doesn't matter if it's riskier; having children later in life is very risky yet we do not stop or condemn people in their 30s from having kids, even though it's riskier than having kids in your 20s.

D) You ignored the fact that a lot of bisexual and gay people do conceive naturally and then choose same-sex partners. That's convenient.

E) You ignored the fact that every gay person I know either has kids or plans on having kids, through adoption or otherwise. I also noticed you ignored any potential adoption option - also convenient.

Lol, you can't win this.

Most of the children who are raised not in two parent households are raised by single mothers or fathers. They have been, most of the time, naturally created. Also there have been numerous studies that show that raising children in SS households is detrimental to them.

Whether or not they were conceived "naturally" has no relevance to the argument that parents and families come in all different shapes and sizes.

If you want... I'll link the studies next time.

Yes, please do. We have no reason to believe you otherwise. I'm willing to bet these alleged studies are from Right-Wing, Conservative, Christian family values groups in which case all of their evidence can easily be dismissed as biased propaganda. You show me your studies and then I'll bring out the handful of mine. This should be interesting.

Homosexual couples are much more violent than heterosexual couples.

There is a stigma in society for a man to hit a woman. In same-sex couples, that stigma becomes useless so it makes sense that this would be the case. However violence is never acceptable. This contention is irrelevant for the reasons I already mentioned. Further, they are not necessarily "much" more violent. One out of every four women experiences domestic violence in the confines of a heterosexual relationship. A woman is assaulted or beaten every 9 seconds in the U.S., yet we still permit heterosexual relationships.

If the government, were to legalize murder, wouldn't you think that it is insinuating abuse? The same logic can be applied in reverse. The fact that the government is not recognized a potential murder threat proves that it is not condoning it.

This is absurd.

The government allows alcohol consumption - does it promote alcoholism?
The government allows McDonalds consumption - does it promote obesity?
The government doesn't outlaw unprotected sex - does it encourage acquiring STDs?

Obviously NO to all of the above. Your analogy is so flawed. Accepting gay marriage is not the same as accepting gay ABUSE. You're making a huge and unjustifiable jump because marriage and abuse are not synonymous.

It does.

Okay, so put your money where your mouth is and debate me on it.

Resolved: The United States Government promotes alcoholism.

I'm Con. You're Pro. You should have no problem defending this in a debate.

Unjustifiable is debatable.

K. Let's debate it.

Because they don't produce children.

Yes they do. I've proven that; you haven't responded. Also, not every married heterosexual couple is expected to produce children.

Rule #1: Life's not fair.

Great, then we should imprison you and your family for no reason because hey, life's not fair.

Tax benefits are among one of the hundreds of federal benefits given to recognized couples.

What are the other benefits that homosexuals should not receive and why?

I see that because I made you look silly in proving your economic case wrong that you instead don't respond and change the subject. I'm going to call you out on it every single time.

Right to love? Right to marry? Right to be happy? Please give the "rights" argument a rest.

You didn't negate a single thing I said and instead asked me to please stop proving you wrong. Lol, hokay.

Incest? Polygamy? All those can be consented and prove great societal problems.

Oh so because you have not one legitimate rational argument against a gay couple marrying, you feel the need to compare apples and oranges in order to make your case look better. Fail. Two people getting married is not the same as one person marrying five people, so your example is not analogous. I don't care about incest insofar as I don't think the government has any right or responsibility to legislate against it. Regardless, problems of incest (which can only boil down to potentially retarded children, and there are a ton of arguments against that but I digress) are not applicable to gay couples getting married. Sorry, try again.
President of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 11:18:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 5:13:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Well, in accordance with what you said (feedback rather than arguments), there are two things that sprung out at me when I read your piece. Statements like this:

Heterosexual couples are doing society a favor by producing the next generation of workers and laborers. Homosexual couples, not so much.

...are indicative or socialist and antidisestablishmentarian leanings, which contradict your reported beliefs.

If readers notice the glaring inaccuracy of statements like:

This is mainly because it will bring in money from wedding licenses.

From this, we can clearly see that the federal costs for maintain and recognizing marriage would be far greater than the revenue from one-time marriage licenses.

"Forensic pathologists often state that homosexual homicides are more violent than those with heterosexual victims.

If we were to legalize gay marriage, then we would be, in essence, promoting these activities of increased violence.

...you're bound to get a lot of criticism you probably don't want to hear.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 11:42:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Heterosexual attraction is the basis for the production of children.:

Right, which explains why condoms and other contraceptives are a billion dollar industry. I can assume everytime you jerk off, it's because you're storing up sperm to inseminate women at a later date, not because it's an enjoyable experience.

What planet do you live on where the majority of people have sex solely for procreation rather than recreation?

Heterosexual marriage is based on heterosexual attraction.
Therefore, heterosexual marriage produces children.:

Wow, total strawman. If reproduction is the sole basis for marriage, and the only logical pretense you can come up with, then I guess old people who can no longer conceive should ever get married. Why don't you outlaw that too while you're at it?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 11:51:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ideally, the State should not recognize any marriages that do not plan in conceiving new children.:

Why should it be the State's decision in who's boning who EVER? Fascist, much?

I would hardly call in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination natural.:

I would hardly call using a computer or driving cars natural either. That doesn't seem to bother you, and because of that perhaps you might want to stop pandering to naturalistic fallacies.

Also there have been numerous studies that show that raising children in SS households is detrimental to them.:

LOL, are you equivocating here??? Are you saying that rasining children in gay homes is the equivalent of raising them as budding SS Nazi's?!?!

Homosexual couples are much more violent than heterosexual couples.:

LOL, what an absurd statement. Care to provide a link that isn't biased like your specious John Ankerberg link? You do know who that is, right?

Right to love? Right to marry? Right to be happy? Please give the "rights" argument a rest.:

So you don't believe in the rule of law, fantastic.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 12:16:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/26/2011 11:51:35 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Ideally, the State should not recognize any marriages that do not plan in conceiving new children.:

Why should it be the State's decision in who's boning who EVER? Fascist, much?
Considering my economic beliefs, I would identify myself as a right wing authoritarian.
It should be the State's decisions, because ultimately in the future, the State will either gain or lose from this decision.
I would hardly call in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination natural.:

I would hardly call using a computer or driving cars natural either. That doesn't seem to bother you, and because of that perhaps you might want to stop pandering to naturalistic fallacies.
Apples and Oranges.
Also there have been numerous studies that show that raising children in SS households is detrimental to them.:

LOL, are you equivocating here??? Are you saying that rasining children in gay homes is the equivalent of raising them as budding SS Nazi's?!?!
SS= Same Sex *Sigh*
Homosexual couples are much more violent than heterosexual couples.:

LOL, what an absurd statement. Care to provide a link that isn't biased like your specious John Ankerberg link? You do know who that is, right?
http://www.acpeds.org...
Right to love? Right to marry? Right to be happy? Please give the "rights" argument a rest.:

So you don't believe in the rule of law, fantastic.

The rule of law, as it is, promotes heterosexual marriage. So yes, I do believe in rule of law.
"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."