Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why gay marriage should be illegal

TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 7:50:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My dad is a hard core republican, and is ignorant in his beliefs. I had a very long discussion with him, in which he adamantly stayed in his position of gay marriage being wrong. He explained to me why gay marriage should be illegal, despite my protest of the lack of apparent logic in his comments, and substantiability.

So ladies, and gentlemen, straight from the horses mouth, this is my dad's argument on why gay marriage should remain illegal.

Dad- "Marriage, by definition is between man and a woman. That's how it is, and how it always has been, thus is why it should always remain."

Me- "So why can't we change the definition of marriage?"

Dad- "You can't change the definition. It's simply what it is, and people who are out there changing the definition, are bringing harm to our country."

My thoughts- actually is prideful bigots like yourself that are bringing harm to the country...

Me- "Okay... So if you don't believe in definitional change, do you think slavery should still be allowed?"

Dad- "But that's a completely different subject. Slavery has always been wrong."

Me- "That's not how the whole south side of the country saw it..."

Dad- "They were corrupted by the society around them. Anyways, it's in the freakin' constitution that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed."

Me- "Uh, where does it say that in the constitution? And even if it does say that why do you think we have ammendments to the constitution? Do you think the founding fathers were completely accurate about every little thing in there?"

Dad- *starts going off about how I have been manipulated by liberal media, cuts me off every time I try to speak, and eventually I just shut up, and nod my head, like I always do when I converse with this guy*

The sad thing is my dad doesn't see anything wrong with his logic. What's even sadder is there are millions of people around the world that think just like him. (sigh).
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 7:51:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
you're serious?
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 7:55:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2013 7:53:58 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:51:47 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you're serious?

yes.

i pity you
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 7:58:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2013 7:55:44 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:53:58 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:51:47 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you're serious?

yes.

i pity you

And to be honest I am more null on the subject, though I tend to be more for gay marriage based on arguments like this. But when I hear him say stuff like this...
Just wow...

I made a thread a few months ago about he feels about barrack obama winning the election, and how Americas destruction was going to be brought about (lol).

Well, I am still standing :)
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 8:01:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2013 7:58:58 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:55:44 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:53:58 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:51:47 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you're serious?

yes.

i pity you

And to be honest I am more null on the subject, though I tend to be more for gay marriage based on arguments like this. But when I hear him say stuff like this...
Just wow...

I made a thread a few months ago about he feels about barrack obama winning the election, and how Americas destruction was going to be brought about (lol).

Well, I am still standing :)

again seriously?
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
LogicalMaddog
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 10:46:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've experienced too often with my family members. My family members have very little knowledge on any political issue and keep telling me that I've been brainwashed by the liberal media. They also believe the Founding Fathers were perfect and never had flaws.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 11:38:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't see how you can criticize his logic when you start to compare slavery to not redefining marriage. (Though I am not saying that his logic is better, by any means)

It's like the universal rebuttal to ALL arguments for social liberals. Everything is equivalent to either "Racism!" or "Slavery!".
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 12:29:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2013 7:58:58 PM, TUF wrote:
And to be honest I am more null on the subject, though I tend to be more for gay marriage based on arguments like this. But when I hear him say stuff like this...
Just wow...

I made a thread a few months ago about he feels about barrack obama winning the election, and how Americas destruction was going to be brought about (lol).

Well, I am still standing :)

Obama has tried to destroy America but Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have stopped him. They're doing their best on the frontlines but Obama has still managed to land some devastating blows against America.

The police state, drones, domestic surveillance state, raiding marijuana dispensaries, taxing small business out of existence, destroying the healthcare industry, appointing eugenecist czars, appointing admins who openly praise Mao, start wars, obliterate thousands of children with drone strikes overseas, the list never stops.

Even his own Supreme Court stopped him from trying to put GPS's on your car without your consent and trying to get government to take over churches and select priests. Don't even get me started on his youth brigade he admitted he wants on record.
"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
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 12:30:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2013 7:50:10 PM, TUF wrote:
My dad is a hard core republican, and is ignorant in his beliefs. I had a very long discussion with him, in which he adamantly stayed in his position of gay marriage being wrong. He explained to me why gay marriage should be illegal, despite my protest of the lack of apparent logic in his comments, and substantiability.

So ladies, and gentlemen, straight from the horses mouth, this is my dad's argument on why gay marriage should remain illegal.

Dad- "Marriage, by definition is between man and a woman. That's how it is, and how it always has been, thus is why it should always remain."

Me- "So why can't we change the definition of marriage?"

Dad- "You can't change the definition. It's simply what it is, and people who are out there changing the definition, are bringing harm to our country."

My thoughts- actually is prideful bigots like yourself that are bringing harm to the country...

Me- "Okay... So if you don't believe in definitional change, do you think slavery should still be allowed?"

Dad- "But that's a completely different subject. Slavery has always been wrong."

Me- "That's not how the whole south side of the country saw it..."

Dad- "They were corrupted by the society around them. Anyways, it's in the freakin' constitution that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed."

Me- "Uh, where does it say that in the constitution? And even if it does say that why do you think we have ammendments to the constitution? Do you think the founding fathers were completely accurate about every little thing in there?"

Dad- *starts going off about how I have been manipulated by liberal media, cuts me off every time I try to speak, and eventually I just shut up, and nod my head, like I always do when I converse with this guy*


The sad thing is my dad doesn't see anything wrong with his logic. What's even sadder is there are millions of people around the world that think just like him. (sigh).

If you wanted to slam dunk him, you should have pointed out slavery was explicitly allowed in the constitution.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 12:44:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 12:30:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:50:10 PM, TUF wrote:
My dad is a hard core republican, and is ignorant in his beliefs. I had a very long discussion with him, in which he adamantly stayed in his position of gay marriage being wrong. He explained to me why gay marriage should be illegal, despite my protest of the lack of apparent logic in his comments, and substantiability.

So ladies, and gentlemen, straight from the horses mouth, this is my dad's argument on why gay marriage should remain illegal.

Dad- "Marriage, by definition is between man and a woman. That's how it is, and how it always has been, thus is why it should always remain."

Me- "So why can't we change the definition of marriage?"

Dad- "You can't change the definition. It's simply what it is, and people who are out there changing the definition, are bringing harm to our country."

My thoughts- actually is prideful bigots like yourself that are bringing harm to the country...

Me- "Okay... So if you don't believe in definitional change, do you think slavery should still be allowed?"

Dad- "But that's a completely different subject. Slavery has always been wrong."

Me- "That's not how the whole south side of the country saw it..."

Dad- "They were corrupted by the society around them. Anyways, it's in the freakin' constitution that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed."

Me- "Uh, where does it say that in the constitution? And even if it does say that why do you think we have ammendments to the constitution? Do you think the founding fathers were completely accurate about every little thing in there?"

Dad- *starts going off about how I have been manipulated by liberal media, cuts me off every time I try to speak, and eventually I just shut up, and nod my head, like I always do when I converse with this guy*


The sad thing is my dad doesn't see anything wrong with his logic. What's even sadder is there are millions of people around the world that think just like him. (sigh).

If you wanted to slam dunk him, you should have pointed out slavery was explicitly allowed in the constitution.

...and then pointed out that every generation believes that its values/ideals are superimposed by that generation to be believed to be universally true. How amusing it is, then, when times change.
Tsar of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 12:48:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 12:44:55 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/6/2013 12:30:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:50:10 PM, TUF wrote:
My dad is a hard core republican, and is ignorant in his beliefs. I had a very long discussion with him, in which he adamantly stayed in his position of gay marriage being wrong. He explained to me why gay marriage should be illegal, despite my protest of the lack of apparent logic in his comments, and substantiability.

So ladies, and gentlemen, straight from the horses mouth, this is my dad's argument on why gay marriage should remain illegal.

Dad- "Marriage, by definition is between man and a woman. That's how it is, and how it always has been, thus is why it should always remain."

Me- "So why can't we change the definition of marriage?"

Dad- "You can't change the definition. It's simply what it is, and people who are out there changing the definition, are bringing harm to our country."

My thoughts- actually is prideful bigots like yourself that are bringing harm to the country...

Me- "Okay... So if you don't believe in definitional change, do you think slavery should still be allowed?"

Dad- "But that's a completely different subject. Slavery has always been wrong."

Me- "That's not how the whole south side of the country saw it..."

Dad- "They were corrupted by the society around them. Anyways, it's in the freakin' constitution that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed."

Me- "Uh, where does it say that in the constitution? And even if it does say that why do you think we have ammendments to the constitution? Do you think the founding fathers were completely accurate about every little thing in there?"

Dad- *starts going off about how I have been manipulated by liberal media, cuts me off every time I try to speak, and eventually I just shut up, and nod my head, like I always do when I converse with this guy*


The sad thing is my dad doesn't see anything wrong with his logic. What's even sadder is there are millions of people around the world that think just like him. (sigh).

If you wanted to slam dunk him, you should have pointed out slavery was explicitly allowed in the constitution.

...and then pointed out that every generation believes that its values/ideals are superimposed by that generation to be believed to be universally true. How amusing it is, then, when times change.

I doubt he'd accept that argument, so it wouldn't be half as satisfying.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 12:53:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey, if you really want to troll him, ask him what he thinks about voluntary contracts between consenting adults. If he says "I guess so", say "so you support gay marriage?"
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
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 1:05:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2013 7:50:10 PM, TUF wrote:
Dad- "You can't change the definition. It's simply what it is, and people who are out there changing the definition, are bringing harm to our country."

My thoughts- actually is prideful bigots like yourself that are bringing harm to the country...

Me- "Okay... So if you don't believe in definitional change, do you think slavery should still be allowed?"

This is horrible logic on your end, though.
How was the definition of slavery changed? It wasn't, the ability to own slaves changed.


The sad thing is my dad doesn't see anything wrong with his logic. What's even sadder is there are millions of people around the world that think just like him. (sigh).

What is also sad is that people who disagree with a side tend to lump everyone they disagree with into one group, where an individual's arguemnt is nullified because we all must have the same argument. (I hope this makes sense)

In other words, using this issue:
Those in favor of gay marriage will lump anyone who opposes gay marriage into the same validity as your father. It does no one any good, but alas, it is human nature.
My work here is, finally, done.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:41:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2013 11:38:03 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
I don't see how you can criticize his logic when you start to compare slavery to not redefining marriage. (Though I am not saying that his logic is better, by any means)

It's like the universal rebuttal to ALL arguments for social liberals. Everything is equivalent to either "Racism!" or "Slavery!".

There was nothing wrong with his logic, you simply didn't understand it because you chose to zero in on the part of his statement you didn't like and assumed it meant what you wanted it to mean.

His dad was trying to argue that the definition of marriage should not change because it has always been that way. Something always being a certain way is not an argument to keep it that way, so he brought up slavery to make that point.

Of course the predictable conservative response is to hear "slavery" and think "damn liberals and their slavery references" and completely forget about the rest of the conversation.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:46:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 12:29:27 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Obama has tried to destroy America but Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have stopped him. They're doing their best on the frontlines but Obama has still managed to land some devastating blows against America.

The police state, drones, domestic surveillance state, raiding marijuana dispensaries, taxing small business out of existence, destroying the healthcare industry, appointing eugenecist czars, appointing admins who openly praise Mao, start wars, obliterate thousands of children with drone strikes overseas, the list never stops.

Even his own Supreme Court stopped him from trying to put GPS's on your car without your consent and trying to get government to take over churches and select priests. Don't even get me started on his youth brigade he admitted he wants on record.

Geo, when you say that "Obama has tried to destroy America"... Can you please explain to us exactly what that means? Not just some wishy washy answer, I really want to know.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 3:07:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 2:41:46 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/5/2013 11:38:03 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
I don't see how you can criticize his logic when you start to compare slavery to not redefining marriage. (Though I am not saying that his logic is better, by any means)

It's like the universal rebuttal to ALL arguments for social liberals. Everything is equivalent to either "Racism!" or "Slavery!".

There was nothing wrong with his logic, you simply didn't understand it because you chose to zero in on the part of his statement you didn't like and assumed it meant what you wanted it to mean.

His dad was trying to argue that the definition of marriage should not change because it has always been that way. Something always being a certain way is not an argument to keep it that way, so he brought up slavery to make that point.

These are two different things, though. Not changing a definition =/= changing the way things are. A better counter would have been 13 year olds not being married, inter-racial marriages being recognized (as this is what the legal argument is about, recognition by the government), or how the definition of rape has evolved (to include men).

Of course the predictable conservative response is to hear "slavery" and think "damn liberals and their slavery references" and completely forget about the rest of the conversation.
My work here is, finally, done.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 4:56:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Kaos you have misconceptualized my argument if you think I was grouping the entire anti gay rights movement I.to his illogical grouping.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 8:31:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 1:05:52 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:50:10 PM, TUF wrote:
Dad- "You can't change the definition. It's simply what it is, and people who are out there changing the definition, are bringing harm to our country."

My thoughts- actually is prideful bigots like yourself that are bringing harm to the country...

Me- "Okay... So if you don't believe in definitional change, do you think slavery should still be allowed?"

This is horrible logic on your end, though.
How was the definition of slavery changed? It wasn't, the ability to own slaves changed.

Actually, it is a great comparison. Slaves weren't legally recognized as people. Similarly to how same-sex couples are being treated as second-class citizens.

The sad thing is my dad doesn't see anything wrong with his logic. What's even sadder is there are millions of people around the world that think just like him. (sigh).

What is also sad is that people who disagree with a side tend to lump everyone they disagree with into one group, where an individual's arguemnt is nullified because we all must have the same argument. (I hope this makes sense)

In other words, using this issue:
Those in favor of gay marriage will lump anyone who opposes gay marriage into the same validity as your father. It does no one any good, but alas, it is human nature.

We do this because there is absolutely no valid argument against gay marriage. While some are more invalid than others, all are invalid. There isn't a single argument you can list that I can't easily refute or turn.
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
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 10:46:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 12:29:27 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:58:58 PM, TUF wrote:
And to be honest I am more null on the subject, though I tend to be more for gay marriage based on arguments like this. But when I hear him say stuff like this...
Just wow...

I made a thread a few months ago about he feels about barrack obama winning the election, and how Americas destruction was going to be brought about (lol).

Well, I am still standing :)

Obama has tried to destroy America but Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have stopped him. They're doing their best on the frontlines but Obama has still managed to land some devastating blows against America.

The police state, drones, domestic surveillance state, raiding marijuana dispensaries, taxing small business out of existence, destroying the healthcare industry, appointing eugenecist czars, appointing admins who openly praise Mao, start wars, obliterate thousands of children with drone strikes overseas, the list never stops.

Even his own Supreme Court stopped him from trying to put GPS's on your car without your consent and trying to get government to take over churches and select priests. Don't even get me started on his youth brigade he admitted he wants on record.

You have a short memory. You should really start with GWB and of course continue with Obama when it comes an erosion of rights. GWB was the first president to make it common place to perform warrant less wiretaps.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 10:55:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2013 7:50:10 PM, TUF wrote:
My dad is a hard core republican, and is ignorant in his beliefs. I had a very long discussion with him, in which he adamantly stayed in his position of gay marriage being wrong. He explained to me why gay marriage should be illegal, despite my protest of the lack of apparent logic in his comments, and substantiability.

So ladies, and gentlemen, straight from the horses mouth, this is my dad's argument on why gay marriage should remain illegal.

Dad- "Marriage, by definition is between man and a woman. That's how it is, and how it always has been, thus is why it should always remain."

Me- "So why can't we change the definition of marriage?"

Dad- "You can't change the definition. It's simply what it is, and people who are out there changing the definition, are bringing harm to our country."

My thoughts- actually is prideful bigots like yourself that are bringing harm to the country...

Me- "Okay... So if you don't believe in definitional change, do you think slavery should still be allowed?"

Dad- "But that's a completely different subject. Slavery has always been wrong."

Me- "That's not how the whole south side of the country saw it..."

Dad- "They were corrupted by the society around them. Anyways, it's in the freakin' constitution that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed."

Me- "Uh, where does it say that in the constitution? And even if it does say that why do you think we have ammendments to the constitution? Do you think the founding fathers were completely accurate about every little thing in there?"

Dad- *starts going off about how I have been manipulated by liberal media, cuts me off every time I try to speak, and eventually I just shut up, and nod my head, like I always do when I converse with this guy*


The sad thing is my dad doesn't see anything wrong with his logic. What's even sadder is there are millions of people around the world that think just like him. (sigh).

I'm going to sigh with you. (sigh)

The ol' way it has been and way it should be argument. In a way I have a little more tolerance to that argument versus those who try every morality argument and destruction of society to justify suppressing individual freedom.

Anyone who truly loves freedom and minimal government intrusion will support or at least tolerate gay marriage. Simple as that.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 1:46:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 4:56:33 AM, TUF wrote:
Kaos you have misconceptualized my argument if you think I was grouping the entire anti gay rights movement I.to his illogical grouping.

No, I didn't do that. All you said is there a millions who think that way, which is probably true.
I was just pointing out that while there are millions who think like him, there are also millions who will point to his argument and consider it reflective of all opposers' arguments (false flag?).

When I have been arguing against SSM in the past, I am often cited as shoving my religion in their face. My arguments never had a religious component to them, but because so many others do, I am treated the same.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:02:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 8:31:28 AM, drhead wrote:
At 5/6/2013 1:05:52 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:50:10 PM, TUF wrote:
Dad- "You can't change the definition. It's simply what it is, and people who are out there changing the definition, are bringing harm to our country."

My thoughts- actually is prideful bigots like yourself that are bringing harm to the country...

Me- "Okay... So if you don't believe in definitional change, do you think slavery should still be allowed?"

This is horrible logic on your end, though.
How was the definition of slavery changed? It wasn't, the ability to own slaves changed.

Actually, it is a great comparison. Slaves weren't legally recognized as people. Similarly to how same-sex couples are being treated as second-class citizens.

The argument was not that slaves shouldn't be considered people, it was that slavery should still be allowed. The definition of citizen (possibly even person) changed, but slavery's definition was unaffected. The quote refers to definition change and slavery being allowed, not slaves being citizens.

I see the connection now, but it should have been worded differently.

The sad thing is my dad doesn't see anything wrong with his logic. What's even sadder is there are millions of people around the world that think just like him. (sigh).

What is also sad is that people who disagree with a side tend to lump everyone they disagree with into one group, where an individual's arguemnt is nullified because we all must have the same argument. (I hope this makes sense)

In other words, using this issue:
Those in favor of gay marriage will lump anyone who opposes gay marriage into the same validity as your father. It does no one any good, but alas, it is human nature.

We do this because there is absolutely no valid argument against gay marriage. While some are more invalid than others, all are invalid. There isn't a single argument you can list that I can't easily refute or turn.

If marriages are equal, can one discriminate based on the individuals within the union? I think the civil rights act might have something to say about that...

Currently, Catholic orphanages (at least in one specific state in the South), who view homosexual behavior as sinful, do not let gay couples adopt. They only allow married individuals to adopt. So, if gays are married, and we cannot discriminate based on sex, does this usurp the orphanages right to exercise its religion and force a child to live in a sinful home?

Furthermore, can a religious wedding photographer deny their services for a gay wedding? I know OJ Simpson tried to sue a restaurant for refusing service to him, claiming it was because he was black. If this would have been a valid lawsuit (the owner said he refused service because he doesn't serve murderers), why would discrimination based on sex be any different?

Of course, if we went back to stronger property rights and stopped looking at private business as public, simply because they are open to the public, this wouldn't be a concern.
My work here is, finally, done.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:13:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 3:07:03 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/6/2013 2:41:46 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/5/2013 11:38:03 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
I don't see how you can criticize his logic when you start to compare slavery to not redefining marriage. (Though I am not saying that his logic is better, by any means)

It's like the universal rebuttal to ALL arguments for social liberals. Everything is equivalent to either "Racism!" or "Slavery!".

There was nothing wrong with his logic, you simply didn't understand it because you chose to zero in on the part of his statement you didn't like and assumed it meant what you wanted it to mean.

His dad was trying to argue that the definition of marriage should not change because it has always been that way. Something always being a certain way is not an argument to keep it that way, so he brought up slavery to make that point.

These are two different things, though. Not changing a definition =/= changing the way things are. A better counter would have been 13 year olds not being married, inter-racial marriages being recognized (as this is what the legal argument is about, recognition by the government), or how the definition of rape has evolved (to include men).

The interracial example would have been a better counter, but that doesn't mean that his slavery example is not a good rebuttal as well. His point, which seemed to completely escape his dad and 1Percenter, is that you can't argue that something should stay a certain way simply because it has always been that way. That is very relevant in relation to his dads point and in his rebuttal, and perfectly demonstrates the absurdity of his dads argument.

If however this is not about that but rather an argument over changing definitions, then that only makes it even more absurd to the point of retardation. Definitions are nothing more then language. The arguer is then saying "it's ok for gay couples to enjoy all of the same privileges as straight couples, but if we use the same word to describe both scenarios that will be bad for society". Please tell me that this is not what you and others who make that argument are saying.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:27:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 2:13:07 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/6/2013 3:07:03 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/6/2013 2:41:46 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/5/2013 11:38:03 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
I don't see how you can criticize his logic when you start to compare slavery to not redefining marriage. (Though I am not saying that his logic is better, by any means)

It's like the universal rebuttal to ALL arguments for social liberals. Everything is equivalent to either "Racism!" or "Slavery!".

There was nothing wrong with his logic, you simply didn't understand it because you chose to zero in on the part of his statement you didn't like and assumed it meant what you wanted it to mean.

His dad was trying to argue that the definition of marriage should not change because it has always been that way. Something always being a certain way is not an argument to keep it that way, so he brought up slavery to make that point.

These are two different things, though. Not changing a definition =/= changing the way things are. A better counter would have been 13 year olds not being married, inter-racial marriages being recognized (as this is what the legal argument is about, recognition by the government), or how the definition of rape has evolved (to include men).

The interracial example would have been a better counter, but that doesn't mean that his slavery example is not a good rebuttal as well. His point, which seemed to completely escape his dad and 1Percenter, is that you can't argue that something should stay a certain way simply because it has always been that way. That is very relevant in relation to his dads point and in his rebuttal, and perfectly demonstrates the absurdity of his dads argument.

I understand his point, but he should have used the definition of citizen changed or not used the word definition regarding slavery, thus showing that things change. It was confusing the way it was worded, but I get it now, but I wouldn't have at the time it was spoken.

If however this is not about that but rather an argument over changing definitions, then that only makes it even more absurd to the point of retardation. Definitions are nothing more then language. The arguer is then saying "it's ok for gay couples to enjoy all of the same privileges as straight couples, but if we use the same word to describe both scenarios that will be bad for society". Please tell me that this is not what you and others who make that argument are saying.

I can't speak for others, but it does seem to be what a lot of the fuss is over: a word. Keep in mind that a civil union offeres the same protections as a marraige (at the state level), but that isn't good enough, at the state level. The tension seems more about the word than about the goal, extending benefits/protections to gay couples. And, it seems the right don't want to share the word, either. Quite pathetic, really.

In MN, one of our state politicians proposed a bill restricting the government from using the word marriage, all marriages would now be civil unions, of which gays can enter. The word marriage would only be used for religious/personal reasons.
For some reason, this is upsetting the GBLT community here (I guess because they want that word). I think it is great, except it doesn't address my concern.

My specific concern is addressed a few posts above.
In short, if marriages are equal, can gays be discriminated in the private sector? If so, then I'm all aboard. If not, I am concerned (perhaps unjustifyably concerned, but concerned nonetheless).

And by discriminate, I do not mean attack or harm, but differentiate. For example, gays have a higher chance of contracting HIV (or let's assume this is true for my point). If so, assuming all other things are equal, medical insurance for a gay couple ought to be more expensive than a straight couple, as they are more at risk.
My work here is, finally, done.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:52:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 2:02:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/6/2013 8:31:28 AM, drhead wrote:
At 5/6/2013 1:05:52 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:50:10 PM, TUF wrote:
Dad- "You can't change the definition. It's simply what it is, and people who are out there changing the definition, are bringing harm to our country."

My thoughts- actually is prideful bigots like yourself that are bringing harm to the country...

Me- "Okay... So if you don't believe in definitional change, do you think slavery should still be allowed?"

This is horrible logic on your end, though.
How was the definition of slavery changed? It wasn't, the ability to own slaves changed.

Actually, it is a great comparison. Slaves weren't legally recognized as people. Similarly to how same-sex couples are being treated as second-class citizens.

The argument was not that slaves shouldn't be considered people, it was that slavery should still be allowed. The definition of citizen (possibly even person) changed, but slavery's definition was unaffected. The quote refers to definition change and slavery being allowed, not slaves being citizens.

I see the connection now, but it should have been worded differently.

If this was going to be an example of a sort of bait-and-switch debate tactic (which I assume it was, after all, that's what I'd do), I'd expect the next thing that would be said would be something along the lines of "So you support changing the definition of person to include those of African descent, but you don't support changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples?" Of course, this tactic arouses suspicion in people who have heard the same arguments before, so incredibly closed-minded people will not be as easily influenced by this tactic if they are expecting it. If they don't expect it, it can do some damage.

The sad thing is my dad doesn't see anything wrong with his logic. What's even sadder is there are millions of people around the world that think just like him. (sigh).

What is also sad is that people who disagree with a side tend to lump everyone they disagree with into one group, where an individual's arguemnt is nullified because we all must have the same argument. (I hope this makes sense)

In other words, using this issue:
Those in favor of gay marriage will lump anyone who opposes gay marriage into the same validity as your father. It does no one any good, but alas, it is human nature.

We do this because there is absolutely no valid argument against gay marriage. While some are more invalid than others, all are invalid. There isn't a single argument you can list that I can't easily refute or turn.

If marriages are equal, can one discriminate based on the individuals within the union? I think the civil rights act might have something to say about that...

Currently, Catholic orphanages (at least in one specific state in the South), who view homosexual behavior as sinful, do not let gay couples adopt. They only allow married individuals to adopt. So, if gays are married, and we cannot discriminate based on sex, does this usurp the orphanages right to exercise its religion and force a child to live in a sinful home?

If they are privately run and owned, then yes, they can discriminate. All they have to do is say that they reserve the right to refuse service for any reason. However, if they receive any kind of state support, then they must serve all people equally. In other words, they wouldn't have to serve them any more than they have to serve Protestant couples.

Furthermore, can a religious wedding photographer deny their services for a gay wedding? I know OJ Simpson tried to sue a restaurant for refusing service to him, claiming it was because he was black. If this would have been a valid lawsuit (the owner said he refused service because he doesn't serve murderers), why would discrimination based on sex be any different?

Of course they can refuse service, under the same grounds that I highlighted earlier. Of course, the political correctness might come to bite them in the rear and they might get a bad reputation as a result, but that's society speaking, not the government. Freedom of speech for all, as well as freedom to judge others based on their words and actions.

Of course, if we went back to stronger property rights and stopped looking at private business as public, simply because they are open to the public, this wouldn't be a concern.

This is an entirely different issue (discrimination within private businesses) and I have shown how it isn't a concern because it is a nonexistent problem, and any lawsuits that happen due to these hypothetical scenarios presented would be quickly dismissed as frivolous. Remember, this is about how government recognizes gay marriage, not how private citizens do. Next!
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
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 3:11:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And by discriminate, I do not mean attack or harm, but differentiate. For example, gays have a higher chance of contracting HIV (or let's assume this is true for my point). If so, assuming all other things are equal, medical insurance for a gay couple ought to be more expensive than a straight couple, as they are more at risk.

If neither of them have HIV, then they have a zero chance of contracting it through sexual intercourse. If they do contract it through intercourse, then the marriage won't last much longer due to the implications of where it came from. Single gays would be more at risk, but nobody would openly say that when it could save them money on health insurance. Lesbians would be much less at risk. Should we give them discounts?

However, medical reasons tend to override discrimination, since medicine is where gender and small differences in our genome actually do make a difference.
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
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 3:32:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/5/2013 7:50:10 PM, TUF wrote:
My dad is a hard core republican, and is ignorant in his beliefs. I had a very long discussion with him, in which he adamantly stayed in his position of gay marriage being wrong. He explained to me why gay marriage should be illegal, despite my protest of the lack of apparent logic in his comments, and substantiability.

Gay Marriage should not be "illegal", but it shouldn't recognized by the state either. Marriage is a religious institution, and so the subject of gay marriage should be left up to religious organizations. This is why I don't believe the state should recognize any form of marriage, gay or straight.
So ladies, and gentlemen, straight from the horses mouth, this is my dad's argument on why gay marriage should remain illegal.

I'm going to assume it is accurate, but I doubt it. Anyone who has ever played telephone knows how easy it is to misquote someone.
Dad- "Marriage, by definition is between man and a woman. That's how it is, and how it always has been, thus is why it should always remain."

This is true. A large part of the current debate is over the definition of marriage. Of course, just because the marriage does not match the legal definition, does not mean they are not married. Legally they are not married, but the church may still recognize them as married, and therefore they are spiritually married.

Me- "So why can't we change the definition of marriage?"

Dad- "You can't change the definition. It's simply what it is, and people who are out there changing the definition, are bringing harm to our country."

I see where your father is coming from and I see where you are coming from. Like your father, I am opposed to altering definitions. Definitions should not be changed, simply because you don't like their meaning. However, this is a statutory definition, so much like statutory rape, it does not necessarily match up with the every day definition. When it comes to laws, laws should not be kept simply because they are old, but they should not be changed simply because they are old either. Your father has made an appeal to tradition; the opposite of this fallacy is an appeal to novelty.

My thoughts- actually is prideful bigots like yourself that are bringing harm to the country...

Me- "Okay... So if you don't believe in definitional change, do you think slavery should still be allowed?"

Dad- "But that's a completely different subject. Slavery has always been wrong."

I have to agree with your father here. Slavery has always been frowned upon. In ancient Rome the Populares wanted to abolish slavery, or at-least grant them more rights. In ancient Egypt there were laws to protect slaves, just as there are animal rights laws to protect pets today. I Egypt it was illegal to beat your slave; this is reflected by Jewish narrators of the Old Testament, when Moses killed an Egyptian for beating a slave.
Me- "That's not how the whole south side of the country saw it..."

Dad- "They were corrupted by the society around them. Anyways, it's in the freakin' constitution that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed."

Again I have to agree with your father. The south did not agree with slavery morally, they agreed with it economically. There was a labor shortage, so they required slaves in order to maintain productivity. The south were dependent on slaves, which is why slavery was such a hot topic during the day. Many slave owners throughout early American history freed their slaves once they were able to afford it. Some slave owners, including a few of the founders, planned on freeing their slaves, but had to keep their slaves due to economic hardship.

Me- "Uh, where does it say that in the constitution? And even if it does say that why do you think we have ammendments to the constitution? Do you think the founding fathers were completely accurate about every little thing in there?"

First off, we have an amendment process. Furthermore, the first amendment, in the bill of rights, clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Dad- *starts going off about how I have been manipulated by liberal media, cuts me off every time I try to speak, and eventually I just shut up, and nod my head, like I always do when I converse with this guy*


The sad thing is my dad doesn't see anything wrong with his logic. What's even sadder is there are millions of people around the world that think just like him. (sigh).

Judging by what your father said, and how he said it; it seems like he was repeating arguments he heard, but didn't understand. It also sounds like he didn't put any effort into his arguments, and was expecting you to take his word for it. Most parents are like that, no matter how old you get; they think that since they are the parent, so it has been said so it shall be done. My mom still gets upset with me when I know more about a topic than her, let alone if I correct her.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 4:30:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 1:05:52 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:50:10 PM, TUF wrote:
Dad- "You can't change the definition. It's simply what it is, and people who are out there changing the definition, are bringing harm to our country."

My thoughts- actually is prideful bigots like yourself that are bringing harm to the country...

Me- "Okay... So if you don't believe in definitional change, do you think slavery should still be allowed?"

This is horrible logic on your end, though.
How was the definition of slavery changed? It wasn't, the ability to own slaves changed.

Why do you not get the similarities between a social norm changing based on marals, rather than how something has always been?


The sad thing is my dad doesn't see anything wrong with his logic. What's even sadder is there are millions of people around the world that think just like him. (sigh).

What is also sad is that people who disagree with a side tend to lump everyone they disagree with into one group, where an individual's arguemnt is nullified because we all must have the same argument. (I hope this makes sense)

In other words, using this issue:
Those in favor of gay marriage will lump anyone who opposes gay marriage into the same validity as your father. It does no one any good, but alas, it is human nature.

I don't lump everyone into this group though. There are plenty of people in whom I have heard say similiar things to my father. The millions part was an exageration.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 4:31:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 2:02:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/6/2013 8:31:28 AM, drhead wrote:
At 5/6/2013 1:05:52 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/5/2013 7:50:10 PM, TUF wrote:
Dad- "You can't change the definition. It's simply what it is, and people who are out there changing the definition, are bringing harm to our country."

My thoughts- actually is prideful bigots like yourself that are bringing harm to the country...

Me- "Okay... So if you don't believe in definitional change, do you think slavery should still be allowed?"

This is horrible logic on your end, though.
How was the definition of slavery changed? It wasn't, the ability to own slaves changed.

Actually, it is a great comparison. Slaves weren't legally recognized as people. Similarly to how same-sex couples are being treated as second-class citizens.

The argument was not that slaves shouldn't be considered people, it was that slavery should still be allowed. The definition of citizen (possibly even person) changed, but slavery's definition was unaffected. The quote refers to definition change and slavery being allowed, not slaves being citizens.

We keep animals, eat them, use them as labor, etc.

People used to consider blacks animals. Of course, we're all part of kingdom Animalia, but that rather went over their head.