Total Posts:136|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Tell me about why you oppose gay marriage...

YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 9:52:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I really want to know. Will the heavens implode? Will society as we know it come to an end if it is legalized?

Will heteros stop getting hitched if we, in the words of one California lawyer -i.e. dumbshit- "forever sever the link between marriage and children" in law? Will some mythicial harm come to the supposed "institution of marriage"?

Please, do tell. I ask in a sort of tounge-in-cheek manor, but I really want to know why you are afraid of gay marriage (if you are afraid of it), or even why you don't want it.

I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death (and over argued in a prophetically overpseduointelectualized manor) by a gratuitous plethora of members on DDO, but all BS aside, tell me what you think!

My goal is not to dissuade you of your convictions, but to understand them better. I've spoken to many on this issue, and now I'm asking DDO. Why oppose gay marriage?
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 9:55:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Buttoles are icky and I'm too afraid to come to grips with my feelings about Anderson Cooper.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 9:58:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And religious reasons are fine. Even moral ones. Even constitutional ones. I want to know how you really feel. Not even so much what you think, but what you feel. This is an issue which can split families (and has mine), which can break parties (as it is presently doing in the GOP), and which inspires some of the most bloodcurdling visceral rage the American political process has ever seen -topped only by the south's opposition to ending segregation in schools. I want you to be honest with DDO and with me. I want to hear your frustration with the tearing of the moral fabric of America, and all that jazz. This is the place to vent. Let it all out. You'll feel better afterward, I'm sure of it.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 9:59:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 9:55:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
Buttoles are icky and I'm too afraid to come to grips with my feelings about Anderson Cooper.

Anderson Cooper is an intimidating fellow. I mean, just look at him with Grumpy Cat.

Clearly the face of evil.
Tsar of DDO
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 10:10:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 9:52:11 PM, YYW wrote:
I really want to know. Will the heavens implode? Will society as we know it come to an end if it is legalized?

Will heteros stop getting hitched if we, in the words of one California lawyer -i.e. dumbshit- "forever sever the link between marriage and children" in law? Will some mythicial harm come to the supposed "institution of marriage"?

Please, do tell. I ask in a sort of tounge-in-cheek manor, but I really want to know why you are afraid of gay marriage (if you are afraid of it), or even why you don't want it.

I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death (and over argued in a prophetically overpseduointelectualized manor) by a gratuitous plethora of members on DDO, but all BS aside, tell me what you think!

My goal is not to dissuade you of your convictions, but to understand them better. I've spoken to many on this issue, and now I'm asking DDO. Why oppose gay marriage?

I do not oppose gay marriage, but have spoke to many a conservative that oppose it. One in particular a guy believed 100% that allowing gay marriage would destroy the very fabric of our nation. After reminding him that he as a devote Christian who was divorced that it was not long ago where divorce was thought along the same lines.

What it fundamentally comes down to is that it is either fear as above or just a straight up ploy to regulate morality based upon their belief system.

Anyone who truly believes in freedom can not believe in restricting who one can marry.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 10:13:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I remember clicking on an article on Yahoo about Anderson Cooper having to wear an eye-patch after sunburning his eyes in Portugal. EVERY COMMENT was a theory about a penis/semen related injury, posited by 'manly-men' who are supposedly repulsed by homosexuality of any kind. I found it humorous that they all had leapt to a homoerotic conclusion which never even entered my mind. Maybe there is something to this theory.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 10:21:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 9:58:42 PM, YYW wrote:
And religious reasons are fine. Even moral ones. Even constitutional ones. I want to know how you really feel. Not even so much what you think, but what you feel. This is an issue which can split families (and has mine), which can break parties (as it is presently doing in the GOP), and which inspires some of the most bloodcurdling visceral rage the American political process has ever seen -topped only by the south's opposition to ending segregation in schools. I want you to be honest with DDO and with me. I want to hear your frustration with the tearing of the moral fabric of America, and all that jazz. This is the place to vent. Let it all out. You'll feel better afterward, I'm sure of it.

Oh, and you know that those are the only ones that exist in the first place. ;)

I can put my reasons to support it (which I suggest that all proponents of gay marriage familiarize themselves with):
- Homosexuality is caused by hormonal abnormalities during fetal development (therefore, it is not a choice):
http://en.wikipedia.org...
- The American Academy of Pediatrics supports gay adoption, based on the results of numerous studies showing that children raised by same-sex couples are no worse for it, and that being adopted by a married couple (regardless of sexual orientation) is better for the children than being raised by an unmarried couple or a single parent.
- Marriage didn't have its roots in religion (monogamy dates back to 20,000 years ago), and even if it did, it is most definitely a state affair now, Christianity can't have full claim over it, and it benefits the people more as a state affair (in 1049 ways, in fact).
(I'll grab the sources if you need them (and maybe some popcorn, too). Meanwhile, I expect opposing parties to produce reliable sources which actually contain real science backed by empirical studies instead of speculation and faith
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
THEVIRUS
Posts: 1,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 10:36:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 10:21:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 3/25/2013 9:58:42 PM, YYW wrote:
And religious reasons are fine. Even moral ones. Even constitutional ones. I want to know how you really feel. Not even so much what you think, but what you feel. This is an issue which can split families (and has mine), which can break parties (as it is presently doing in the GOP), and which inspires some of the most bloodcurdling visceral rage the American political process has ever seen -topped only by the south's opposition to ending segregation in schools. I want you to be honest with DDO and with me. I want to hear your frustration with the tearing of the moral fabric of America, and all that jazz. This is the place to vent. Let it all out. You'll feel better afterward, I'm sure of it.

Oh, and you know that those are the only ones that exist in the first place. ;)

My family is very religious (not me) and they oppose gay marriage. I asked why and EVERY REASON related back to Christianity or religiously founded morals. The one thing the never beat:

"Supporting it doesn't mean you are gay. I support it because I think people should have a choice. RELIGIOUS VIEWS should not hold them back."

The last part is true to a lot of things. Christians say they are not out to force people to be Christian, yet the don't even tempt the thought of agreeing people have rights if those rights break their own Christian code of ethics.

I can put my reasons to support it (which I suggest that all proponents of gay marriage familiarize themselves with):
- Homosexuality is caused by hormonal abnormalities during fetal development (therefore, it is not a choice):
http://en.wikipedia.org...

^^^ Wikipedia isn't exactly the best source to use when convincing someone...
"So you want me to go to the judge with 'unit, corps, God, country'?" - A Few Good Men

"And the hits just keep on comin'." -A Few Good Men
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 11:08:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 9:52:11 PM, YYW wrote:
I really want to know. Will the heavens implode? Will society as we know it come to an end if it is legalized?

Will heteros stop getting hitched if we, in the words of one California lawyer -i.e. dumbshit- "forever sever the link between marriage and children" in law? Will some mythicial harm come to the supposed "institution of marriage"?

Please, do tell. I ask in a sort of tounge-in-cheek manor, but I really want to know why you are afraid of gay marriage (if you are afraid of it), or even why you don't want it.

I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death (and over argued in a prophetically overpseduointelectualized manor) by a gratuitous plethora of members on DDO, but all BS aside, tell me what you think!

My goal is not to dissuade you of your convictions, but to understand them better. I've spoken to many on this issue, and now I'm asking DDO. Why oppose gay marriage?

Frankly, I am ambivilant on the matter, but I side with being opposed to gay marriage. The way I see it, the only reason against gay marriage is lack of procreation, which is, frankly, a weak argument. Religious arguments are irrelevant in America, so I don't pay them much attention.

However, there is no valid argument for gay marriage except that a healthy chunk of the population supports it. The discrimination argument falls flat, as the law is applied equally, only the resulting effect is "discriminating". But, that is what any law does... (I'll explain if anyone cares)

If gays can marry, will it create a rift in the universe? I doubt it. Religious zealots can, and will, still look down on gays, and tell them they are horrible people. Gays will probably continue to have their pride events.

Will society be better off? I doubt it. Gay relationships will be better protected and benefits offered will be good for them, and probably a plus for society. However, it concerns me that the law will change simply because a majority wishes it to, and not for any better reason.
My work here is, finally, done.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 11:24:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@LK

So yer opinion on the matter predicates on a presumption against change in the status quo without due reason. My own opinion predicates on a presumption against restrictions (exclusion) without the same.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 11:31:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 10:21:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 3/25/2013 9:58:42 PM, YYW wrote:
And religious reasons are fine. Even moral ones. Even constitutional ones. I want to know how you really feel. Not even so much what you think, but what you feel. This is an issue which can split families (and has mine), which can break parties (as it is presently doing in the GOP), and which inspires some of the most bloodcurdling visceral rage the American political process has ever seen -topped only by the south's opposition to ending segregation in schools. I want you to be honest with DDO and with me. I want to hear your frustration with the tearing of the moral fabric of America, and all that jazz. This is the place to vent. Let it all out. You'll feel better afterward, I'm sure of it.

Oh, and you know that those are the only ones that exist in the first place. ;)

I can put my reasons to support it (which I suggest that all proponents of gay marriage familiarize themselves with):
- Homosexuality is caused by hormonal abnormalities during fetal development (therefore, it is not a choice):
http://en.wikipedia.org...
- The American Academy of Pediatrics supports gay adoption, based on the results of numerous studies showing that children raised by same-sex couples are no worse for it, and that being adopted by a married couple (regardless of sexual orientation) is better for the children than being raised by an unmarried couple or a single parent.
- Marriage didn't have its roots in religion (monogamy dates back to 20,000 years ago), and even if it did, it is most definitely a state affair now, Christianity can't have full claim over it, and it benefits the people more as a state affair (in 1049 ways, in fact).
(I'll grab the sources if you need them (and maybe some popcorn, too). Meanwhile, I expect opposing parties to produce reliable sources which actually contain real science backed by empirical studies instead of speculation and faith

Actually the hormonal theory is widely discredited. The overall consensus is that we don't know, and no replicated study shows biological factors have an effect. That's directly from the APA. Here's a study on the issue: http://www.mygenes.co.nz...
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
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 11:39:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I oppose state recognition of marriage period
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 11:40:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hurr we gotta encourage procreation gaiz! Only the peoplez who can (and will) procreate should get married!! Derppppp

....wait.....there's heterosexual couples that don't have kids? Wuuuuuuuuuuuuut???? THOSE CAT LADIES WHO GET HITCHED ARE SATANISTS AND AGENTS OF THE DEVIL!!!! THEY WANT TO DESTROY SOCIETY AND RUIN ALL OF OUR GOOD ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!!!!

- Thoughts of a mindblown conservative
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 11:43:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 10:23:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Gays wanna marry.

Well, if they can find someone willing to marry them, than fine. Just don't ask for state recognition; same goes for straight people.
I marry wanna.
I already said if gays are willing to find someone to marry them, then fine.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 11:47:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 10:27:12 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I feel like all reasons religious moral ect all boil down to "I think two guys making out is gross"

True, but lesbian action is hot.

Non-religious homophobics usually are fine with lesbianism.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 1:23:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 11:40:18 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Hurr we gotta encourage procreation gaiz! Only the peoplez who can (and will) procreate should get married!! Derppppp

....wait.....there's heterosexual couples that don't have kids? Wuuuuuuuuuuuuut???? THOSE CAT LADIES WHO GET HITCHED ARE SATANISTS AND AGENTS OF THE DEVIL!!!! THEY WANT TO DESTROY SOCIETY AND RUIN ALL OF OUR GOOD ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!!!!

- Thoughts of a mindblown conservative

If you're referring to me, I admitted it's a weak argument.

However, without this argument, what is the gain to society that merits any distinction/requirement to marriage? If procreation is not a reason the state offers benefits to married couples, then there is no reason why blood relations should not be allowed to be married.

Almost every legal benefit offered by marriage can be obtained with other legal documents (the only benefit that I know of that is unattainable to gays are social security benefits). So, if procreation isn't a reason for marriage (which it seems to an outdated concept given the events of the last 50 years or so), then let's do away with the legal concept of marriage altogether and any benefits offered should be extended to anyone who seeks them (for example, spousal priveledge could be exercised through a power of attorney).
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 1:33:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 1:23:59 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/25/2013 11:40:18 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Hurr we gotta encourage procreation gaiz! Only the peoplez who can (and will) procreate should get married!! Derppppp

....wait.....there's heterosexual couples that don't have kids? Wuuuuuuuuuuuuut???? THOSE CAT LADIES WHO GET HITCHED ARE SATANISTS AND AGENTS OF THE DEVIL!!!! THEY WANT TO DESTROY SOCIETY AND RUIN ALL OF OUR GOOD ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!!!!

- Thoughts of a mindblown conservative

If you're referring to me, I admitted it's a weak argument.

However, without this argument, what is the gain to society that merits any distinction/requirement to marriage? If procreation is not a reason the state offers benefits to married couples, then there is no reason why blood relations should not be allowed to be married.

Economics - as it turns out, communism works. The tough bit is that you REALLY gotta care about the people in your commune, and that's hard to make happen on some mass level.

In a family unit, though, it works out just fine.

Almost every legal benefit offered by marriage can be obtained with other legal documents (the only benefit that I know of that is unattainable to gays are social security benefits). So, if procreation isn't a reason for marriage (which it seems to an outdated concept given the events of the last 50 years or so), then let's do away with the legal concept of marriage altogether and any benefits offered should be extended to anyone who seeks them (for example, spousal priveledge could be exercised through a power of attorney).

It's a giant pain in the @ss, though, and transfer of military retirement benefits, VA benefits or social security income is impossible without marriage.

Again, it's an economics thing.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 1:42:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am against gay marriage because I am a straight male and therefore will choose to have a straight marriage. I don't care what other people do, they can have all the gay marriages they want.

That being said, the gay rights movement has distracted us from real issues and they don't understand that they aren't being denied a right, they are demanding that their gay marriage ceremony be blessed by the state and receive all the government benefits with it. They should be rallying against government sanctioned marriage period, not rallying for more government involved in more people's lives.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 2:25:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 11:43:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/25/2013 10:23:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Gays wanna marry.

Well, if they can find someone willing to marry them, than fine. Just don't ask for state recognition; same goes for straight people.
I marry wanna.
I already said if gays are willing to find someone to marry them, then fine.

Do you have absolutely no concept of humor?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 3:32:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 1:33:43 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/26/2013 1:23:59 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


However, without this argument, what is the gain to society that merits any distinction/requirement to marriage? If procreation is not a reason the state offers benefits to married couples, then there is no reason why blood relations should not be allowed to be married.

Economics - as it turns out, communism works. The tough bit is that you REALLY gotta care about the people in your commune, and that's hard to make happen on some mass level.

I have never denied this.

In a family unit, though, it works out just fine.

So why should the government define a family? Let anyone marry anyone else who is willing, period (assuming they can enter contracts). As long as incest and polygamy are recognized, then so be it. Otherwise, it is "special treatment" to those whose marriages are recognized. What is the reason that some relationships are recognized and not others?

Almost every legal benefit offered by marriage can be obtained with other legal documents (the only benefit that I know of that is unattainable to gays are social security benefits). So, if procreation isn't a reason for marriage (which it seems to an outdated concept given the events of the last 50 years or so), then let's do away with the legal concept of marriage altogether and any benefits offered should be extended to anyone who seeks them (for example, spousal priveledge could be exercised through a power of attorney).

It's a giant pain in the @ss, though, and transfer of military retirement benefits, VA benefits or social security income is impossible without marriage.

If marriages were not a government thing anymore, it would be a pain in the @ss for all, and anyone could do it, and no one should be upset about anyone else's private arrangments. Churches can marry, or refuse to marry, those they wish.

Again, it's an economics thing.

Bottom line:
If marriage is an important distinction that the government needs to differentiate by offering special benefits that only married people can enjoy, then what are the reasons for the differentiation that would warrant gays but not other unions? If there is no differentiation, then there should be no special benefits offered (i.e. no recognition of unions period).
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 3:55:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 3:32:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/26/2013 1:33:43 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/26/2013 1:23:59 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


However, without this argument, what is the gain to society that merits any distinction/requirement to marriage? If procreation is not a reason the state offers benefits to married couples, then there is no reason why blood relations should not be allowed to be married.

Economics - as it turns out, communism works. The tough bit is that you REALLY gotta care about the people in your commune, and that's hard to make happen on some mass level.

I have never denied this.

I didn't say you did.

In a family unit, though, it works out just fine.

So why should the government define a family?

They shouldn't.

BUT

The marriage contract is a contract of convenience which eliminates the need for all the other contracts you were talking about, and since the government ends of being the entity which enforces contracts via its courts, and also because government income is the one thing for which you can't have a contract outside of marriage to facilitate its legal transfer to your significant other, it makes sense for the government to be the caretakers of marriage contracts.

Let anyone marry anyone else who is willing, period (assuming they can enter contracts). As long as incest and polygamy are recognized, then so be it.

I think you meant aren't recognized, and I disagree with that. As long as the polygamy doesn't involve incest (I'm with ya there), rape or welfare fraud, why should that be illegal? If 4 people wanna be in a marriage together and they aren't breaking any laws, who am I to say it's wrong (though I will say it's kinda weird)?

Otherwise, it is "special treatment" to those whose marriages are recognized. What is the reason that some relationships are recognized and not others?

Tradition.

Almost every legal benefit offered by marriage can be obtained with other legal documents (the only benefit that I know of that is unattainable to gays are social security benefits). So, if procreation isn't a reason for marriage (which it seems to an outdated concept given the events of the last 50 years or so), then let's do away with the legal concept of marriage altogether and any benefits offered should be extended to anyone who seeks them (for example, spousal priveledge could be exercised through a power of attorney).

It's a giant pain in the @ss, though, and transfer of military retirement benefits, VA benefits or social security income is impossible without marriage.

If marriages were not a government thing anymore, it would be a pain in the @ss for all, and anyone could do it, and no one should be upset about anyone else's private arrangments. Churches can marry, or refuse to marry, those they wish.

Again, it's an economics thing.

Bottom line:
If marriage is an important distinction that the government needs to differentiate by offering special benefits that only married people can enjoy, then what are the reasons for the differentiation that would warrant gays but not other unions? If there is no differentiation, then there should be no special benefits offered (i.e. no recognition of unions period).

Contracts of convenience with the entity which enforces contracts. It sounds simple, but it's a pretty big deal.

But, yeah...there should be no restrictions that don't involve the violation of other laws.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 4:20:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 3:55:16 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/26/2013 3:32:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/26/2013 1:33:43 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/26/2013 1:23:59 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


However, without this argument, what is the gain to society that merits any distinction/requirement to marriage? If procreation is not a reason the state offers benefits to married couples, then there is no reason why blood relations should not be allowed to be married.

Economics - as it turns out, communism works. The tough bit is that you REALLY gotta care about the people in your commune, and that's hard to make happen on some mass level.



In a family unit, though, it works out just fine.

So why should the government define a family?

They shouldn't.

BUT

The marriage contract is a contract of convenience which eliminates the need for all the other contracts you were talking about, and since the government ends of being the entity which enforces contracts via its courts, and also because government income is the one thing for which you can't have a contract outside of marriage to facilitate its legal transfer to your significant other, it makes sense for the government to be the caretakers of marriage contracts.

If simplicity was the goal, then civil unions would be a happy comprimise, while working on changing the laws dealing with government income. The civil union/marriage distinction allows for the continious denial of other unions without any intellectual inconsistentcy.

Let anyone marry anyone else who is willing, period (assuming they can enter contracts). As long as incest and polygamy are recognized, then so be it.

I think you meant aren't recognized, and I disagree with that. As long as the polygamy doesn't involve incest (I'm with ya there), rape or welfare fraud, why should that be illegal? If 4 people wanna be in a marriage together and they aren't breaking any laws, who am I to say it's wrong (though I will say it's kinda weird)?

I did mean recognized, and I meant consenting adults (i.e. not rape).

So, you would be willing to extend benefits of marriage to polygamists but not incestious unions? Why the distinction?

When I refer to incest, I mean consenting adults (perhaps cousins or siblings), not fathers marrying their teen daughters. The only argument I can think of against that is procreation (babies with extra toes), but that argument is out the window if gays get married. So, there is no reason to deny incestious unions, except the ewww factor.

Otherwise, it is "special treatment" to those whose marriages are recognized. What is the reason that some relationships are recognized and not others?

Tradition.
It is also tradition to have only one man and one woman get married. Isn't this line of thinking a bit hypocritical? Buck tradition for some groups, but not others.



Bottom line:
If marriage is an important distinction that the government needs to differentiate by offering special benefits that only married people can enjoy, then what are the reasons for the differentiation that would warrant gays but not other unions? If there is no differentiation, then there should be no special benefits offered (i.e. no recognition of unions period).

Contracts of convenience with the entity which enforces contracts. It sounds simple, but it's a pretty big deal.

I would lump many of the benefits with a power of attorney, as I think this is the single biggest contract one would sign.

But, yeah...there should be no restrictions that don't involve the violation of other laws.
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 4:35:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 4:20:04 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/26/2013 3:55:16 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/26/2013 3:32:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/26/2013 1:33:43 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/26/2013 1:23:59 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


However, without this argument, what is the gain to society that merits any distinction/requirement to marriage? If procreation is not a reason the state offers benefits to married couples, then there is no reason why blood relations should not be allowed to be married.

Economics - as it turns out, communism works. The tough bit is that you REALLY gotta care about the people in your commune, and that's hard to make happen on some mass level.



In a family unit, though, it works out just fine.

So why should the government define a family?

They shouldn't.

BUT

The marriage contract is a contract of convenience which eliminates the need for all the other contracts you were talking about, and since the government ends of being the entity which enforces contracts via its courts, and also because government income is the one thing for which you can't have a contract outside of marriage to facilitate its legal transfer to your significant other, it makes sense for the government to be the caretakers of marriage contracts.

If simplicity was the goal, then civil unions would be a happy comprimise, while working on changing the laws dealing with government income. The civil union/marriage distinction allows for the continious denial of other unions without any intellectual inconsistentcy.

Yeah, but they have the unfortunate ring of "separate but equal" to them. So, just call them marriage and be done with it.

Let anyone marry anyone else who is willing, period (assuming they can enter contracts). As long as incest and polygamy are recognized, then so be it.

I think you meant aren't recognized, and I disagree with that. As long as the polygamy doesn't involve incest (I'm with ya there), rape or welfare fraud, why should that be illegal? If 4 people wanna be in a marriage together and they aren't breaking any laws, who am I to say it's wrong (though I will say it's kinda weird)?

I did mean recognized, and I meant consenting adults (i.e. not rape).

So, you would be willing to extend benefits of marriage to polygamists but not incestious unions? Why the distinction?

Depends on the incest. Brother and sister, yes. Father and daughter or mother and son, no, because the possibility of illegality prior to the point where the child reached the age of consent is too high, and too hard to prove/disprove.

When I refer to incest, I mean consenting adults (perhaps cousins or siblings), not fathers marrying their teen daughters. The only argument I can think of against that is procreation (babies with extra toes), but that argument is out the window if gays get married. So, there is no reason to deny incestious unions, except the ewww factor.

Actually, first cousins who have children only have a 3% greater chance of having a child with birth defects, and siblings don't have a much greater risk than that.

Also, marrying your cousin is allowed in a bunch of states, and every other industrialized country allows it freely (Canada even has it listed in their protection of marriage law).

Otherwise, it is "special treatment" to those whose marriages are recognized. What is the reason that some relationships are recognized and not others?

Tradition.
It is also tradition to have only one man and one woman get married. Isn't this line of thinking a bit hypocritical? Buck tradition for some groups, but not others.

Yeah...that's what I was saying. The reason that the marriages that are recognized, are recognized, is tradition.

I didn't say it was right. I just said that it was.



Bottom line:
If marriage is an important distinction that the government needs to differentiate by offering special benefits that only married people can enjoy, then what are the reasons for the differentiation that would warrant gays but not other unions? If there is no differentiation, then there should be no special benefits offered (i.e. no recognition of unions period).

Contracts of convenience with the entity which enforces contracts. It sounds simple, but it's a pretty big deal.

I would lump many of the benefits with a power of attorney, as I think this is the single biggest contract one would sign.

Doesn't get you VA, Military retiree or Social Security benefits, and POA can be disputed. Marriages can't.

But, yeah...there should be no restrictions that don't involve the violation of other laws.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 4:36:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Unless you're Anna Nichole Smith, or someone similar...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 5:14:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 11:08:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/25/2013 9:52:11 PM, YYW wrote:
I really want to know. Will the heavens implode? Will society as we know it come to an end if it is legalized?

Will heteros stop getting hitched if we, in the words of one California lawyer -i.e. dumbshit- "forever sever the link between marriage and children" in law? Will some mythicial harm come to the supposed "institution of marriage"?

Please, do tell. I ask in a sort of tounge-in-cheek manor, but I really want to know why you are afraid of gay marriage (if you are afraid of it), or even why you don't want it.

I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death (and over argued in a prophetically overpseduointelectualized manor) by a gratuitous plethora of members on DDO, but all BS aside, tell me what you think!

My goal is not to dissuade you of your convictions, but to understand them better. I've spoken to many on this issue, and now I'm asking DDO. Why oppose gay marriage?

Frankly, I am ambivilant on the matter, but I side with being opposed to gay marriage. The way I see it, the only reason against gay marriage is lack of procreation, which is, frankly, a weak argument. Religious arguments are irrelevant in America, so I don't pay them much attention.

However, there is no valid argument for gay marriage except that a healthy chunk of the population supports it. The discrimination argument falls flat, as the law is applied equally, only the resulting effect is "discriminating". But, that is what any law does... (I'll explain if anyone cares)

If gays can marry, will it create a rift in the universe? I doubt it. Religious zealots can, and will, still look down on gays, and tell them they are horrible people. Gays will probably continue to have their pride events.

Will society be better off? I doubt it. Gay relationships will be better protected and benefits offered will be good for them, and probably a plus for society. However, it concerns me that the law will change simply because a majority wishes it to, and not for any better reason.

How about it changes because it protects the liberty of a portion of the population? Moreover, if the new law is not harming anybody's rights, why shouldn't majority rule be upheld? Basically you're against gay marriage because you want to be edgy and oppose the public.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 5:14:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 11:43:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/25/2013 10:23:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Gays wanna marry.

Well, if they can find someone willing to marry them, than fine. Just don't ask for state recognition; same goes for straight people.
I marry wanna.
I already said if gays are willing to find someone to marry them, then fine.

If the state recognizes one type, it should recognize the other.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 5:16:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 1:42:28 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I am against gay marriage because I am a straight male and therefore will choose to have a straight marriage. I don't care what other people do, they can have all the gay marriages they want.

That being said, the gay rights movement has distracted us from real issues and they don't understand that they aren't being denied a right, they are demanding that their gay marriage ceremony be blessed by the state and receive all the government benefits with it. They should be rallying against government sanctioned marriage period, not rallying for more government involved in more people's lives.

They are being denied a civil right that they support through tax money. Stop stealing their money and forcing them to obey laws through violence and you won't have to recognize their marriages.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 6:31:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 5:14:45 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/25/2013 11:43:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/25/2013 10:23:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Gays wanna marry.

Well, if they can find someone willing to marry them, than fine. Just don't ask for state recognition; same goes for straight people.
I marry wanna.
I already said if gays are willing to find someone to marry them, then fine.

If the state recognizes one type, it should recognize the other.

Again, the state should recognize neither
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle