Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Bigotry and Gay Marriage

Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 2:26:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm starting to feel, after more and more discussions with very religious people (all Christians recently) about gay marriage and their opposition for it, to me it just boils down to people unknowingly being a bigot.

The most logical argument I hear is : Gay people can live together in sin but since God created the sanctity of marriage between man and woman, they can't get married.

This would be fine if we didn't have a constitution and a bill of rights in place to protect people from claims JUST like those. Freedom of religion and freedom to happiness both imply the option to worship however one choices, including allowing gay people to participate in religious activity, or not be effected by it at all.

To me it is just a bunch of unacknowledged bigotry and people should start calling it like it is.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 3:34:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you accept that marriage is a religious action, then you cannot believe that everyone has a "right" to it, as it would need to be seperate from the government.

Every couple (be they gay or straight) has equal rights to the same benefits, tax advantages, and recognition under the law. They do not have a "right" to the name. Personally, I'd prefer the government refer to ALL unions as civil unions.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TrasguTravieso
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 5:41:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 2:26:33 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
This would be fine if we didn't have a constitution and a bill of rights in place to protect people from claims JUST like those. Freedom of religion and freedom to happiness both imply the option to worship however one choices, including allowing gay people to participate in religious activity, or not be effected by it at all.

To me it is just a bunch of unacknowledged bigotry and people should start calling it like it is.

The Constitution f the United States is a legal document which cannot be held up as proof of the soundness of a particular view of how things ought to be. Even if all of this was included in the bill of rights, which is debatable, this doesn't mean that the traditional definition of marriage is in itself suspect.

In any case I have seen nothing in what you say which could possibly back up the accusation of bigotry. If there is a founded reason for opposition to the change in the definition of marriage then it is a difference of opinion and not bigotry. In fact, there is arguably more bigotry in this blanket statement about all opponents of your particular position than in theirs against yours.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 6:12:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:41:01 PM, TrasguTravieso wrote:
At 10/28/2014 2:26:33 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
This would be fine if we didn't have a constitution and a bill of rights in place to protect people from claims JUST like those. Freedom of religion and freedom to happiness both imply the option to worship however one choices, including allowing gay people to participate in religious activity, or not be effected by it at all.

To me it is just a bunch of unacknowledged bigotry and people should start calling it like it is.

The Constitution f the United States is a legal document which cannot be held up as proof of the soundness of a particular view of how things ought to be. Even if all of this was included in the bill of rights, which is debatable, this doesn't mean that the traditional definition of marriage is in itself suspect.

In any case I have seen nothing in what you say which could possibly back up the accusation of bigotry. If there is a founded reason for opposition to the change in the definition of marriage then it is a difference of opinion and not bigotry. In fact, there is arguably more bigotry in this blanket statement about all opponents of your particular position than in theirs against yours.

The bigotry lies in telling people they can't take part in something that benefits their lives in various ways( financially or otherwise) that people who adhere to the normal take for granted day in and day out, while having to reason (they are effected in no way besides a deluded sense of right and wrong) for the opposition of gay marriage besides personal beliefs, which should hold no power over unions classified by the government in a free state.
TrasguTravieso
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 6:16:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:12:50 PM, Brendan21 wrote:

The bigotry lies in telling people they can't take part in something that benefits their lives in various ways( financially or otherwise) that people who adhere to the normal take for granted day in and day out, while having to reason (they are effected in no way besides a deluded sense of right and wrong) for the opposition of gay marriage besides personal beliefs, which should hold no power over unions classified by the government in a free state.

In that case your only argument to say that their opposition is due only to bigotry seems to be an ignorance of their argument. Generally the argument is about what marriage is as a natural institution which gives rise to future generations and that the government has a compelling interest in protecting that particular institution that it does not have in the case of homosexual unions, which by nature cannot produce another generation.

You may disagree with this position, of course, but it is no longer based on mere bigotry.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 6:28:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:16:03 PM, TrasguTravieso wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:12:50 PM, Brendan21 wrote:

The bigotry lies in telling people they can't take part in something that benefits their lives in various ways( financially or otherwise) that people who adhere to the normal take for granted day in and day out, while having to reason (they are effected in no way besides a deluded sense of right and wrong) for the opposition of gay marriage besides personal beliefs, which should hold no power over unions classified by the government in a free state.

In that case your only argument to say that their opposition is due only to bigotry seems to be an ignorance of their argument. Generally the argument is about what marriage is as a natural institution which gives rise to future generations and that the government has a compelling interest in protecting that particular institution that it does not have in the case of homosexual unions, which by nature cannot produce another generation.

You may disagree with this position, of course, but it is no longer based on mere bigotry.

I understand fully the concept of "natural institution" and that in of its self is bigotry. Classifying marriage as a religious concept is to disregard freedom of religion. The problem lies in people's belief that God somehow created marriage at the dawn of man. That is a) not true and b) religious in of its self, which can not be applied to state(gov.) issues. Just like slavery limiting people's rights in a much more major way, banning gay marriage limits "God given rights" to gay people in the United States. Religious people tend to assume that their beliefs coincide with the constitution when it is clearly not the case for this issue and a few others.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 8:47:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:41:01 PM, TrasguTravieso wrote:
The Constitution f the United States is a legal document which cannot be held up as proof of the soundness of a particular view of how things ought to be. Even if all of this was included in the bill of rights, which is debatable, this doesn't mean that the traditional definition of marriage is in itself suspect.

In any case I have seen nothing in what you say which could possibly back up the accusation of bigotry. If there is a founded reason for opposition to the change in the definition of marriage then it is a difference of opinion and not bigotry. In fact, there is arguably more bigotry in this blanket statement about all opponents of your particular position than in theirs against yours.

Opposing marriage for reasons surrounding concern about the government defining marriage in any way whatsoever is a reasonable and semi-respectable stance.

Unfortunately, it is not the one you advocate.

"The United States cannot, by law, uphold the Liberal view of marriage, because I believe it is not definitive of marriage"

"The United States, can, by law, uphold the Conservative Christian view of marriage, because I believe it is definitive of marriage"

This is borderline definitive of bigotry.

Even more arguably bigoted is opposition to civil unions, which literally has close to no possible justification other than religious bigotry or homophobia.

Outside of arguments involving some sort of imaginary "Christian-owned-definition of marriage", justify why you list yourself as against providing Gay People with basic rights - like hospital visitation, tax exemptions, etc - in the form of civil unions, and I will in turn demonstrate how it is bigoted. Unless you make an argument extrinsic of homosexuality itself, I cannot see how it wouldn't be.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 9:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 3:34:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If you accept that marriage is a religious action, then you cannot believe that everyone has a "right" to it, as it would need to be seperate from the government.

Every couple (be they gay or straight) has equal rights to the same benefits, tax advantages, and recognition under the law. They do not have a "right" to the name. Personally, I'd prefer the government refer to ALL unions as civil unions.

There was a bill introduced with that very notion a few years ago in MN, applying to the state.
Imagine that: no one was happy with it, which proved in my mind that this issue wasn't about equality for gays, and it wasn't about sanctity either.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 11:09:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 9:54:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 3:34:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If you accept that marriage is a religious action, then you cannot believe that everyone has a "right" to it, as it would need to be seperate from the government.

Every couple (be they gay or straight) has equal rights to the same benefits, tax advantages, and recognition under the law. They do not have a "right" to the name. Personally, I'd prefer the government refer to ALL unions as civil unions.

There was a bill introduced with that very notion a few years ago in MN, applying to the state.
Imagine that: no one was happy with it, which proved in my mind that this issue wasn't about equality for gays, and it wasn't about sanctity either.

I think that is a bit of a mischaracterization. The issues were mainly that it was also going against a gay-marraige bill and standard civil-unions bill. Another major problem was that the federal government does not recognize civil unions and so the bill would not accomplish what it really wanted.

You also need to realize that this bill was put forth and supported by the republicans (and a few democrats), so don't just try to pass it off that it failed because the religious don't want gays to have any rights.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TrasguTravieso
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 4:19:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 8:47:05 PM, Daltonian wrote:

Opposing marriage for reasons surrounding concern about the government defining marriage in any way whatsoever is a reasonable and semi-respectable stance.

We're in agreement, then, about the principle of the matter.

Unfortunately, it is not the one you advocate.

We're in disagreement about what it is that I advocate. The good thing is that, as the one advocating, I am in a better position to decide what it is that I am defending.

"The United States cannot, by law, uphold the Liberal view of marriage, because I believe it is not definitive of marriage"

"The United States, can, by law, uphold the Conservative Christian view of marriage, because I believe it is definitive of marriage"

This is borderline definitive of bigotry.

The point is not that a government (US or otherwise, seeing as I am not from your country it does not constitute a predominant concern for me) should uphold one view or the other for the sake of partisanship, but that it has a legitimate interest in one (guaranteeing a stable and productive future generation) which it does not have in the other, merely private, union.

Even more arguably bigoted is opposition to civil unions, which literally has close to no possible justification other than religious bigotry or homophobia.

Except on the grounds that it is a distinction without a difference. The government has no legitimate interest in granting special rights to a union which is a private arrangement. All that does is weaken by comparison those it grants to marriage.

Outside of arguments involving some sort of imaginary "Christian-owned-definition of marriage", justify why you list yourself as against providing Gay People with basic rights - like hospital visitation, tax exemptions, etc - in the form of civil unions, and I will in turn demonstrate how it is bigoted. Unless you make an argument extrinsic of homosexuality itself, I cannot see how it wouldn't be.

Not Christian-owned, as it is the same that has been affirmed even by the Pagans of old. But I will humor you with the list.

Hospital visitations: Anyone ought to be able to place at least three people on their list without reference to bloodline anyways.

Tax exemptions: They are specifically designed to give an advantage to that institution which provides and educates a new generation. There is a legitimate interest which the government is protecting in doing this which does not exist in other cases, extending the privileges which marriage entails to other arrangements is to weaken in practice the government protection of marriage.

If you wish to explore this further this is a debate site, and I would be happy to do so in that format.
TrasguTravieso
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 4:23:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:28:52 PM, Brendan21 wrote:

I understand fully the concept of "natural institution" and that in of its self is bigotry. Classifying marriage as a religious concept is to disregard freedom of religion. The problem lies in people's belief that God somehow created marriage at the dawn of man. That is a) not true and b) religious in of its self, which can not be applied to state(gov.) issues. Just like slavery limiting people's rights in a much more major way, banning gay marriage limits "God given rights" to gay people in the United States. Religious people tend to assume that their beliefs coincide with the constitution when it is clearly not the case for this issue and a few others.

How people imagine a natural institution to come about (either by natural or supernatural means) is irrelevant. People who see it as a natural institution that cannot be changed by a positive law but only parodied. Those who are religious also say that as God is the fount of Natural law it is a mockery of HIm as well, those who see natural law as simply the expression of the natural order without reference to a God arrive at the same conclusion.

And once again, I at least care little about your country's constitution. We are talking about whether or not opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, not whether or not it is constitutionally sound. You seem to have a rather odd tendency to hold your law in the same regard as "bigots" hold scripture.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 1:43:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:09:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/28/2014 9:54:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 3:34:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If you accept that marriage is a religious action, then you cannot believe that everyone has a "right" to it, as it would need to be seperate from the government.

Every couple (be they gay or straight) has equal rights to the same benefits, tax advantages, and recognition under the law. They do not have a "right" to the name. Personally, I'd prefer the government refer to ALL unions as civil unions.

There was a bill introduced with that very notion a few years ago in MN, applying to the state.
Imagine that: no one was happy with it, which proved in my mind that this issue wasn't about equality for gays, and it wasn't about sanctity either.

I think that is a bit of a mischaracterization. The issues were mainly that it was also going against a gay-marraige bill and standard civil-unions bill. Another major problem was that the federal government does not recognize civil unions and so the bill would not accomplish what it really wanted.

You also need to realize that this bill was put forth and supported by the republicans (and a few democrats), so don't just try to pass it off that it failed because the religious don't want gays to have any rights.

We might be thinking of different bills, but the one I was thinking didn't seem to have an issue with the feds, as it changed the wording of our statutes to something like "marriage in MN will be referred to in MN as civil union", and something along the lines of "civil unions in MN meet the definition of marriage for federal purposes".
But, who knows, I only found it once, and haven't been able to find it again. Maybe I am wrong.

However, the opposition was from both sides, and not just from the halls of congress, as the bill never was never seen on the floor, but by the advocacy groups of both sides. Obviously, I'm sure not everyone in both camps disapproved. However, in my experience around here, it's been more about the word "marriage" than about the rights involved, by both sides.
My work here is, finally, done.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 4:16:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 4:19:03 AM, TrasguTravieso wrote:
At 10/28/2014 8:47:05 PM, Daltonian wrote:

Opposing marriage for reasons surrounding concern about the government defining marriage in any way whatsoever is a reasonable and semi-respectable stance.

We're in agreement, then, about the principle of the matter.

Unfortunately, it is not the one you advocate.

We're in disagreement about what it is that I advocate. The good thing is that, as the one advocating, I am in a better position to decide what it is that I am defending.
No. You're defending that Civil Unions should be disallowed because it would "weaken the government's protection of Marriage". If you truly were arguing in opposition to the government being involved in "marriage" as an affair whatsoever, you wouldn't disapprove of "x" (in this case, x = civil unions) on the grounds that "x" weakens the government's protection of marriage. The government shouldn't be protecting it; marriage is an institution that should be granted at the whim of religious institutions. The government would rightfully administer unions insuring benefits for couples (i.e insurance payments, tax exemptions, hospital visitation, other basic rights, etc). There is no moral or non-homophobic reason to oppose also extending this "government-assigned union" to consenting homosexuals.

"The United States cannot, by law, uphold the Liberal view of marriage, because I believe it is not definitive of marriage"

"The United States, can, by law, uphold the Conservative Christian view of marriage, because I believe it is definitive of marriage"

This is borderline definitive of bigotry.

The point is not that a government (US or otherwise, seeing as I am not from your country it does not constitute a predominant concern for me) should uphold one view or the other for the sake of partisanship, but that it has a legitimate interest in one (guaranteeing a stable and productive future generation) which it does not have in the other, merely private, union.
I consider myself both American and Canadian; my father is American and I was raised until high school in Illinois. I do care about what happens politically.
Even more arguably bigoted is opposition to civil unions, which literally has close to no possible justification other than religious bigotry or homophobia.

Except on the grounds that it is a distinction without a difference. The government has no legitimate interest in granting special rights to a union which is a private arrangement. All that does is weaken by comparison those it grants to marriage.
Why should it grant marriages at all?

Why should the government not grant unions to all couples and religious institutions privatized marriage licenses? Under this logic, why not grant the LGBT the right to equal protection?

Outside of arguments involving some sort of imaginary "Christian-owned-definition of marriage", justify why you list yourself as against providing Gay People with basic rights - like hospital visitation, tax exemptions, etc - in the form of civil unions, and I will in turn demonstrate how it is bigoted. Unless you make an argument extrinsic of homosexuality itself, I cannot see how it wouldn't be.

Not Christian-owned, as it is the same that has been affirmed even by the Pagans of old. But I will humor you with the list.
So? The definition of marriage has always historically been redefined. Some societies did not believe marriages were exclusive and permitted men to "marry" multiple wives. Was this moral? Is it accurate with how we view marriage today? Maybe not, but it still constituted what "marriage" was at the time. Marriage, in the eyes of a secular government, should carry no religious meaning. If you believe it's an explicitly religious term, don't recognize it at a political level. Whilst it is recognized as the federal political norm, all couples have an entitlement to it. If you don't think all couples should be entitled to marriage, then advocate that it not be mandated at the federal level.

Hospital visitations: Anyone ought to be able to place at least three people on their list without reference to bloodline anyways.
If they are otherwise incapable of placing said people on their list, and have not previously clarified as much, then their partner would not be able to visit them even if they were close to death. This is not the case in the exact same scenario for straight couples.

Tax exemptions: They are specifically designed to give an advantage to that institution which provides and educates a new generation. There is a legitimate interest which the government is protecting in doing this which does not exist in other cases, extending the privileges which marriage entails to other arrangements is to weaken in practice the government protection of marriage.
You pretty much state that you believe that the government should promote christian beliefs via tax exemptions here. I can say no more than that I harshly disagree as a secularist. The Church and all religious "protection of marriages" or however you phrase it are no business of the government and agenda to 'protect the sanctity of marriage' should not be funded with taxpayer money.

If you wish to explore this further this is a debate site, and I would be happy to do so in that format.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
chaedd
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 7:02:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Couples don't have rights people have rights.
As individuals gays have the same the same right to marry that straights do.

The Spanish inquisition is over. There are no bigots or nuns who do an interrorgation on people who seek marriage licenses. The clerk who does marriage licenses doesn't care what your sexual orientation is.
If a gay couple want to marry, and they are a gay man and a gay woman. we don't have a problem with that.
chaedd
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 6:31:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In this analogy you have compared same sex marriage to multi-racial marriage.
You are trying to get people to believe that these are the same thing but with different people being discriminated against.
With the multi-racial conflict, the confederate's law forbade a white adult from marrying a Black adult, even though they were consenting and of the opposite sex.
In Loving vs. Virginia Mr. and Mrs. Dick Loving were doing the same thing that 2 people of the same race would do.
This is quite different than gay marriage. In a gay marriage 2 gays do something that straight people have never been allowed to do, substitute 2 people of the same sex for 2 people of the opposite sex.
Notice how the gay people here will not address this issue, the closest they will come to that is to say that bigots were opposed to multi-racial marriage and bigots are opposed to gay marriage.
TrasguTravieso
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 4:25:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 4:16:35 PM, Daltonian wrote:
No. You're defending that Civil Unions should be disallowed because it would "weaken the government's protection of Marriage". If you truly were arguing in opposition to the government being involved in "marriage" as an affair whatsoever, you wouldn't disapprove of "x" (in this case, x = civil unions) on the grounds that "x" weakens the government's protection of marriage. The government shouldn't be protecting it; marriage is an institution that should be granted at the whim of religious institutions. The government would rightfully administer unions insuring benefits for couples (i.e insurance payments, tax exemptions, hospital visitation, other basic rights, etc). There is no moral or non-homophobic reason to oppose also extending this "government-assigned union" to consenting homosexuals.

There is a clear difference between saying the government has no roll in the definition of marriage and saying the government does not have a clear interest in recognizing it. Marriage as a stable, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman which tends to create and raise a future generation in a stable environment is clearly of interest for the common good. It is not as a privilege to that couple that those benefits are granted but as incentive for this beneficial institution. Those benefits accrued to society are absent from other living arrangements (whether sexual in nature or not) and so those are not granted the benefits. Giving everything the same benefits as marriage is just about the same as not giving marriage benefits and defeats the purpose.

I consider myself both American and Canadian; my father is American and I was raised until high school in Illinois. I do care about what happens politically.

OK. It's laudable that you care about your own country. What I am saying is that arguments based off of your constitution are not particularly convincing to those who do not live there as we have no inclination to regard positive law in America as binding on our consciences.

Why should it grant marriages at all?

Why should the government not grant unions to all couples and religious institutions privatized marriage licenses? Under this logic, why not grant the LGBT the right to equal protection?

See above. Homosexuals have the same right to marriage as anyone else: they are not forbidden to marry a member of the opposite sex. The fact that they do not wish to does not mean that we should therefore grant the same privileges that are granted to an institution that benefits the common good to one that merely constitutes a particular good for those individuals from a subjective standpoint.

So? The definition of marriage has always historically been redefined. Some societies did not believe marriages were exclusive and permitted men to "marry" multiple wives. Was this moral? Is it accurate with how we view marriage today? Maybe not, but it still constituted what "marriage" was at the time. Marriage, in the eyes of a secular government, should carry no religious meaning. If you believe it's an explicitly religious term, don't recognize it at a political level. Whilst it is recognized as the federal political norm, all couples have an entitlement to it. If you don't think all couples should be entitled to marriage, then advocate that it not be mandated at the federal level.

What never changed was the fact that it was the institution that gave that society the next generation. The changes were in the number of partners and in the particular legal relationship between those involved. It never extended to any sexual relationship regardless of whether or not it is fruitful (in the sense of capable of engendering new life).

If they are otherwise incapable of placing said people on their list, and have not previously clarified as much, then their partner would not be able to visit them even if they were close to death. This is not the case in the exact same scenario for straight couples.

Then reform the internal affairs of hospitals. This in no way constitutes an argument for upending the secular view of marriage as the building block of those families which will bring a future generation.

You pretty much state that you believe that the government should promote Christian beliefs via tax exemptions here. I can say no more than that I harshly disagree as a secularist. The Church and all religious "protection of marriages" or however you phrase it are no business of the government and agenda to 'protect the sanctity of marriage' should not be funded with taxpayer money.

I pretty much state that the government should pursue the common interest of society rather than the particular interest of gay rights lobbies. You are the only one who insists on speaking of religion.

I do repeat my previous offer, otherwise this is the last I'll say on the subject. Debating on forums is tedious.

If you wish to explore this further this is a debate site, and I would be happy to do so in that format.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 12:21:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
gay marriage...next thing you know they'll want to vote.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 12:38:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

See above. Homosexuals have the same right to marriage as anyone else: they are not forbidden to marry a member of the opposite sex. The fact that they do not wish to does not mean that we should therefore grant the same privileges that are granted to an institution that benefits the common good to one that merely constitutes a particular good for those individuals from a subjective standpoint.

I just wanted to break off and capture this little bit here: if they have the same right, why are there marriage -bans- in the first place? Doesn't that inherently mean that there was something off putting that was legally dealt with and removed? They wouldn't be granted the 'same' privileges, they would be having their privileges resorted from being banned.
Secondly, everyone including gays having the 'same' right to marry a member of the opposite sex would essentially mean that removing a ban on gay marriages would give more freedom to the populace as a whole, not specifically gays, and still be equal (at least by your logic). Why wouldn't the population want that variety of freedom?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
chaedd
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 10:16:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A few countries in Europe were doing gay marriage. In the USA gay marriage did not exist, but some people thought if they can do that in Europe why can't they do it here?
So some Americans did gay marriages and gay judges agreed with this re-definition of marriage and thought that a law that required that the 2 consenting adults be of the opposite sex was a bad law so we won't obey it.
That is not the way democracy works, The legislators represent the people, and if the people don't believe in gay marriage, the legislature will write a law forbidding it. A judge has to participate in enforcing a law that the legislature passed, he is not a king who has to approve of a law.
D.O.M.A. and the gay marriage bans were designed to make it more clear that a same sex marriage was not a real marriage, to this many gay judges have said ****you!, If I think a marriage is real, the people have to think it is.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 10:27:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 3:34:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If you accept that marriage is a religious action, then you cannot believe that everyone has a "right" to it, as it would need to be seperate from the government.

Every couple (be they gay or straight) has equal rights to the same benefits, tax advantages, and recognition under the law. They do not have a "right" to the name. Personally, I'd prefer the government refer to ALL unions as civil unions.

This is my preferred stance as well.
chaedd
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 9:58:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
oh, I thought it was people who had rights not couples. Can a group of 3 people have a right too?
chaedd
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 10:03:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
My stance on this is only a same sex marriage where both the bride and the groom are male lesbians is OK