Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A question for other conservatives

blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:03:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't get it, what's wrong with abortion? I'm conservative, but see nothing wrong with it. Republicans supposedly want less government control, yet they insist on controlling whether or not you have a child. When my dad asked a republican candidate running for senate why republicans want to control abortion despite wanting less government control, the response was "we'll have to agree to disagree". WTF?

Part two. What's wrong with gay marriage. It doesn't hurt you.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:08:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:03:28 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
I don't get it, what's wrong with abortion? I'm conservative, but see nothing wrong with it. Republicans supposedly want less government control, yet they insist on controlling whether or not you have a child. When my dad asked a republican candidate running for senate why republicans want to control abortion despite wanting less government control, the response was "we'll have to agree to disagree". WTF?

Part two. What's wrong with gay marriage. It doesn't hurt you.

I'm not a conservative but can still answer this. Abortion is not a matter of personal privacy to the conservative. They see fetus' as human beings and so killing them and terminating the pregnancy falls under the same category as murdering your mailman. As far as gay marriage is concerned, I got nothing.
: 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
3/5/2012 7:40:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Abortion is rather simple. Intervention in lives is justified if you are saving innocent people.

Gay marriage for most conservatives is that they simply do not like gay people because of the Bible or stuff like that.
"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."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:47:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:40:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Gay marriage for most conservatives is that they simply do not like gay people because of the Bible or stuff like that.

But you're an agnostic and you're against gay marriage so you're obviously not falling back on the Bible. You just don't like gay people? I thought we were friends.
: 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.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:49:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what a marriage is. If two men, or two women, want to live together and have sex with each other, the government shouldn't stop it, but it's not marriage.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:52:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:47:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:40:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Gay marriage for most conservatives is that they simply do not like gay people because of the Bible or stuff like that.

But you're an agnostic and you're against gay marriage so you're obviously not falling back on the Bible. You just don't like gay people? I thought we were friends.

Lol. I have nothing personal against gay people. I just believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. If you wanna have sex with each other then go ahead, but don't ruin marriage.
"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."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:53:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:49:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what a marriage is. If two men, or two women, want to live together and have sex with each other, the government shouldn't stop it, but it's not marriage.

The marriage part isn't the issue in question. Its the unequal distribution of benefits on unjust grounds part. I cannot see how the prohibition of gay marriage is in line with the 14th Amendment, especially the Equal Protection Clause.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:56:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:52:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:47:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:40:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Gay marriage for most conservatives is that they simply do not like gay people because of the Bible or stuff like that.

But you're an agnostic and you're against gay marriage so you're obviously not falling back on the Bible. You just don't like gay people? I thought we were friends.

Lol. I have nothing personal against gay people. I just believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. If you wanna have sex with each other then go ahead, but don't ruin marriage.

You just said though that conservatives are against marriage for two reasons, but then you (a self-identified conservative) said you were against marriage for a different reason. Why not point out your own reasons before? And I don't know if conservatives try to sound like jerks when they say that gay marriage ruins it for everyone else, but really? Why do you care if two dudes get married? How does gay marriage ruin straight marriage anymore than some people preferring vanilla ice cream ruins chocolate for chocolate lovers?
: 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
3/5/2012 7:59:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:56:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:52:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:47:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:40:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Gay marriage for most conservatives is that they simply do not like gay people because of the Bible or stuff like that.

But you're an agnostic and you're against gay marriage so you're obviously not falling back on the Bible. You just don't like gay people? I thought we were friends.

Lol. I have nothing personal against gay people. I just believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. If you wanna have sex with each other then go ahead, but don't ruin marriage.

You just said though that conservatives are against marriage for two reasons, but then you (a self-identified conservative) said you were against marriage for a different reason. Why not point out your own reasons before? And I don't know if conservatives try to sound like jerks when they say that gay marriage ruins it for everyone else, but really? Why do you care if two dudes get married? How does gay marriage ruin straight marriage anymore than some people preferring vanilla ice cream ruins chocolate for chocolate lovers?

Notice the key word "most" in my post.

It's not from a perspective of freedom of choice, but from a perspective of observing traditional ideals. Marriages has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years and I don't see why it should change.

If gay people want to have relationships, then go ahead. However, marriage is an important covenant that holds the fabric of society together. We cannot let it tear.
"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."
thett3
Posts: 14,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:59:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Presuming that life begins at conception (debatable), than it follows that abortion is murder. Only the most extreme of anarchists dont think that the government should intervene in lives to stop murder.

Gay marriage is a complicated issue, even if it doesn't look like it at glance. If by gay marriage you mean that I support their right to live together and form contracts together, than I support their right to do so. It does not, however, deserve governmental sanction. Nor does heterosexual marriage. However, if the government has to provide benefits to certain couples who are "married", the government doesn't have the right to change the religious institution that marriage fundamentally is.

Separation of church and state means that the government should stay out of marriage.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:05:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:59:54 PM, thett3 wrote:
Presuming that life begins at conception (debatable), than it follows that abortion is murder. Only the most extreme of anarchists dont think that the government should intervene in lives to stop murder.

Gay marriage is a complicated issue, even if it doesn't look like it at glance. If by gay marriage you mean that I support their right to live together and form contracts together, than I support their right to do so. It does not, however, deserve governmental sanction. Nor does heterosexual marriage. However, if the government has to provide benefits to certain couples who are "married", the government doesn't have the right to change the religious institution that marriage fundamentally is.

Separation of church and state means that the government should stay out of marriage.

By that definition of marriage, atheists would have no business getting married. The only relevant part of marriage is the financial synchronization of both partners and state recognition of that unity. This is found to be both in the interest of the citizens and the government, so its established. Where the line is drawn is when the government becomes selective as to which union they will recognize and for what reason. There really is no compelling reason to ban gay marriage - the usual reason of inability to reproduce really isn't significant enough... and that would end up having negative effects as it places citizens at a second class level.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:10:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 8:05:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:59:54 PM, thett3 wrote:
Presuming that life begins at conception (debatable), than it follows that abortion is murder. Only the most extreme of anarchists dont think that the government should intervene in lives to stop murder.

Gay marriage is a complicated issue, even if it doesn't look like it at glance. If by gay marriage you mean that I support their right to live together and form contracts together, than I support their right to do so. It does not, however, deserve governmental sanction. Nor does heterosexual marriage. However, if the government has to provide benefits to certain couples who are "married", the government doesn't have the right to change the religious institution that marriage fundamentally is.

Separation of church and state means that the government should stay out of marriage.

By that definition of marriage, atheists would have no business getting married.

They don't by the Religious aspect of it.

The only relevant part of marriage is the financial synchronization of both partners and state recognition of that unity.

Which should not exist.

This is found to be both in the interest of the citizens and the government, so its established.

The benefit of providing financial incentive to something that people ought to be doing anyway is debatable. Sometime I might debate someone on if marriage should be legally recognized.

Where the line is drawn is when the government becomes selective as to which union they will recognize and for what reason.

Haha, well isn't this the problem with governmental sanction of certain relationships? What right does the government have to tell a polygamist that my parents relationship is more important than theirs, and then use their tax dollars to provide incentives to my parents? Doesnt seem right.

There really is no compelling reason to ban gay marriage - the usual reason of inability to reproduce really isn't significant enough... and that would end up having negative effects as it places citizens at a second class level.

The same can be said about any relationship however. Why should the government not legally recognize, for instance, friendships?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:21:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:59:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:56:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:

You just said though that conservatives are against marriage for two reasons, but then you (a self-identified conservative) said you were against marriage for a different reason. Why not point out your own reasons before? And I don't know if conservatives try to sound like jerks when they say that gay marriage ruins it for everyone else, but really? Why do you care if two dudes get married? How does gay marriage ruin straight marriage anymore than some people preferring vanilla ice cream ruins chocolate for chocolate lovers?

Notice the key word "most" in my post.

It's not from a perspective of freedom of choice, but from a perspective of observing traditional ideals. Marriages has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years and I don't see why it should change.

That's not an argument. Traditions are never self justifying. Trying to say something is right only because it has been the case for a long time leaves one open to a host of logical fallacies, the most glaring of which is the fact that the argument be used to support slavery (there is no clear difference in form between the two arguments). Slavery was a tradition for thousands of years but obviously it was not a justified tradition. Slavery makes clear the fact that tradition is not enough, one must actually justify something rather than appeal to history.

If gay people want to have relationships, then go ahead. However, marriage is an important covenant that holds the fabric of society together. We cannot let it tear.

If as you say, marriage is the fabric holding society together (debatable by itself but I have a thought here), then what would be your response if everyone all of a sudden decided not to get married? I don't see it as particularly likely or anything, it's just a thought experiment. Presumable, since you don't think society could function without marriage (actually I'd like for you to lay out the reasons for why you would think such a thing in the first place), than presumably you would support using government aggression to force parties into 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.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 9:20:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:08:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:03:28 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
I don't get it, what's wrong with abortion? I'm conservative, but see nothing wrong with it. Republicans supposedly want less government control, yet they insist on controlling whether or not you have a child. When my dad asked a republican candidate running for senate why republicans want to control abortion despite wanting less government control, the response was "we'll have to agree to disagree". WTF?

Part two. What's wrong with gay marriage. It doesn't hurt you.

I'm not a conservative but can still answer this. Abortion is not a matter of personal privacy to the conservative. They see fetus' as human beings and so killing them and terminating the pregnancy falls under the same category as murdering your mailman. As far as gay marriage is concerned, I got nothing.

I know what the general idea is, but it comes down to when you consider it to be alive. And what gives them the right to control that when they want to reduce government influence?
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 9:21:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:40:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Abortion is rather simple. Intervention in lives is justified if you are saving innocent people.

But when do you call it a life? And is it worth saving that fetus if keeping it around will ruin the lives of the parents and lead to a life of perpetual hell for the child to come?

Gay marriage for most conservatives is that they simply do not like gay people because of the Bible or stuff like that.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 9:21:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:47:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:40:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Gay marriage for most conservatives is that they simply do not like gay people because of the Bible or stuff like that.

But you're an agnostic and you're against gay marriage so you're obviously not falling back on the Bible. You just don't like gay people? I thought we were friends.

I'll be your friend.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 9:24:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:56:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:52:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:47:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:40:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Gay marriage for most conservatives is that they simply do not like gay people because of the Bible or stuff like that.

But you're an agnostic and you're against gay marriage so you're obviously not falling back on the Bible. You just don't like gay people? I thought we were friends.

Lol. I have nothing personal against gay people. I just believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. If you wanna have sex with each other then go ahead, but don't ruin marriage.

You just said though that conservatives are against marriage for two reasons, but then you (a self-identified conservative) said you were against marriage for a different reason. Why not point out your own reasons before? And I don't know if conservatives try to sound like jerks when they say that gay marriage ruins it for everyone else, but really? Why do you care if two dudes get married? How does gay marriage ruin straight marriage anymore than some people preferring vanilla ice cream ruins chocolate for chocolate lovers?

First royal then you. Need I remind you that a conservative started this thread? I have nothing against gay marriage, and I'm fine with abortion in the first trimester. I think three moths is plenty of time to decide whether or not to have the kid.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 9:30:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 9:24:58 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:56:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:52:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:47:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:40:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Gay marriage for most conservatives is that they simply do not like gay people because of the Bible or stuff like that.

But you're an agnostic and you're against gay marriage so you're obviously not falling back on the Bible. You just don't like gay people? I thought we were friends.

Lol. I have nothing personal against gay people. I just believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. If you wanna have sex with each other then go ahead, but don't ruin marriage.

You just said though that conservatives are against marriage for two reasons, but then you (a self-identified conservative) said you were against marriage for a different reason. Why not point out your own reasons before? And I don't know if conservatives try to sound like jerks when they say that gay marriage ruins it for everyone else, but really? Why do you care if two dudes get married? How does gay marriage ruin straight marriage anymore than some people preferring vanilla ice cream ruins chocolate for chocolate lovers?

First royal then you. Need I remind you that a conservative started this thread? I have nothing against gay marriage, and I'm fine with abortion in the first trimester. I think three moths is plenty of time to decide whether or not to have the kid.

The comment wasn't directed at you. By your initial post I could reason that you weren't against those things. Lordknukle on the other hand (to whom I was responding to here) said he thought gay marriage would ruin it for everyone else so I called him on it. And I never mentioned abortion. I hope you didn't take any offense at my post as it was far from my intent.
: 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.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 9:48:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 8:21:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If as you say, marriage is the fabric holding society together (debatable by itself but I have a thought here), then what would be your response if everyone all of a sudden decided not to get married?
That's not going to happen. Even if a government doesn't recognize marriage, people would still marry. Contracts between two people with witnesses are possible.

I think gay marriage is almost a non-issue compared to all other problems. It's idiotic to even bring it into a presidential debate in our times. Gays have equal rights to life like everyone else. It's nothing like the human rights movement to promote black rights. That was about being regarded as a human being. Gay marriage doesn't come close.

Marriage is defined as a contract between a man and a woman who want to establish a family net that safeguards a society. A marriage keeps divorce, cheating, free intermingling between the sexes, etc., better away than no marriage. This produces better outcomes in children. Divorce and cheating hurts a child even if parents don't fight openly about it. Heavy research has been done to show how children respond to negative feelings between parents. Lots of negativity results from even hidden problems.

Gays obviously cannot have biological children with one another. It's impossible for them to marry one another and establish a family net. That's why they can never marry according to the definition of marriage. If we let the government define marriage as something else, then it's just calling a circle squared. You can't break a definition.

Adoption is a wholly other issue. Obviously gays can adopt children and by the legal rulings also establish a family net. However, adoption itself is complex. I for one never think of it as true parenthood. An adopted child raised into a family with a biological child means they have absolutely no blood relations to one another. There's no reason not to let them marry each other or even have sex. This means we should look at adoption in a different way, hence I think it cannot account for a possible gay marriage ruling whatsoever.

The infertility argument against a heterosexual couple being married is weak. They are a man and a woman forming a relationship with one another, so they have a granted right to marriage. Second, there's no reason to suppress hope of two people who might be treated and find a solution to their problem.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 9:52:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 9:21:28 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:40:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Abortion is rather simple. Intervention in lives is justified if you are saving innocent people.

But when do you call it a life? And is it worth saving that fetus if keeping it around will ruin the lives of the parents and lead to a life of perpetual hell for the child to come?

Gay marriage for most conservatives is that they simply do not like gay people because of the Bible or stuff like that.

In my biology class, we learned "The 6 Characteristics of Life". Lets apply them to a fetus and see if it checks out:

1. Cells - Fetuses have these
2. Organization - Fetuses are organized
3. Energy Use - Fetuses use energy
4. Homeostasis - Fetuses need to maintain stable internal conditions
5. Growth - Fetuses grow
6. Reproduction - At some point in it's life, a fetus can reproduce

The fetus is also a stage in the homosapien life cycle, so I am always curious under what skewed outlook we might call a fetus not human.

That being said, I am against abortion, and wish for Roe vs. Wade to be repealed. Not sure about a national amendment banning abortion though.

With the whole Gay marriage issue, most conservatives still believe that marriage is the staple unit in society. Man at the top of the house, a submissive woman, and 2.5 children. Now, there isn't anything wrong with this outlook--In fact, I also wish for our country to return to this standard--but there have been so many laws passed since the turn of the 20th century that marriage little resembles what it did prior to the modern age. The fact that some people can understand marriage to be a homosexual relationship demonstrates this.

So instead of fighting Gay marriage laws, we (as conservatives) need to push backwards toward the ideals of the 20th century. Get rid of feminism, welfare, trade unions, etc.. Anything that helps people survive as an individual detracts from the institution of marriage.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:04:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. " [1]

This interpretation means if the state has no reason to allow gay marriage it cannot violate the 14th amendment. Also They cannot ban it unless we know what marriage is. Marriage is with a man and a woman because the governments interest is in procreative type unions. [2]

"Marriages goal is to create an climate for the continuation for society, aka procreation. This is why the state gives benefits to heterosexual couples over homosexual ones. Homosexual couples will never be able to create or have a relationship type relating to procreation. Procreation and child rearing are essential to making society move on, and if one of those is missing there is a problem. Only can a man and a woman create children, and or have a procreative type relationship.

The anatomy of a homosexual relationship doesn't come close to this. They can neither produce children nor have a relationship of this type. As the heterosexual couples have the ability to further society the state ought to give them recognition over homosexual ones. Couples that do not revolve around a procreation type core, in the states eyes, is useless as they cannot advance society in the way the goverment wants them too. As the state only recognizes you if you have this type of relationship they will define marriage as in a man and a woman. Allowing SSM would get rid of the heterosexual... whats the word... special recognition. " (me in my 3rd source)

Due to the fact the state has no reason to allow gay marriage and they define it as man plus woman therefore according to [1] it cannot be unconstitutional.

1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251
2. "The States interest in marriage" Avia Maria law review.
3. http://www.debate.org...
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
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:10:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 9:48:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/5/2012 8:21:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If as you say, marriage is the fabric holding society together (debatable by itself but I have a thought here), then what would be your response if everyone all of a sudden decided not to get married?
That's not going to happen. Even if a government doesn't recognize marriage, people would still marry. Contracts between two people with witnesses are possible.

I think gay marriage is almost a non-issue compared to all other problems. It's idiotic to even bring it into a presidential debate in our times. Gays have equal rights to life like everyone else. It's nothing like the human rights movement to promote black rights. That was about being regarded as a human being. Gay marriage doesn't come close.

Marriage is defined as a contract between a man and a woman who want to establish a family net that safeguards a society. A marriage keeps divorce, cheating, free intermingling between the sexes, etc., better away than no marriage. This produces better outcomes in children. Divorce and cheating hurts a child even if parents don't fight openly about it. Heavy research has been done to show how children respond to negative feelings between parents. Lots of negativity results from even hidden problems.

And your response to gays who have children (even thoug you don't see them as real parents) is to rake away the safety net?

Gays obviously cannot have biological children with one another. It's impossible for them to marry one another and establish a family net. That's why they can never marry according to the definition of marriage. If we let the government define marriage as something else, then it's just calling a circle squared. You can't break a definition.

Why must the child be biological? And what would you call in vitro fertilization or surrogacy? It's obviously not adopted but there is still a recognizable biological aspect. Your definition doest even mention how they must have the child. Does a straight couple adopting count as establishing family net?


Adoption is a wholly other issue. Obviously gays can adopt children and by the legal rulings also establish a family net. However, adoption itself is complex. I for one never think of it as true parenthood. An adopted child raised into a family with a biological child means they have absolutely no blood relations to one another. There's no reason not to let them marry each other or even have sex. This means we should look at adoption in a different way, hence I think it cannot account for a possible gay marriage ruling whatsoever.

Why does blood relation matter? Being blood related doesn't automatically make someone loving or caring or a good parent. And a parent and a child can already have sex, physically not legally I don't think. My point is that they don't and if they did then the only legal concern is if the kid is underage which applies even to biological children. Regardless of blood relation or lack thereof, the social relationship is essentially the same and most parents dont want to have sex with their kids.

The infertility argument against a heterosexual couple being married is weak. They are a man and a woman forming a relationship with one another, so they have a granted right to marriage. Second, there's no reason to suppress hope of two people who might be treated and find a solution to their problem.

you specifically defined marriage just a few paragraphs up as "a contract between a man and a woman who want to establish a family net that sagefuards a society". So by your very own definition, a man and a woman who don't want or can't have kids cannot get married. It would be like a square circle. They fit the man and a woman part, but according to you kids are somehow essential for it to be 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.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:24:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 10:10:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 9:48:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/5/2012 8:21:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
If as you say, marriage is the fabric holding society together (debatable by itself but I have a thought here), then what would be your response if everyone all of a sudden decided not to get married?
That's not going to happen. Even if a government doesn't recognize marriage, people would still marry. Contracts between two people with witnesses are possible.

I think gay marriage is almost a non-issue compared to all other problems. It's idiotic to even bring it into a presidential debate in our times. Gays have equal rights to life like everyone else. It's nothing like the human rights movement to promote black rights. That was about being regarded as a human being. Gay marriage doesn't come close.

Marriage is defined as a contract between a man and a woman who want to establish a family net that safeguards a society. A marriage keeps divorce, cheating, free intermingling between the sexes, etc., better away than no marriage. This produces better outcomes in children. Divorce and cheating hurts a child even if parents don't fight openly about it. Heavy research has been done to show how children respond to negative feelings between parents. Lots of negativity results from even hidden problems.

And your response to gays who have children (even thoug you don't see them as real parents) is to rake away the safety net?

Yes, in the governments eyes as they have no reason to give them the rights which cost a lot of money, same concept as: Example. you have 100$. You give 10$ to someone because they serve you a purpose, I ask for 10$ but have no purpose. Would you give me money?


Gays obviously cannot have biological children with one another. It's impossible for them to marry one another and establish a family net. That's why they can never marry according to the definition of marriage. If we let the government define marriage as something else, then it's just calling a circle squared. You can't break a definition.

Why must the child be biological? And what would you call in vitro fertilization or surrogacy? It's obviously not adopted but there is still a recognizable biological aspect. Your definition doest even mention how they must have the child. Does a straight couple adopting count as establishing family net?

Because the state is making a social link between marriage and procreation to further the human race. Google search: "the states interest marriage" Avia maria law review



Adoption is a wholly other issue. Obviously gays can adopt children and by the legal rulings also establish a family net. However, adoption itself is complex. I for one never think of it as true parenthood. An adopted child raised into a family with a biological child means they have absolutely no blood relations to one another. There's no reason not to let them marry each other or even have sex. This means we should look at adoption in a different way, hence I think it cannot account for a possible gay marriage ruling whatsoever.

Why does blood relation matter? Being blood related doesn't automatically make someone loving or caring or a good parent. And a parent and a child can already have sex, physically not legally I don't think. My point is that they don't and if they did then the only legal concern is if the kid is underage which applies even to biological children. Regardless of blood relation or lack thereof, the social relationship is essentially the same and most parents dont want to have sex with their kids.

I am not talking about parenting. Adoption just moves the child, heterosexual couples make new ones and actually ad to the surplus population. The homosexuals only fit 1/2 of the governments needs: Child raring. Sorry they cannot join procreative type unions.


The infertility argument against a heterosexual couple being married is weak. They are a man and a woman forming a relationship with one another, so they have a granted right to marriage. Second, there's no reason to suppress hope of two people who might be treated and find a solution to their problem.

you specifically defined marriage just a few paragraphs up as "a contract between a man and a woman who want to establish a family net that sagefuards a society". So by your very own definition, a man and a woman who don't want or can't have kids cannot get married. It would be like a square circle. They fit the man and a woman part, but according to you kids are somehow essential for it to be marriage.

Procreative type unions.
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
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:36:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 10:10:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Why does blood relation matter? Being blood related doesn't automatically make someone loving or caring or a good parent.
I never said that, thank you very much.

And a parent and a child can already have sex, physically not legally I don't think.
Where was having sex an issue? And where specifically did I mention parent-child sex?

My point is that they don't and if they did then the only legal concern is if the kid is underage which applies even to biological children. Regardless of blood relation or lack thereof, the social relationship is essentially the same and most parents dont want to have sex with their kids.
Response is below. You merged the topics unnecessarily.

you specifically defined marriage just a few paragraphs up as "a contract between a man and a woman who want to establish a family net that sagefuards a society". So by your very own definition, a man and a woman who don't want or can't have kids cannot get married.
A man and a woman have all hope in the world to treat their infertility. It's immoral to suppress hope, and that's what would be done by prohibiting an infertile couple from marrying. Moreover, even if there is little hope for a man and a woman to have offspring, they still put forth very good examples by being in a good marriage. No divorce, cheating, etc., helps promote good in a society. That falls under the definition of "establishing a family that safeguards a society."

It would be like a square circle.
No it wouldn't, think thoroughly.

They fit the man and a woman part, but according to you kids are somehow essential for it to be marriage.
No, not necessarily. I gave you a detailed explanation of what marriage entails. You didn't get it at first, try once more.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:42:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As for surrogacy, it's similar to abortion in many ways, and I don't think that makes the entire couple "parents." The issue of adoption is another discussion, but I definitely don't think of it as real parenthood. It's borrowed parenthood by definition. You don't produce the child, you let it grow up properly. I think every adopted child should be told about his real parents, culture, etc., which clearly doesn't happen in all cases. There are other reasons for differentiating between adoption and real parenthood, but the bottom line is that even if both gay an straight couples were allowed to adopt accordingly to how I look at adoption, then the same rules are in effect for both.

And that still has nothing to do with "procreation for the sake of establishing a family."
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:55:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 9:30:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 9:24:58 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:56:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:52:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:47:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:40:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Gay marriage for most conservatives is that they simply do not like gay people because of the Bible or stuff like that.

But you're an agnostic and you're against gay marriage so you're obviously not falling back on the Bible. You just don't like gay people? I thought we were friends.

Lol. I have nothing personal against gay people. I just believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. If you wanna have sex with each other then go ahead, but don't ruin marriage.

You just said though that conservatives are against marriage for two reasons, but then you (a self-identified conservative) said you were against marriage for a different reason. Why not point out your own reasons before? And I don't know if conservatives try to sound like jerks when they say that gay marriage ruins it for everyone else, but really? Why do you care if two dudes get married? How does gay marriage ruin straight marriage anymore than some people preferring vanilla ice cream ruins chocolate for chocolate lovers?

First royal then you. Need I remind you that a conservative started this thread? I have nothing against gay marriage, and I'm fine with abortion in the first trimester. I think three moths is plenty of time to decide whether or not to have the kid.

The comment wasn't directed at you. By your initial post I could reason that you weren't against those things. Lordknukle on the other hand (to whom I was responding to here) said he thought gay marriage would ruin it for everyone else so I called him on it. And I never mentioned abortion. I hope you didn't take any offense at my post as it was far from my intent.

Oh I don't. I just like yelling at people who lump me in with the extremely right winged conservatives without even realizing it.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 2:49:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 10:36:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/5/2012 10:10:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Why does blood relation matter? Being blood related doesn't automatically make someone loving or caring or a good parent.
I never said that, thank you very much.

But you DID try to separate blood and adoptive parents as of a completely different type specifically because they are not blood related and could be married or have sex.

And a parent and a child can already have sex, physically not legally I don't think.
Where was having sex an issue? And where specifically did I mention parent-child sex?

:I for one never think of it as true parenthood. An adopted child raised into a family with a biological child means they have absolutely no blood relations to one another. There's no reason not to let them marry each other or even have sex.

My point is that they don't and if they did then the only legal concern is if the kid is underage which applies even to biological children. Regardless of blood relation or lack thereof, the social relationship is essentially the same and most parents dont want to have sex with their kids.
Response is below. You merged the topics unnecessarily.

you specifically defined marriage just a few paragraphs up as "a contract between a man and a woman who want to establish a family net that sagefuards a society". So by your very own definition, a man and a woman who don't want or can't have kids cannot get married.
A man and a woman have all hope in the world to treat their infertility. It's immoral to suppress hope, and that's what would be done by prohibiting an infertile couple from marrying. Moreover, even if there is little hope for a man and a woman to have offspring, they still put forth very good examples by being in a good marriage. No divorce, cheating, etc., helps promote good in a society. That falls under the definition of "establishing a family that safeguards a society."

So infidelity and divorce should be illegal since it's existence does not promote god in society? And what of homosexuals wanting to get married? It's not immoral to suppress their hope?

They fit the man and a woman part, but according to you kids are somehow essential for it to be marriage.
No, not necessarily. I gave you a detailed explanation of what marriage entails. You didn't get it at first, try once more.

You included having children in your definition of marriage AND made a large point of yours against gay marriage the fact that they cannot biologically reproduce. But having children isn't necessary for 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.
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 3:01:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:03:28 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
I don't get it, what's wrong with abortion? I'm conservative, but see nothing wrong with it. Republicans supposedly want less government control, yet they insist on controlling whether or not you have a child. When my dad asked a republican candidate running for senate why republicans want to control abortion despite wanting less government control, the response was "we'll have to agree to disagree". WTF?

They see it as the right of the baby to live, and not die.

Part two. What's wrong with gay marriage. It doesn't hurt you.

Traditional marriage supporters have warned that attempts to redefine marriage to allow same-sex unions would result in calls to legalise polygamy. If you change it, its shown that you can change it. It is extremely hypocritical to allow gay marriages and not polygamy... Do you see the fight now?
Me
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 3:19:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:49:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what a marriage is. If two men, or two women, want to live together and have sex with each other, the government shouldn't stop it, but it's not marriage.:

Correction, marriage is between a man a women of the same race... at least that's been the historical definition until these bleeding heart liberals changed it, whining about "separate but equal." Virginia had it right in Virginia v Loving... Wonder what the Supreme Court was thinking.

*end sarcasm*
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)