Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why should we allow gay marriage?

bhatti1020
Posts: 216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:51:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just wanted to know why some people think that. I dont.
-Tourism & Immigration minister for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
"hey, no Jerry springer here!"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:58:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Democratic choice
2. Victimless crime
3. Makes money
4. Equality
5. Freedom of Choice
6. Separation of Church and State
7. Promotion of a modern meaning of marriage.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:58:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I can expand on any of these points, if needed.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
bhatti1020
Posts: 216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I cant deny that from an economic standpoint, gay marriage is bad, but how about from a moral viewpoint? Even though this country has, or atleast, is SUPPOSED to have separation of church and state, The majority of people in this country are religious, or practice a religion of some kind. The most popular of these religions have laws against homosexuality. Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views? I believe that Gays have the right to be gays, if thats what they choose, but that we shouldnt have to make actual gay marriage legal, sacrificing our moral values
-Tourism & Immigration minister for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
"hey, no Jerry springer here!"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 9:15:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:51:24 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
I just wanted to know why some people think that. I dont.

Last I checked gay marriage was not forbidden, it was simply not recognized by the state. 2 homosexuals can get married in any state, but they can't receive a marriage certificate in some states.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 9:29:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:58:16 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1. Democratic choice

So is rape, murder, arson, and larceny.

2. Victimless crime

They are not punished. Punishment is based on retribution. They are just not recognized

3. Makes money

Yes, it does. But the benefits are often over stated. 5% of the population is gay. (the 10% number is highly discredited) and in the Netherlands under 10% of gays get married. The small amount means yes benefits, but not much.

4. Equality

Here is my view: http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

5. Freedom of Choice

Is that a right?

6. Separation of Church and State

That's not why it's banned, it might be a personal reason though

7. Promotion of a modern meaning of marriage.

read the girgis paper http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...
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
bhatti1020
Posts: 216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 9:39:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 9:29:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:58:16 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1. Democratic choice

So is rape, murder, arson, and larceny.

2. Victimless crime

They are not punished. Punishment is based on retribution. They are just not recognized

3. Makes money

Yes, it does. But the benefits are often over stated. 5% of the population is gay. (the 10% number is highly discredited) and in the Netherlands under 10% of gays get married. The small amount means yes benefits, but not much.

4. Equality

Here is my view: http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

5. Freedom of Choice

Is that a right?

6. Separation of Church and State

That's not why it's banned, it might be a personal reason though

7. Promotion of a modern meaning of marriage.

read the girgis paper http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

this
-Tourism & Immigration minister for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
"hey, no Jerry springer here!"
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 9:47:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 9:29:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:58:16 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1. Democratic choice

So is rape, murder, arson, and larceny.

D-d-d-d-did he just compare same sex relationships to MURDER?!?

2. Victimless crime

They are not punished. Punishment is based on retribution. They are just not recognized

Tell me, who is the victim in a relationship between consenting people?

3. Makes money

Yes, it does. But the benefits are often over stated. 5% of the population is gay. (the 10% number is highly discredited) and in the Netherlands under 10% of gays get married. The small amount means yes benefits, but not much.

It's a benefit nonetheless.

4. Equality

Here is my view: http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

Your understanding of the modern marriage is flawed. It's an economic contract between two people, with the overtone of commitment.

5. Freedom of Choice

Is that a right?

Yes.

6. Separation of Church and State

That's not why it's banned, it might be a personal reason though

Why is it banned?

7. Promotion of a modern meaning of marriage.

Not gonna read all the sources you throw out. Explain YOUR response to this last point.
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
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 10:42:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
I cant deny that from an economic standpoint, gay marriage is bad,

Gay marriage is good from an economic standpoint...

but how about from a moral viewpoint? Even though this country has, or atleast, is SUPPOSED to have separation of church and state, The majority of people in this country are religious, or practice a religion of some kind.

Irrelevant. People calling themselves Christians is fine, but imposing religious belief on others is not justified, as we live on a liberal structure (though many wish to deny it). Further, I am British, so I don't care about Amurikan values (yes, I thought I'd be racist today :D)

The most popular of these religions have laws against homosexuality.

Some Christians are against it, some Christians are for it. But we're a democracy, not a theocracy. As the majority are for it, then it should be legal. Religion is personal, not political. And this is a political ethical issue, not a personal ethical issue.

Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views?

See above.

I believe that Gays have the right to be gays, if thats what they choose, but that we shouldnt have to make actual gay marriage legal, sacrificing our moral values

Our moral values are sacrificed when we start allowing legal statutes to be dependent on personal whim. Our moral stature should be to allow victimless crimes.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 10:55:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 9:29:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:58:16 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1. Democratic choice

So is rape, murder, arson, and larceny.

2. Victimless crime

They are not punished. Punishment is based on retribution. They are just not recognized

If something is illegal, then it is criminalised. The phrase comes from Mill, from the 19th century, so older language. But as laws should work to protect people, this law is unnecessary, and harms the liberties of those who want SSM.

3. Makes money

Yes, it does. But the benefits are often over stated. 5% of the population is gay. (the 10% number is highly discredited) and in the Netherlands under 10% of gays get married. The small amount means yes benefits, but not much.

None of these independently (arguably) are prima facie, but together they give reason over

4. Equality

Here is my view: http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

Cool story, not American. Maybe your personal opinion matters when it is the majority, but personal opinion < democratic consensus, every time when it comes to political legislation. Imposing a minority opinion is silly on an issue where, supposing your argument in the post, there is nothing either way.

5. Freedom of Choice

Is that a right?

It very well should be. Freedom to choose to work or not, freedom to choose to live or not, freedom to choose whether married or not, whenever it is a victimless crime.

6. Separation of Church and State

That's not why it's banned, it might be a personal reason though

When the only argument is religious (that is the argument that bhatti put, btw) then it is a perfect turn.

7. Promotion of a modern meaning of marriage.

read the girgis paper http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

Read it before, and was embarrassed for Girgis by the implicit arguments where he simply rehashes the anti-gay marriages (it'll lead to polyamory, for example, was implicit throughout, and the idea that if gays get married, then there will be no more procreation). It is not a great argument against SSM, and still doesn't challenge the revisionist position, rather, states that revisionists do not define it.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 10:58:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:51:24 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
I just wanted to know why some people think that. I dont.

I never thought of it that way before. What are some reasons why you don't?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 10:59:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I ignored point one because point two carries the same justification, and c/p seems pointless.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:05:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views?

So discrimination is okay as long as it is against the minority?

Turns out, many people are sttracted to the same sex. These people pursue relationships the same sex. It is good for people to find fufillment through relationships. People in relationships are happier and better citizens. So, the state should honour these relationships as marriage.

By not allowing gay marriage, we make gay people second class citizens. Allowing gay people to marry does nothing to harm society/straight people and only benefits. People use religion as a reason against gay marriage because they are unable to articulate an argument against it. People should be able to articulate their opinions without relying on a iron age "magic" book.
bhatti1020
Posts: 216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:19:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
second class citizens? because they cant get married? then so are paedophiles and polygamist Mormons. Homosexuals aren't allowed to be discrimated against when looking for a job or housing. And if they are, they can go to court. I'd be more willing to call them second class citizens if they were denied economic opportunities, forced to live in separate areas, not allowed in certain public places, like apartheid in South Africa. But they're not. They may be bullied, and that's horrible, 110% wrong, and should be prevented. But they aren't second class citizens.
-Tourism & Immigration minister for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
"hey, no Jerry springer here!"
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:22:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:19:25 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
second class citizens? because they cant get married? then so are paedophiles and polygamist Mormons. Homosexuals aren't allowed to be discrimated against when looking for a job or housing.
Just because they are not discriminated against in these ways does not mean that they are not discriminated against. That's like saying that if I stab you with a pitchfork instead of with a knife, I haven't stabbed you.
And if they are, they can go to court. I'd be more willing to call them second class citizens if they were denied economic opportunities, forced to live in separate areas, not allowed in certain public places, like apartheid in South Africa. But they're not. They may be bullied, and that's horrible, 110% wrong, and should be prevented. But they aren't second class citizens.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:27:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 10:55:53 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/2/2012 9:29:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:58:16 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1. Democratic choice

So is rape, murder, arson, and larceny.

2. Victimless crime

They are not punished. Punishment is based on retribution. They are just not recognized

If something is illegal, then it is criminalised. The phrase comes from Mill, from the 19th century, so older language. But as laws should work to protect people, this law is unnecessary, and harms the liberties of those who want SSM.

One could argue allowing it harms religeons institutions, radicals, and marriage. One could argue its against the states interest to allow it. So under your argumentation for what laws do we could still conceivably restrict/not recognize SSM.


3. Makes money

Yes, it does. But the benefits are often over stated. 5% of the population is gay. (the 10% number is highly discredited) and in the Netherlands under 10% of gays get married. The small amount means yes benefits, but not much.

None of these independently (arguably) are prima facie, but together they give reason over

Over what? Also economic benefits are again over stated. I will make it simple. Society has 100 people. 5 are gay. 1 gets married. 1% increase in married couples. Although one could argue it has benefits it will likely be small as only a small amount of the population is gay, and based on stats from other countries only a fraction of gays marry.

Benefits? Yes. Substantial enough to override everything? No.


4. Equality

Here is my view: http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

Cool story, not American. Maybe your personal opinion matters when it is the majority, but personal opinion < democratic consensus, every time when it comes to political legislation. Imposing a minority opinion is silly on an issue where, supposing your argument in the post, there is nothing either way.

Bandwagon fallacy, using a majority consensus as an argunment is a fallacy.

Also a republic (USA) protects minority interests.

And to claim liberty is violated you must define something.
""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. That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded."
--> Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)


5. Freedom of Choice

Is that a right?

It very well should be. Freedom to choose to work or not, freedom to choose to live or not, freedom to choose whether married or not, whenever it is a victimless crime.

You can't claim to have a right to X unless you know what X is. If it is defined against you you have no right. Marriage is a right, but you and I disagree on what it entails.


6. Separation of Church and State

That's not why it's banned, it might be a personal reason though

When the only argument is religious (that is the argument that bhatti put, btw) then it is a perfect turn.

No, it may be a personal interest but based on state reasons why it's banned that's not why. The Harvard link I showed tells us why it is banned.


7. Promotion of a modern meaning of marriage.

read the girgis paper http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...

Read it before, and was embarrassed for Girgis by the implicit arguments where he simply rehashes the anti-gay marriages (it'll lead to polyamory, for example, was implicit throughout, and the idea that if gays get married, then there will be no more procreation). It is not a great argument against SSM, and still doesn't challenge the revisionist position, rather, states that revisionists do not define it.

So you think we should let anyone or anything marry?

Also explain to me why it fails.
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
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:36:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:58:16 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1. Democratic choice
2. Victimless crime
3. Makes money
4. Equality
5. Freedom of Choice
6. Separation of Church and State
7. Promotion of a modern meaning of marriage.

These are all great points, but I think that people can form an association of marriage without government interference, thus I am Libertarian on the issue of marriage.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:38:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Preferably the government shouldn't be involved with marriage at all, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. It would be justified to legalize gay marriage, but then it would be justified to legalize polygamy, incest marriages with exceptions, and so on and so forth giving everyone special economic and legal treatment, which I have no problem with mind you.

So I don't really support gay "marriage" in the sense of having the government give private and personal relationships of any nature special legal and financial privelages, and that's the only reason.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:39:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:38:14 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
Preferably the government shouldn't be involved with marriage at all, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. It would be justified to legalize gay marriage, but then it would be justified to legalize polygamy, incest marriages with exceptions, and so on and so forth giving everyone special economic and legal treatment, which I have no problem with mind you.
I agree.
So I don't really support gay "marriage" in the sense of having the government give private and personal relationships of any nature special legal and financial privelages, and that's the only reason.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:39:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:05:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views?

So discrimination is okay as long as it is against the minority?

Turns out, many people are sttracted to the same sex. These people pursue relationships the same sex. It is good for people to find fufillment through relationships. People in relationships are happier and better citizens. So, the state should honour these relationships as marriage.

By not allowing gay marriage, we make gay people second class citizens. Allowing gay people to marry does nothing to harm society/straight people and only benefits. People use religion as a reason against gay marriage because they are unable to articulate an argument against it. People should be able to articulate their opinions without relying on a iron age "magic" book.

Homosexuals are actually worth less to society. So one could argue they deserve second class citizenship, based on marriage "rights" anyway.
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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:44:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:39:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:05:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views?

So discrimination is okay as long as it is against the minority?

Turns out, many people are sttracted to the same sex. These people pursue relationships the same sex. It is good for people to find fufillment through relationships. People in relationships are happier and better citizens. So, the state should honour these relationships as marriage.

By not allowing gay marriage, we make gay people second class citizens. Allowing gay people to marry does nothing to harm society/straight people and only benefits. People use religion as a reason against gay marriage because they are unable to articulate an argument against it. People should be able to articulate their opinions without relying on a iron age "magic" book.

Homosexuals are actually worth less to society. So one could argue they deserve second class citizenship, based on marriage "rights" anyway.

Marriage is a right.

Also, sigged.
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
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:46:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:44:00 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:39:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:05:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views?

So discrimination is okay as long as it is against the minority?

Turns out, many people are sttracted to the same sex. These people pursue relationships the same sex. It is good for people to find fufillment through relationships. People in relationships are happier and better citizens. So, the state should honour these relationships as marriage.

By not allowing gay marriage, we make gay people second class citizens. Allowing gay people to marry does nothing to harm society/straight people and only benefits. People use religion as a reason against gay marriage because they are unable to articulate an argument against it. People should be able to articulate their opinions without relying on a iron age "magic" book.

Homosexuals are actually worth less to society. So one could argue they deserve second class citizenship, based on marriage "rights" anyway.

Marriage is a right.

Again you cannot claim a right to _ without defining _.

In this case marriage is heterosexual so marriage IS a right, but we disagree on what marriage entails. So there is no right to gay marriage, there is a right to marriage.


Also, sigged.
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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:54:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:39:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:05:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views?

So discrimination is okay as long as it is against the minority?

Turns out, many people are sttracted to the same sex. These people pursue relationships the same sex. It is good for people to find fufillment through relationships. People in relationships are happier and better citizens. So, the state should honour these relationships as marriage.

By not allowing gay marriage, we make gay people second class citizens. Allowing gay people to marry does nothing to harm society/straight people and only benefits. People use religion as a reason against gay marriage because they are unable to articulate an argument against it. People should be able to articulate their opinions without relying on a iron age "magic" book.

Homosexuals are actually worth less to society. So one could argue they deserve second class citizenship, based on marriage "rights" anyway.

So are the infertile and those who refuse to have children.

And don't give me any of that "potential" bullsh1t. All that is is a cover for your bigotry. Do not try and intellectualize your hate. And yes, I do mean "hate." You've said you hate gay people before.

I just am sick of it, to be honest. Contradiction does the same thing. Both try and justify and rationalize and intellectualize and moralize bigotry. Simply that. It most definitely feels like all of their arguments are merely grasps for straws. It's fvcking sickening, to be honest. Mind you, this is not a generalization of those against gay marriage. It's of those who are against gay marriage for their reason. All I see is support for a state that gets to deem what is moral and gets to treat it's own citizens like second class people for a sexual orientation that is beyond their control and cannot change and should not be treated as a mental illness according to every important psychological group. All I see is justification and attempts to thinly veil what is truly thee. An inherent dislike of LGBT people that extends to the point of denial of rights and privileges given to others who likewise did not choose THEIR orientation. And I'm disgusted. Plain and simple.
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
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:55:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:54:19 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:39:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:05:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views?

So discrimination is okay as long as it is against the minority?

Turns out, many people are sttracted to the same sex. These people pursue relationships the same sex. It is good for people to find fufillment through relationships. People in relationships are happier and better citizens. So, the state should honour these relationships as marriage.

By not allowing gay marriage, we make gay people second class citizens. Allowing gay people to marry does nothing to harm society/straight people and only benefits. People use religion as a reason against gay marriage because they are unable to articulate an argument against it. People should be able to articulate their opinions without relying on a iron age "magic" book.

Homosexuals are actually worth less to society. So one could argue they deserve second class citizenship, based on marriage "rights" anyway.

So are the infertile and those who refuse to have children.

And don't give me any of that "potential" bullsh1t. All that is is a cover for your bigotry. Do not try and intellectualize your hate. And yes, I do mean "hate." You've said you hate gay people before.

I just am sick of it, to be honest. Contradiction does the same thing. Both try and justify and rationalize and intellectualize and moralize bigotry. Simply that. It most definitely feels like all of their arguments are merely grasps for straws. It's fvcking sickening, to be honest. Mind you, this is not a generalization of those against gay marriage. It's of those who are against gay marriage for their reason. All I see is support for a state that gets to deem what is moral and gets to treat it's own citizens like second class people for a sexual orientation that is beyond their control and cannot change and should not be treated as a mental illness according to every important psychological group. All I see is justification and attempts to thinly veil what is truly thee. An inherent dislike of LGBT people that extends to the point of denial of rights and privileges given to others who likewise did not choose THEIR orientation. And I'm disgusted. Plain and simple.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:56:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:46:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:44:00 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:39:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:05:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views?

So discrimination is okay as long as it is against the minority?

Turns out, many people are sttracted to the same sex. These people pursue relationships the same sex. It is good for people to find fufillment through relationships. People in relationships are happier and better citizens. So, the state should honour these relationships as marriage.

By not allowing gay marriage, we make gay people second class citizens. Allowing gay people to marry does nothing to harm society/straight people and only benefits. People use religion as a reason against gay marriage because they are unable to articulate an argument against it. People should be able to articulate their opinions without relying on a iron age "magic" book.

Homosexuals are actually worth less to society. So one could argue they deserve second class citizenship, based on marriage "rights" anyway.

Marriage is a right.

Again you cannot claim a right to _ without defining _.

In this case marriage is heterosexual so marriage IS a right, but we disagree on what marriage entails. So there is no right to gay marriage, there is a right to marriage.

NO. It ISN'T. It's heterosexual because you THINK it should be heterosexual, because that thought is what will further YOUR personal agenda of denial of rights and privileges to a suspect class. I do not ask for anything special. Simply the ability to act on the same feelings as others, and get the same privileges for the expression of that as other people.
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
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 11:58:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:54:19 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:39:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:05:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views?

So discrimination is okay as long as it is against the minority?

Turns out, many people are sttracted to the same sex. These people pursue relationships the same sex. It is good for people to find fufillment through relationships. People in relationships are happier and better citizens. So, the state should honour these relationships as marriage.

By not allowing gay marriage, we make gay people second class citizens. Allowing gay people to marry does nothing to harm society/straight people and only benefits. People use religion as a reason against gay marriage because they are unable to articulate an argument against it. People should be able to articulate their opinions without relying on a iron age "magic" book.

Homosexuals are actually worth less to society. So one could argue they deserve second class citizenship, based on marriage "rights" anyway.

So are the infertile and those who refuse to have children.

And don't give me any of that "potential" bullsh1t. All that is is a cover for your bigotry. Do not try and intellectualize your hate. And yes, I do mean "hate." You've said you hate gay people before.

No, they are still in the publics interest as they still attempt to use their organs to their proper function. Therefore they can encorage other couples to facilitate their organs correctly, only infertiles can do this.

Also, if you prove to me this as wrong I would then support bans on infertile marriages. But you simply don't understand the argunment.


I just am sick of it, to be honest. Contradiction does the same thing. Both try and justify and rationalize and intellectualize and moralize bigotry. Simply that. It most definitely feels like all of their arguments are merely grasps for straws. It's fvcking sickening, to be honest. Mind you, this is not a generalization of those against gay marriage. It's of those who are against gay marriage for their reason. All I see is support for a state that gets to deem what is moral and gets to treat it's own citizens like second class people for a sexual orientation that is beyond their control and cannot change and should not be treated as a mental illness according to every important psychological group. All I see is justification and attempts to thinly veil what is truly thee. An inherent dislike of LGBT people that extends to the point of denial of rights and privileges given to others who likewise did not choose THEIR orientation. And I'm disgusted. Plain and simple.
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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 12:01:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:58:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:54:19 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:39:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:05:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views?

So discrimination is okay as long as it is against the minority?

Turns out, many people are sttracted to the same sex. These people pursue relationships the same sex. It is good for people to find fufillment through relationships. People in relationships are happier and better citizens. So, the state should honour these relationships as marriage.

By not allowing gay marriage, we make gay people second class citizens. Allowing gay people to marry does nothing to harm society/straight people and only benefits. People use religion as a reason against gay marriage because they are unable to articulate an argument against it. People should be able to articulate their opinions without relying on a iron age "magic" book.

Homosexuals are actually worth less to society. So one could argue they deserve second class citizenship, based on marriage "rights" anyway.

So are the infertile and those who refuse to have children.

And don't give me any of that "potential" bullsh1t. All that is is a cover for your bigotry. Do not try and intellectualize your hate. And yes, I do mean "hate." You've said you hate gay people before.

No, they are still in the publics interest as they still attempt to use their organs to their proper function. Therefore they can encorage other couples to facilitate their organs correctly, only infertiles can do this.

Also, if you prove to me this as wrong I would then support bans on infertile marriages. But you simply don't understand the argunment.



I just am sick of it, to be honest. Contradiction does the same thing. Both try and justify and rationalize and intellectualize and moralize bigotry. Simply that. It most definitely feels like all of their arguments are merely grasps for straws. It's fvcking sickening, to be honest. Mind you, this is not a generalization of those against gay marriage. It's of those who are against gay marriage for their reason. All I see is support for a state that gets to deem what is moral and gets to treat it's own citizens like second class people for a sexual orientation that is beyond their control and cannot change and should not be treated as a mental illness according to every important psychological group. All I see is justification and attempts to thinly veil what is truly thee. An inherent dislike of LGBT people that extends to the point of denial of rights and privileges given to others who likewise did not choose THEIR orientation. And I'm disgusted. Plain and simple.

Why is it the government's business anyway to facilitate "correct" use of organs?
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
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 12:01:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 11:56:48 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:46:55 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:44:00 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:39:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:05:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views?

So discrimination is okay as long as it is against the minority?

Turns out, many people are sttracted to the same sex. These people pursue relationships the same sex. It is good for people to find fufillment through relationships. People in relationships are happier and better citizens. So, the state should honour these relationships as marriage.

By not allowing gay marriage, we make gay people second class citizens. Allowing gay people to marry does nothing to harm society/straight people and only benefits. People use religion as a reason against gay marriage because they are unable to articulate an argument against it. People should be able to articulate their opinions without relying on a iron age "magic" book.

Homosexuals are actually worth less to society. So one could argue they deserve second class citizenship, based on marriage "rights" anyway.

Marriage is a right.

Again you cannot claim a right to _ without defining _.

In this case marriage is heterosexual so marriage IS a right, but we disagree on what marriage entails. So there is no right to gay marriage, there is a right to marriage.

NO. It ISN'T. It's heterosexual because you THINK it should be heterosexual, because that thought is what will further YOUR personal agenda of denial of rights and privileges to a suspect class. I do not ask for anything special. Simply the ability to act on the same feelings as others, and get the same privileges for the expression of that as other people.

Again I am using a legal basis. Legally defined the definition still supports my point and the point stands.

Even if SSM I would argue the sane as I personally beleive marriage is by nature heterosexual through procreation.

You seem to divulge into large opinion rants trying to get me to back down. I can see you are homosexual, or homosexual leaning, and I respect that. But in your *other* posts you rely on screaming bigot. Your argunments all fail on a legal basis.
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
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 12:04:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 12:01:49 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Why is it the government's business anyway to facilitate "correct" use of organs?

Why is it the government's business to facilitate marriage?

It shouldn't be.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 12:07:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 12:01:49 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:58:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:54:19 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:39:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/2/2012 11:05:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/2/2012 9:11:41 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
Since homosexuals are the vast minority, why must the majority give up their views?

So discrimination is okay as long as it is against the minority?

Turns out, many people are sttracted to the same sex. These people pursue relationships the same sex. It is good for people to find fufillment through relationships. People in relationships are happier and better citizens. So, the state should honour these relationships as marriage.

By not allowing gay marriage, we make gay people second class citizens. Allowing gay people to marry does nothing to harm society/straight people and only benefits. People use religion as a reason against gay marriage because they are unable to articulate an argument against it. People should be able to articulate their opinions without relying on a iron age "magic" book.

Homosexuals are actually worth less to society. So one could argue they deserve second class citizenship, based on marriage "rights" anyway.

So are the infertile and those who refuse to have children.

And don't give me any of that "potential" bullsh1t. All that is is a cover for your bigotry. Do not try and intellectualize your hate. And yes, I do mean "hate." You've said you hate gay people before.

No, they are still in the publics interest as they still attempt to use their organs to their proper function. Therefore they can encorage other couples to facilitate their organs correctly, only infertiles can do this.

Also, if you prove to me this as wrong I would then support bans on infertile marriages. But you simply don't understand the argunment.



I just am sick of it, to be honest. Contradiction does the same thing. Both try and justify and rationalize and intellectualize and moralize bigotry. Simply that. It most definitely feels like all of their arguments are merely grasps for straws. It's fvcking sickening, to be honest. Mind you, this is not a generalization of those against gay marriage. It's of those who are against gay marriage for their reason. All I see is support for a state that gets to deem what is moral and gets to treat it's own citizens like second class people for a sexual orientation that is beyond their control and cannot change and should not be treated as a mental illness according to every important psychological group. All I see is justification and attempts to thinly veil what is truly thee. An inherent dislike of LGBT people that extends to the point of denial of rights and privileges given to others who likewise did not choose THEIR orientation. And I'm disgusted. Plain and simple.

Why is it the government's business anyway to facilitate "correct" use of organs?

States interest.
Look up the states interest in marriage click the PDF
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