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

Why Do Conservatives Oppose Gay Marriage?

tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 9:32:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The title and OP are the same.

Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 11:29:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 9:32:15 AM, tejretics wrote:
The title and OP are the same.

Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?

Because the Bible told them so. (best answered in the same sing-songy tone of the same title)
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:03:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 9:32:15 AM, tejretics wrote:
The title and OP are the same.

Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?

When I opposed gay marriage, it was due to the slippery slope, until I decided I didn't care about marriage at all, and decided, from the government's POV, marriage is nothing more than a contract, and, thus, it must be open to everyone whom would otherwise be able to contract.
Before then, I believed that marriage, from the gov't's POV, was to promote child rearing, which is the general societal view of marriage - to raise a family (i.e. "settle down and get married"). And, since gays cannot produce children by definition, they couldn't get married. The slippery slope comes into play by acknowledging that, with gay marriage, marriage is not about procreation, and if it is not about procreation, then there is no reason why incestuous marriage should be illegal, since the only valid concern is genetic in nature. The conservative view of marriage holds incestuous marriage at bay, but the Supreme Court's ruling opens the door for it.

The above is the only legal defense that I can imagine that isn't based in religion. (well, that and fear of persecution of churches who refuse to perform said marriage)
It isn't that good, but frankly, I have never found either side's arguments to be that compelling. Religion alone is a poor excuse for a law, child rearing has long been taken out of marriage (e.g. tax credits), love (i.e. motivation) is irrelevant as to contracts, and selective equality is not equality.
My work here is, finally, done.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 4:24:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't associate with any party, but I don't support gay marriage.
Already wrote an argument, so I'll mostly copy paste:

Tax money is involved, so "doesn't harm anyone" is not good enough; the burden of proof would be on why it should be legal, why the governament should be interested in it, and why tax money should be invested on it.
It includes two consenting adults like most contracts, but as long as it is recognized and financed by state/governament, it is a public contract. The truth is that a (non-totalitarian) governament doesn't care about "love". If you want to love, nobody is stopping you. You can love your family, friends, and whoever in a romantic or non-romantic way, but you won't find a check-box that says "I love X" or "In love" in an official document.

The governament is indifferent to most interpersonal relationships; it would be nice if you get rewarded for loving someone good enough, but economy doesn't work this way. If someone makes an interrelationship, or an unofficial private marriage ceremony by all means, nobody has the right to oppose it. But marriage isn't merely that.

Lets go over the 14th amendment argument. The 14th amendment won't get you to the conclusion of same-sex marriage unless you first assume the genderless view of marriage. Both sides are in favor of marriage equality and equal protection under the law, the law applying to all people and marriages equally, etc.
The point of disagreement is what type of consenting adult relationship can be recognized as a marriage. So there is no contradiction with the 14th amendment, but contradicting views of what marriage is. The clause requires treating things that are the same in the same way, but you don't have to treat different things the same way. Based on the opposing position, they are good reasons to believe that a union between a man and a woman is different from a same-sex union. Different sex union is necessary for a society to survive, and the overwhelming majority of children are born from vaginal sex. Furthermore, the governament invests tax money on certain interpersonal relationship and labels them marriage. It stands to reason that marriage has a social function. In the old understanding of marriage, it would encourage a norm for when children are born they are more likely to be born in a more advantageous environment, and affirm that children deserve to be cared for by their parents. However such function is missing in a same-sex union with the non-sequitur alleged state interest of "adult romance".

This is why some heterosexual unions such as incest and polygamy are not allowed.
On the other hand, "marriage equality" is a simply a lie under the new understanding of marriage unless arbitrary restrictions on consensual adult partnerships such as incest or polygamy exists, and policies to safeguard children such as assuming paternity without consent, and bestowing custody upon biological or presumed parents exists.

As long as incest is prohibited (as a whole or just for heterosexual unions), you are either assuming the predicate of a heterosexual relationship, or you are treating homosexual and heterosexual coupling differently while pretending to treat them equality. None support equality.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 1:33:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
", marriage is nothing more than a contract, and, thus, it must be open to everyone whom would otherwise be able to contract."
Should the state give a polygamist a marriage license to be married to 2 women at the same time.?
An integral part of the concept of marriage is the idea that people should do what they are supposed to do, not whatever they feel like doing. If a woman feels like marrying another woman and she thinks the state should grant her a marriage license to do this. The state would be giving her a license to marry another woman, but would still not give a a license to a man who wanted to do this.
As for marriage being a contract, it is a contract between a man and the bride and her father. The bride needs a new relationship with a man because her father will get old and die, so she needs a younger male tho take care of her.
Understand, the laws on marriage are based on the idea that a woman needs a man to take care of her and her children. This may have made sense in 1815, but here in 2015, women can earn the money they need and laws are supposed to be gender neutral. What is not needed is to make marriage available to every one, what is needed is to eliminate marriage. It is an obsolete institution.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:48:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 1:33:30 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
", marriage is nothing more than a contract, and, thus, it must be open to everyone whom would otherwise be able to contract."
Should the state give a polygamist a marriage license to be married to 2 women at the same time.?
An integral part of the concept of marriage is the idea that people should do what they are supposed to do, not whatever they feel like doing. If a woman feels like marrying another woman and she thinks the state should grant her a marriage license to do this. The state would be giving her a license to marry another woman, but would still not give a a license to a man who wanted to do this.
As for marriage being a contract, it is a contract between a man and the bride and her father. The bride needs a new relationship with a man because her father will get old and die, so she needs a younger male tho take care of her.
Understand, the laws on marriage are based on the idea that a woman needs a man to take care of her and her children. This may have made sense in 1815, but here in 2015, women can earn the money they need and laws are supposed to be gender neutral. What is not needed is to make marriage available to every one, what is needed is to eliminate marriage. It is an obsolete institution.

Would I be safe in assuming you are not married?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:27:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 9:32:15 AM, tejretics wrote:
The title and OP are the same.

Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?

I don't oppose gay marriage you dick.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:29:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:27:23 PM, Wylted wrote:

1) You're not a conservative, you're a libertarian
2) The OP didn't say "all conservatives," so if I can get 2 or more conservatives, that's fine
3) No need for profanity
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:39:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I do understand that it would be silly to provide the tax incentives for gays to marry if gay marriage can't be proven to improve society (not society's feelings, but actual improvement). We know that traditional marriage (if that's what you want to call it), makes men less barbaric and keeps them from doing the dumb stuff that hurts society, and when in this type of relationship, there does seem to be some positive effects on children, as they are less likely to grow up as part of the criminal element or be poor.

However, they certainly deserve the other benefits of marriage, such as having the same rights to visit their significant other in prison or the hospital when they're extremely ill. The benefits of being able to be put on their significant others insurance policy. Protections that are sadly exclusive to married couples from domestic violence.

Given the fact that homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals (outside of the tax incentives, until more analysis is done to know if gay marriage does reduce the crime rate and improve the economy), gay marriage should be legal. Despite what I said about the tax incentives, Gays should be able to receive those as well, for 2 reasons. One reason is that the general public is too stupid to understand the tax arguments, but the second reason is because I would like to see the tax rate at zero dollars and if this helps some of us get closer to that, why the hell not? Taxes suck, let as many people get as many incentives as possible, whether they "deserve" them or not.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:42:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:29:50 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:27:23 PM, Wylted wrote:

1) You're not a conservative, you're a libertarian

That hurts. Right now libertarians are a branch of the Conservative party. just like socialists run on the Democratic ticket.

2) The OP didn't say "all conservatives," so if I can get 2 or more conservatives, that's fine
3) No need for profanity

Dick is not profanity. Dick is a former president of the United States.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 5:05:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 9:32:15 AM, tejretics wrote:
The title and OP are the same.

Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?

1) The belief that marriage has a link to procreation which makes it unique from all other unions. Since heterosexual couples are the only ones that can procreate, only they can fit the criteria to enter into a marital union.

2) Heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual relationships in many ways (see Zarro's recent debate) and thus their unions should not be considered equivalent to those of homosexuals.

3) Allowing homosexual couples to obtain marital status will weaken the institution of marriage that has fostered every generation of children until this point in time. Other consequences such as the reduction of freedom of speech and religious freedom will result in the weakening of marriage.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 5:07:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not looking for good reasons to oppose gay marriage -- rather, why does the common conservative oppose gay marriage? Zarro and 16k's cases are fairly unique, so I'm looking for common opinion ...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 5:17:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 5:07:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'm not looking for good reasons to oppose gay marriage -- rather, why does the common conservative oppose gay marriage? Zarro and 16k's cases are fairly unique, so I'm looking for common opinion ...

The three reasons I listed are ones that I find common among such. Superior unions and procreation are the bulk of it. Otherwise, I don't know what you're asking.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 8:22:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:42:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:29:50 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:27:23 PM, Wylted wrote:

1) You're not a conservative, you're a libertarian

That hurts. Right now libertarians are a branch of the Conservative party. just like socialists run on the Democratic ticket.

2) The OP didn't say "all conservatives," so if I can get 2 or more conservatives, that's fine
3) No need for profanity

Dick is not profanity. Dick is a former president of the United States.

Which president?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 8:33:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 5:07:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'm not looking for good reasons to oppose gay marriage -- rather, why does the common conservative oppose gay marriage? Zarro and 16k's cases are fairly unique, so I'm looking for common opinion ...

There is no common opinion. Conservatives oppose SSM for many reasons. It's a philosophical topic, and can't be reduced to a simple answer. It's like the God debate, there is no definite reason why all theists are the way they are.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:17:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I oppose it because it is illogical to the intended purpose of marriage. To give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare the responsibility of child rearing. Spare me the what about those who don't have children argument, it is irrelevant. The institution of marriage must be defined for all and a marriage between a man and woman is inclusive to all. You can only make the argument for homosexual marriage by first redefining what the intended purpose of marriage is. In this case it has been redefined as Johnny loves Suzy so they want to be together for ever and ever or any combination of that.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:36:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:17:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
I oppose it because it is illogical to the intended purpose of marriage. To give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare the responsibility of child rearing. Spare me the what about those who don't have children argument, it is irrelevant. The institution of marriage must be defined for all and a marriage between a man and woman is inclusive to all. You can only make the argument for homosexual marriage by first redefining what the intended purpose of marriage is. In this case it has been redefined as Johnny loves Suzy so they want to be together for ever and ever or any combination of that.

Wedded homosexuals raise children. I don't get it.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:41:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 5:07:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'm not looking for good reasons to oppose gay marriage -- rather, why does the common conservative oppose gay marriage? Zarro and 16k's cases are fairly unique, so I'm looking for common opinion ...

I don't like it because manlove is exceptionally disgusting. If I see two guys kissing it's just yuck. I imagine that that conservatives probably oppose gay marriage for similar reasons, but it's always shrouded in some fallacious pretense.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:00:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 8:22:22 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:42:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:29:50 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:27:23 PM, Wylted wrote:

1) You're not a conservative, you're a libertarian

That hurts. Right now libertarians are a branch of the Conservative party. just like socialists run on the Democratic ticket.

2) The OP didn't say "all conservatives," so if I can get 2 or more conservatives, that's fine
3) No need for profanity

Dick is not profanity. Dick is a former president of the United States.

Which president?

Dick Nixon
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:10:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:36:03 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:17:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
I oppose it because it is illogical to the intended purpose of marriage. To give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare the responsibility of child rearing. Spare me the what about those who don't have children argument, it is irrelevant. The institution of marriage must be defined for all and a marriage between a man and woman is inclusive to all. You can only make the argument for homosexual marriage by first redefining what the intended purpose of marriage is. In this case it has been redefined as Johnny loves Suzy so they want to be together for ever and ever or any combination of that.

Wedded homosexuals raise children. I don't get it.

Really you are going with that? Um homosexuals can't have kids. The fact that they choose to raise kids born of a heterosexual couple is their choice. If you have the inclination to get married to a person of the opposite sex stay married have children then get divorced and say you are gay. You are not homosexual. You are bisexual. Claiming after the fact is a straw man.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
The_Running_Mate
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:14:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 9:32:15 AM, tejretics wrote:
The title and OP are the same.

Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?

The answer is obvious.Especially if you look up the word "Conservative" as it applies to Political Science, which I teach at a local Community College. Traditionally in our Two-Party system, the GOP (Republicans) have stood for traditional family values; protection of the wealthy, and also of Corporate America. While the Left, the Democrats, are traditionally more liberal insofar as personal liberties are concerned. They are also more tolerant of aberrant or let us say, non-traditional personal views and actions, ideology.
So, since Gay marriage is decidedly NOT traditional in America, the norm is for the political Right--or the Conservatives to be against it. Ironically, many Gays ARE conservative in their political views.At least more so than the general non-Gay public is aware.
I should amend my above description of the current GOP and Dem party, however. I speak of the roles the two parties have embraced for the past one-hundred plus years. As you know, back in the Civil War era-the mid and late-1800s, the GOP (Republicans) was the more liberal party, especially concerning human rights. Recall Lincoln and other abolitionist politicos were against Slavery. While the Southern Democrats were obviously pro-slavery and against Big Government and tax and spend ideas, which they embrace more today. Thus, it's all switched around.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:55:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 1:10:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:36:03 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:17:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
I oppose it because it is illogical to the intended purpose of marriage. To give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare the responsibility of child rearing. Spare me the what about those who don't have children argument, it is irrelevant. The institution of marriage must be defined for all and a marriage between a man and woman is inclusive to all. You can only make the argument for homosexual marriage by first redefining what the intended purpose of marriage is. In this case it has been redefined as Johnny loves Suzy so they want to be together for ever and ever or any combination of that.

Wedded homosexuals raise children. I don't get it.

Really you are going with that?

Yes.

Um homosexuals can't have kids.

You didn't say anything about making kids. You talked about child rearing. You said that "the intended purpose of marriage [is to] give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare [sic] the responsibility of child rearing." Obviously, homosexual couples can do that. On what basis should we withhold those "specific social and financial benefits" from a homosexual couple which bears "the responsibility of child rearing" ?
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 2:21:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Because it is a scam.
When people get married they are admitting that they are sex partners.
Traditional marriage was not completely unlike a man buying a dog. Once he took possession of her he put a collar around her neck that had a tag with the man's name on it. In marriage he puts a wedding ring on her finger to show all the other men that he owns her, and her last name is changed to his.
Liberals used to think there was something wrong with the above Idea. A relationship of a man and his woman should not be like this, it should be more like "free love"
Lately the liberals seem to have forgotten all about this. Marriage is now supposed to be something that is a basic human need that everybody has a right to.
If liberals really want to believe something, it doesn't matter how crazy the idea is.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 11:55:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 1:55:15 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:10:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:36:03 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:17:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
I oppose it because it is illogical to the intended purpose of marriage. To give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare the responsibility of child rearing. Spare me the what about those who don't have children argument, it is irrelevant. The institution of marriage must be defined for all and a marriage between a man and woman is inclusive to all. You can only make the argument for homosexual marriage by first redefining what the intended purpose of marriage is. In this case it has been redefined as Johnny loves Suzy so they want to be together for ever and ever or any combination of that.

Wedded homosexuals raise children. I don't get it.

Really you are going with that?

Yes.

Um homosexuals can't have kids.

You didn't say anything about making kids. You talked about child rearing. You said that "the intended purpose of marriage [is to] give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare [sic] the responsibility of child rearing." Obviously, homosexual couples can do that. On what basis should we withhold those "specific social and financial benefits" from a homosexual couple which bears "the responsibility of child rearing" ?

Um I was asked to give reasons why I oppose it. Debating those reasons is pointless. It doesn't matter what you think, I think or anyone else thinks about homosexuals marrying. It only matters what 9 people think in the entire country. It was made a legal issue. Stop trying to make it a social issue by making social arguments. They are irrelevant.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:19:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 9:32:15 AM, tejretics wrote:
The title and OP are the same.

Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?

I supported it once, However, they have more rights then regular men. I can't shut down shops while gays can. I won't be able to protest the ways gays can. Only a complete erdication and ablolisment of gays can justify our standing. Only complete extermination can come appease our living, and bring understanding between the wold. A Protest shoyld be returned by massarce. Every right we don't have be Returned by every Banning.

As Guam Allows Gay marriage, the gays won't stop. Now they want "Gay rights", And considering guamainian aparments are 5 Stories at max, It rings in our ears, While the vast mahority of our people are republicans. This can only be reurned with Their organs failing too, a small hole though the heart, a law seeing eye.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 2:53:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 5:07:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'm not looking for good reasons to oppose gay marriage -- rather, why does the common conservative oppose gay marriage? Zarro and 16k's cases are fairly unique, so I'm looking for common opinion ...

This post is quite arrogant and condescending.
If you do not know the "common" opinion, how do you know that Zarro or 16k's cases are unique?
Why are "good reasons to oppose gay marriage" not the reasons why the common conservative opposes it?
My work here is, finally, done.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 6:18:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 11:55:47 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:55:15 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:10:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:36:03 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:17:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
I oppose it because it is illogical to the intended purpose of marriage. To give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare the responsibility of child rearing. Spare me the what about those who don't have children argument, it is irrelevant. The institution of marriage must be defined for all and a marriage between a man and woman is inclusive to all. You can only make the argument for homosexual marriage by first redefining what the intended purpose of marriage is. In this case it has been redefined as Johnny loves Suzy so they want to be together for ever and ever or any combination of that.

Wedded homosexuals raise children. I don't get it.

Really you are going with that?

Yes.

Um homosexuals can't have kids.

You didn't say anything about making kids. You talked about child rearing. You said that "the intended purpose of marriage [is to] give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare [sic] the responsibility of child rearing." Obviously, homosexual couples can do that. On what basis should we withhold those "specific social and financial benefits" from a homosexual couple which bears "the responsibility of child rearing" ?

Um I was asked to give reasons why I oppose it. Debating those reasons is pointless. It doesn't matter what you think, I think or anyone else thinks about homosexuals marrying. It only matters what 9 people think in the entire country. It was made a legal issue. Stop trying to make it a social issue by making social arguments. They are irrelevant.

I'm interpreting that as a concession.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 6:22:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 6:18:55 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 11:55:47 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:55:15 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:10:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:36:03 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:17:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
I oppose it because it is illogical to the intended purpose of marriage. To give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare the responsibility of child rearing. Spare me the what about those who don't have children argument, it is irrelevant. The institution of marriage must be defined for all and a marriage between a man and woman is inclusive to all. You can only make the argument for homosexual marriage by first redefining what the intended purpose of marriage is. In this case it has been redefined as Johnny loves Suzy so they want to be together for ever and ever or any combination of that.

Wedded homosexuals raise children. I don't get it.

Really you are going with that?

Yes.

Um homosexuals can't have kids.

You didn't say anything about making kids. You talked about child rearing. You said that "the intended purpose of marriage [is to] give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare [sic] the responsibility of child rearing." Obviously, homosexual couples can do that. On what basis should we withhold those "specific social and financial benefits" from a homosexual couple which bears "the responsibility of child rearing" ?

Um I was asked to give reasons why I oppose it. Debating those reasons is pointless. It doesn't matter what you think, I think or anyone else thinks about homosexuals marrying. It only matters what 9 people think in the entire country. It was made a legal issue. Stop trying to make it a social issue by making social arguments. They are irrelevant.

I'm interpreting that as a concession.

I can't control how you interpret my words. I am saying my opinion on the matter is irrelevant and that is a fact. It was made a legal issue not a social issue, therefore unless you sit on a legal bench as a judge hearing the case your opinion doesn't matter. And that too, is also a fact.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 6:42:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 6:22:35 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/2/2015 6:18:55 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 11:55:47 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:55:15 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:10:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:36:03 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:17:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
I oppose it because it is illogical to the intended purpose of marriage. To give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare the responsibility of child rearing. Spare me the what about those who don't have children argument, it is irrelevant. The institution of marriage must be defined for all and a marriage between a man and woman is inclusive to all. You can only make the argument for homosexual marriage by first redefining what the intended purpose of marriage is. In this case it has been redefined as Johnny loves Suzy so they want to be together for ever and ever or any combination of that.

Wedded homosexuals raise children. I don't get it.

Really you are going with that?

Yes.

Um homosexuals can't have kids.

You didn't say anything about making kids. You talked about child rearing. You said that "the intended purpose of marriage [is to] give specific social and financial benefits to those who would bare [sic] the responsibility of child rearing." Obviously, homosexual couples can do that. On what basis should we withhold those "specific social and financial benefits" from a homosexual couple which bears "the responsibility of child rearing" ?

Um I was asked to give reasons why I oppose it. Debating those reasons is pointless. It doesn't matter what you think, I think or anyone else thinks about homosexuals marrying. It only matters what 9 people think in the entire country. It was made a legal issue. Stop trying to make it a social issue by making social arguments. They are irrelevant.

I'm interpreting that as a concession.

I can't control how you interpret my words. I am saying my opinion on the matter is irrelevant and that is a fact. It was made a legal issue not a social issue, therefore unless you sit on a legal bench as a judge hearing the case your opinion doesn't matter. And that too, is also a fact.

You suck.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 6:42:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 6:22:35 PM, sadolite wrote:

I can't control how you interpret my words. I am saying my opinion on the matter is irrelevant and that is a fact. It was made a legal issue not a social issue, therefore unless you sit on a legal bench as a judge hearing the case your opinion doesn't matter. And that too, is also a fact.

Thankfully, people are finally starting to acknowledge the fact that we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -