Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Homosexuals and discrimination

marc88567
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 6:06:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM, marc88567 wrote:
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!

I'll judge/add comments when the debate is finished.
Tsar of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 6:31:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So... homosexual's right to marry is not being infringed because they have the right to marry people of the opposite sex? That's retarded.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
marc88567
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 6:50:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 6:06:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM, marc88567 wrote:
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!

I'll judge/add comments when the debate is finished.

Thanks YYW!
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 6:52:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
People cannot vote until the debate is over.
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
marc88567
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 6:55:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 6:31:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
So... homosexual's right to marry is not being infringed because they have the right to marry people of the opposite sex? That's retarded.

Thanks for the in depth, intellectual, and intelligent respone Lordknukle. I'm sure you will influence many great minds out there on every topic you disagree with by simply stating..."That's retarded."

QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?

Mr. President: That's retarded.
Governor Romney: That's retarded....next question!
marc88567
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 7:00:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 6:52:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
People cannot vote until the debate is over.

Thanks DetectableNinja....I did no know that! I guess I will close my argument.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 9:05:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 6:55:52 PM, marc88567 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 6:31:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
So... homosexual's right to marry is not being infringed because they have the right to marry people of the opposite sex? That's retarded.

Thanks for the in depth, intellectual, and intelligent respone Lordknukle. I'm sure you will influence many great minds out there on every topic you disagree with by simply stating..."That's retarded."

QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?

Mr. President: That's retarded.
Governor Romney: That's retarded....next question!

False equivocation, bud. Asking about future employment opportunities does not constitute the same validity as claiming that the rights of homosexuals aren't being violated because they can marry people of the opposite sex. Do you even know what the word "homosexual" means?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
marc88567
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 1:24:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 9:05:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/27/2013 6:55:52 PM, marc88567 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 6:31:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
So... homosexual's right to marry is not being infringed because they have the right to marry people of the opposite sex? That's retarded.

Thanks for the in depth, intellectual, and intelligent respone Lordknukle. I'm sure you will influence many great minds out there on every topic you disagree with by simply stating..."That's retarded."

QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?

Mr. President: That's retarded.
Governor Romney: That's retarded....next question!

False equivocation, bud. Asking about future employment opportunities does not constitute the same validity as claiming that the rights of homosexuals aren't being violated because they can marry people of the opposite sex. Do you even know what the word "homosexual" means?

I wasn't equivocating future employment opportunities to rights of homosexuals, but the that of avoid a topic by calling it "retarded"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 1:43:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A very semantical debate thus far. Please feel free to PM me when it is over. I have already read through what is there, but will reserve all comments until it is completely done.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 2:25:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM, marc88567 wrote:
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!

What makes it discriminatory is the fact that it is targeted towards heterosexuals. Homosexuals wouldn't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. What you're saying is like saying that poll taxes don't discriminate against the poor since poor people can still pay the tax if they really want to vote. In addition, I could use the same argument to argue in favor of banning interracial marriage, saying that people have the equal right to marry a person of their race.
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
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 3:47:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 2:25:43 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM, marc88567 wrote:
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!

What makes it discriminatory is the fact that it is targeted towards heterosexuals. Homosexuals wouldn't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. What you're saying is like saying that poll taxes don't discriminate against the poor since poor people can still pay the tax if they really want to vote. In addition, I could use the same argument to argue in favor of banning interracial marriage, saying that people have the equal right to marry a person of their race.

Under the laws of the status quo, no one is denied the right to enter into marriage because of his/her sexual orientation. Two heterosexuals, two homosexuals, or a heterosexual and a homosexual are free to marry, no questions asked, just as persons of different races are free to marry, no questions asked. Laws should be indifferent to a person's sexual orientation just as they are to a person's race. A law recognizing Gay Marriage would actually be discriminatory because it is not blind to sexual orientation.

Poll Taxes are unconstitutional for similar reasons. Your arguments only strengthen OP's position.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 7:51:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM, marc88567 wrote:
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

We can't vote on a debate till it's over and In not sure what you mean by views, we can comment though but I think we aren't supposed to engage in the debate in the comments. Either way, I can't vote on it anyway because you need three debates under your belt to vote and I just can't get people to agree to debate me. It appears that most of the posters who disagree with my positions are gutless or something.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!

I suppose we can tell you how you are doing here.

It's probably good I can't vote because I don't think you are doing very well, your argument seems illogical to me. It sounds like you are saying that homosexuals aren't discriminated against because they could get married if they weren't homosexuals. Sure, homosexuals can get married, but they can't marry each other and that is the problem, laws against same sex marriage are the issue. The fact that there is nothing stopping a homosexual from engaging in a heterosexual marriage isn't an argument that the laws against same sex marriage aren't discriminatory.

Sorry man, but I'm thinking you are going to get creamed when the votes come in.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
marc88567
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 12:42:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 7:51:03 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM, marc88567 wrote:
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

We can't vote on a debate till it's over and In not sure what you mean by views, we can comment though but I think we aren't supposed to engage in the debate in the comments. Either way, I can't vote on it anyway because you need three debates under your belt to vote and I just can't get people to agree to debate me. It appears that most of the posters who disagree with my positions are gutless or something.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!

I suppose we can tell you how you are doing here.

It's probably good I can't vote because I don't think you are doing very well, your argument seems illogical to me. It sounds like you are saying that homosexuals aren't discriminated against because they could get married if they weren't homosexuals. Sure, homosexuals can get married, but they can't marry each other and that is the problem, laws against same sex marriage are the issue. The fact that there is nothing stopping a homosexual from engaging in a heterosexual marriage isn't an argument that the laws against same sex marriage aren't discriminatory.

Sorry man, but I'm thinking you are going to get creamed when the votes come in.

You are misunderstanding my argument. It doesn't say a marriage between a man and wan is a heterosexual marriage...only us as society interpret that, the law doesn't. I understand that maybe 99.99% of homosexuals that want to marry, would want to marry the same-sex and society would call it a homosexual marriage. But the law doesn't say that. You are using same-sex marriage as a synonym for homosexual marriage.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 6:17:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 3:47:21 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:25:43 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM, marc88567 wrote:
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!

What makes it discriminatory is the fact that it is targeted towards heterosexuals. Homosexuals wouldn't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. What you're saying is like saying that poll taxes don't discriminate against the poor since poor people can still pay the tax if they really want to vote. In addition, I could use the same argument to argue in favor of banning interracial marriage, saying that people have the equal right to marry a person of their race.

Under the laws of the status quo, no one is denied the right to enter into marriage because of his/her sexual orientation.

Did you read my post, or did you skim it? It sounds like you skimmed it. Heterosexuals can marry someone they are actually attracted to, and, while homosexuals are free to marry someone they aren't attracted to, they can't marry someone who they are attracted to. Please make sure you actually read that sentence this time, since I'm not going to say it again.

Two heterosexuals, two homosexuals, or a heterosexual and a homosexual are free to marry, no questions asked,

Unless they are of the same sex.

just as persons of different races are free to marry, no questions asked. Laws should be indifferent to a person's sexual orientation just as they are to a person's race.

And they should be indifferent to sex, too.

A law recognizing Gay Marriage would actually be discriminatory because it is not blind to sexual orientation.

No. A heterosexual would be free to marry someone of the same sex. They wouldn't want to, but the option is open for them, and they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex as well.

Poll Taxes are unconstitutional for similar reasons. Your arguments only strengthen OP's position.

This is about same-sex marriage. SAME-SEX. Not same-sexual orientation, SAME-SEX. You are clearly making no attempt to comprehend the issue, instead substituting your twisted, poor excuse for "logic". Let me break it down for you:

Poll Tax: everyone is free to vote, as long as they pay a tax.
Marriage in its current state: everyone is free to get married, as long as it is to a member of the opposite sex.

In both cases, the conditions disproportionately affect one group or another. This is the issue.
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
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 8:23:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 12:42:09 PM, marc88567 wrote:
At 4/28/2013 7:51:03 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM, marc88567 wrote:
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

We can't vote on a debate till it's over and In not sure what you mean by views, we can comment though but I think we aren't supposed to engage in the debate in the comments. Either way, I can't vote on it anyway because you need three debates under your belt to vote and I just can't get people to agree to debate me. It appears that most of the posters who disagree with my positions are gutless or something.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!

I suppose we can tell you how you are doing here.

It's probably good I can't vote because I don't think you are doing very well, your argument seems illogical to me. It sounds like you are saying that homosexuals aren't discriminated against because they could get married if they weren't homosexuals. Sure, homosexuals can get married, but they can't marry each other and that is the problem, laws against same sex marriage are the issue. The fact that there is nothing stopping a homosexual from engaging in a heterosexual marriage isn't an argument that the laws against same sex marriage aren't discriminatory.

Sorry man, but I'm thinking you are going to get creamed when the votes come in.

You are misunderstanding my argument. It doesn't say a marriage between a man and wan is a heterosexual marriage...only us as society interpret that, the law doesn't. I understand that maybe 99.99% of homosexuals that want to marry, would want to marry the same-sex and society would call it a homosexual marriage. But the law doesn't say that. You are using same-sex marriage as a synonym for homosexual marriage.

I am using same sex marriage as a synonym for homosexual marriage because it is a synonym for same sex marriage. A law against same sex marriage doesn't allow homosexuals to marry their same sex partners, that would make it discriminatory against homosexuals.

I'm not misunderstanding your argument, I'm just seeing that it rests on convoluted semantics and I'm pretty sure that when the voting starts, you're going to be toast.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 8:26:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So marc88567, if there's any other similar semantic kind of thing that you want to debate, I'm in, just let me know.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 9:14:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 6:17:35 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/28/2013 3:47:21 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:25:43 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM, marc88567 wrote:
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!

What makes it discriminatory is the fact that it is targeted towards heterosexuals. Homosexuals wouldn't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. What you're saying is like saying that poll taxes don't discriminate against the poor since poor people can still pay the tax if they really want to vote. In addition, I could use the same argument to argue in favor of banning interracial marriage, saying that people have the equal right to marry a person of their race.

Under the laws of the status quo, no one is denied the right to enter into marriage because of his/her sexual orientation.

Did you read my post, or did you skim it? It sounds like you skimmed it. Heterosexuals can marry someone they are actually attracted to, and, while homosexuals are free to marry someone they aren't attracted to, they can't marry someone who they are attracted to. Please make sure you actually read that sentence this time, since I'm not going to say it again.

So all that matters in a marriage is sexual attraction? So we can justify any "marriage" with that logic, even paedophilic or polygamist marriages.
Two heterosexuals, two homosexuals, or a heterosexual and a homosexual are free to marry, no questions asked,

Unless they are of the same sex.
Now you're getting it!

just as persons of different races are free to marry, no questions asked. Laws should be indifferent to a person's sexual orientation just as they are to a person's race.

And they should be indifferent to sex, too.
They are. Any male can marry a female.

A law recognizing Gay Marriage would actually be discriminatory because it is not blind to sexual orientation.

No. A heterosexual would be free to marry someone of the same sex. They wouldn't want to, but the option is open for them, and they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex as well.

Why should we change the definition of Marriage solely because of a homosexual's desires? This is still unwarranted.
Poll Taxes are unconstitutional for similar reasons. Your arguments only strengthen OP's position.

This is about same-sex marriage. SAME-SEX. Not same-sexual orientation, SAME-SEX. You are clearly making no attempt to comprehend the issue, instead substituting your twisted, poor excuse for "logic". Let me break it down for you:

Pardon me, did you not just say:

"Heterosexuals can marry someone they are actually attracted to, and, while homosexuals are free to marry someone they aren't attracted to, they can't marry someone who they are attracted to."

That's 3 times I counted you using the word "attracted". Yet, in the very same breath, you claim this is not about sexual orientation at all! You obviously don't even comprehend your own "logic".
Poll Tax: everyone is free to vote, as long as they pay a tax.
Marriage in its current state: everyone is free to get married, as long as it is to a member of the opposite sex.

In both cases, the conditions disproportionately affect one group or another. This is the issue.
If you have any respect for logic and reason whatsoever, you will recognize that the two do not equate.

Should we then allow infants and children vote? Age limits disproportionately affects
one group over another!

In the latter case, it is not discriminating against those peoples' ability to get married. They have exactly the same rights as anyone else to marry a person of the opposite sex.
marc88567
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 9:43:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 8:26:57 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
So marc88567, if there's any other similar semantic kind of thing that you want to debate, I'm in, just let me know.

Sidewalker, I'm trying to come up with another one. Thinking maybe gun control or abortion. I'll have to research some more. I came up with this one when Justice Scalia said "When did it become Unconstitutional?"
xenomicx
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 10:02:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM, marc88567 wrote:
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!

i looked at it and you do debate well on the semantics of the law. Yes technically the law does not say homosexual and technically homosexual marriage will not always mean a gay marriage.
It reminds me of the constitution when they sad all men are created equal. The founding fathers and society knew they meant only white men but because of the semantics the law had to apply to all men.
This law says same sex marriage. We all know it means gay marriage. But technically it mean others too. Interesting debate.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 5:41:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I guess you support bans on interracial marriage, since anybody would be permitted to marry a person of the opposite sex and same race, right? The restriction is equal on everyone, right?

Wrong. The restriction disproportionately harms gay couples. It's discriminatory in its effect.

I think a stronger argument would be to just appeal to liberty. The state and society have no business deciding whom you will marry, and restricting whom you can marry is a violation of the right to liberty.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 5:43:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In addition, it is discriminatory in its intention since the law was not made to prevent heterosexual individuals from marrying people of the same sex.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 2:35:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 9:14:28 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
So all that matters in a marriage is sexual attraction? So we can justify any "marriage" with that logic, even paedophilic or polygamist marriages.

Nope. Because in the first one, there is the problem with, you know, the fact that adults have way too much power over children and so we've set an arbitrary line as the point where people are capable of consenting.

And the second one is banned due to tax reasons.

Meanwhile, no similar argument exists against gay marriage. We are actually discriminating against pedophiles and polygamists, it's just that we have enough reason to justify it.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 3:05:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 2:35:40 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/28/2013 9:14:28 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
So all that matters in a marriage is sexual attraction? So we can justify any "marriage" with that logic, even paedophilic or polygamist marriages.

Nope. Because in the first one, there is the problem with, you know, the fact that adults have way too much power over children and so we've set an arbitrary line as the point where people are capable of consenting.

And the second one is banned due to tax reasons.

Meanwhile, no similar argument exists against gay marriage. We are actually discriminating against pedophiles and polygamists, it's just that we have enough reason to justify it.
Good, so you agree sexual attraction isn't enough reason to redefine marriage. Where I disagree is that there is still enough reason to justify it.
marc88567
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 3:16:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 5:41:55 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I guess you support bans on interracial marriage, since anybody would be permitted to marry a person of the opposite sex and same race, right? The restriction is equal on everyone, right?

Wrong. The restriction disproportionately harms gay couples. It's discriminatory in its effect.

I think a stronger argument would be to just appeal to liberty. The state and society have no business deciding whom you will marry, and restricting whom you can marry is a violation of the right to liberty.

First off, just because I created this debate doesn't mean I support it. I did it just for the sake of argument. Second, the laws on interracial marriage were clearly defined in the laws when they were in effect. If you read my debate you'd know that. The law clearly said white cannot marry blacks.
The laws now, DO NOT say homosexuals cannot marry. It says you cannot marry the same sex. Now this would encompass homosexuals, but also emcompass ALL sexual orientations. Even if you don't think it would happen or can happen, it still prevents it.
marc88567
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 3:22:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
THIS DEBATE IS NOW OPEN FOR VOTING

I would like to remind everyone to keep an open mind and read the arguments. DO NOT just go in and vote based on your predetermined beliefs. Instead, read what is actually being argued...and DO NOT assume that I feel this way just because I created the debate. This was just for school purposes, and I need NON-BIAS votes.

Thanks You!!!
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 4:00:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 3:05:26 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/29/2013 2:35:40 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/28/2013 9:14:28 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
So all that matters in a marriage is sexual attraction? So we can justify any "marriage" with that logic, even paedophilic or polygamist marriages.

Nope. Because in the first one, there is the problem with, you know, the fact that adults have way too much power over children and so we've set an arbitrary line as the point where people are capable of consenting.

And the second one is banned due to tax reasons.

Meanwhile, no similar argument exists against gay marriage. We are actually discriminating against pedophiles and polygamists, it's just that we have enough reason to justify it.
Good, so you agree sexual attraction isn't enough reason to redefine marriage. Where I disagree is that there is still enough reason to justify it.

No, but it's enough to default on the side of allowing it unless there is another reason not to have it. Sometimes I have to wonder if you actually believe you're proving things through these semantical points.
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
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 5:39:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 3:05:26 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/29/2013 2:35:40 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/28/2013 9:14:28 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
So all that matters in a marriage is sexual attraction? So we can justify any "marriage" with that logic, even paedophilic or polygamist marriages.

Nope. Because in the first one, there is the problem with, you know, the fact that adults have way too much power over children and so we've set an arbitrary line as the point where people are capable of consenting.

And the second one is banned due to tax reasons.

Meanwhile, no similar argument exists against gay marriage. We are actually discriminating against pedophiles and polygamists, it's just that we have enough reason to justify it.
Good, so you agree sexual attraction isn't enough reason to redefine marriage. Where I disagree is that there is still enough reason to justify it.

I'm arguing, actually, that we can't simply look at sexual attraction and ignore blatant harm. That harm doesn't exist with gay marriage, and the burden is on those who oppose it to provide a solid reason why we should.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 6:24:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 6:17:35 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/28/2013 3:47:21 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:25:43 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM, marc88567 wrote:
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!

What makes it discriminatory is the fact that it is targeted towards heterosexuals. Homosexuals wouldn't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. What you're saying is like saying that poll taxes don't discriminate against the poor since poor people can still pay the tax if they really want to vote. In addition, I could use the same argument to argue in favor of banning interracial marriage, saying that people have the equal right to marry a person of their race.

Under the laws of the status quo, no one is denied the right to enter into marriage because of his/her sexual orientation.

Did you read my post, or did you skim it? It sounds like you skimmed it. Heterosexuals can marry someone they are actually attracted to, and, while homosexuals are free to marry someone they aren't attracted to, they can't marry someone who they are attracted to. Please make sure you actually read that sentence this time, since I'm not going to say it again.

Two heterosexuals, two homosexuals, or a heterosexual and a homosexual are free to marry, no questions asked,

Unless they are of the same sex.

just as persons of different races are free to marry, no questions asked. Laws should be indifferent to a person's sexual orientation just as they are to a person's race.

And they should be indifferent to sex, too.

A law recognizing Gay Marriage would actually be discriminatory because it is not blind to sexual orientation.

No. A heterosexual would be free to marry someone of the same sex. They wouldn't want to, but the option is open for them, and they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex as well.

Poll Taxes are unconstitutional for similar reasons. Your arguments only strengthen OP's position.

This is about same-sex marriage. SAME-SEX. Not same-sexual orientation, SAME-SEX. You are clearly making no attempt to comprehend the issue, instead substituting your twisted, poor excuse for "logic". Let me break it down for you:

Poll Tax: everyone is free to vote, as long as they pay a tax.
Marriage in its current state: everyone is free to get married, as long as it is to a member of the opposite sex.

In both cases, the conditions disproportionately affect one group or another. This is the issue.

If you love gay marriage so much, why don't you marry it!
marc88567
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 7:55:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 6:24:02 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 4/28/2013 6:17:35 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/28/2013 3:47:21 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:25:43 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/27/2013 6:02:22 PM, marc88567 wrote:
I recently posted a debate called "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." It can be found here. http://www.debate.org...

I have taken the position of Pro. However, I am new to this site and debating in general. I am debating someone that has a few debate under my their belt. We are currently in the final round of the debate and I haven't received any views or votes.

Could someone review our arguments and give us a rating. I would like to know how I am doing before I close my argument. Any comments on how I'm doing would be great too!

What makes it discriminatory is the fact that it is targeted towards heterosexuals. Homosexuals wouldn't want to marry a person of the opposite sex. What you're saying is like saying that poll taxes don't discriminate against the poor since poor people can still pay the tax if they really want to vote. In addition, I could use the same argument to argue in favor of banning interracial marriage, saying that people have the equal right to marry a person of their race.

Under the laws of the status quo, no one is denied the right to enter into marriage because of his/her sexual orientation.

Did you read my post, or did you skim it? It sounds like you skimmed it. Heterosexuals can marry someone they are actually attracted to, and, while homosexuals are free to marry someone they aren't attracted to, they can't marry someone who they are attracted to. Please make sure you actually read that sentence this time, since I'm not going to say it again.

Two heterosexuals, two homosexuals, or a heterosexual and a homosexual are free to marry, no questions asked,

Unless they are of the same sex.

just as persons of different races are free to marry, no questions asked. Laws should be indifferent to a person's sexual orientation just as they are to a person's race.

And they should be indifferent to sex, too.

A law recognizing Gay Marriage would actually be discriminatory because it is not blind to sexual orientation.

No. A heterosexual would be free to marry someone of the same sex. They wouldn't want to, but the option is open for them, and they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex as well.

Poll Taxes are unconstitutional for similar reasons. Your arguments only strengthen OP's position.

This is about same-sex marriage. SAME-SEX. Not same-sexual orientation, SAME-SEX. You are clearly making no attempt to comprehend the issue, instead substituting your twisted, poor excuse for "logic". Let me break it down for you:

Poll Tax: everyone is free to vote, as long as they pay a tax.
Marriage in its current state: everyone is free to get married, as long as it is to a member of the opposite sex.

In both cases, the conditions disproportionately affect one group or another. This is the issue.

If you love gay marriage so much, why don't you marry it!

Ha ha...huck huck huck...I know you are but what am I?