Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay people/marriage

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:16:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
if marriage was encouraged for procreation then should gay people be allowed to marry?

if "family" was encouraged, with tax cuts, for procreation than should gay people be allowed to marry.

what do you think about this statement...
"If the constitution supported homosexuality, then it would be mentioned therein. Homosexuality was not an institution at the founding of this country, it was a hidden rarity in American culture. It was ignored, rather than supported, as it was no threat in those times. The importance of sex at the time was procreation, which was necessary to expand and support the founding of a vast nation. The degradation of this idea is exactly why we are in the economic straights we suffer today, because we have too little youth to carry on American tradition, too large a percentage of elderly to care for medically and socially. The constitution makes absolutely no mention of homosexuals."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:21:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Somehow, just because the Constitution doesn't mention homosexuality, doesn't seem to be a viable excuse for not giving homosexuals rights.

Lets note that the Chinese, Indians and a lot of other ethnic and cultural groups, as well as political groups like neo-conservative Republicans, are not mentioned in the Constitution - should we also not give them rights?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:24:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The constitution also doesn't explicitly support hetorosexuality either...

Also, ditto what Volkov said. Not very good reasoning.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:33:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:16:53 PM, comoncents wrote:
if marriage was encouraged for procreation then should gay people be allowed to marry?

if "family" was encouraged, with tax cuts, for procreation than should gay people be allowed to marry.

what do you think about this statement...
"If the constitution supported homosexuality, then it would be mentioned therein. Homosexuality was not an institution at the founding of this country, it was a hidden rarity in American culture. It was ignored, rather than supported, as it was no threat in those times. The importance of sex at the time was procreation, which was necessary to expand and support the founding of a vast nation. The degradation of this idea is exactly why we are in the economic straights we suffer today, because we have too little youth to carry on American tradition, too large a percentage of elderly to care for medically and socially. The constitution makes absolutely no mention of homosexuals."

It sounds to me like it's trying to blame homosexuals for the state of the economy, while simultaneously trying to blame the large number of elderly people (products of heterosexual procreation) for our troubles, as well; personally, I think the statement is one large contradiction; at the very least, it doesn't really tie the concept of homosexuality into the analysis besides saying "homosexuality is never mentioned".
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:34:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm sure even the people who made that statement up would have their eyes pop out when they realize Christianity isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

The first law of being a civilization is that whatever is not forbidden is permitted for civilians, and whatever is not permitted is forbidden for the government.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:35:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:21:37 PM, Volkov wrote:
Somehow, just because the Constitution doesn't mention homosexuality, doesn't seem to be a viable excuse for not giving homosexuals rights.

Lets note that the Chinese, Indians and a lot of other ethnic and cultural groups, as well as political groups like neo-conservative Republicans, are not mentioned in the Constitution - should we also not give them rights?

your right there rights should not be taken... but when tax breaks are given to promote family-in turn promoting procreation- should they be allowed to marry.

those tax breaks have to be picked up some how...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:37:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It sounds to me like it's trying to blame homosexuals for the state of the economy, while simultaneously trying to blame the large number of elderly people (products of heterosexual procreation) for our troubles, as well; personally, I think the statement is one large contradiction; at the very least, it doesn't really tie the concept of homosexuality into the analysis besides saying "homosexuality is never mentioned".

good point!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:40:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:35:30 PM, comoncents wrote:
your right there rights should not be taken... but when tax breaks are given to promote family-in turn promoting procreation- should they be allowed to marry.

those tax breaks have to be picked up some how...

I don't think these tax breaks are designed to promote procreation...

The simple fact is that kids cost a lot of money, and taxes also cost a lot of money. Spending as well is also good - so in order not to completely bankrupt families and stop them from spending money (also therefore causing less revenue for the government), the governments give those families tax breaks or credits in order to help families out a little - the break isn't significant enough to take a chunk out of government revenue for what comes due to increased spending.

Besides - when did getting married mean you must procreate?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:43:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:40:52 PM, Volkov wrote:
Besides - when did getting married mean you must procreate?

Have you not met Irish Catholics? Seriously..
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 8:43:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:43:08 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/11/2009 8:40:52 PM, Volkov wrote:
Besides - when did getting married mean you must procreate?

Have you not met Irish Catholics? Seriously..

Lol. Good one.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:13:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:21:37 PM, Volkov wrote:
Somehow, just because the Constitution doesn't mention homosexuality, doesn't seem to be a viable excuse for not giving homosexuals rights.

Lets note that the Chinese, Indians and a lot of other ethnic and cultural groups, as well as political groups like neo-conservative Republicans, are not mentioned in the Constitution - should we also not give them rights?

Race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation are not the same things. You are comparing apples to oranges. Besides, you are suggesting we give them special rights not equal rights. Equal rights would be the right to have a conventional marraige.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:21:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:13:32 PM, comoncents wrote:
Race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation are not the same things. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Obviously they're not the same things in and of themselves; but to the law, they're exactly the same thing, which is nothing. They are not factors that should be considered when making judicial decisions, like the rights of marriage.

Now, I'm a fair man and I'll admit that there is certain laws where these things are considered; Quebec's Bill 101, for instance, promotes the French language heavily over any others, and it is in fact biased towards it. But, the difference here is that even though Bill 101 is in indeed a biased piece of legislation, it still does not deny the rights of English speakers to speak their language.

This is the same with marriage laws; while sure, marriage can be considered biased towards heterosexuals, there is no reason why it should deny the rights of homosexuals to also marry.

Besides, you are suggesting we give them special rights not equal rights.

No, I'm suggesting we just give them rights that are afforded to heterosexuals, Caucasians and liberals.

Equal rights would be the right to have a conventional marraige.

And what the hell is a "conventional marriage." This term has no meaning in the eyes of the law; it is a subjective word based on the whims of certain individuals. "Marriage" itself only connotes a union between two people - not that those two people be man and woman, or man and man, or woman and woman.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:37:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A conventional marriage means the participants regret it later.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 9:51:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:37:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A conventional marriage means the participants regret it later.

Lol, I wonder how true that really is.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2009 10:03:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 9:37:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A conventional marriage means the participants regret it later.

hahaha
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 1:10:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:16:53 PM, comoncents wrote:
if marriage was encouraged for procreation

Never heard of it. People procreate very well without being married.

then should gay people be allowed to marry?

Yes.

if "family" was encouraged, with tax cuts, for procreation than should gay people be allowed to marry.

Yes.

what do you think about this statement...

I think it profoundly moronic on an almost super-human level of idiocy.
So prove me wrong, then.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 1:21:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 1:10:16 AM, regebro wrote:
At 9/11/2009 8:16:53 PM, comoncents wrote:
if marriage was encouraged for procreation

Never heard of it. People procreate very well without being married.

then should gay people be allowed to marry?

Yes.

if "family" was encouraged, with tax cuts, for procreation than should gay people be allowed to marry.

Yes.

what do you think about this statement...

I think it profoundly moronic on an almost super-human level of idiocy.

very straight forward
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 7:26:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/11/2009 8:16:53 PM, comoncents wrote:
if marriage was encouraged for procreation then should gay people be allowed to marry?

if "family" was encouraged, with tax cuts, for procreation than should gay people be allowed to marry.


Why should tax money be used to encourage marriage and procreation?

what do you think about this statement...
"If the constitution supported homosexuality, then it would be mentioned therein. Homosexuality was not an institution at the founding of this country, it was a hidden rarity in American culture. It was ignored, rather than supported, as it was no threat in those times. The importance of sex at the time was procreation, which was necessary to expand and support the founding of a vast nation. The degradation of this idea is exactly why we are in the economic straights we suffer today, because we have too little youth to carry on American tradition, too large a percentage of elderly to care for medically and socially. The constitution makes absolutely no mention of homosexuals."

There is not enough young people in America?

And in any case the constitition makes no mention of a number of things, it contains core principles which are interpreted. As it allows for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (doesn't) you could claim that disallowing gay marriage is unconstitutional. For instance, it does not demand that every American has a right to a gun, it simply can be argued that way from 'interpretation'. Another reading would have it that all private gun ownership should be outlawed.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 7:31:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 7:26:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/11/2009 8:16:53 PM, comoncents wrote:
if marriage was encouraged for procreation then should gay people be allowed to marry?

if "family" was encouraged, with tax cuts, for procreation than should gay people be allowed to marry.


Why should tax money be used to encourage marriage and procreation?


what do you think about this statement...
"If the constitution supported homosexuality, then it would be mentioned therein. Homosexuality was not an institution at the founding of this country, it was a hidden rarity in American culture. It was ignored, rather than supported, as it was no threat in those times. The importance of sex at the time was procreation, which was necessary to expand and support the founding of a vast nation. The degradation of this idea is exactly why we are in the economic straights we suffer today, because we have too little youth to carry on American tradition, too large a percentage of elderly to care for medically and socially. The constitution makes absolutely no mention of homosexuals."

There is not enough young people in America?

And in any case the constitition makes no mention of a number of things, it contains core principles which are interpreted. As it allows for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (doesn't) you could claim that disallowing gay marriage is unconstitutional. For instance, it does not demand that every American has a right to a gun, it simply can be argued that way from 'interpretation'. Another reading would have it that all private gun ownership should be outlawed.

A lot of people today tend to be loose interpreters; that is, they believe that, if something isn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, it must therefore be permissible. It's basically the logic of "You didn't TELL me not to, so I can!"

And yeah, I think the whole 'pursuit of happiness' thing is very much bullsh!t.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 7:44:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 7:31:12 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:


A lot of people today tend to be loose interpreters; that is, they believe that, if something isn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, it must therefore be permissible. It's basically the logic of "You didn't TELL me not to, so I can!"

And yeah, I think the whole 'pursuit of happiness' thing is very much bullsh!t.

You dont think people should be allowed to pursue happiness?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 7:51:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 7:44:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/12/2009 7:31:12 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:


A lot of people today tend to be loose interpreters; that is, they believe that, if something isn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, it must therefore be permissible. It's basically the logic of "You didn't TELL me not to, so I can!"

And yeah, I think the whole 'pursuit of happiness' thing is very much bullsh!t.

You dont think people should be allowed to pursue happiness?

The only reason they put 'pursuit of happiness' in there is because our dear founders didn't want to put in 'property'. So, PoH was basically a filler.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 4:50:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 7:51:37 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The only reason they put 'pursuit of happiness' in there is because our dear founders didn't want to put in 'property'. So, PoH was basically a filler.

That doesn't answer his question; why deny homosexuals the right to the "pursuit of happiness," not why "pursuit of happiness" is in the Constitution.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 8:08:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 4:50:03 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/12/2009 7:51:37 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The only reason they put 'pursuit of happiness' in there is because our dear founders didn't want to put in 'property'. So, PoH was basically a filler.

That doesn't answer his question; why deny homosexuals the right to the "pursuit of happiness," not why "pursuit of happiness" is in the Constitution.

I was just discrediting the idea of "pursuit of happiness" as a right; personally, I see it this way: homosexuals are protesting for their 'right' to marriage (which I don't believe anyone has); they believe that marriage will bring them happiness, and their protests and lobbying are the methods by which they pursue that happiness; since they aren't being denied the right to protest, they aren't being denied the right to pursue happiness; they may not get it, but there's no right to perceived happiness; only to the pursuit thereof.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 8:39:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 8:08:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I was just discrediting the idea of "pursuit of happiness" as a right;

Do you think any citizen has any right?

personally, I see it this way: homosexuals are protesting for their 'right' to marriage (which I don't believe anyone has); they believe that marriage will bring them happiness, and their protests and lobbying are the methods by which they pursue that happiness; since they aren't being denied the right to protest, they aren't being denied the right to pursue happiness; they may not get it, but there's no right to perceived happiness; only to the pursuit thereof.

Is this seriously your argument against it? Well, alright....

You're taking the verse much, much to seriously; the right to the "pursuit of happiness" is a negative right on the part of the government, meaning that the government shall not infringe upon the private citizen's rights to pursue their goals until it harms others.

It is not the literal idea of "pursuing happiness"; that would be a very cruel and deranged "right," given that you are allowing people to work towards goals and get their hopes up, even though they will never get their goals implemented - ever.

In fact such an interpretation of that right is a contradiction and self-defeating; if citizens are only allowed to literally "pursue happiness," without ever having the chance for it to be attained, there would be no reason for them to "pursue" their "happiness," since it is eternally hopeless. That "right" itself violates the "right to pursue happiness," by not allowing individuals to pursue that happiness, due to it never being attainable.

Self-contradictory, self-defeating. Try another one.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 8:41:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I agree that there shouldn't be a law making marriage illegal; however, there shouldn't be a law forcing churches to marry homosexuals or preventing churches from discriminating on the basis of sexuality.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 8:44:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 8:39:08 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/12/2009 8:08:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I was just discrediting the idea of "pursuit of happiness" as a right;

Do you think any citizen has any right?

Sure. Life.


personally, I see it this way: homosexuals are protesting for their 'right' to marriage (which I don't believe anyone has); they believe that marriage will bring them happiness, and their protests and lobbying are the methods by which they pursue that happiness; since they aren't being denied the right to protest, they aren't being denied the right to pursue happiness; they may not get it, but there's no right to perceived happiness; only to the pursuit thereof.

Is this seriously your argument against it? Well, alright....

You're taking the verse much, much to seriously; the right to the "pursuit of happiness" is a negative right on the part of the government, meaning that the government shall not infringe upon the private citizen's rights to pursue their goals until it harms others.

It may be taken several different ways, I suppose. It may be that way in the eyes of many, but the strict interpretation is how I believe it ought to be.


It is not the literal idea of "pursuing happiness"; that would be a very cruel and deranged "right," given that you are allowing people to work towards goals and get their hopes up, even though they will never get their goals implemented - ever.

I'm not saying that gay marriage isn't ever going to be legal. You're assuming that it won't. I'm saying that they (homosexuals) have the right to pursue the legalization of gay marriage; whether or not they get it is, in essence, up to them.


In fact such an interpretation of that right is a contradiction and self-defeating; if citizens are only allowed to literally "pursue happiness," without ever having the chance for it to be attained, there would be no reason for them to "pursue" their "happiness," since it is eternally hopeless. That "right" itself violates the "right to pursue happiness," by not allowing individuals to pursue that happiness, due to it never being attainable.

Again, I never said that their happiness is unattainable; the ability for homosexuals to marry is something that they are free to pursue; the legalization of the institution for homosexuals is entirely dependent on how dedicated they are to the cause, and how hard they are willing to work for it.


Self-contradictory, self-defeating. Try another one.

I figure that's reason enough.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 8:44:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Will, how come your posts always echo my thoughts?

Anyways, "pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 8:44:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 8:41:15 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I agree that there shouldn't be a law making marriage illegal; however, there shouldn't be a law forcing churches to marry homosexuals or preventing churches from discriminating on the basis of sexuality.

Agreed - the state cannot force churches to marry homosexuals. That is an absolutely ludicrous idea; the churches have their right to faith, and if they refuse to marry homosexuals, that is their right and the government shall not interfere.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 8:45:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 8:41:15 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I agree that there shouldn't be a law making marriage illegal; however, there shouldn't be a law forcing churches to marry homosexuals or preventing churches from discriminating on the basis of sexuality.

he is consistent...

you can find his debate over the subject with me

http://www.debate.org...