Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Is there anything against gay marriage?

1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 10:02:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The only thing I heard against gay marriage is that "There is no reason to legalize it"(16k). Well tell me, is there any reason NOT to?
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 10:04:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Agh..... I went over this
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
imabench
Posts: 21,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 10:33:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/21/2012 10:02:14 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
The only thing I heard against gay marriage is that "There is no reason to legalize it"(16k). Well tell me, is there any reason NOT to?

Well people like to say the Bible says that Gay Marriage is a sin.... But when those people are asked to show them where it says Gay Marriage is a sin in the Constitution they suddenly become very quiet....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 10:37:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/21/2012 10:33:57 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/21/2012 10:02:14 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
The only thing I heard against gay marriage is that "There is no reason to legalize it"(16k). Well tell me, is there any reason NOT to?

Well people like to say the Bible says that Gay Marriage is a sin.... But when those people are asked to show them where it says Gay Marriage is a sin in the Constitution they suddenly become very quiet....

I am atheist
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
imabench
Posts: 21,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 10:39:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/21/2012 10:37:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/21/2012 10:33:57 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/21/2012 10:02:14 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
The only thing I heard against gay marriage is that "There is no reason to legalize it"(16k). Well tell me, is there any reason NOT to?

Well people like to say the Bible says that Gay Marriage is a sin.... But when those people are asked to show them where it says Gay Marriage is a sin in the Constitution they suddenly become very quiet....

I am atheist

Yes I was aiming that towards christian nut jobs who use the Bible as their ONLY argument against gay marriage
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 10:41:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/21/2012 10:39:37 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/21/2012 10:37:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/21/2012 10:33:57 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/21/2012 10:02:14 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
The only thing I heard against gay marriage is that "There is no reason to legalize it"(16k). Well tell me, is there any reason NOT to?

Well people like to say the Bible says that Gay Marriage is a sin.... But when those people are asked to show them where it says Gay Marriage is a sin in the Constitution they suddenly become very quiet....

I am atheist

Yes I was aiming that towards christian nut jobs who use the Bible as their ONLY argument against gay marriage

LOL
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 7:13:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is a problem when the state gives special benefits to those who are married.

The benefits are intended for heterosexual families. Most of them at least.

The solution is as simple as keeping the state out of marriage, and removing these benefits. Give civil unions to everyone if it makes things like inheritance easier.

The problem with our government is that they pass too many damn laws. If the state did less governing, we wouldn't have these problems. Unfortunately, people who b1tch and live their lives in fear make a mess out of everything.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 10:15:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/21/2012 10:39:37 PM, imabench wrote:

Yes I was aiming that towards christian nut jobs who use the Bible as their ONLY argument against gay marriage

=P

I don't argue gay marriage with certain people who won't accept the bible. But I'll state my opinion so you can see the mind of one of those nuts (if you're illegitimately curious.)

Christians like me take the bible as true. So if God says do not commit adultery and the constitution doesn't, I am not going to commit adultery. Semantics aside, let's say a man comes by your house with a gun and says he will shoot anyone who is wearing pink shirts. Now all of a sudden you see a your neighborhood watch trying to make a law where everyone should wear pink shirts in the neighborhood. When they ask you why it's wrong and you explain, they ask you to prove it by using the rules of the neighborhood watch law book.

So I believe gay marriage is wrong, however, I can't force my morals on an entire country. Therefore the federal government should have nothing to do with Gay marriage. It should be left down to the states.
kfc
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 10:26:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 10:15:30 AM, Koopin wrote:
At 4/21/2012 10:39:37 PM, imabench wrote:

Yes I was aiming that towards christian nut jobs who use the Bible as their ONLY argument against gay marriage

=P

I don't argue gay marriage with certain people who won't accept the bible. But I'll state my opinion so you can see the mind of one of those nuts (if you're illegitimately curious.)

Christians like me take the bible as true. So if God says do not commit adultery and the constitution doesn't, I am not going to commit adultery. Semantics aside, let's say a man comes by your house with a gun and says he will shoot anyone who is wearing pink shirts. Now all of a sudden you see a your neighborhood watch trying to make a law where everyone should wear pink shirts in the neighborhood. When they ask you why it's wrong and you explain, they ask you to prove it by using the rules of the neighborhood watch law book.

So I believe gay marriage is wrong, however, I can't force my morals on an entire country. Therefore the federal government should have nothing to do with Gay marriage. It should be left down to the stat
Here is the problem I have: why give the states that power? The distinction is arbitrary. Why not give it to counties or to cities or to neighborhoods or to households? The "states" have no moral legitimacy and they shouldn't be regulating people's lives.
ScarletGhost4396
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 11:13:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 7:13:28 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It is a problem when the state gives special benefits to those who are married.

The benefits are intended for heterosexual families. Most of them at least.

The solution is as simple as keeping the state out of marriage, and removing these benefits. Give civil unions to everyone if it makes things like inheritance easier.

The problem with our government is that they pass too many damn laws. If the state did less governing, we wouldn't have these problems. Unfortunately, people who b1tch and live their lives in fear make a mess out of everything.

Are you somehow implying that all of these requests for the government to pass laws are the fault of those who need such intervention at some level? You're talking about a group of people who are discriminated against, beaten, harassed, bullied, or otherwise tormented, and what you call it is "bitching." That's pretty insensitive if you ask me. Additionally, if you were to believe that calls for government laws ending discrimination against LGBT were just bitching, that's like saying that the calls for African Americans calling for government help is bitching too.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 11:21:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here is the problem I have: why give the states that power? The distinction is arbitrary. Why not give it to counties or to cities or to neighborhoods or to households? The "states" have no moral legitimacy and they shouldn't be regulating people's lives.:

The Constitution says that anything not specifically outlined in the Constitution is left for the states to decide for themselves. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, so the states are allowed to decide for themselves. HOWEVER, as we saw in the Loving v Virginia case, interracial marriage was neither condoned nor prohibited in the Constitution. The SCOTUS determined that the heart of the Constitution is one of individual choice so long as it doesn't directly impinge on someone else's rights. Since interracial marriage does not harm others, there is no legitimate reason to bar it, regardless of what the states think.

It is conceivable then that the SCOTUS could hear a gay marriage case in the next 1-5 years and come to the same conclusion they did in the Loving trial.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DouggyFresh
Posts: 360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 12:52:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't understand why it should be up to the city, state, or country at all. If two girls or two guys wanna get hitched, why should anyone be ALLOWED to stop them? What possible harm are they causing anyone...
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 12:57:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 12:52:15 PM, DouggyFresh wrote:
I don't understand why it should be up to the city, state, or country at all. If two girls or two guys wanna get hitched, why should anyone be ALLOWED to stop them? What possible harm are they causing anyone...

Well, the government regulates the receivers of its benefits. The system is designed to put them in a position to do so - whether it is fair or not.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 3:23:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 12:57:08 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/23/2012 12:52:15 PM, DouggyFresh wrote:
I don't understand why it should be up to the city, state, or country at all. If two girls or two guys wanna get hitched, why should anyone be ALLOWED to stop them? What possible harm are they causing anyone...

Well, the government regulates the receivers of its benefits. The system is designed to put them in a position to do so - whether it is fair or not.

Which is why, IMO, we should abolish marriage as a government thing period.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 3:27:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 3:23:17 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/23/2012 12:57:08 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/23/2012 12:52:15 PM, DouggyFresh wrote:
I don't understand why it should be up to the city, state, or country at all. If two girls or two guys wanna get hitched, why should anyone be ALLOWED to stop them? What possible harm are they causing anyone...

Well, the government regulates the receivers of its benefits. The system is designed to put them in a position to do so - whether it is fair or not.

Which is why, IMO, we should abolish marriage as a government thing period.

I mostly agree... It should be replaced by 'economic unions' (or some equivalent) that can be provided to anyone.. As far as I'm concerned marriage is between any persons and their religious institutions. But 'economic unions' (or our current definition of marriage) have a clear positive social/economic impact on society.
Debate.org Moderator
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 3:32:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 3:27:33 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 4/23/2012 3:23:17 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/23/2012 12:57:08 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/23/2012 12:52:15 PM, DouggyFresh wrote:
I don't understand why it should be up to the city, state, or country at all. If two girls or two guys wanna get hitched, why should anyone be ALLOWED to stop them? What possible harm are they causing anyone...

Well, the government regulates the receivers of its benefits. The system is designed to put them in a position to do so - whether it is fair or not.

Which is why, IMO, we should abolish marriage as a government thing period.

I mostly agree... It should be replaced by 'economic unions' (or some equivalent) that can be provided to anyone.. As far as I'm concerned marriage is between any persons and their religious institutions. But 'economic unions' (or our current definition of marriage) have a clear positive social/economic impact on society.

I agree with the employment of economic unions as well, although i view marriage as a segregational proposition, religious groups can keep the title that resembles devotion all while subscribing to an economic union.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 3:36:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 3:32:33 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/23/2012 3:27:33 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 4/23/2012 3:23:17 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/23/2012 12:57:08 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/23/2012 12:52:15 PM, DouggyFresh wrote:
I don't understand why it should be up to the city, state, or country at all. If two girls or two guys wanna get hitched, why should anyone be ALLOWED to stop them? What possible harm are they causing anyone...

Well, the government regulates the receivers of its benefits. The system is designed to put them in a position to do so - whether it is fair or not.

Which is why, IMO, we should abolish marriage as a government thing period.

I mostly agree... It should be replaced by 'economic unions' (or some equivalent) that can be provided to anyone.. As far as I'm concerned marriage is between any persons and their religious institutions. But 'economic unions' (or our current definition of marriage) have a clear positive social/economic impact on society.

I agree with the employment of economic unions as well, although i view marriage as a segregational proposition, religious groups can keep the title that resembles devotion all while subscribing to an economic union.

I completely agree... For all practical purposes they would be the exact same thing as far as the state is concerned.
Debate.org Moderator
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 3:53:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 3:51:02 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Why do we even need economic unions?

They are only necessary within our current state of affairs. Ideally, they aren't.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 4:10:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 3:53:13 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/23/2012 3:51:02 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Why do we even need economic unions?

They are only necessary within our current state of affairs. Ideally, they aren't.

When we speak of hypothetical changes, we speak hypothetically within the paradigm we desire. One may add certain provisos certainly; for example, it would be foolish to support unlimited immigration with welfare being such that it is, but that does not mean I should not state that unlimited immigration is a bad thing.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 4:14:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 4:10:48 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 4/23/2012 3:53:13 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/23/2012 3:51:02 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Why do we even need economic unions?

They are only necessary within our current state of affairs. Ideally, they aren't.

When we speak of hypothetical changes, we speak hypothetically within the paradigm we desire. One may add certain provisos certainly; for example, it would be foolish to support unlimited immigration with welfare being such that it is, but that does not mean I should not state that unlimited immigration is a bad thing.

Fair enough. However, everybody speaks of their utopian society but this reamains wishful thinking without current application.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts