Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay Marriage: the Status Quo

WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 4:49:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Consider the following hypothetical couples who live in Minnesota, a state where gay marriage is illegal but there are no restrictions (other than age) on opposite sex marriages.

A) Alex and Alice. Due to a childhood illness, Alice is infertile; she can never have children. Alex has no children of his own.

B) Bob and Brenda. Due to a deep-seated philosophical value, this couple firmly intends to never procreate or raise a child.

C) Charles and Clara. Until recently, Charles was Cindy, a woman. After a sex change operation, Clara legally became a man and changed his name. He cannot procreate, and his personality remains feminine to a large extent. Neither he nor Clara have children.

D) Darin and Danielle. Both of these people had children from previous relationships, whom they abused, neglected, and murdered. Both were convicted, met and carried on a relationship via correspondence while serving their sentences, and have just been released.

E) Edward and Ellen. Edward is in the final stages of brain and lung cancer, and is expected to die within a few days. Neither he nor Ellen have children.

F) Francine and Flora. This lesbian couple is raising a five year old child, created via IVF, and are planning to have more children in the future. The child is well-treated, cared for and loved by both parents.

.

The status quo in Minnesota is that couples A through E may legally marry, but couple F may not.

Would anyone care to defend the proposition that this status quo is right and just?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 4:50:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Simple.

F is not female and male.

Big difference.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 4:55:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And the relevance of that is . . . ?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 4:59:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I recognize that this is the only way the majority of liberals can construct an argument, but I would like you to take note that using emotion appeal in your argument such as the fact that XXXX gets and YYYY does not get, makes for a crappy argument and discussion.
"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."
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:02:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So in your case, the answer is no, you would not care to defend the proposition that the status quo outlined above is right and just?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:02:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Onto the marriage thing as a whole, I believe that the State should go out of marriage all together and withdraw all existing benefits given to couples. Marriage originated as a religious contract within which the State was originally not affiliated within. Marriage still remains as mostly a religious contract and the notion that the State should be affiliated with a religious contract is absurd, especially with the separation of Church and State.

In conclusion, I don't like gay people but I believe that the State should withdraw out of marriage in general and make marriage a private contract with no State benefits whatsoever.
"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
4/12/2012 5:06:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:02:19 PM, WriterDave wrote:
So in your case, the answer is no, you would not care to defend the proposition that the status quo outlined above is right and just?

What is "right" and what is "just" is subjective. You are committing an is-ought fallacy. There is no intrinsic value from which you are drawing upon your conclusion about whether or not X is justified. You are simply assuming that it is not justified for some arbitrary reason, which you did not specify. As a result, unless you provide a concrete value for why the proposition is unjustified, this conversation is meaningless.
"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
4/12/2012 5:07:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:02:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Onto the marriage thing as a whole, I believe that the State should go out of marriage all together and withdraw all existing benefits given to couples. Marriage originated as a religious contract within which the State was originally not affiliated within. Marriage still remains as mostly a religious contract and the notion that the State should be affiliated with a religious contract is absurd, especially with the separation of Church and State.

In conclusion, I don't like gay people but I believe that the State should withdraw out of marriage in general and make marriage a private contract with no State benefits whatsoever.

Your illogic exceeds your bigotry. Marriage is not now nor has it ever entirely been a religious contract (what is a religious contract by the way? lol). It is an economic contract, an agreement of financial solidarity that unifies "families" as far as the government is concerned. State recognition stands as a benefit to both the government and the people. Not only is there no sane reason to deny it to Gay people, but there is also no sane reason to remove it.
"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
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:08:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 4:59:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I recognize that this is the only way the majority of liberals can construct an argument, but I would like you to take note that using emotion appeal in your argument such as the fact that XXXX gets and YYYY does not get, makes for a crappy argument and discussion.

No, idiot. They were examples of same sex marriages that violate the parameters that conservatives aver same sex marriage violates.

Now that you've caught up, think you can limp your way into a sensible response?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:08:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The status quo in Minnesota is that couples A through E may legally marry, but couple F may not.:

Because couple F is clearly the spawn of Satan and because good Christians don't like girl on girl action, unless they are surreptitiously watching porn on Saturday's and hiding it from their wives, erstwhile condeming f@ggots to eternal torment on Sunday's.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:09:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:08:31 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 4:59:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I recognize that this is the only way the majority of liberals can construct an argument, but I would like you to take note that using emotion appeal in your argument such as the fact that XXXX gets and YYYY does not get, makes for a crappy argument and discussion.

No, idiot. They were examples of traditional marriages that violate the parameters that conservatives aver same sex marriage violates.

Now that you've caught up, think you can limp your way into a sensible response?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:09:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:07:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:02:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Onto the marriage thing as a whole, I believe that the State should go out of marriage all together and withdraw all existing benefits given to couples. Marriage originated as a religious contract within which the State was originally not affiliated within. Marriage still remains as mostly a religious contract and the notion that the State should be affiliated with a religious contract is absurd, especially with the separation of Church and State.

In conclusion, I don't like gay people but I believe that the State should withdraw out of marriage in general and make marriage a private contract with no State benefits whatsoever.

Your illogic exceeds your bigotry. Marriage is not now nor has it ever entirely been a religious contract (what is a religious contract by the way? lol). It is an economic contract, an agreement of financial solidarity that unifies "families" as far as the government is concerned. State recognition stands as a benefit to both the government and the people. Not only is there no sane reason to deny it to Gay people, but there is also no sane reason to remove it.

Marriage existed before the State had vested interests in it. Marriage originated as a religious rite before the State conferred benefits onto married couples.

Marriage has always been a religious contract.
"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."
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:10:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:06:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:02:19 PM, WriterDave wrote:
So in your case, the answer is no, you would not care to defend the proposition that the status quo outlined above is right and just?

What is "right" and what is "just" is subjective. You are committing an is-ought fallacy. There is no intrinsic value from which you are drawing upon your conclusion about whether or not X is justified. You are simply assuming that it is not justified for some arbitrary reason, which you did not specify. As a result, unless you provide a concrete value for why the proposition is unjustified, this conversation is meaningless.

I'm not arguing that a certain state of affairs is justified or not justified. Rather, I'm inviting others to make the argument.

If you hold that what is right and just is subjective, then in your case the invitation can be construed to call for a theory of justice is which F is contraindicated but A through E are not.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:10:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:09:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:07:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:02:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Onto the marriage thing as a whole, I believe that the State should go out of marriage all together and withdraw all existing benefits given to couples. Marriage originated as a religious contract within which the State was originally not affiliated within. Marriage still remains as mostly a religious contract and the notion that the State should be affiliated with a religious contract is absurd, especially with the separation of Church and State.

In conclusion, I don't like gay people but I believe that the State should withdraw out of marriage in general and make marriage a private contract with no State benefits whatsoever.

Your illogic exceeds your bigotry. Marriage is not now nor has it ever entirely been a religious contract (what is a religious contract by the way? lol). It is an economic contract, an agreement of financial solidarity that unifies "families" as far as the government is concerned. State recognition stands as a benefit to both the government and the people. Not only is there no sane reason to deny it to Gay people, but there is also no sane reason to remove it.

Marriage existed before the State had vested interests in it. Marriage originated as a religious rite before the State conferred benefits onto married couples.

Marriage has always been a religious contract.

Marriage existed before religion, idiot.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:11:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:10:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:09:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:07:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:02:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Onto the marriage thing as a whole, I believe that the State should go out of marriage all together and withdraw all existing benefits given to couples. Marriage originated as a religious contract within which the State was originally not affiliated within. Marriage still remains as mostly a religious contract and the notion that the State should be affiliated with a religious contract is absurd, especially with the separation of Church and State.

In conclusion, I don't like gay people but I believe that the State should withdraw out of marriage in general and make marriage a private contract with no State benefits whatsoever.

Your illogic exceeds your bigotry. Marriage is not now nor has it ever entirely been a religious contract (what is a religious contract by the way? lol). It is an economic contract, an agreement of financial solidarity that unifies "families" as far as the government is concerned. State recognition stands as a benefit to both the government and the people. Not only is there no sane reason to deny it to Gay people, but there is also no sane reason to remove it.

Marriage existed before the State had vested interests in it. Marriage originated as a religious rite before the State conferred benefits onto married couples.

Marriage has always been a religious contract.

Marriage existed before religion, idiot.

Care to back that up?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:11:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:08:31 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 4:59:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I recognize that this is the only way the majority of liberals can construct an argument, but I would like you to take note that using emotion appeal in your argument such as the fact that XXXX gets and YYYY does not get, makes for a crappy argument and discussion.

No, idiot. They were examples of same sex marriages that violate the parameters that conservatives aver same sex marriage violates.

Traditional conservatives deny marriage to gay couples because they believe that it is a religious contract and the Bible is not exactly approving of gays.

Lol.
"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
4/12/2012 5:12:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:10:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:09:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:07:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:02:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Onto the marriage thing as a whole, I believe that the State should go out of marriage all together and withdraw all existing benefits given to couples. Marriage originated as a religious contract within which the State was originally not affiliated within. Marriage still remains as mostly a religious contract and the notion that the State should be affiliated with a religious contract is absurd, especially with the separation of Church and State.

In conclusion, I don't like gay people but I believe that the State should withdraw out of marriage in general and make marriage a private contract with no State benefits whatsoever.

Your illogic exceeds your bigotry. Marriage is not now nor has it ever entirely been a religious contract (what is a religious contract by the way? lol). It is an economic contract, an agreement of financial solidarity that unifies "families" as far as the government is concerned. State recognition stands as a benefit to both the government and the people. Not only is there no sane reason to deny it to Gay people, but there is also no sane reason to remove it.

Marriage existed before the State had vested interests in it. Marriage originated as a religious rite before the State conferred benefits onto married couples.

Marriage has always been a religious contract.

Marriage existed before religion, idiot.

LOL!

Religion created marriage as the contract between two willing individuals under God.
"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."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:12:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:11:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:08:31 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 4:59:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I recognize that this is the only way the majority of liberals can construct an argument, but I would like you to take note that using emotion appeal in your argument such as the fact that XXXX gets and YYYY does not get, makes for a crappy argument and discussion.

No, idiot. They were examples of same sex marriages that violate the parameters that conservatives aver same sex marriage violates.

Traditional conservatives deny marriage to gay couples because they believe that it is a religious contract and the Bible is not exactly approving of gays.

Lol.

So, according to these conservatives, the constitutional right to legally marry in a courthouse is null and void?

Wait...

...are you suggesting that all conservatives are antidisestablishmentarian?

Idiot.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:13:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:12:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:10:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:09:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:07:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:02:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Onto the marriage thing as a whole, I believe that the State should go out of marriage all together and withdraw all existing benefits given to couples. Marriage originated as a religious contract within which the State was originally not affiliated within. Marriage still remains as mostly a religious contract and the notion that the State should be affiliated with a religious contract is absurd, especially with the separation of Church and State.

In conclusion, I don't like gay people but I believe that the State should withdraw out of marriage in general and make marriage a private contract with no State benefits whatsoever.

Your illogic exceeds your bigotry. Marriage is not now nor has it ever entirely been a religious contract (what is a religious contract by the way? lol). It is an economic contract, an agreement of financial solidarity that unifies "families" as far as the government is concerned. State recognition stands as a benefit to both the government and the people. Not only is there no sane reason to deny it to Gay people, but there is also no sane reason to remove it.

Marriage existed before the State had vested interests in it. Marriage originated as a religious rite before the State conferred benefits onto married couples.

Marriage has always been a religious contract.

Marriage existed before religion, idiot.

LOL!

Religion created marriage as the contract between two willing individuals under God.

Really.

Did the world begin when Jesus was born?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:13:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Regardless, I'm fine with Gay people having a union, just ca it something else.

Same benefits, call it something else.

Or better yet, get the government the frig out of marriage.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:13:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:10:01 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:06:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:02:19 PM, WriterDave wrote:
So in your case, the answer is no, you would not care to defend the proposition that the status quo outlined above is right and just?

What is "right" and what is "just" is subjective. You are committing an is-ought fallacy. There is no intrinsic value from which you are drawing upon your conclusion about whether or not X is justified. You are simply assuming that it is not justified for some arbitrary reason, which you did not specify. As a result, unless you provide a concrete value for why the proposition is unjustified, this conversation is meaningless.

I'm not arguing that a certain state of affairs is justified or not justified. Rather, I'm inviting others to make the argument.

Oh please.... Your post and original topic clearly imply that you believe that the Status Quo is unjustified....
"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."
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:13:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:12:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:


Religion created marriage as the contract between two willing individuals under God.

Religion construed marriage as such, but do you have any evidence that marriage did not exist before that construal?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:13:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:02:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Onto the marriage thing as a whole, I believe that the State should go out of marriage all together and withdraw all existing benefits given to couples. Marriage originated as a religious contract within which the State was originally not affiliated within. Marriage still remains as mostly a religious contract and the notion that the State should be affiliated with a religious contract is absurd, especially with the separation of Church and State.

In conclusion, I don't like gay people but I believe that the State should withdraw out of marriage in general and make marriage a private contract with no State benefits whatsoever.:

Simple, logical solution.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:14:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:13:06 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:12:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:10:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:09:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:07:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:02:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Onto the marriage thing as a whole, I believe that the State should go out of marriage all together and withdraw all existing benefits given to couples. Marriage originated as a religious contract within which the State was originally not affiliated within. Marriage still remains as mostly a religious contract and the notion that the State should be affiliated with a religious contract is absurd, especially with the separation of Church and State.

In conclusion, I don't like gay people but I believe that the State should withdraw out of marriage in general and make marriage a private contract with no State benefits whatsoever.

Your illogic exceeds your bigotry. Marriage is not now nor has it ever entirely been a religious contract (what is a religious contract by the way? lol). It is an economic contract, an agreement of financial solidarity that unifies "families" as far as the government is concerned. State recognition stands as a benefit to both the government and the people. Not only is there no sane reason to deny it to Gay people, but there is also no sane reason to remove it.

Marriage existed before the State had vested interests in it. Marriage originated as a religious rite before the State conferred benefits onto married couples.

Marriage has always been a religious contract.

Marriage existed before religion, idiot.

LOL!

Religion created marriage as the contract between two willing individuals under God.

Really.

Did the world begin when Jesus was born?

No, and would you also care to back up when Christians have said that?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:14:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:11:08 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:10:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:09:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:07:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:02:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Onto the marriage thing as a whole, I believe that the State should go out of marriage all together and withdraw all existing benefits given to couples. Marriage originated as a religious contract within which the State was originally not affiliated within. Marriage still remains as mostly a religious contract and the notion that the State should be affiliated with a religious contract is absurd, especially with the separation of Church and State.

In conclusion, I don't like gay people but I believe that the State should withdraw out of marriage in general and make marriage a private contract with no State benefits whatsoever.

Your illogic exceeds your bigotry. Marriage is not now nor has it ever entirely been a religious contract (what is a religious contract by the way? lol). It is an economic contract, an agreement of financial solidarity that unifies "families" as far as the government is concerned. State recognition stands as a benefit to both the government and the people. Not only is there no sane reason to deny it to Gay people, but there is also no sane reason to remove it.

Marriage existed before the State had vested interests in it. Marriage originated as a religious rite before the State conferred benefits onto married couples.

Marriage has always been a religious contract.

Marriage existed before religion, idiot.

Care to back that up?

"History of marriage by culture

A pair of wedding rings
Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I should have told you to just Google it yourself.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:15:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:13:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:10:01 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:06:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:02:19 PM, WriterDave wrote:
So in your case, the answer is no, you would not care to defend the proposition that the status quo outlined above is right and just?

What is "right" and what is "just" is subjective. You are committing an is-ought fallacy. There is no intrinsic value from which you are drawing upon your conclusion about whether or not X is justified. You are simply assuming that it is not justified for some arbitrary reason, which you did not specify. As a result, unless you provide a concrete value for why the proposition is unjustified, this conversation is meaningless.

I'm not arguing that a certain state of affairs is justified or not justified. Rather, I'm inviting others to make the argument.


Oh please.... Your post and original topic clearly imply that you believe that the Status Quo is unjustified....

Sure I believe that, and sure I can see how my OP carries that implication. But the fact remains that my OP is an invitation, which one is free to accept or decline.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:15:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:12:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:10:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:09:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:07:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:02:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Onto the marriage thing as a whole, I believe that the State should go out of marriage all together and withdraw all existing benefits given to couples. Marriage originated as a religious contract within which the State was originally not affiliated within. Marriage still remains as mostly a religious contract and the notion that the State should be affiliated with a religious contract is absurd, especially with the separation of Church and State.

In conclusion, I don't like gay people but I believe that the State should withdraw out of marriage in general and make marriage a private contract with no State benefits whatsoever.

Your illogic exceeds your bigotry. Marriage is not now nor has it ever entirely been a religious contract (what is a religious contract by the way? lol). It is an economic contract, an agreement of financial solidarity that unifies "families" as far as the government is concerned. State recognition stands as a benefit to both the government and the people. Not only is there no sane reason to deny it to Gay people, but there is also no sane reason to remove it.

Marriage existed before the State had vested interests in it. Marriage originated as a religious rite before the State conferred benefits onto married couples.

Marriage has always been a religious contract.

Marriage existed before religion, idiot.

LOL!

Religion created marriage as the contract between two willing individuals under God.

Except for the fact that, up until recently, they were rarely truly willing, and marriages were arranged. In fact, it was common for people in a marriage to have lovers outside of the marriage. Marriage in terms of romance has just recently been the norm in most developed countries.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:15:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:14:40 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:11:08 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:10:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:09:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:07:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:02:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Onto the marriage thing as a whole, I believe that the State should go out of marriage all together and withdraw all existing benefits given to couples. Marriage originated as a religious contract within which the State was originally not affiliated within. Marriage still remains as mostly a religious contract and the notion that the State should be affiliated with a religious contract is absurd, especially with the separation of Church and State.

In conclusion, I don't like gay people but I believe that the State should withdraw out of marriage in general and make marriage a private contract with no State benefits whatsoever.

Your illogic exceeds your bigotry. Marriage is not now nor has it ever entirely been a religious contract (what is a religious contract by the way? lol). It is an economic contract, an agreement of financial solidarity that unifies "families" as far as the government is concerned. State recognition stands as a benefit to both the government and the people. Not only is there no sane reason to deny it to Gay people, but there is also no sane reason to remove it.

Marriage existed before the State had vested interests in it. Marriage originated as a religious rite before the State conferred benefits onto married couples.

Marriage has always been a religious contract.

Marriage existed before religion, idiot.

Care to back that up?

"History of marriage by culture

A pair of wedding rings
Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I should have told you to just Google it yourself.

Now, can you prove to me that religion did not exist before marriage?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:15:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:12:33 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:11:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:08:31 PM, Ren wrote:
At 4/12/2012 4:59:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I recognize that this is the only way the majority of liberals can construct an argument, but I would like you to take note that using emotion appeal in your argument such as the fact that XXXX gets and YYYY does not get, makes for a crappy argument and discussion.

No, idiot. They were examples of same sex marriages that violate the parameters that conservatives aver same sex marriage violates.

Traditional conservatives deny marriage to gay couples because they believe that it is a religious contract and the Bible is not exactly approving of gays.

Lol.

So, according to these conservatives, the constitutional right to legally marry in a courthouse is null and void?

The same people who argue against gay marriage based on religious means most of the time believe that marriage is solely a contract before God.

Wait...

...are you suggesting that all conservatives are antidisestablishmentarian?

"Antidisestablishmentarianism (listen to British sample (info), American sample (info)) is a political position that originated in 19th-century Britain in opposition to proposals for the disestablishment of the Church of England, that is, to remove the Anglican Church's status as the state church of England, Ireland, and Wales."

Idiot.
"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."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:16:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:13:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Regardless, I'm fine with Gay people having a union, just ca it something else.

Why? It fits the definition, despite whatever you may think (or not) about it:

mar·riage   [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.